Energy & Environment

“Clearly, water use is of such importance that its value to the economy as a whole is incalculable”. The words of the National Audit Office – an organisation not known for hyperbole – in a report published in 2005 into the work of the Environment Agency. The NAO reached that conclusion by recognising that public health, manufacturing, farming, and office working all need reliable supplies of good quality water if the country is to thrive. A Thames Water report into the impact of water supply failure in the City of London estimated losses of £7-10 billion a month if the taps ran dry. And we can’t be complacent by thinking that the move to home working during the pandemic reduces the risk: secure water supplies to residential areas are just as essential, and just as vulnerable. Failure would bring risks to public health and social cohesion.

In the UK the water companies are the largest abstractors of water from rivers and reservoirs, and from aquifers such as the Chalk that underlies much of southern and eastern England. They take about 15 billion litres of water every day across England and Wales. About three billion litres of this is lost through leakage – a figure that has scarcely changed in 20 years. About the same amount is used in commerce and industry, and the remainder is for household consumption.

The water companies and regulators have acknowledged that the volumes lost through leakage are reputationally damaging, and prejudicial to their efforts to persuade their customers to reduce their consumption. They have now committed to reducing leakage by one half by 2050, but given the pressures on water resources from climate change and increasing demand that commitment may not be fast enough, or ambitious enough.

A recent report by the National Infrastructure Commission (‘Preparing for a Drier Future’, 2018) suggested that, without further action, there is roughly a one in four chance that over the next 30 years large numbers of households would have their water supply cut off for an extended period because of severe drought. In 2020 the NAO report ‘Water Supply and Demand Management’ concluded that ‘Reducing demand is essential to prevent water shortages as water companies are running out of low-cost options for increasing water supply. Defra has left it to water companies to promote the need to reduce household water consumption, and yet it continues to increase. Defra committed to announcing a personal water consumption target by the end of 2018 but has not yet done so’.

New reservoirs and transfers of water will be needed urgently, and the intention is for investigations and appraisal to be fast tracked in the interests of rapid approval. But it could still be 15 years before significant new resources come on stream. So what happens in the meantime? We are seeing climate records broken every year, and ever more extreme events are becoming the norm. The risk in any given year of a prolonged drought which would severely test existing resources and supply systems is very real.

Government policy for the past 20 years has been that in order to ensure water security companies must employ a twin track approach. This means working to reduce demand for water, such as by reducing leakage and helping customers to use less, whilst developing plans as necessary for new resources such as reservoirs.

However, as the NAO reported, the companies’ record on demand management has been indifferent to say the least. Their efforts have been hindered by weak signals from governments over the years about the importance of water efficiency in homes and businesses, and a failure to introduce measures which would support companies’ efforts by helping users to understand the importance and benefits of using water wisely.

Earlier this year (2020) a report from the Environment Agency suggested that over three billion litres of water a day could be saved through cost effective demand management actions. And given that heating water for use in the home is also a major use of energy there’s a double benefit in helping customers to use less, and in so doing to reduce their energy bills as well. But there’s a snag. Despite the fact that water companies’ plans for water security are predicated in part on the success of demand management measures, few householders know how much they are using: 46% think that they use less than 20 litres per person per day, rather than the 143 litres which is the average. They are in blissful ignorance of the fact that water security – or lack of it – will be as much a product of their actions as it is of those of their water company. Barely half of all homes have meters, and of those that do, few have smart meters, so it’s not surprising that awareness of consumption is so poor.

That the messages to use water wisely haven’t got through was demonstrated vividly in the record-breaking very dry and sunny May this year when demand was so high some companies struggled to get enough water through their networks to meet customer demand. That doesn’t augur well for future demand management in hotter drier summers.

For over 20 years some basic measures have been proposed to help manage demand. They are water labelling and standards for fixtures, fittings and white goods, linked to revisions to the Building Regulations. Defra consulted on these measures and more in July 2019, but has yet to publish a response; we learnt in October this year that policy development has been put on hold. In the meantime, customers are using and paying for a third more water than they need to, together with all the energy used in hot water-using appliances and fittings.

We need to remember also that many businesses are large water users. At a focus group session of large water users called by the Major Energy Users Council in October 2020, a number of participants drew on their experience of the energy market to argue that policy and regulation would be needed to set and enforce expectations on water efficiency. At present, they said, it’s not currently a priority and there are many barriers to it becoming one. All this adds up to an urgent need to join up policy thinking and regulation on water, energy and housebuilding. Integrating water performance metrics into the existing Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) would be a good start.

Homes that are water-efficient have the potential to reduce their water use by one third. Most businesses have a similar or even greater potential. Until this happens, water companies are abstracting, pumping and treating increasing volumes, with all the environmental impact that brings. Many rivers, particularly internationally rare Chalk streams that are a unique part of England’s environmental heritage, are being pumped dry. Water supply security is becoming ever more fragile, posing an increasing economic risk from our poor management of an uncertain resource, of incalculable value.

Professor Ian Barker is the Managing Director of Water Policy International. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. 

An early victim of the COVID-19 pandemic was the 26th United Nations’ Climate Change Conference (COP26). The postponement of the conference in April gave an early indication of the scope and scale of the pandemic’s disruption. Not only would the UK economy suffer, but profound disturbance would also be felt in the UK’s efforts to drive forward the ever-pressing goals of global climate governance.

The unfolding crisis has, however, also provided a unique opportunity to embrace ambitious climate action. Boris Johnson has promised to “build back greener” and instigate a “green recovery” to rebuild and decarbonise Britain’s economy. Using investment to both create jobs and prepare the country to hit the Government’s 2050 net zero carbon target, an opening has been created to instigate a bold climate future for Britain.

Recent pledges from the Government indicate they will be paying more than lip service to the green recovery. Back in July, £3 billion of green investment was announced to improve the energy efficiency of homes and public sector buildings, and a Green Jobs Challenge fund was recently set up to provide £40 million to green charities improving England’s ecological habitats. 

Not only does the scale of this investment represent a qualitative step up from the UK’s previous climate action, but the presentation of such investment as a means for job creation shows the growing acceptance that climate action can be a powerful tool for achieving economic prosperity, rather than merely a policy burden.

Despite the expansion in ambition, these pledges are still not the panacea that the Government believes them to be. For one, the investments are comparatively minor in relation to Germany’s £36 billion green economic recovery package and the vast climate pledges of other European states. 

Improving the energy efficiency of UK homes is vital to curtailing Britain’s carbon emissions – with household heating accounting for around 20% of all carbon output in the country – but the Government’s plans to retrofit 600,000 homes with energy efficient insulation, double glazing, and doors is unlikely to significantly dent the country’s projected emissions.

More important is how the Government, and future governments, pursue productive climate action. Focus should not only be placed on decarbonising the British economy, but spreading the benefits of environmental protection to communities nationwide. Like all large-scale economic initiatives, the transition to a net zero economy risks creating winners and losers, and steps must be taken to ensure those industries on the losing end of the transition are not hung out to dry. 

Despite demonstrable public support for government investment in a green COVID recovery, popular backing for all green policy measures is not guaranteed. The Gilet Jaunes protests in response to President Macron’s proposed increase in carbon taxes in 2018 acutely demonstrate the potential for public opposition to climate policies that are perceived as unfairly burdensome on the poorest members of society. 

Failure to account for the social implications of climate policies will leave governments facing greater, and entirely avoidable, opposition to decarbonisation policies. A joint declaration made at COP24 in 2018 stated it best: “Considering the social aspect of the transition towards a low-carbon economy is crucial for gaining social approval for the changes taking place.”

The transition to a net zero economy must therefore consider the distributional fallout of decarbonisation. In the UK, this means accounting for regional disparities between the North and South of England. With the North still the centre of Britain’s fossil fuel industry – accounting for over a quarter of the UK’s electricity generating capacity – it faces more business closures and deeper unemployment than other regions of the country. The UK must anticipate and plan for these negative impacts of decarbonisation.

The UK can do this by creating a regional commission and associate fund to coordinate public investment and attract private enterprise to those communities most vulnerable to the economic instability caused by decarbonisation. A localised commission is best placed to identify those communities and industries at threat, recognise their economic strengths that can be leveraged in the future green economy, and inform how investment in green industries and green job creation should be distributed to reach those areas most in need.

A similar commission has already proved effective in Scotland. The ‘Just Transition Commission’, established in 2018, advises Scottish Ministers on how to invest in environmentally and socially sustainable jobs while creating opportunities that address poverty. The commission has identified Scottish-specific problems in the energy transition, and advanced recommendations tailored to Scotland’s industries and geography. For example, the commission has advised on how the expansion of Scotland’s offshore wind sector should be accelerated to negate the economic instability caused by decommissioned North Sea oil rigs.

The potential is significant. A report last year found that coordinated efforts between local authorities and businesses could grow the north’s economy by 15% by 2050 and create an additional 100,000 jobs in the process. Crucial to this, though, is encouraging investment in the region and ensuring corporations do not overlook the north as a serious contender for green industries.

Regional commissions do not guarantee success. Local bureaucracy can slow progress and the creation of another commission strains public finances, but if the Government is serious about using public investment to kick-start a green recovery, as its recent announcements indicate, it should look to regional expertise to ensure investments are provided to those industries that need it the most.

This dual commitment to environmental and social sustainability should be familiar to the Government. The UK signed the ‘Just Transition Declaration’ along with 53 other countries at COP24. Now is the time to act on this promise and implement policies capable of addressing both the climate emergency and social priorities.

Callum is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Number 10]

A reactive, rather than a preventative, response to crises is an all too familiar approach adopted by humanity. Yet what happens when we encounter a problem for which a reactive response will not suffice? The climate crisis poses one such threat. 

History is riddled with examples where governments fail to prepare for issues that are more than likely to arise in future. Perhaps this is rooted in the fact that our societies are inherently built around the short term. For businesses, the main motivation is often to make immediate profit so shareholders can be appeased, whereas for governments the focus is on balancing annual budgets and appealing to voters to win elections. 

The situation regarding COVID-19 illustrates this reactive approach in action as, despite many experts and the World Health Organisation stressing for years the threat posed by a potential ‘disease X’, many countries were woefully unprepared when this current pandemic emerged. For instance, the UK conducted a pandemic drill in 2016 called ‘Exercise Cygnus’ which revealed significant shortcomings in its EPRR pandemic response plan. 

Rather than working to rectify the key issue of ‘surge capacity’ that was flagged, Jeremy Hunt, the then health secretary, and Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, were not adding to PPE supplies and were reducing NHS bed numbers as part of austerity measures. The impetus to procure PPE and increase hospital capacity through projects like the Nightingale hospitals only came months after COVID-19 had forced the entire UK into lockdown. 

The response to the 2008 financial crisis also contains a remarkable resemblance along these lines. For years, banks in the UK were allowed to operate underregulated and unrestrained, with repeated warnings from economists being routinely ignored. Instead, it took a global recession to force action and it was only after the economic crisis transpired that the Prudential Regulation Authority and FCA were established to impose stricter regulations.

We must learn from these past mistakes and respond differently to future existential threats. Unlike pandemics and economic recessions, the climate crisis will not simply ‘pass’ after five to ten years. Many of the effects are already starting to be felt, be that through more severe forest fires burning millions of acres of land in the US and Australia each year, or a greater number of floods in the UK brought about by some of the wettest years on record in recent times. 

We are already at risk of falling into the same trap unless we make substantial changes in the near future, with coronavirus making it abundantly clear that humanity is not invincible. This time we should listen to the warnings, such as the World Bank claiming our current trajectory means climate change could push 100 million more people into poverty by 2030.

The lockdowns across the globe have already offered us a glimpse of what may happen if we drastically reduce our emissions. Analysis has shown that this caused a 60% reduction in Nitrogen Dioxide levels in parts of the UK, as motor vehicle usage was reduced by 48%. Similar findings were ubiquitous worldwide. By altering our lifestyle habits and increasing our usage of sustainable energies we could go some way to replicating this effect in times of normality, leading to considerable health benefits.

Much like with the 2008 crisis, the solution seemingly lies with governments as the onus is on them to implement the regulations and reforms needed to facilitate the change that is needed. However, current governmental systems are impractical as they promote short-termism and politicians trying to win immediate votes. Inevitably, this leads to issues like taxation and welfare taking centre stage, whilst longer-term issues such as climate change are put on the back burner. 

How do we go about fixing this conundrum? The answer need not be a radical overthrow of our current electoral systems. Maybe instead it is to form an independent government-owned, climate authority, similar to how the Bank of England is run, with long-term objectives to regulate emissions, reduce fossil fuel subsidies and invest in greater sustainability programmes.

What is clear though is that promises from leaders like Theresa May to make the UK Carbon neutral by 2050 are not enough, especially when she will have been out of office herself for over 30 years by that time. Mere words are not adequate. We must learn from our previous mistakes by taking preemptive action towards future problems. The current Prime Minister’s commitment to generating enough wind power to supply all UK homes is a step in the right direction. 

The main drive for innovative solutions to crises must no longer be after they have already occurred, as this unnecessarily exacerbates the social and economic impact of these events. Let us use this pandemic as a wake up call and make this the last time we face an existential problem unprepared when preparations could have been made. 

The main drive must now be to find ways to solve the climate crisis, otherwise history is destined to repeat itself. We need action, and we need it now.

Cory is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

Walking along any beach in the UK, it is easy to see the impact that humans have on the environment. Before, the only bottles seen on the beach were ones containing messages. Now, it is far more common to see a discarded plastic energy drink. And it is not only a common sight at the beach: town centres, canals, and even the British countryside also suffer from being littered with bottles. And although they are almost universally recyclable, plastic bottles  usually have a life expectancy of around 450 years, highlighting the long-term costs of failure. 

Although there have been sizeable increases in recycling rates in Britain since the start of the millennium, much more work needs to be done. Only 74% of plastic drinks bottles get recycled in the UK, meaning that there are still over 130,000 tonnes of plastic bottles that are not recycled, occupying landfills or polluting the environment. Littering has damaging economic and environmental consequences, whilst landfill pollutes the landscape and can cause health problems. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a massive agglomeration of waste plastics in the Pacific Ocean, is a prime example of the major damage to animals and the ecosystem it causes. 

Part of the problem is that waste collection is a devolved matter to local councils, leading to a recycling lottery that depends on council resources, waste disposal facilities, or cooperation with other councils. There is a UK-wide strategy for plastic recycling, but it takes a long-term view, aiming to reduce plastic waste by 2050, whilst action is needed now, as the problems associated with littering and landfill are already having major impacts, as mentioned previously.  

One simple way to prevent littering and promote the recycling of plastic bottles is through a deposit return scheme. Schemes like this have been proven effective in many situations, from Norway to the US. In Norway, for example, a small deposit is added to the price of each bottle or container, which can then be returned after use to a shop, resulting in the consumer getting the deposit back. This has led to a rate of plastic bottle recycling upwards of 95%. Reverse vending machines, where bottles are returned and their barcode scanned, allow Norwegians to efficiently get their deposit back, with little bureaucracy.  Glass bottles, which never degrade naturally, are also often included in similar schemes, to promote their reuse and recycling. 

The UK has a history of deposit schemes, with glass bottles being recycled until the 1980s when PET became cheaper and easier than having to sterilise and refill old bottles. The Scottish government has also put in place a similar scheme, in which a 20p deposit will be placed on plastic and glass bottles from July 2022.  For England to have a similar scheme, Westminster must take control. Proposals have been mooted for a while, with a public consultation in 2019 suggesting that the scheme is due to start in 2023. 

However, the bill is in the committee stage at the moment and therefore it would be nice to see some action towards a scheme like this becoming reality. One of the key issues with the bill in its current form to have been suggested to committee is the lack of coordination between devolved nations and the central government. The potential for disparity between schemes, and therefore confusion amongst the general population and also manufacturers, is thus something that must be resolved within the current bill. 

All this would come with a cost if implemented in England. There was outcry when the Scottish proposals were put to the public as small businesses were worried they would be left with the large cost of installing reverse vending machines. However, by linking investment in these machines to an easily accessible grant, like the one announced for home insulation, this problem can easily be resolved, addressing the inhibitive cost.

We have already had one major success as a country in the war on plastic waste: plastic bags. A small increase in cost has caused a major shift in behaviour, with single-use plastic bag consumption falling by 86% in supermarkets. The British government has insisted that a major part of its post-COVID-19 plan will be to emphasise Britain’s green credentials. Hopefully, taking up arms against the highly polluting scourge of plastic bottles will be a part of this.

Robert is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue.