As part of our Mind the Tap campaign shadow environment secretary Luke Pollard gives his outspoken view to Utility Week on why the government is not going far enough in tackling water efficiency and its impact on climate change.
Water has repeatedly been left out of the climate debate – but as a carbon intensive industry, cutting water usage would be an easy win to simultaneously lower customer bills, wave goodbye to water poverty and advance the net-zero agenda.
Plymouth’s Labour MP Luke Pollard believes everyone must think and act differently regarding the environment but argues the so-called “ground-breaking” Environment Bill completely misses a chance to make that happen.
“There needs to be a revolution in terms of water efficiency,” Pollard tells Utility Week. “The government claims that its legislation is world-leading, I very much doubt it is – although it needs to be. Water efficiency is one of the key areas we’ve got to tackle. Frequently the importance of water within the climate crisis is overlooked.”
At a time that the UK should be leading on environmental policy, the government is missing a significant opportunity to reduce carbon and protect the environment by not explicitly including water efficiency in the Environment Bill, he says.
Although there is a provision in the bill that could be applied to water labelling, (you’d be forgiven for missing it buried within a section on waste), Pollard says it should have been a headline policy rather than an ambiguous inclusion.
“Explicit support for water labelling and a regime that requires it should be front and centre of our approach. The only way we’re going to see efficiencies in the water sector and public support is through behaviour change.”
In line with Southern Water’s Target100, we should be aiming for PCC of 100 litres per day. Compulsory water labelling schemes have helped reduce consumption by 30 litres per person per day in Australia. It also began as a voluntary scheme that had little meaningful impact but after legislation was introduced in 2006, habits changed and water efficiency was designed into products.
Pollard says such a scheme should go beyond white goods and fittings and be applied to buildings and homes to gain a level of public recognition akin to the energy EPC scale.
“The greatest strength of the energy label has been the consumer buy-in, people look for it and they can recognise which appliance offers better savings and is more efficient.
“That’s where we need to get to in terms of water as well. I want to see government take much bolder steps on water labelling for homes and for white goods. To do that we’ve got to value every drop of water that we’re using.”
Water neutrality
He says water efficiency must go “way beyond putting a hippo in your toilet cistern or finally taking action on faulty dual flush toilets” and wants to see government explore water neutrality, among other ideas.
To achieve water neutrality, as a country, we must ensure all new homes or businesses can be added without using any more water than is currently used. Therefore, water efficiency in existing homes and businesses must find a way to balance the extra houses.
Pollard argues that, after decades of debate, all homes should be fitted with a water meter. Households with a social tariff or higher water usage because of larger families would then also have an opportunity to understand their water usage and if possible, to make savings.
“Without an understanding of our total water usage as a nation – an idea of what we’re using and a plan for reducing it then we are missing a key part in our fight against the climate crisis.”
“That has to come from a big principle that says ‘we can’t afford to build a dozen new reservoirs’, nor can we afford to introduce desalinisation to cope with increased demand in areas of water stress – which is basically half the population of England,” Pollard says. “Even though we think of ourselves as a quite a wet country, we’re not.”
Pollard calls for a “strategic mission” that says we shouldn’t be using any extra water as the population grows. “For every home we’re building, the increased water usage should be matched by investments in water efficiency in the rest of the population.”
Pollard says water neutrality is only achievable as part of a shared mission and common goals with a government-led and endorsed campaign around efficiency.
“Most people want to do more and make better decisions about their water and energy usage, but it can be confusing, so we need to make it easier through smarter, sensible regulation. Water labelling is the absolute first step. We’ve got to help people make better decisions every day,” he says.
As well as being a requirement for living on a planet that isn’t dying, water efficiency in all aspects of our lives is a missed opportunity for job creation. Pollard argues that creating, installing, updating water efficiency measures, as well as assessing homes for water EPC could be a huge job creator.
Pollard says the Environment Bill should be genuinely world-leading on water efficiency, protect habitats, hold more water upstream, reduce the necessity for carbon intensive end-of-pipe solutions, but also offer a change to the regulatory model.
“We need to move away from a model that is built on profits from volume of water being pumped through a system and the asset return on carbon intensive sewage works for instance, to one that gives a rate of return based on water efficiency, good land management and environmental stewardship, as well as providing decent water services.
“That for me is why this environment bill is a missed opportunity to deal with the climate crisis and to create a revolution in terms of how we all value water, for water labelling and greater incentives to be more efficient with every drop we use.”
The Environment Bill, which passed its second reading in the house of Commons at the end of February, is a “framework” bill so subsequent information will be added in secondary legislation and Pollard argues this presents an opportunity to strengthen the ambiguous provision on water labelling.
“If ministers are serious about water labelling and actually want to see it introduced, they should have made it front and centre of the bill,” he adds.
Where did it all go wrong?
Parliamentarians have worked on the bill for years, so the omissions are not due to lack of time, which begs the question is it lack of ambition? Public approval? Funding?
Pollard explains parts of the bill were resisted as some government departments wanted to see an Environment Bill and several “tried to take a chunk out of it on the way”.
The opportunity to look beyond political boundaries and create meaningful legislation looks sadly lost, he says.
“Now that we’ve declared a climate emergency, we’ve got to do things differently. For me, the environment bill looks more like business as usual than the world-changing, world-leading piece of legislation that would make a real difference on water efficiency, cutting bills and cutting carbon.”
Pollard believes talking the talk but not walking the walk is the worst deal for the environment because it gives the impression change is afoot when it’s not.
“How often do we get a piece of legislation about water? Hardly ever, so how many years do we now have to wait for another piece of legislation to change the system on a wholesale level?”