Annual Plan Tuesday: “Asset Rationalisation” – #Manchester #climate #toptrumps

In 2012 Manchester City Council aimed for a 10% reduction in its own emissions. In July 2013 it claimed a 7% reduction. It was able to do this because responsibility for traffic lights moved from its books. Looking at everything else (buildings, transport) emissions went … UP by 1.8%.
So, building on that extremely strong base, the Council’s bureaucrats have proposed a series of actions to help them hit a new “7%” target. You can see the complete list here. Manchester Climate Monthly is going to take a closer look at each and every one of these 44 “actions.”

Twice a week, on “Annual Plan Tuesdays” and “Annual Plan Thursdays” we will be asking a few straightforward questions about each item. And to illustrate each post, we (Marc Hudson and Marc Roberts) are devising “Top Trump” cards for all of these actions. At two a week it will take you until December or so to collect the whole set… So far can’t give you a percentage on the 2005 figure, since the Council has been going off its 2009/10 baseline, in direct contradiction of its own plan.

And throughout all of this, we are asking YOU, the reader, and council tax payer (probably), what YOU think the Council should REALLY be doing… Because next year the council moves to a “three year plan.” And given what we already know of the low quality of the carbon plans and their implementation so far, we, the citizens, will be complicit if we remain silent…
What it says

“Asset rationalisation is estimated to contribute savings of 1,810 tonnes CO 2 and £365k of energy and CRC costs in-year (equivalent to full year savings of 3,621 tonnes CO 2 and £730k of energy and CRC costs).”

What was said last year (direct quote from 2012/13 plan “The Council saved 213 tonnes of CO2 in energy consumption costs through
reducing the number of buildings in its operational portfolio in 2011/12. As many closures occurred towards the end of the financial year, full-year annual savings going forward for these rationalised buildings will be significantly higher, equating to 1,089 tonnes of CO2.”

MCFly’s verdict (Is it ambitious enough, is it likely to happen, is this meaningless gibberish/stuff that they were already doing designed to pad out a thin plan, what questions about this “action” are yet to be answered etc etc)

This will, presumably, be one of the ways the Council intends to hit its 2020 target – be so much smaller that its emissions will have inevitably gone down.  This, of course, will not help the city as a whole. To do that you would need other organisations also signing up to the Climate Change Action Plan, and the ones that have already signed up producing their own Implementation Plans, and doing a better job of turning those plans into reality than the Council has so far.  None of this seems at all likely.  Grab your ankles and kiss your arse goodbye…

What would a proper three year plan around this item look like? Any takers?

How can culture be shifted around this item? I personally have no idea.

What else should the Council be doing around this item?Telling everyone exactly what it owns and what it intends to dispose of

Other info n/a

Phone numbers and emails of the organisations n/a

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. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Annual Plan Tuesday: “Asset Rationalisation” – #Manchester #climate #toptrumps

  1. Instead of closing facilities which are are badly needed and claiming they have reduced carbon emissions. They need to look at where they are wasting energy, which glaringly obvious to any one with common sense. For example, lighting which is left on, switch them off when a not in use. Also change lights to LEDs, just as the Highways Agency have been doing.

  2. Assuming that the council will get these buildings of their books (no matter what we think about it) they are contributing to increased emissions if they don’t ensure that the buyer/recipient will use the buildings less energy intensively than the council have done. To avoid this the sales need to be covered by something (a convenant?) to ensure that subsequent use of the building is done as energy efficiently as is technically possible.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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