Environmental Issue

Let’s just run with the hypothesis that human carbon emissions are causing catastrophic climate change for a moment, OK? We’d have to overlook prior evidence of variable quality of collected data, graphsmanship, alarmism, refusal to publish data, errors in methodology and of course the inconvenient absence of rising temperatures. But we’ll just let all that slide.

Over at Aurea Mediocritas, local green blogger TonyD lists the per-household carbon emissions for different post codes in Bristol based on an unknown algorithm from Credit Reporting Agency Experian, publicised via their Future Foundation brand.

The latest Climate Conference has introduced the concept of a “2ºC Guardrail” which you will hear repeated in government announcements such as this one from Number 10, in which G8 leaders promised to “cap global temperature rises by two degrees Celsius and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050” – approximately 35 years after they all retire. Amusingly, this press release is accompanied by a picture of Gordon Brown with the Indian Prime Minister, who represents a state that is not part of the G8 and has, along with China, indicated that they will not sabotage their economic growth at the behest of Western environmentalists.

Again, let’s just run with the presumption that a two degree rise will occur without reductions in carbon emissions. Today, assuming there are 2.36 people per household, the five lowest per capita carbon emitting postal districts in Bristol are:

I’m not sure if the zero in a Postal Code implies industrial use, so we’ll take Withywood as an unambiguous example of a residential area. To achieve an 80% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050 globally then as the genuinely poor in the developing world become wealthy, the UK population must reduce their per–capita emissions to about 2 tonnes per annum.

The data from Experian are almost certainly derived from household income, the estimation and independent reporting of which are Experian’s primary product. Thus even in the the “poorest” area of Bristol, the implication of meeting the 80% by 2050 target is a reduction of 5.1 tonnes of C02 per person. But what does that mean? How do you conceptualise the implications of that sort of change?

Well, the average domestic household electricity consumption in Bristol is around 4.6 MWh, or about 2 MWh per capita. Using the tables provided by charity “The National Energy Foundation” – which earns its income from selling software and service relating to pointless Home Information Packs – this is equivalent to 0.86 tonnes of CO2.

So that’s your first saving – don’t use any electricity at home. Remember we’re looking for an overall saving of 5.1 tonnes, so we need another 4.24 tonnes saving. Let’s say you drive a reasonably efficient car and get 40 miles to the gallon and you drive 10,000 miles a year. That’s a total of 250 gallons of petrol, or 946 litres, the use of which emits perhaps 2.2 tonnes of CO2.

Ok, so no electricity at home and no driving. You’ve saved 3 tonnes of CO2. Another 2.1 to go. If you fly to Malaga once a year for a bit of sun, then staying at home instead and doing a crossword (no electricity or driving please) will save you about 0.4 tonnes.

You might be thinking this sounds a bit austere, but good news: according to reliable sources (some guy on the Internet) switching to a Vegan diet can save 2 tonnes of CO2 a year. Furthermore you’ll still get over 3000 calories a day from vegetables and tofu and Kerry McCarthy MP will be your new best friend.

This actually brings us down below the 2 tonnes target, so you can keep your flight to Malaga after all – as long as you walk to the airport - and your final per capita CO2 emissions will be almost exactly 2 tonnes. You could fly to Spain with Kerry and eat vegan paella; wouldn’t that be nice?

So – no meat, no dairy, no driving, no domestic electricity and you should be able to get down to 2 tonnes of C02 per year. As long as everyone else in the world does the same, then we’re all fine.

If that doesn’t float your boat, and you buy into climate alarmism, then your other option is population reduction. Any more volunteers?

The Bristol blogosphere anticipates that a number of difficult questions will be asked in Public Forum at the next meeting of the City Cabinet, relating to the sale of council land for development. (See "Red Trousers Gate " for more).

But there a few other things on the agenda that merit a watchful eye.

(Item 5.) Officers will be providing an "Update on the Direction and Progress of Council actions to reduce Carbon Emissions and Fuel Poverty in Bristol’s housing" for endorsement.

A newcomer to the wonderful world of energy politics would argue that you can't do both at the same time - to reduce "fuel poverty" you must make energy less expensive but to reduce carbon emissions you must make energy more expensive. But of course you're forgetting about the subsidies, grants and other measures by which one can rob Peter to pay Paul.

On the plus side, the second recomendation of this report is

[t]hat £120,000 be made available from Housing Revenue account balances during 2008/2009 to pilot the use of Air Source Heat Pumps at 24 Council homes currently heated with electrical heating systems.

This could actually be a good idea. Unlike many other forms of alternative energy such as windmills, heat pumps are potentially quite a sensible way of heating an enclosed space. In fact they're not really very alternative at all.

(Item 6.) The City's Executive body will be asked to endorse the work of the now mercifully defunct Climate Change Select Committee. The specific proposal:

The Cabinet welcomes the Climate Change Select Committee's report and thanks members for the time and focus they put into their investigation and recommendations. We are pleased that the Committee endorsed the work already being undertaken across the Council and provided constructive recommendations about how we move forward.

or, paraphrasing, "The economy is stuffed and we're up to our necks in the brown stuff, so please go away and stop bothering us."

(Item 7.) Lake Wobegon's Cabinet will also be agreeing to proposals that may lead to all our children being above average, by virtue of giving slightly short of £100 million to educational consultants. The title is "Improving Outcomes for Children through a Commissioning-led Approach (Excellence for All)"

In the accompanying press release the senior officer in charge, Heather Tomlinson says:

"The modern role of councils is to be a strategic commissioner of services, more than a direct provider of services. This allows us to secure flexible, adaptable services to meet changing needs. Standards are rising in Bristol schools, but the support needed to accelerate improvement is highly complex. By seeking an external partner - with a proven track record of raising attainment elsewhere in the UK - we will be able to be more responsive to each individual school's needs."

Sounds plausible - get councils out of the business of running education and let them just handle the bureaucratic process of moving money between parents (taxpayers) and schools. But:

The revised scope indicates that 467 staff, 315 full time equivalents, will transfer to the new Partner Organisation in accordance with the TUPE Regulations. The contractor will be required to comply with the Code of Practice on Workforce Matters throughout the length of the contract.

So it will be the same people doing the job? The ones who've put Bristol at the bottom of the league table for schools performance?

New senior management arrangements were established at Chief Officer level in the Council in September, and a second tier structure published for consultation in November. The strategic partner will source one of the four proposed 2nd tier posts within the CYPS structure. This will ensure that the strategic partner organisation is fully integrated into the management of all children’s services.

So this new bunch of consultants are going to be integrated into the existing, failing management team?

Cabinet noted that the Council would remain in full control of these arrangements through a tightly specified contract and commissioning arrangements. The partner organisation would be managed within a partnering arrangement, and would provide services in addition to ‘traditional’ school improvement functions.

And it'll still be under "tightly specified" control by the politicians?

And what are we actually getting for our £15 million a year? Looking back at the Cabinet report from June of 2008 which kicked this process off, it's a "Schools Improvement Service". But what is that?

• Provide services in addition to 'traditional' school improvement.
• Provide additional people and expertise of a noted reputation from elsewhere, to refresh parts of the Bristol Schools system.
• To enable some Bristol Schools better to understand the needs of their consumers, existing and prospective, in order for all schools better to improve and market their offer; thus improving parental confidence.
• To work assiduously and interactively with other providers of other services, e.g. SEN, EPs, Attendance Services, et al.
• Massively to improve the collection, use and distribution of easy-to-use access data.

Drawing a veil for a moment over the question of how one tells whether someone is working assiduously, isn't that list more or less the fundamental business of running a Local Education Authority? You know, like what a reasonable proportion of this lot are supposed to be doing:

Ignore the smoke and mirrors for a moment, and you can find out what this is really about:

In order to achieve sustainably higher school standards, Bristol schools need to attract a genuinely comprehensive intake. It is therefore crucial to restore confidence in Bristol schools among farrrilies who currently choose to migrate, either to the independent sector or to state schools outside Bristol. The status quo is socially inequitable and divisive. Many Bristol families are disadvantaged socially and educationally compared with families who are able to choose to migrate from Bristol schools or who live in areas of the country where school standards are generally higher. It is vital that any new arrangements provide a credible solution to this challenge.

Yes, parents of Bristol: it is your duty to sacrifice your children to the public sector in service of the greater good. Watch out for the marketing, as a good chunk of that £15 million per annum will be going on "branding and franchising to improve parental confidence in schools."

(Item 8.) The Residents' Parking Scheme Pilot for Clifton and Hotwells. More here.

(Item 9.) Moving the deckchairs on the Titanic. Everyone's a director now! Huzzah!

(Item 10.) The Revenue Budget and (Item 11.) The Capital Programme

More to follow on these, but very quickly there is no surprise to find out that the Museum of Bristol is still well short of the £2 million it had planned to raise from charitable sources, and the team still haven't worked out what to do about the reduction in "Renaissance in the Regions" funding - a programme paid for by the Museums, Libraries and Archive Council - which was never guaranteed for the new Museum.

(Item 12.) The council propose to give £649,000 to a housing association so that they can buy some pre-fabs off plan from a developer. This is known as "New Affordable Homes for Bristol".

The Prefab Redevelopment Project, providing approximately 1100 new homes across the city is experiencing some significant problems due to the current housing market. The developer has confirmed they will suspend building further homes as they are unable to sell all those already built. This causes cash flow problems preventing the building of the remainder of the Council's homes.

I suspect it would be easier and cheaper to suspend the purchase or build of any more houses until the housing market drops for another year, which will provide more affordable homes than subsidising a few pre-fabs now. This would mean some council tenants staying in rented accomodation for another couple of years though.

(Item 13.) Project Sisyphus. (The Supporting People Strategy).

Supporting People (SP) services play a critical role in turning around the lives of many individuals and families, enabling vulnerable people to achieve and maintain independence, stay safe and healthy and to contribute positively to society within their communities. The Supporting People programme focuses on housing related support and aims to enable social inclusion and prevent social exclusion. As such, the programme contributes to the delivery of the Bristol Partnership's shared Vision and Aims for the city (set out in the Sustainable Community Strategy interim statement) and to the Council's Corporate Plan.

An enormous hotchpotch of do-goodery and interventions. The intentions are always good; the outcomes not so much. Make your own judgement about these sample activities:

• Supported temporary accommodation is provided for up to 1439 households, who would otherwise be homeless. The current cost of housing-related support to these households is £10.7m [£7,400 per household per year]
• 2064 vulnerable households were provided with short-term floating support in order to maintain their tenancies and prevent homelessness, at current cost of £6.5m [Average of £3,150 per household per year]
• 75 long-term services, ranging from community alarms for older people to 24 hour supported housing schemes for people with learning difficulties, are funded providing support for up to 5452 vulnerable households at an annual cost of £8.5m. [no idea what this lot is all about]

(Item 14.) Pre-Fab Sprout

A Compulsory Purchase Order for five privately owned pre-fabs in Horfield.

(Item 15.) Private Housing Enforcement Policy

The Private Housing Service’s functions include: Licensing of houses in multiple occupation, empty properties, enforcement of the housing health and safety rating system (which replaced the fitness standard), overcrowding, public health matters, some local environmental quality issues and Antisocial behaviour associated with privately rented accommodation.

(Item 16.) New toys for the IT Department.

That Cabinet approve the establishment of a second data centre (computer server room) in the Council House, lower ground floor, financed from the ICT replacement reserve and energy savings.

This bit is a classic:

A new data centre (server room) is needed to replace the computer room in the Council House attic (CRITA). The cooling plant in CRITA is unreliable and has caused service failure and the attic floor is not strong enough to allow additional servers to be housed there. The attic data centre was set up 10 years ago, as a temporary measure during office moves in the Council House.

The ICT bods announce that the council have gone Open Source and adopted Star Office about once every three years (in fact they're due for another announcement now.) They still keep buying Microsoft licenses though. Perhaps it's time to think about turning the whole infrastructure inside out? I wonder if Google can offer a quote for file and mail storage for about 9,000 people.

Tender evaluation of the bids has produced a clear winner. This was the bid that incorporated cooling with Council House moat water in the most energy efficient design. The tender information is being validated with further information from the bidder, a site visit and technical interview.

I wonder how they'll deal with the high urine content on a Friday and Saturday nights?

Keep an eye out for the Public Forum documents...

Update: Here's the Public Forum business.