Is the aim of WBC to have Wokingham Borough be net zero in 2030 or carbon neutral in 2030? I am asking because I saw in a scrutiny committee document reference to carbon neutral.
Minutes:
Is the aim of WBC to have Wokingham Borough be net zero in 2030 or carbon neutral in 2030? I am asking because I saw in a scrutiny committee document reference to carbon neutral.
Answer
In the current Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP), the term ‘net-zero’ (with a hyphen) is mentioned once, ‘net zero’ (without a hyphen) is mentioned 36 times, ‘carbon neutral’ is mentioned 14 times and ‘carbon neutrality’ is mentioned 9 times.There is a danger that the terms are used interchangeably, when they should not be and I am sure the officers will now examine the CEAP to ensure the use of the term ‘net-zero’ in the CEAP is appropriate to those parts of the CEAP where it is used.
Other papers prepared for scrutiny committee meetings are often prepared by subject specialists rather than by climate emergency specialists, so it is possible that in this process an inappropriate mention of ‘net-zero’ has crept in.
As with the CEAP as whole, it may well be that net-zero is appropriate for some areas of the plan but carbon neutrality is appropriate for other areas.
Having said that, I am sure the officers and Executive Member would prefer net-zero, but simply recognise that even achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 is not going to happen without a step change in financial and legislative support for local authorities from central government.
It is also worth mentioning that the original goal 2030 was ridiculously ambitious and set for political messaging purposes rather than planning purposes.
Thank you for drawing this to our attention – we will draw it the attention of the officers and the Executive Member.
Supplementary Question
I’m sure you will agree that providing intentionally or unintentionally misleading information reduces the credibility of that information and also the group publishing it.
The difference between net zero and carbon neutral, as an example, is taught to Geography students in school and any students would know that stating net zero for 2030 is unrealistic and unachievable. It should immediately in their minds bring doubt about the plans.
There are housing developers, even in Wokingham borough, using “sustainable development” as a description of their developments in order to sell them, probably for more money. An EV charger on the front of a house does not make it sustainable, nor the odd bug box scattered about. A house with solar panels is not carbon neutral let alone net zero or sustainable. A sapling planted now will not capture significant carbon for 20 years (if it even survives).
It’s important that WBC get their message right and that these very emotive terms are used correctly, especially where others play fast and loose with these terms.
Can you explain what controls are in place and what scrutiny is made of policy, documents and newsletters to ensure they are accurate, that they are not misleading, that they are even achievable, and that the correct terminology is used to ensure everyone is on the same page with regards to the aims of the climate emergency committee. If you believe that the oversight and scrutiny is not responsible for this, then who should be?
Supplementary Answer
I agree entirely with the statements made in your first paragraph.
As I said in my answer to your question, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee does not own, and is not responsible for, the Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP). Nor does the Committee have any executive powers. The Committee can and does make recommendations for improvement.
The aim of the Committee is to scrutinise the CEAP and in doing so, make the CEAP a more robust plan, and that includes the correct use of the terminology. The Committee ensures the Plan is credible by scrutinising the actions contained in it to assess if the actions are deliverable and if the actions described will generate the carbon savings described.
In relation to your suggestion about a vocabulary check I understand that, after July’s Overview and Scrutiny meeting, officers did carry out a check on the CEAP. The CEAP fourth progress report, to be published after Council approval in September 2023, will properly refer to carbon neutrality and net zero. We cannot simply delete all reference to net zero as some actions, particularly around Planning do need to refer to net zero/zero carbon, to be aligned with current regulations. But officers have done a vocabulary check to ensure we have properly referenced carbon neutrality in the CEAP. When instances of incorrect use of the terms (e.g. on our website) occur, officers will aim to correct this. Having said all that, the CEAP itself makes clear that even carbon neutrality by 2030 is not going to happen, so whether or not an inadvertent use of “net zero” remains lurking in some document somewhere is somewhat beside the point. However, I do believe that officers and the Executive Member have taken on your point and will be even more careful about the use of the terms in future.
Once we are on a solid journey to carbon neutrality, then I would be more minded to start worrying about the difference between net zero and carbon neutrality, but I would want to do this as part of a plan that aspired to net zero rather than one that just aspired to carbon neutrality.
In the meantime, I know that the Council’s Climate Emergency team works closely with all departments, including the communications team, to ensure that official documents and communications are aligned with, or make references to, the Council’s 2030 goal. This is part of the Council’s ongoing work to ensure Climate Emergency is embedded at every level across the organisation. This is the only way to achieve carbon neutrality. There is still a long way to go to ensure this is done properly and the Climate Emergency team is consulted on all decisions that affect the Council’s journey to carbon neutrality. This is why the work of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is key to ensure that not only the CEAP, but all the Council’s work, is properly scrutinised and where appropriate challenged, so that decisions are taken with the Council’s 2030 goal in mind.