Call so that wet wipe producers pay to pollute the navigable roads of England | Pollution

Producers of wet wipes should be responsible for removing their pollution from the navigable tracks in England, the author of a government examination in the sector reform.

Wastewater was an essential factor in the devastating pollution of our navigable waterways, but other sources of pollution include microplastics, consumer products such as wet wipes and by-products of modern manufacturing, such as aspfas (“Forever Chemicals”), as well as fertilizers and pesticides of agriculture. Many of them have been linked to harmful effects on human health and the natural environment.

The most equitable way to face this, Sir Jon Cunliffe, a former deputy for the Bank of England, said, could be to apply the principle “polluting country”, by which the company behind pollution contributes to its withdrawal. “The alternative is that everyone pays it through their invoices, and the question is, should we spread this among everyone, or should we go through a polluting payment route? So I think, we really should examine these routes,” he said.

It was a historic week for the water sector, after Cunliffe published a major review containing recommendations on how to clean the rivers and the sealas of England. The abolition regulator must be abolished, the government has committed and a new powerful super-regulator created to better hold the water companies to account.

Activists have hosted many recommendations, in particular ending the self-surveillance of water companies, which currently voluntarily publish information on the amount of wastewater they empty. Citizen scientists have argued for years that this system is open to under-slip and has tried to shed light on the real quantity of human waste in the sailors: as part of new proposals, wastewater spills will be automatically published online.

But there are those who estimated that it was a missed opportunity. The environmental secretary, Steve Reed, withdrew the nationalization of the scope of the exam from the start, and also told Cunliffe not to consider more radical approaches such as transforming companies into non -profit organization. This despite the fact that it was the mismanagement of water companies as much as the spill of wastewater that have rapped the public.

So, what about the idea that polluters – upstream companies that generate some of the worst pollutants in our sailing chains such as wet wipes and PFA – should pay? “One of the best ways to manage things that do not arise in our rivers is not to let it enter the sewers in the first place,” said Cunliffe, “why do we need wet wipes?”

“I have a certain sympathy for water companies,” he said, “because the drinking water system is closed and no one can touch it unless you do it.

Water companies say that wet wipes, which lose microplastic particles and are also strengthened in major blockages, are the main cause of wastewater pollution. John Penicud, director general of Southern Water for wastewater, recently said that “the majority of wastewater pollution are caused by damp wipes, fats, oils and fats that are rinsed in toilets and sinks”, and called to ban wet wipes.

The EU introduces a quaternary treatment, a more advanced method than that used in the United Kingdom. This has powerful filters that eliminate these traces of water supply chemicals, but are expensive, so the block plans to ensure that producers of these chemicals pay a tax which would then be used to create these treatment plants. Producers would be required to cover at least 80% of the costs associated with upgrading of wastewater treatment necessary to eliminate these wastewater substances.

Cunliffe believes that the United Kingdom could consider adopting a similar approach for wet wipes; Indeed, it would make wet plastic wet wipes more expensive, which would discourage their use. His report recommended that he seek to adopt EU laws in the United Kingdom and investigate the prevalence and impact of these micropollutants in the environment and on human health.

In this way, he says: “It is not the payer of water bill that pays it to withdraw it, but people who make and buy the products … PFAs and so on will require quaternary treatment, and there are currently three levels of wastewater treatment. Building another would cost expensive. ” The question, he said, was whether the user or the polluter paid.

A Water UK spokesperson said: “The abolition of” chemicals forever “from PFAS and other aquatic environment micropollutants is a huge challenge because current wastewater technology has never been designed to treat them. We need a national government plan to improve wastewater treatment that is paid by chemical manufacturers instead of water payers, as well as the prohibition of PFAS products which, otherwise, will worsen the problem.