Dorset Council (DC) has published the first draft of their Climate and Ecological Emergency strategy online, ahead of the document being discussed by councillors at the Place Scrutiny meeting on 23 July.
Since the Council declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency back in May 2019, teams of councillors and officers have been working hard via dedicated sector Task & Finish groups to devise this strategy, which will provide the direction, scope and ambition of the Council’s action plan to address climate change across Dorset.
The draft strategy can be found from page 15 of the Place Scrutiny Committee papers for 23 July.
This strategy brings together a considerable amount of work and recommends areas for action that will deliver a realistic and achievable approach to ensuring Dorset Council is carbon-neutral by 2040, a full decade ahead of the UK government’s 2050 target for the whole country.
Recommendations from the strategy document include (but are in no way limited to):
- Maximise renewable energy opportunities of all DC buildings; convert all off-grid DC buildings to heat pumps or biomass, convert heating of all on-grid buildings to hydrogen-ready hybrid heat pumps, install largest possible capacity solar arrays on every building
- Construct large renewable energy installation on Council-owned land to meet Council’s demand
- Ensure Dorset Council supports sustainable development by prioritising social and environmental well-being as well as economic value
- Carry out internal waste audits across our operations and create waste reduction plan
- Increase biodiversity on identified areas of Council land, and increase area of Council owned or managed land for ecological & carbon sequestration outcomes
- Change as many vehicles within Council fleet as possible to ultra-low-carbon replacements. Provide electric vehicle charging points and other ultra-low-emission fuel alternatives across the Council property estate
- Look at new ways of working to reduce carbon emissions as people move from home to work
- Encourage green business growth and tourism as Dorset becomes the clean air place to live and visit.
Tackling the climate emergency will require significant investment at all levels of society, with Dorset Council needing to invest large sums of money over the next 20 years just to become a Carbon Neutral Council.
The Council has a key role in lobbying government for clear policy and the financial support needed as we look to a zero-carbon future. We will work with partners to look for support and opportunities for external funding, making sure Dorset gets its fair share.
We will consult the public and key stakeholders in order to gather views on our proposed approach as set out in the strategy. We want to know if residents think we have this strategy right, have identified the correct areas for action, or whether any points are missing or need further consideration.
We intend to do this later in the year following the development of a costed delivery plan. The details within this strategy will be further developed into a set of clear actions to be undertaken by Dorset Council. We will use the ‘Areas for action’ within the document as a basis for this but will also continue to draw upon the actions raised through our ‘Call for ideas’ and ‘Inquiry Day’ sessions earlier this year.
This Action Plan will set out our objectives, specific detailed actions, responsibilities, timescales and performance measures. We will also include details of other key partners required to help deliver these actions, the scale of potential carbon savings and the associated co-benefits.
Cllr Ray Bryan added: “I’m confident that this strategy provides the foundation for an action plan that is realistic, ambitious and deliverable by 2040 and I’d like to thank everyone who has been involved in putting it together.
It is vital to recognise that the world has changed dramatically since we declared a climate emergency over a year ago. The COVID-19 pandemic has left Dorset Council with huge financial challenges that need to be urgently addressed. Balancing what we need to do to address climate change with our legal requirement to provide statutory services is key.
The responsibilities of our climate and ecological emergency declaration will remain at the heart of Dorset Council’s plans and will continue to directly influence and inform future strategies, initiatives and policies.
When our financial situation improves, when opportunities present themselves, or when new technology becomes available, I promise we will regularly return to this work to look for ways we can achieve our goals earlier. But in the meantime, I would ask everyone to read the strategy and let us know your views when we launch the consultation.”
Have you considered Hydrogen vehicles rather than electic battery/rechargeable ones. More and more”commercial” users are adopting this option – and German has just invested 9 billion euros in hydrogen transport…
Best regards, Stan
I agree with Stan. We should be looking at hydrogen as the future fuel for vehicles and heating using renewable energy to produce it. Electric vehicles are not green with used batteries storing up a potentially major disposal and pollution problem. Not to mention the infrastructure required and cost of charging points.
Biomass is also rarely a green low carbon alternative for heating. As demand increases greater areas of ancient and environmentally important forests are being cut down to produce fuel pellets that are then shipped around the world – crazy. Planting new woodland does not replace their value to wildlife and carbon capture and storage.
One of the things I find baffling about the debate on various new low carbon technologies is this idea that there should be a magic bullet technology that will be the answer in all circumstances and which will render all other low carbon technologies redundant or even counter productive. This applies to arguments about wind, solar, wave or even nuclear power and it also applies to the electric vehicle, hydrogen fuel cell or biofuel internal combustion engine transport question. Just as we had both petrol and diesel cars, vans, taxis and lorries through much of the 20th Century the chances are that a low carbon transport fleet will include multiple types of low carbon vehicle. Currently electric vehicles have stolen a bit of a march on hydrogen and the sheer number of ICE vehicles is limiting the % biofuels in the petrol and diesel in the pumps to under 10% so the councils current plan to build on its existing small fleet of electric vehicles is perfectly sound. I’m sure eventually they will also have hydrogen vehicles as well and all ICE vehicles will be burning a much higher % of biofuel or synthetic liquid fuels than they are now. Where I think the idea that there should be a magic bullet technology is dangerous is where the logic seems to be that unless a low carbon technology is perfect we should just carry on using the very high carbon technologies that got us into this mess in the first place!
‘Encourage green business growth and tourism as Dorset becomes the clean air place to live and visit’.
This is a great aim especially with regard to rejecting waste incineration.
Clean air should actually be everybody’s right. We are beginning to hear how the current virus is more prevalent in areas suffering from poor air quality.
Why am I surprised that there is no mention of cost to Council tax payers in one of the highest Council Tax regions in England. The ”New” Dorset Council C have recently congratulated themselves as they spent ‘loads of money’ on everything associated remotely with CV19 regardless of whether they have a responsibility or legal obligation to so do .
Accepting any Strategy without costing is meaningless mumbo jumbo which the current Administration should be ashamed of.
Where is the policy for cutting existing Council Tax spending waste as a priority when a ‘blind’ person can see how their Council tax is wasted at present without this additional environmental friendly political fluff.
Roger – Thank you for your comments. We’ve certainly not “congratulated ourselves for spending loads of money” on our CV19 response, but as a local authority we have a civic leadership role that absolutely means we have a responsibility to help keep our residents safe and we are proud of what we have achieved alongside partners, communities and volunteers at this time. As for the strategy itself, it provides the entire basis for our climate emergency response that will lead to a fully costed action plan – James
Sorry but I find it incredibly hard to keep listening to anyone from Dorset Council who uses the term “Emergency” when it’s taken since March 2019 to even create a proposal. It’s farcical.
Does this mean that the proposed application to build a waste incinerator
on Portland will not receive planning consent? (Have you seen the suggestion from Powerfuel?)
The document should reflect the lessons already being learnt from Covid-19.
The implications for Town centres, home working etc.
Lock down itself had an impact on world pollution temporarily and the positive lessons learnt should be built upon .
We completely agree William, but we didn’t want to delay the publication of the strategy any longer despite most of it being compiled before the pandemic hit.
Page 8 of your document concerning the lack of powers of the Council regarding Part L of the Building Regulations renders a lot of your document meaningless. Unless the building trade is obliged to either retrofit or provide new build installation of solar/renewables, then I am afraid that the whole document becomes fine aspirations, but potentially not much outcome.
I feel that unless the Dorset Council successfully lobby the Government for powers to insist on change, then not much will happen.
Robert – Planning (and subsequent building regulation enforcement) is only one part of the strategy, but we have to be transparent and honest about the limitations of our powers. However, we will be joining local authorities all over the country to lobby Central Government for support to achieve our carbon reduction goals – this will most likely include proposals to change national planning policy.
I’m glad to hear you’ll be lobbying Central Government. Has that not started yet?
It has started in earnest Mandy, but there is a long way to go and we’re hoping to get more organised by working with different partners, organisations and authorities.
The extensive reports clearly detail the issues, problems and areas for action. But the strategy document is toothless as it sets no clear targets for each area for each year in the programme.
Without targets the strategy is toothless. Members must set targets. It is obvious that failure, indeed repeated failure is highly likely, and it is these failures that will stimulate discussion, resources and activity.
Keith – As we state in the article, the strategy will inform a costed action plan which will include timetables and targets.
CLIMATE CHANGE
On this occasion the only comment I would make regarding climate change and the idea of bringing in Electric Vehicles is, we have 3 Land Rovers, as does most of the Farmers around the UK, Eire, Scotland and Wales as well as our Royal Family. We are taxed the highest in the country over and above all other vehicles that unlike ours have filthy dirty engines. If this Government thinks we are going to be dictated to by getting rid of our Land Rovers, they are very much mistaken. I hasten to add most of the engines in these modern engines today are cleaner than any other vehicle on the road. Its the manufacturers to whom you should be speaking and not be dictating everyone should be driving an Electric Vehicle because someone in Government thinks they are the way forward.
Electric Vehicles
What is the Government going to do on disposing of all the batteries from Electric Vehicles when they reach their Anniversary date, i.e. when the batteries need replacing? What plants and where are they for disposing of all the chemicals and plastics? Hydrogen cells are the way to go in the future.
My husband Martin Wells is a Senior Health & Safety Oil & Gas Engineer with experience going back to the 70s having worked until 2.5yrs ago with multi national companies all around the world on oil rigs and and fuel plants – speaking at meetings at the highest level to people who simply dont understand the drawbacks when they make such sweeping statements and decisions about bringing in electric vehicles. He is the level of person who should be employed and involved in such Committees not local Council Engineers.
Anne Wells – Colehill – Wimborne
Hi Anne,
In your answer to your question about what is the government going to do about battery recycling, the answer is that we don’t yet know as it depends on the degree to which a government wishes to directly intervein or leave matters to market forces. Currently there is relatively little pressure from market forces to recycle LI batteries but there are schemes coming on line for second life uses for automotive batteries. It is true that the challenges in recycling batteries mean that there will need to be a considerable financial incentive to do it before it becomes financial viable. However, the limited supply of some of the material used including Cobalt mean that a continuing increase in the manufacture of electric vehicles will put a premium on these materials that will eventually make it economically practical to recycle at scale. This also raises the question of how can you invest in large scale plant to recycle when EV car sales remain relatively small in numbers and how can you get car sales up if people are put off buying them because there isn’t yet recycling plant at scale? What is not true is to suggest that there aren’t any possible solutions to the challenges and never will be. Please see this very interesting article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1682-5 . I am afraid your comments about Land Rover engines rather overstate the case. Modern ICE engines are a lot better than they used to be but no ICE is “cleaner than any other vehicle on the road” Even if you forget about ultra low emissions vehicles (including as you point out Hydrogen fuel cell as well as EVs), Land Rovers and other 4x4s are very heavy vehicles that even with the most efficient engines produce a lot of emissions per mile. Whilst you are right to point out that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are an important technology as is the use of ever higher proportions of biofuel and synthetic fuels in petrol and diesel for a diminishing number of specialist ICE vehicles, This is not a reason to deny the importance of EVs and currently the most easily available route to move away from ICE vehicles for routine driving by the council is to get more EVs to add to their small current fleet. Your rather combative comment about “If this Government thinks we are going to be dictated to by getting rid of our Land Rovers, they are very much mistaken” implies an assumption that it is all or nothing for any of the technologies. As a farmer you clearly need 4×4 capability but do you need three of them? I would suggest a future where you have one or two 4x4s running on biodiesel or hydrogen and smaller EV for the school run, shopping trips and other driving that never even comes close to being off road. That way the reduced number of specialist vehicles can be brought more in line with the practical potential for producing non-fossil liquid fuels to run them.
Please also see this article about a Birmingham University based research group who ae working on this issue https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/energy/research/centre-strategic-elements-critical-materials/future-of-batteries/recycling-lithium-ion-batteries.aspx
It is clear that there is no fundamental reason why batteries should not be recycled after several reuses of packs and cells. It is a matter of refining the practicalities with perhaps some help from government in terms of regulation and strategic intervention.
One of the other challenges frequently held up as a barrier to increased EV uptake is the need for rare earth magnets in electric motors. Not only are these eminently suitable for recycling as they are not consumed or worn away by the running of the motor but firms are designing motors that are not dependent on rare earth magnets such as the new design by Bentley. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/bentley-e-axle-electric-powertrains-could-be-ev-breakthrough/ar-BB17DjSZ?ocid=spartanntp . Firms will invest in making EV designs better and better but only if they see that society is serious about the transition away from ICE vehicles burning fossil fuels. It deeply annoys me that people criticise low carbon technologies of all sorts for not being perfect when in fact their rate of development and improvement has been astronomical compared with the sluggish developments in fossil fuel technologies. If you were to take the designs of modern wind turbines or electric vehicles back in time 50 years and shown them to engineers they would have said they were something out of Star Trek not a realistic proposal for the near future.
Here, here, Dr Erik Blakeley.
Two very informed and balanced comments on this thread from you.
I would add two further comments to Anne. The second biggest cause of global GHG emissions growth between 2010 and 2020 is calculated to be the growth of SUV’s. I haven’t seen specific figures for the UK but given that the biggest global contribution is the growth of the power sector, but that in the UK the power sector has taken the lions share of carbon reductions, then it is likely that growth of SUV’s are the biggest single cause of GHG emissions growth. The key here of course is that we should be driving vehicles that are fit for purpose, so whilst a farmer may need a land rover, most people don’t. As for electric vehicles, we’d probably all be driving them 15 years ago if the oil industry hadn’t thwarted their development, and funded the destruction of the 1,000 or so EV’s that were on American roads in the 1980’s.
I am in a similar position to your husband Anne, having engaged with Govt on these and other issues on behalf of industry. I have learnt that it is extremely unlikely that the solutions to our most difficult and pressing challenges will come out of the industry that caused them. The climate emergency needs people who think differently, and the Oil and Gas industry has spent 60 years conditioning staff to think, broadly along one track, to maintain the oil and gas industry.
Anne, I find your post very enlightening. We surely have not looked radically enough at what really is a global emergency.
It would be all too easy to think that the technology readily available now is the only option.
I think DC should be lobbying Central Government for massive investment in alternative technology development. Much of the research has been taking place for decades but Governments have not invested in its development.
Given that the council (past and present) has for sometime been making reductions in carbon use (as noted in the report), isn’t it wishful thinking that a further 40 % can be achieved by 2025 without a fully costed and approved action plan in place that is being implemented and monitored already? It appears that your baseline is also uncertain and still to be fully quantified.
The report also commits to putting ‘policies’ in place to ensure all council new builds are zero carbon. Why isn’t this being done already? If it is being done, can you give some examples please.
Thankyou
Whilst there are numerous ‘broad-brush‘ comments in various sections that *could* be referring to it, there appears to be no position taken by the Council as yet on Waste Incineration for energy production.
Bearing in mind that a new facility within the County would increase carbon production, has been shown to reduce recycling rates in area where such facilities are built and that the EU has now ruled that such technology can no longer be classified as ‘Green’ and is not ‘Sustainable’, why hasn’t Council set out its attitude to such projects within this document?
For the first time the EU Taxonomy list has excluded energy from waste incineration from the list of sustainable activities. The aim of the Taxonomy is to provide clarity to both corporations and investment firms on how environmentally friendly activities are, and to divert capital to fund greener economic activities. The objectives are entirely in keeping with Dorset’s commitment to tackling the Climate Emergency.
Wholesale burning, rather than recycling potentially useful waste, flies in the face of the circular economy. Furthermore, there are increasing concerns about the levels of the extremely damaging to health PM2.5-PM1 which is released from the stacks of ERF incinerators on a daily basis. I am therefore writing to ask that Dorset leads the way by adopting the same position as the EU and formally classifies large scale ERF incineration as an unsustainable activity and excludes it from its future climate emergency plans.
This draft document represents a true appreciation of the Emergency and is a good start. Reading all the comments above I am both heartened but also depressed that so many people can only think of their own immediate future not the consequences of our profligate life styles. Yes it is going to be very difficult but to do nothing or insufficient is not survivable – we hide from the existential but that does not stop the facts.
Please consider that burning waste in incinerators is resources gone and more GHGs into the air. I send you an earnest plea to set out clearly the case against EfW MSW Incineration like the proposed plant on Portland before it is too late.
Richard Drax replied by email to me concerning energy and resources Revive and Remake 07.07.20 I quote: “I am sending a copy of your email to the Secretary of State at DEFRA. I have pointed out that you have concerns about the whole issue of air pollution and the UK Government’s inadvertent proliferation of harmful emissions from EfW Incineration and the incorrect designation of this form of energy as being renewable. I have also highlighted your concerns that the Environment Agency should have the power to refuse permits on the grounds that a proposal is inconsistent with the declared Climate Emergency and that an Incineration Exit Strategy should become UK Government policy as soon as possible.”
I think we do have to be very careful not to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. In an ideal world we would transform our lives and the economy overnight to facilitate 100% reuse and recycling. However that is not possible. We currently generate large amounts of waste that we cannot economically recycle and we will continue to do so for a long time. We also have an energy industry that will have to rely on the combustion of something for a long time to come. The need for combustible fuels is currently much in excess of what can be provided by biofuels. Taking all of these into consideration it is arguably much better to burn some waste that would otherwise go into landfill under the very strict emissions controls currently in place due to the various large incinerator directives from the EU etc than to burn natural gas. The issue becomes a much more nuanced one to do with when might the economic demand for fuel actually inhibit the amount of recycling done. Given the current situation with large amounts of waste being exported to countries that then struggle to properly process it for recycling and have questionable employment practices for those engaged in doing the recycling work, I suspect we are quite a way from the point where we are doing enough energy from waste to make it counterproductive.
The draft strategy does not include a separate section on improving air quality – this is a significant omission. One example where action could be taken using local powers is residential pollution. The Government are phasing out the sale of wet wood and coal for use in woodburning stoves from 2021 due to the proven serious aspects on health, but this will not prevent people sourcing their own unsuitable wood. The use of any woodburning stoves in urban area and towns has an adverse impact on air quality. Garden bonfires also pollute the air for others. The strategy should propose the widespread introduction of complete smoke free zones in towns across Dorset. With many people continuing to experience severe respiratory symptoms following Covid-19, air quality has become an even more important issue.
The recommendations from the Strategy document appear to be modern day motherhood an apple pie. It’s difficult to criticise them in principle but the devil will be in the detail, and I look forward to seeing the Action Plan and progress arising against it.
The recommendations summarised here do seem to be light on transport emissions, outside of those under the direct control of DC. I would hope that this is an area where DC recognise their role as “place makers”, making sustainable, liveable, places high in ecological value and wellbeing factors. Why for instance, is the best amenity space in Weymouth used for parking cars, especially when those cars have to drive all the way to the furthest part of town, and back again, to use it? We also need an ambitious sustainable transport strategy to support the C&EE Strategy.
But my biggest wish is that you’ll take bold decisions when they are supported by clear scientific evidence, including the use of environmental life cycle analysis to determine the best environmental option.
The recent Weymouth Peninsula development proposal provides a good example of a project that, when re-invigorated, will tell us to what extend DC are walking the talk. Despite that development site being ideally placed to harness renewable energy from solar PV, solar thermal, WSHP and possibly even hydro, with a small energy centre having the potential to become an income stream for DC, the original proposal lacked any ambition on this front at all. When it returns we will know to what extent DC are taking this emergency seriously.
I hope these comments haven’t come across as especially negative, they are not intended to be. I support the intent shown in the document, and the need for such a document, my comments are more a reflection that I know that Dorset starts this as a laggard, with the exception of some of its natural qualities which hold it in good stead.
For a number of years it seems that the move towards a carbon neutral economy was the right thing to do, Dorset as well as the rest of the world is moving to point where we have to become carbon neutral. Bearing this in mind how can the county countenance an industrial waste incineration project that may last for twenty or thirty years, on Portland.
In this report there is really clear recognition of the scale of the ecological and climate crisis and the need to act urgently. Like others, I am very disappointed that despite this, there are still no concrete or measurable commitments, more than a year after an emergency was declared.
I am happy to see ‘Opportunity for DC to show leadership’ as a key opportunity under ‘renewable energy’ and the commitment to collaborate with Parish Councils. One obvious step for both goals, would be for Dorset Council to commit to no new fossil fuel extraction in Dorset, with immediate effect. I find it strange that there is no mention of this simple solution.
This would prevent such ecological and climate disasters as the pending application WD/D/19/002866, for a brand new oil well, in a designated wildlife Habitat of Principle Importance at Athelhampton. It is opposed by the local Parish Council of Puddletown, along with many more local people as well as experts – see comments on the application. If this application gets the go ahead from you, that’s 25 years of drilling for oil in a protected wildlife area: a climate and ecological catastrophe that you can easily prevent, right now.
Please show clear leadership immediately, Dorset Council, and state that no new fossil fuel extraction will take place in our County.