Latest news with #polluterpays
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Call to make wet wipe producers pay for polluting England's waterways
Wet wipe producers should be charged to remove their pollution from England's waterways, the author of a government review into reforming the sector has said. Sewage has been a critical factor in the devastating pollution of our waterways, but other sources of pollution include microplastics, consumer products such as wet wipes, and the byproducts of modern manufacturing, such asPfas ('forever chemicals'), as well as fertiliser and pesticides from farming. Many of these have been linked to harmful effects on human health and the natural environment. The fairest way to deal with this, Sir Jon Cunliffe, a former Bank of England deputy governor, said, could be to apply the 'polluter pays' principle, whereby the company behind the pollution contributes towards its removal. 'The alternative is for everyone to pay for it through their bills, and the question is, should we spread that among everybody, or should we go through a polluter pays route? So I think, really, we should look at those routes,' he said. It has been a landmark week for the water sector, after Cunliffe published a major review containing recommendations on how to clean up England's filthy rivers and seas. The regulator Ofwat is to be abolished, the government has pledged, and a new, powerful, super-regulator created to better hold water companies to account. Campaigners welcomed many of the recommendations, in particular ending the self-monitoring of water companies, which currently voluntarily publish information on how much sewage they dump. Citizen scientists have argued for years that this system is open to under-counting, and have tried to shed light on the true amount of human waste in waterways: under new proposals sewage spills will be automatically published online. But there are those who felt this was a missed opportunity. The environment secretary, Steve Reed, took nationalisation out of the scope of the review from the outset, and also told Cunliffe not to consider more radical approaches such as turning companies into not-for-profits. This despite the fact that it is the mismanagement of water companies as much as the dumping of sewage that has enraged the public. So what of the idea that polluters – the upstream companies that generate some of the worst pollutants in our waterways such as wet wipes and Pfas – should pay? 'One of the best ways to deal with stuff not going into our rivers is not to let it into the sewers in the first place,' Cunliffe said, 'Why do we need wet wipes?' 'I have some sympathy for the water companies,' he said, 'because the drinking water system is closed and no one can touch it unless authorised to do so. The wastewater system is open. Anybody can put anything down the loo, and then at the treatment works, I've seen literally huge machines taking wet wipe mountains out of the sewage system.' Water companies claim that wet wipes, which shed microplastic particles and also build up into major blockages, are the main cause of sewage pollution. John Penicud, Southern Water's managing director for wastewater, said recently that 'the majority of wastewater pollutions are caused by wet wipes, fats, oils and grease being flushed down toilets and sinks', and called for wet wipes to be banned. The EU is introducing quaternary treatment, a more advanced method than that used in the UK. This has powerful filters that remove these trace chemicals from the water supply, but is expensive, so the bloc is looking at making the producers of these chemicals pay a levy that would then be used to create these treatment plants. Producers would be required to cover at least 80% of the costs associated with the sewage treatment upgrades necessary for removing these substances from wastewater. Cunliffe thinks the UK could look at adopting a similar approach for wet wipes; as a side-effect this would make plastic wet wipes more expensive, which would discourage their use. His report has recommended looking at adopting the EU laws in the UK, and investigating the prevalence and impact of these micropollutants in the environment and on human health. This way, he says, 'it's not the water bill payer who pays to take it out, but the people who make and buy the products … Pfas and so on will require quaternary treatment, and there are currently three levels of sewage treatment. To build another would be expensive.' The question, he said, was whether the user or the polluter paid. A Water UK spokesperson said: 'Removing Pfas 'forever chemicals' and other micropollutants from the water environment is a huge challenge because current sewage technology was never designed to deal with them. We need a national plan from government for upgrading sewage treatment that is paid for by chemical manufacturers instead of water bill payers, as well as a ban on Pfas products that will otherwise keep making the problem worse.'
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Make wet wipe producers pay for polluting England's waterways, says report
Wet wipe producers should be charged to remove their pollution from England's waterways, the author of a government review into reforming the sector says. Sewage has been a critical factor in the devastating pollution of our waterways, but other sources of pollution include microplastics, consumer products such as wet wipes, and the byproducts of modern manufacturing, such asPfas ('forever chemicals'), as well as fertiliser and pesticides from farming. Many of these have been linked to harmful effects on human health and the natural environment. The fairest way to deal with this, Sir Jon Cunliffe, a former Bank of England deputy governor, said, could be to apply the 'polluter pays' principle, whereby the company behind the pollution contributes towards its removal. 'The alternative is for everyone to pay for it through their bills, and the question is, should we spread that among everybody, or should we go through a polluter pays route? So I think, really, we should look at those routes,' he said. It has been a landmark week for the water sector, after Cunliffe published a major review containing recommendations on how to clean up England's filthy rivers and seas. The regulator Ofwat is to be abolished, the government has pledged, and a new, powerful, super-regulator created to better hold water companies to account. Campaigners welcomed many of the recommendations, in particular ending the self-monitoring of water companies, which currently voluntarily publish information on how much sewage they dump. Citizen scientists have argued for years that this system is open to under-counting, and have tried to shed light on the true amount of human waste in waterways: under new proposals sewage spills will be automatically published online. But there are those who felt this was a missed opportunity. The environment secretary, Steve Reed, took nationalisation out of the scope of the review from the outset, and also told Cunliffe not to consider more radical approaches such as turning companies into not-for-profits. This despite the fact that it is the mismanagement of water companies as much as the dumping of sewage that has enraged the public. So what of the idea that polluters – the upstream companies that generate some of the worst pollutants in our waterways such as wet wipes and Pfas – should pay? 'One of the best ways to deal with stuff not going into our rivers is not to let it into the sewers in the first place,' Cunliffe said, 'Why do we need wet wipes?' 'I have some sympathy for the water companies,' he said, 'because the drinking water system is closed and no one can touch it unless authorised to do so. The wastewater system is open. Anybody can put anything down the loo, and then at the treatment works, I've seen literally huge machines taking wet wipe mountains out of the sewage system.' Water companies claim that wet wipes, which shed microplastic particles and also build up into major blockages, are the main cause of sewage pollution. John Penicud, Southern Water's managing director for wastewater, said recently that 'the majority of wastewater pollutions are caused by wet wipes, fats, oils and grease being flushed down toilets and sinks', and called for wet wipes to be banned. The EU is introducing quaternary treatment, a more advanced method than that used in the UK. This has powerful filters that remove these trace chemicals from the water supply, but is expensive, so the bloc is looking at making the producers of these chemicals pay a levy that would then be used to create these treatment plants. Producers would be required to cover at least 80% of the costs associated with the sewage treatment upgrades necessary for removing these substances from wastewater. Cunliffe thinks the UK could look at adopting a similar approach for wet wipes; as a side-effect this would make plastic wet wipes more expensive, which would discourage their use. His report has recommended looking at adopting the EU laws in the UK, and investigating the prevalence and impact of these micropollutants in the environment and on human health. This way, he says, 'it's not the water bill payer who pays to take it out, but the people who make and buy the products … Pfas and so on will require quaternary treatment, and there are currently three levels of sewage treatment. To build another would be expensive.' The question, he said, was whether the user or the polluter paid. A Water UK spokesperson said: 'Removing Pfas 'forever chemicals' and other micropollutants from the water environment is a huge challenge because current sewage technology was never designed to deal with them. We need a national plan from government for upgrading sewage treatment that is paid for by chemical manufacturers instead of water bill payers, as well as a ban on Pfas products that will otherwise keep making the problem worse.'
The National
23-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
ICJ classes climate change as 'urgent and existential threat'
Efforts to enshrine the principle of polluter pays in the climate change challenge were boosted on Wednesday in a landmark International Court of Justice ruling on the impact of a changing planet. A ruling from the UN's principal court said 'the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change' created a legal obligation on states to take action. The legal and political weight of the world court is likely to bear heavily on future climate cases. 'Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited,' judge Yuji Iwasawa said. The two questions the UN General Assembly asked the judges to consider were: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? 'The advisory opinion is probably the most consequential in the history of the court because it clarifies international law obligations to avoid catastrophic harm that would imperil the survival of humankind,' said Payam Akhavan, an international law professor. Outside the court at the Peace Palace in The Hague, about 100 demonstrators waved flags and posters bearing slogans including 'no more delay, climate justice today'. They were joined by Vanuatu's Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu, whose South Pacific nation − composed of more than 80 islands − is vulnerable to rising sea levels. In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, also known as the World Court, Mr Akhavan represented low-lying, small island states that face an existential threat from rising sea levels. In all, over a hundred states and international organisations gave their views. Wealthy countries told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, countries pledged to try to keep global temperature rises to well within 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. The biggest set of interventions ever heard at the ICJ has excited experts predicting a major impact on laws around the world. More than 100 nations and groups gave oral statements that pitted major wealthy economies against smaller, less developed states most at the mercy of a warming planet. The ICJ heard warnings not to deliver a fresh legal blueprint for climate change, arguing the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change framework − a parent treaty of the Paris Agreement − was comprehensive. The US, which has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, said the UNFCCC contained legal provisions on climate change and urged the court to uphold this regime. But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change 'I think it will be a game-changer for the whole climate discourse we're going through,' said Mr Regenvanu. Vanuatu spearheaded the push for a court opinion amid growing frustration at sluggish progress in UN climate negotiations. 'We've been going through this for 30 years … It'll shift the narrative, which is what we need to have,' Mr Regenvanu said.
E&E News
25-06-2025
- Politics
- E&E News
Trump admin signals it will back Superfund PFAS cleanups
EPA put in writing its intentions to enforce 'forever chemicals' cleanups at Superfund sites, signaling the Trump administration won't entirely ditch the historic Biden-era rule. According to EPA's congressional justification for its fiscal 2026 budget proposal, the agency will use the revenue collected from industry taxes to 'initiate new remedial work at National Priority List (NPL) sites to address contaminants including lead and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).' It appears to be the first time the Trump administration has officially marked its intent to use its enforcement powers for PFAS remediation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, aka the Superfund law. Advertisement EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has repeatedly stated his support for 'polluter pays' principles and cleaning up areas highly contaminated with PFAS, a family of thousands of compounds famed for their chemically strong bond that makes them resistant to water and adhesiveness but, in turn, doesn't naturally degrade in the environment and persists in bodies causing serious health effects such as cancer.
The Independent
19-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Government ‘could miss chance to tackle chemical pollutants from wastewater'
The Government could miss the chance to ensure chemical pollutants are removed from wastewater as part of its major reforms to the industry, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has warned. The organisation said the cost of cleaning up chemicals from the environment could be left to taxpayers in future unless the UK follows the EU and France to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle. This requires industries responsible for producing or using harmful contaminants to contribute to the cost of their removal or remediation. Wastewater treatment plants in the UK are currently not equipped to remove contaminants of emerging concern (CCs) – pollutants that may harm human health and nature but for which there is little restriction, legislation or monitoring data. CCs include pharmaceuticals, pesticides, illicit drugs and PFAs – known as 'forever chemicals' because they take centuries to break down – that can enter the environment in many ways, including through effluent streams. It comes amid ongoing public outrage at the state of England's waterways, where no river has reported a 'good' status for chemical pollution under current the current monitoring programme. The Government's planned water sector reforms focus on measures to tackle sewage pollution, after utilities have been increasingly dumping untreated wastewater into seas, lakes and rivers during periods of wet or stormy weather. The RSC argued that ministers should use the opportunity of upcoming reforms to introduce measures that help to remove CCs from wastewater as well. Natalie Sims, policy adviser at the RSC, said: 'With so much attention right now on tackling sewage overflows and upgrading wastewater treatment plants, this is a crucial opportunity to address chemical pollutants at the same time. 'If we're already making major changes, we should be ambitious – focusing solely on sewage risks missing the chance to protect our waters more fully and for the long term.' As the UK and EU Summit takes place in London on Monday, the RSC also said the Government should align more closely with Europe on wastewater rules. The EU recently revised its laws to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle, which levies money from industries such as cosmetics or pharmaceuticals that cause chemical pollution to fund their removal at wastewater treatment plants. France also passed a bill to tax firms that emit PFAs to the environment. Ms Sims said: 'Unlike recent French and EU initiatives that apply a 'polluter pays' levy to fund the removal of these hazardous substances, UK industry faces no such requirement. 'As a result, taxpayers may ultimately shoulder the costs of tackling contaminants, which we believe is unfair.' An RSC survey of more than 4,000 UK adults, carried out by YouGov in August, found that nine in 10 think it is 'very important' to effectively control levels of the group of chemicals in food, drinking water and the environment. When asked to rank who should be held most responsible for reducing PFAs levels, 74% and 73% of respondents said manufacturers of chemicals and products respectively. This was followed by 58% saying the UK Government was next highest ranked as bearing significant responsibility. However, overall trust that action would to be taken was found to be low, with the UK Government being trusted by 29% of respondents while just 14% said they trusted product or chemical manufacturers to change. Stephanie Metzger, RSC policy adviser, said: ' People were overwhelmingly supportive of stronger controls on PFAs use, making sure that it doesn't get into our water, food or the environment.' She argued that without investing in treatment technology and infrastructure now, the cost to clean up these chemicals later will be a lot higher. 'Once they're in the environment – they're diffuse, they're dispersed throughout water, land, air in all these different areas – it's so much harder to put them back in the jar once you've let them out. 'So from a cost-benefit analysis perspective, you're going to be avoiding a lot more costs by investing in treatment now.'
