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
4.17 Voltage optimizers will be installed in 4 buildings (subject to financial approvals), following preparatory work last year; these will save 234 tonnes CO 2 and £36k.
What was said last year (direct quote from 2012/13 plan) “A shortlist of 5/6 new locations for voltage optimizers will be
selected and delivered this year (emphasis added) from ten potential sites identified. From the ten, total potential savings of around 682 tonnes of CO2 could be achieved, requiring upfront investment of approximately £600,000.”
So, first thing to say is, they made bold promises in 2012-3 that they would save some proportion of “682 tonnes”. And they didn’t do it. And they didn’t explain why (presumably ConDem cuts, but at least SAY that, eh?). And they were not scrutinised on their failure. So, make of this latest “promise,” which is “subject to financial approvals,” what you will. What should be an 8/10 likelihood is surely no more than 2/10.
What would a proper three year plan around this item look like? They’d name their top twenty buildings that could do with voltage optimisation. They’d start DOING THEM. 10 this year, 5 next year, 5 the year after. No waffle, no weasel, just wattage, eh watt?*
How can culture be shifted around this item? I personally have no idea.
What else should the Council be doing around this item?
Other info n/a
Phone numbers and emails of the organisations n/a
* Yes yes, I have a hazy understanding of the difference between voltage and wattage. I’m just trying to amp up the tabloid-ese. I hope I don’t encounter ohmighty resistance to this…