The Carbon Footprint of Water Companies

 The Carbon Footprint of Water Companies

Water is a medium through which we feel the negative impacts of climate change - drought, storms, flooding and sea level rise. At the same time, water companies continue to add greenhouse gas emissions through our day-to-day operations (such as pumping water) and the infrastructure we build.

Water UK states that the water sector emits 2.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year. The water sector has committed to achieving net zero operational emissions targets by 2030, and affinity water is working towards that goal.

1. What thoughts come to mind when you think about this goal?

2. What are the meanings and messages you take away from this explanation?

I feel neutral about the statement that affinity water is working towards the goal of net zero operational emissions by 2030, because, for me, it conflates two opposing issues.

I understand that it is vitally important that emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere should be not simply reduced, but eliminated wherever possible. I also understand that everything needs to be done to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere: tree-planting schemes, bog-restoration projects and so on. I understand all of these things to be necessary, not optional. Adoption of "net zero" targets is primarily a ruse for big emitters of carbon dioxide to continue emitting carbon dioxide by so-called "off-setting" their emissions. Everything means everything. Logic and rationality make it clear that if everything is already being done to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere and sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then so-called "off-setting" is meaningless greenwash.

1. Overall, how achievable do you think this goal is? Why?

2. How do you think Affinity Water can achieve this goal? Why?

3. What do you think the potential barriers are going to be that water companies need to consider? Why?

For reasons explained above, I consider "net zero" to be the wrong goal, a sham goal: it is an excuse to avoid doing everything possible to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Doing everything possible should be the goal.

Could Affinity Water set a target of doing everything possible, yet still deliver water and process waste water? Yes, of course it could. Perhaps a 'carbon dioxide emissions tax' might help to focus attention. On the other hand, such a tax would probably be simply passed on to consumers, and so would make little or no difference to the company.

It would be so much more straightforward to deal with the issue were water supply and disposal in public, not private, ownership.

I have little doubt that water companies in general will propose to plant lots of trees on land that they own in order to offset their carbon dioxide emissions. They will probably also pay opportunist companies lots of money for planting trees elsewhere. In my opinion, all of these trees should be planted (and properly managed) anyway, regardless of so-called "offsetting". There may be new carbon dioxide sequestering technology that allows water reservoirs somehow or other to sequester carbon dioxide. Such technology, if it exists now or at some point in the future, should be applied anyway, and not simply used by water companies to avoid cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

I doubt that there is anything that the water companies can do to convince me that offsetting is an activity that will produce the amount of change necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change. The time for 'Net zero' has long passed. The time for that was thirty or forty years ago when there was still 'room for manoeuvre'. It is now too late, and 'everything possible' is the only hope.

Affinity Water will look at various ways to achieve Net Zero operational emissions by 2030. Below are 5 different ways - please read each one and rank them from most (1st place) to least (5th place) preferred:

1.      Reducing our carbon footprint (reducing energy use by 7.5% in our operations, reducing demand for water, and working towards a fully electric fleet by 2030)

2.      Using 10% self-generated renewable energy (I.e. we generate our own solar and wind power)

3.      Planting Trees (110,000 by 2030, improving catchments, and also seagrass restoration)

4.      Purchasing ‘green electricity’ tariffs (i.e. using electricity generated by others, from renewables such as wind or solar)

5.      Buying Carbon Offset (investing in green schemes in other places to balance our own use of carbon)

In order to achieve this goal, Affinity Water will be required to invest in their infrastructure. These costs may potentially impact your water prices as a customer.

Below are a couple of scenarios around how your water bill may be impacted. Thinking about the Net Zero Policy that water companies are committed to achieve, what would you prefer?

Please select your preferred option and explain why in the comment box below.

Gradually over time (cheaper now, but more expensive later)

As fast as possible before 2030 (expensive now, but cheaper later) - why

It seems that you just don't get it. It is already too late. It was already too late many years ago. Nothing short of everything possible as soon as possible needs to be done immediately to mitigate the disaster the world is facing. The front edge of the disaster is clearly already upon us, and it gets worse from here on in. I find your complacency breath-taking.

By the way, the so-called 'green energy tariffs' of most (although not all) energy companies achieve their green credentials through the purchase of offsets, not as a result of additional renewable energy generation.

Interesting that you talk about water bills being impacted, but say nothing about dividend payments to shareholders.

For this final task, please let us know your final thoughts:

What other ways Affinity Water can help to reduce their carbon footprint? What is your idea?

Why would this idea help reduce their carbon footprint?

Earlier, we asked if you’d prefer water prices to be impacted gradually over time (cheaper now but more expensive later) or as fast as possible before 2030 (expensive now but cheaper later). How else could Affinity Water structure water prices so it better suits customers’ needs? Why?

First point: you have not provided a breakdown of Affinity Water's carbon footprint. I have no idea whether pumping water emits more or less carbon dioxide than, say, treating waste water or driving your vans around. What is the carbon footprint of your head office? What is the carbon footprint of mains water leaks? Admittedly, from my perspective, everything needs to be addressed, and reductions sought wherever they can be found. However, your question is partly about timing, and it seems obvious to me that you should prioritise making the most rapid reductions in carbon dioxide emissions achievable.

Second point: inviting focus-group participation to test out ideas is good, but I have no idea whether you have contracted to working with environmental organisations who are committed to constructive action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to increase carbon dioxide sequestering, such as, say, Friends of the Earth. Significantly, any such organisation needs to be sceptical about arguments focusing on protecting your 'bottom line', otherwise it is simply back to greenwash. My guess, however, is that you have, instead, contracted with a consultancy company (that charges a lot of money for glossy brochures and 'executive reports', and knows all the current management jargon) whose primary purpose is to retain you as a long-term client.

Third point: I have no doubt that many of your customers use/waste a lot more water than they really need to. Metering all water use, supplying water for essential use free of charge, and then charging customers for water use beyond what is essential, is likely to decrease water use substantially (I have this from your own figures regarding customer water use and your long-term targets). Reducing *overall* water use should reduce your variable costs. Reducing *their own* water use ought to cost customers less (with the right pricing structure), which then gives you freedom to increase the unit price you charge in order to pay for offsets you wish to buy, or to carry out actual carbon dioxide emission reduction work.

"Zero emissions is a great target to reduce climate change."

Net zero and zero emissions are not the same thing.

"To me Zero is Zero. If you are making a point well done you.".

"According to Peter G Hughes I am not making a point. Best if you ask him he seems to be the expert."

No, I am very far from being any kind of expert. I am, however, wary about weasel words (and terminology).

"Net zero refers to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. We reach net zero when the amount we add is no more than the amount taken away."

However, my contention is that "net zero" is 'playing games' in order to try to justify emissions, and that EVERYTHING must be done to reduce and eliminate carbon dioxide emissions, and EVERYTHING must be done to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and even then it cannot be enough or fast enough because climate change is already well underway. The time for playing games with "carbon offsets" and "net zero" was decades ago. Any government or business talking about "carbon offsets" and "net zero" is simply trying to avoid doing EVERYTHING necessary.

You may wonder why I am referring to "net zero" as a game. Although as a target it looks kind of attractive, it is in fact purely arbitrary. For example, put at its most extreme, it is not possible to make cement without removing the 'carbonate' from 'calcium carbonate'. Either cement is made, with its substantial carbon dioxide emissions, or cement is not made. There is no "net zero". 

Taking a wider perspective, all economically-developed societies are based on consumer capitalism. Consumer capitalism is all about generating receipts (and taxes) from consumption. It is the production and distribution of the goods that are consumed that generates the very substantial carbon emissions that are heating up the world. Thirty or forty years ago, there may have been the opportunity to begin to turn the juggernaut around, to get off carbon. Yet neither the fossil fuel companies, nor governments, nor the big manufacturers, nor the transport lobby, nor the consumers (us) were prepared to do anything about it. The first electric vehicle was invented at the same time as the internal combustion engine, yet what proportion of vehicles you see on the road today are electric? (Multiply that around the world.) Yet still everyone plays games with numbers (buying carbon offsets, for their holiday travel or their business travel or to claim that their electricity is 'green' or carbon neutral; and net zero, as though it is alright to generate emissions as long as something is done in  balanced mitigation). We are like people who have been having a whale of a time gambling, and still refuse to accept that we have already pawned our last shirt.