Author: Sally Perry
Isle of Wight Council Reject 10:10 Carbon Reduction Agreement (UPDATE 2)
Monday, 9th November, 2009 at 3:17 pm, Isle of Wight
Green Issues, Island-wide, Isle of Wight Council, News, Opinion Piece
We’ve been waiting all day for a response from David Pugh’s Isle of Wight Council (yes, we’re back in the fold) regarding their decision at the last Full Council meeting to reject the motion to sign up to the 10:10 agreement, a motion put forward by Cllr Geoff Lumley.
This action is particularly surprising given the way back in December 2007, the IW Council started labelling the Island, ‘Eco Island’ – which it would be reasonable to assume came with some kind of commitment to trying to achieve an Eco Island.
Quoting from the IWC Annual Report 2007-08 (PDF) that has David Pugh’s smiling in the foreword:
Eco island sets out ways we can all work together to build thriving, strong, healthy, safe, sustainable communities with the lowest carbon footprint in England by 2020.
We won’t do it, but you can
Although the IWC have decided that they’re not going to sign up to the agreement – which was to reduce the Council’s carbon emissions by 10% by the end of 2010 – they do “encourage Island residents, businesses and organisations to support the aspirations of the 10:10 campaign”. Feel patronised at all?
We were reminded of the decision this morning, when hearing it reported by IW Radio and we followed it up with the council press office with a request for a statement. We’ve received nothing through as yet, but as soon as we do, we’ll add it here.
UPDATE (16:10): This in from Geoff Lumley: “The Council leadership’s refusal to sign up to 10:10 whilst asking Islanders to support the campaign is very much a case of do as we say, not as we do. The Council should be setting an example on climate change, not dragging its feet with annual 4% reduction targets. Apart from anything else commiting to 10:10 would help in the drive for even more budgetary efficiencies next year.”
David Pugh: It’s “short-sighted”
We understand from IW Radio that leader of the Council, David Pugh, stated that he thought the 10:10 agreement was short-sighted and they would much rather prefer to stick to the 4% reduction each year already committed to by the IWC – one they haven’t met.
Previous commitments from IW Council
It’s of note that the IWC 07-08 annual report said that they would “continue to reduce carbon emissions at a rate of at least 4% per year and to review this target regularly.” (our bold)
In their Community Strategy 2006-2008 (carried forward into Eco Island), they also committed to :
We will create an island in which the needs of the people and the economy are met without detriment to the global or local environment
We will achieve this by:
* Ensuring a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the use of natural resources
UPDATE 2 (17.08)
Seven hours after first requesting a statement, we have received this response from the IWC.
IW Council leader Cllr David Pugh said: “The motion approved by Full Council recently makes our position clear.
“The council’s efforts to reduce its carbon emissions are long-term. We are aiming to reduce our emissions by at least four per cent year-on-year over a 15-year period.
“While any initiative to reduce carbon emissions is laudable, the council favours making its contribution in a planned, longer term fashion than that promoted through the 10:10 initiative which seeks to reduce emissions for one year only.
“People have rightly pointed out that the council has found it a challenge to fulfil its stated aim of reducing its carbon footprint. Our efforts are better spent seeking to achieve this structured, year-on-year approach to carbon reduction than by taking on, in addition, a further arbitrary target.”
You might want to have a look over the Council’s Eco Island site to see if there’s any other commitments there that they committed to, but haven’t kept.
Related posts:
- 10:10 Carbon Reduction Agreement Rejected by Isle of Wight Council Again
Tories reject 10:10 Agreement for the fourth time... - Renewed Calls For IWC To Sign up to 10:10 Agreement
Will the IWC sign up at last?... - Isle of Wight Council Urged to Join 10:10 Campaign
Cllr Lumley is proposing a motion that the IWC sign... - Isle of Wight Festival Seek To Renegotiate Agreement: UPDATED
We look at a proposal to renegotiate the ten year... - SMART NEW CRIME-REDUCTION WEAPON FOR THE ISLE OF WIGHT
ShareAN INNOVATIVE smart new weapon is about to be used...
Great piece of reporting :)
Offensive comment?
Could be part of the reason that the Danes decided to look somewhere else, couldn’t it?
This decision cannot possibly represent the people on the Isle of Wight?!
Offensive comment?
Yes, very thorough reporting. Many thanks.
“Plonkers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but Planet Earth”.
Offensive comment?
I’ve been waiting for your bit on this after seeing some comments elsewhere.
If it wasn,’t so tragic and so often repeated by the cowboys we call councillors, then this would be funny
Offensive comment?
I sometimes feel that David Pugh shows the qualities of a government minister. Take a look at this statement:
“People have rightly pointed out that the council has found it a challenge to fulfil its stated aim of reducing its carbon footprint “.
In street-speak this means “OK we admit that we have FAILED this year”.
Let’s not speculate on their performance next year. Wait and see.
But then he says:
“Our efforts are better spent seeking to achieve this structured, year-on-year approach to carbon reduction than by taking on, in addition, a further arbitrary target.”
Which is a clear admission that their current targets are “arbitrary”.
I think he will need some time on the back benches before he gets his spin certificate. It takes time, experience and he’s still very young.
Offensive comment?
I’ve got quite a bit of sympathy for IW Council. they have huge issues to tackle and all manner of problems.
But on this they just aren’t credible. They made the running on eco island and claim to still be committed.
You can’t spin your way out of this one. They try to lead on eco island, but their carbon footprint is rising year on year – yet other big businesses on the Island have cut their outputs dramatically in single years. To say this is only for one year is more than spin – it’s treating us like we are idiots. Reducing this year is an ongoing reduction – Pugh clearly doesn’t know anything at all about the 10:10 commitment.
Geoff Lumley is right – if they just managed to turn the lights off automatically, cut the temperature of their hot water, put a hippo in every toilet, turned their thermostats down by a degree, and looked at whether they need to drive so many vans and cars around the Island all day every day, they could make a significant reduction in their carbon output – it’s all good housekeeping – and they could also cut their bills.
If this is their committment to eco island then Pugh should admit right now that they can’t be bothered really!
Offensive comment?
Hang on – the Council’s carbon footprint this year rose by 10%, if the Council had signed up to 10:10 (and hit the target) they would still be net-short of their 4% reduction per year target.
Meaning the above statement is a load of rubbish. Why do they get away with this? Just like Andrew Turners’ latest rant on immigration. We are treated like fools…but then maybe we are.
Offensive comment?
THEY DO CARE ABOUT ECO-ISLAND I HAVE THE PROOF
I sent a letter objecting to the sex club at the back of Nodehill middle school, Newport and I received an email, at the bottom it says in a a nice green font…. “As part of our commitment to Eco-Island please don’t print unless necessary.”
What more proof do you guys want?
Offensive comment?
I agree with Adam.
Just reducing the setting of the thermostats in Council buildings would be a big help. It’s possible to be in County Hall or other Council buildings in winter wearing only a sleeveless top – in other words, the thermostats are set higher than they need to be. I suspect there isn’t enough insulaton in many buildings either.
Installing renewable energy supplies to more Council buildings would help. If all Council buildings were powered by renewables then they’d achieve a massive amount – and save money in the long run.
But it is difficult to achieve other savings, because they need to persuade all Council staff to change their behaviour, for example by turning off computers, lights and other electrical equipment when not in use. I’ve worked in environmental jobs for years, but in my experience many people still don’t do such obviously basic things as turn things off when they leave rooms. If even such committed people can’t remember to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, it’ll be even harder to persuade other people to change their behaviour.
Offensive comment?
Why don’t they put solar panels on their roof that could power some lights and hot water or would that in some way effect the telephone masts they currently have up there?
Offensive comment?
[...] http://ventnorblog.com/2009/11/09/isle-of-wight-council-reject-1010-carbon-reduction-agreement/ [...]
Offensive comment?
The Eco Island Booklet on website (http://www.eco-island.org.uk/) makes for interesting reading.
It appears to be effectively a non-committal local plan dressed up as a Sustainability Statement – there is no real promises.
However, with reference to Climate Change/Alternative Energy it does state the following:
[i]We will:
• create wealth whilst reducing our carbon footprint;
• produce as much of our energy as possible from renewable sources;[/i]
The first comment – how they perceived on doing that puzzles me – There is no such thing as sustainable growth – a growing economy uses more energy unless we make sweeping changes now. You can only limit the impact of economic growth on the environment otherwise.
The second statement – This sounds fair – however, if they are saying they WILL produce as much renewable energy as possible, why are no large scale projects being granted permission. And if the council aren’t going to set the benchmark, why would anyone else follow suit?
[i]The Isle of Wight will become known for its eco-tourism, with visitors able to enjoy the Island’s beauty with minimal impact on the environment.[/i]
Perfectly reasonable statement – but no way of showing how this will be done. More park and ride? electric buses? Secure cycle storage and a network of safe non-road based cycling routes? They aren’t going to be able to push tourist attractions into looking at on-site renewable energy sources if the council aren’t doing the same themselves.
[i]The Island faces a particular environmental challenge. This is because our ecological footprint (the amount of resources and energy we use) is three times more than the amount we can sustain. We cannot keep using the amount of resources we currently consume. We must seize this opportunity to change the way we live and work on the Island, to safeguard it for future generations. The ISP wants the Island to have the lowest carbon footprint in England by 2020.[/i]
Bold, and brilliant if it can be done. However, turning down proposals for a wind farm isn’t exactly a step in the right direction, and I havn’t heard the council touting its own ideas. Maybe they should take a hint from Richmond Council – all new development must offset 20% of its CO2 on-site through renewables – but the council can’t lump it all on the residents – they have to match any small scale private renewable installation themselves.
[i]…We will invest in renewable energy technologies and use energy and water more efficiently. We are determined to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the Isle of Wight.[/i]
This is taken slightly out of its context – read the booklet for the whole text. An admirable promise. But what is actually being done, what is proposed and what are the deadlines. The council seem to have been switched on enough to realise that Climate Change is real…but if this is just greenwash rather than an actual promise then its meaningless.
[i]Develop new sectors of employment, creating centre of excellence in renewable energies and generating capacity of over
100Mw of electricity by 2020.[/i]
Again, admirable – but 100MW from renewables? I’d love to see it but where is it going to come from? What have they got planned? Is that 100MW from true renewables or from low-carbon technologies like CHP and Heat Pumps – theres a large difference in CO2 ofset – 100MW is meaningless if we don’t know the source. Buying in biomass fuels? C’mon IoW Council – you’ve written this and made it public…fill us in with your plans. Were dying to know!
Finally, there are 35 promises to be put in place by 2010 – including the following that are relevant to this article:
[i]
• Island agencies to produce action plan to reduce carbon emissions by three per cent each year.
• Three parish/town councils piloting low carbon communities across the Island.
• Annual Eco Island conferences in March each year and Big Picnics in May each year.
• 200 Green Island tourism awards.
• Zero plastic bag scheme.
• Five additional charging points for electric vehicles.
• Submit bid for renewable energy research centre.
• Public sector fleets to run on low-carbon fuels, starting with 13 Isle of Wight Council vehicles.[/i]
Have all these been done/implemented?
And…[i] Island agencies to produce action plan to reduce carbon emissions by three per cent each year[/i]…what does this mean? 3% of what – if its 3% reduction compared to a 4% growth then we are still going backwards. Maybe base it from 1990 levels in-line with Kyoto?
Offensive comment?
CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas. We all know that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas and some know that water vapor makes up 2% of the atmosphere, whilst CO2 is a TRACE GAS that makes up less than 0.001% of the atmosphere. Greenhouses pump CO2 in to raise yields and have to double or triple CO2 concentrations to get an ideal yield but we are taught to be scared of what we exhale.
A question, what drives water vapor levels? You guessed it, THE SUN. Gasp, you think the sun? A huge thermonuclear star that gives us more energy per year than all the power ever generated by humanity, you think it may drive the climate?
But of course, we need a carbon tax, we need a tax on holidays, we can’t drive anymore, we can’t have children, we need population reduction, we can no longer keep what we earn, government must grow at the expense of the private sector, we must have less wealth.
Doesn’t this sound like a despot’s dream? And carbon is involved in every human process so, to save the planet we will now see everything we do monitored and controlled. You ready for Chinese style one child policy? Because the tyrants, I mean, politicians, are actively discussing it. This is 1984, this is Brave New World. Britain fought for independence and now sleep walks into tyranny. Your ancestors wouldn’t have dreamed of their offspring putting up with forced austerity, but we now clamor for poverty, clamor to hand over all our private property to private banks that run the carbon trading system and to the very governments funding the hysteria.
But alas, the BBC reports that global temperatures HAVEN’T RISEN since 1995: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
Offensive comment?