#Manchester #climate credibility turns to Ashes: #StuartBroad and trust

On Tuesday 9th July, Manchester City Council published its latest “Annual Carbon Reduction (sic) Plan.” It stated there was a 7% reduction in emissions from its operations in the last year.

broaddidntwalkOn Friday 12th July, on the 3rd day of the first Ashes Test, English cricketer Stuart Broad got a thick edge, was caught at first slip but did not walk. The umpire didn’t see it, so he stayed at the crease.

What on earth could join the two?

It’s this; in both cases, the players were acting within the letter of the law, but not the spirit.

 As reported yesterday, the entirety of the 7% “reduction” can be ascribed to the fact that Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) now has responsibility for traffic signage. There has been no “real” reduction in emissions. Although Manchester City Council is entitled to claim their reduction, even they admit “while this represents a carbon saving to the City Council, this does not constitute a net saving to the city’s overall emissions”

In both cases, everybody who is looking knows what they saw. Partisan supporters will use the “well, other people do it” argument or the “it’s not illegal” one.

And they’re right – other people/institutions do do it, and it’s not technically illegal.

But what sort of message does it send? Is there pride in such actions? Dignity?

We are going to need trust in our institutions in the turbulent years and decades ahead. The days of deference are, thankfully, gone. Trust has to be earned. It is easily lost and devilishly hard to regain. These sorts of accountancy manoeuvres in the dark are a tragic mistake.

As far as the Ashes goes, well, it’s just a game. And anyway, speaking as an Australian by birth, I am certain that today’s 10th wicket 200-run partnership between Clarke and Agar will win us the match.

Speaking as a Manchester-resident, I am not so sure that anything quite so heroic can be pulled out of the bag. We are four years into an alleged 10 year programme. Is anyone truly happy with how the team is performing?

This is not a game, and Nature is going to bat last.

Marc Hudson

PS Yes, I know Michael Clarke refused to walk in Adelaide in 2010. He at least had the good grace to apologise.

About manchesterclimatemonthly

Was print format from 2012 to 13. Now web only. All things climate and resilience in (Greater) Manchester.
This entry was posted in Climate Change Action Plan, Democratic deficit, Manchester City Council and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to #Manchester #climate credibility turns to Ashes: #StuartBroad and trust

  1. gille liath says:

    You’re Australian? That explains a lot, mate. 😉

    I don’t blame Broad, he’s within his rights not to walk. Blame the umpire, and your captain who had wasted his reviews on frivolous appeals; and don’t forget the Aussies had already had the benefit of some dodgy decisions.

    This, though…this is just depressing – not just in itself, but because it stands for the way authorities at all levels are trying to shift things around rather than make real reductions.

    Thank God there’s an impending England Ashes win to take our mind off it for a bit…

  2. I was lucky to be invited to a tour of the refurbishment of the Town Hall Annexe and Central Library. I asked why they were only using single-glazing and not double-glazing or secondary. It came down to Cost-Benefit-Analysis (CBA), the pay-back would take over a hundred years. I also asked why they had re-installed fluorescent and not LED lighting. Again, I was told the council wanted to, but the Cost-Benefit-Analysis did not make cost-effective. The fact they are using such a crude measure as CBA, indicates they are serious about reducing their carbon emissions. If they were serious, they would be employing such principles such as Life-Cycle-analysis, Using LED lighting instead of florescent, does not just use less power (3-6 Watts compared to 25 Watts). It also removes the toxic heavy metal, mercury from the equation, safeguarding employees, public and the environment. By using LED lighting, you are using less materials, as you do not need a starter or ballast, which are required by florescent lighting. LED lighting may be more expensive initially but overall, it is far cheaper and greener. And of course, buying in bulk, the council could have received a sizeable discount. Once again, the council showing they are ‘laggards’ not ‘early adopters’, or even better ‘pioneers’.

  3. Pingback: Fiddling the numbers #CO2 emissions |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s