Another Talking Shop Bites the Dust?

And so the organisation formerly known as the North West Regional Assembly - '4NW' - has been read its last rites by the Coalition, and will grace the headlines no more. Which is sort of the point isnt it? It didnt grace the headlines and so you might be forgiven for thinking that its demise was a welcome part of the bonfire of the quangos.

The evidence for the prosecution would include the fact that we the tax-payer funded the organisation to little effect. But it's when you put it in the context of the governace of the North West that things get a little more equiviocal. Once the idea of a devolved region was scuppered (by the disastrous referendum on that subject for the North East), 4NW ended up as a secretariat for the NW Leaders Council - pretty much the only place where all the leaders of the local councils of the region got together. Again - so what?

The most powerful public body in the NW is the North West Development Agency - which as well as giving out many hundreds of millions in grants, is also the distributing agency for a pretty huge wad of EU money too. The NWDA also authored the Regional Economic Strategy which guides its investment decisions. It answers to a Board made up of a mixture Council and business leaders with a few other worthies thrown in but it is not democratically accountable. The Chair of that Board is pretty influential. The previous incumbent of that post, Brian Gray, was the former head honcho of Baxi the heating people, and the new one is Robert Hough. He used to be Deputy Chair of the massive Peel Holdings (think Trafford Centre, Salford Quays/Media City and all the land along the Ship Canal) and his NWDA predecessor went straight from that post to chair the Peel company that runs Media City - Peel Media. Can you see a name that is starting to pop up here a bit? Peel will also benefit massively from a huge NWDA project around the 'Mersey Gateway', and over a £100M of public money went into Media City.

So - on one side an unelected Board running a very powerful public body from which - rightly or wrongly - Peel Holdings benefits considerably. On the other - the democratically constituted 4NW who, up until the recent announcement, were for the first time co-authoring the next regional economic policy. The Chair of the Leaders Board, one Sir Richard Leese, has made it plain that they won't go without a fight. It should also be noted that the reclusive boss of Peel Holdings is a prominent Conservative.

Speaking of Sir Richard brings us to the other way that the wings of the NWDA are currently being clipped - by the creation of Greater Manchester as a 'City Region.' This brings considerable devolved powers and possibly control of funds from both Whitehall and the NWDA. The city region is governed by another council of leaders - this time the council leaders of the ten districts that make up the former county of Greater Manchester. All laudably accountable.

The Coaltion has made the decentralising of powers from Whitehall a central plank of its vision, and the word on the street is that they quite like the City Region concept. The policy nugget that could radicalise this picture is the Coalition's promise to allow referendums [or, for the benefit of pedants 'referenda'] on whether the country's ten biggest cities should have elected mayors. A Manc Boris anyone? It is by no means clear whether such a move would apply to the city of Manchester or the city region - but one could well imagine the concept being popular. A boost to public interest in local government would certainly be welcome... it is the list of ambitious former celebrities eying up a big chair in the Town Hall that scares this correspondent, as would any link between such an incumbent and, er, prominent NW business interests. Whatever happens - it's not going to be dull.

And the relevance of all this to the teeming throng of McFly readers is this... The NWDA, as well as being unaccountable, is all about Gross Value Added (that's pure business growth to you and me) whatever bells and whistles they put on it. Whilst this also features very large amongst the policy drivers of Sir Richard and his elected colleagues, we can be confident that it is tempered by real notions of social justice and, increasingly, sustainable development. Watch this space..

Manchester City Council's first post-election meeting

For anyone who has been observing Manchester City Council's slow slide back into 'business as usual' on climate change, it will come as no surprise that there was no mention of the subject in today's full Council meeting. The job of raising the issue of this most threatening of problems was left to Manchester Climate Action, who greeted the returning – and new – councillors with a larger-than-life inflatable elephant wearing a banner reading: "Manchester Airport – the Elephant in the Room." An amplified recording of the noise of planes taking off ensured that the windows of the Council Chamber were firmly closed.

As the first Council meeting after both local and general elections, there were Council formalities to be attended to – including the election of the new Lord Mayor and the confirmation of Leader of the Council Richard Leese back into post (despite an unusual challenge from the Liberal Democrat opposition).
Cllr Mark Hackett's acceptance speech as mayor included nostalgic references to the suffragettes and Chartists and to his own days protesting against the Vietnam War and supporting striking miners in 1964. Sadly, this radicalism wasn't replicated in his planned focus for his Lord Mayoral year. Although he did apparently consider championing the natural environment, he's actually plumped for upping the profile of volunteering, especially in sports clubs and teams. Nice, but not very earth-shaking – or -saving.
The new Executive Member for the Environment was confirmed – as per rumours - as Councillor Nigel Murphy. He will, according to the new web page listing the new Executive,

"Lead on:
* Transport Policy (including highways & parking)
* Green issues (including waste strategy & waste collection)
* Planning
* Licensing Policy"

So, no mention of climate change there either, which is mildly worrying, unless it's been given to someone else... in which case, who? Councillor N. (there are 3 other Murphys on MCC) Murphy's Assistant Executive Member is Fallowfield's David Royle.
The other nine executive members, and their responsibilities, are listed here. The other main appointment likely to be relevant to day-to-day environmental activities in the chair of the Communities & Neighbourhood committee, which remains with Cllr John Flanagan.

MCFly 46- "Aerial Dogfight"

Council Leader Sir Richard Leese has refused to rule out a third runway at Manchester Airport. Green Party activists wrote an open letter (see MCFly 44) that included a specific question: "When the current agreement not to construct a new runway expires will the Council be applying for planning permission to build a third runway?" In his Friday April 9 reply, Leese wrote "the Manchester Airport Master Plan sets out plans for the airport business developing over a 25-year period to 2030. This plan makes it clear that the second runway will be adequate to meet the forecast demand to 2030. The figures you refer to are from the Committee on Climate Change and were based on modelling conducted by a consultancy working on behalf of the CCC. It was not a prediction. It looked at range of scenarios for emissions and was not an official forecast of demand or based on any airport specific plan."

MCFly hired linguistics experts from Chomsky Associates to examine this text. They state that the word 'yes' or 'no' is nowhere to be found.

Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats manifesto (see story at foot of page 1) states that Labour "took 18 months to come up with a strategy, and then let down the City by excluding aviation and Manchester Airport, owned by the Council, from the Climate Change Action Plan. Some 85% of the Airport’s CO2 emissions come from flights. The Airport cannot be given a free pass." That's the extent of their comment, with nothing concrete about ruling out a third runway, or about freezing expansion at the airport.

The Greens, who won't be running Manchester anytime soon, have "No expansion of the Airport" on their policy page. Marie Raynor, Chairman of Wythenshawe & Sale East Conservatives wrote last year "any further expansion of the Airport is, in our view, unwarranted, given its current size." [see correction at foot of this entry]. At time of going to press, it's unclear if this represents her view, or if official Manchester Conservative policy is to call for a freeze on Airport expansion. MCFly will pursue the story.

The open letter, the response and MCFly's analysis can be seen at www.manchesterclimatefortnightly.info/airportletter.html

The MCFly Says: Richard Leese believes "air travel is a vital part of people’s lives and crucial to becoming a truly competitive world city." This world city guff is inspired by American urban theorist Richard Florida (see his book "Cities and the Creative Class.") But climate change is going to come at us. Chunks of Florida- both the ideology and the place - are going to be flattened by hurricanes and underwater in a decade or three. Building hostages to fortune now, as oil peaks, is myopic. Our children will curse us.

CORRECTION: In the print version of MCFly 46, we wrongly attributed the Conservative's quote to Janet Clowes,the Conservative candidate for the parliamentary seat of Wythenshawe and Sale East. Thanks to the diligent reader who pointed this out.

MCFly interview: Sharland on Copenhagen

Hi all,

well, Copenhagen is done and dusted (at last). You can see various updates and analysis at www.climateslamdown.wordpress.com I'd particularly recommend MCFly cartoonist Marc Roberts' "The Great Climate Let-Down" He posts regularly also at www.throbgoblins.blogspot.com

Richard Sharland, the City Council's head of Environmental Strategy attended a portion of the Copenhagen talks, alongside Council Leader Richard Leese. MCFly sent him a few email questions, and he kindly replied. Here goes:

What were you hoping for from your time at Copenhagen?
I was hoping to see ideas, plans and challenges shared by cities around the world and for us, Manchester, to play a truly tiny part in an event that would swing the complex supertanker of global human society onto a more positive course for the future. The first of these hopes was fulfilled, exceeded even: the second was not, the supertanker has altered course slightly, but only.

What happened: Is there anything that you didn't get that you wanted to get?
Yes, we didn't get that inter-governmental result and that is seriously disappointing.

Did you get anything you weren't expecting. (the serendipity question)
Yes, I did get something I wasn't really expecting: to meet personally so many leaders of cities who were wholly committed to tackling this agenda substantially, who were keen to exchange ideas and information, who understood the need for mitigation, adaptation and opportunity and who are committed to action and cultural change regardless of what did or did not happen at COP15. And there was something else: none of the cities we encountered have written a stakeholder plan like we have, and it aroused a fair bit of interest!

Do you think the "nation-state" outcome, such as it is, makes the work of cities like Manchester easier or harder?
The lack of a real outcome at COP15 makes our job undoubtedly harder, but we live in a country that has legislated for climate change and legislated boldly. The lack of a real outcome will make it much much harder for many in cities elsewhere in the world.

In some ways, Copenhagen has been a great disappointment, a grey cloud, rather than the beginning of a bright future: but every cloud has a silver lining and the positive drive and teamwork of the leaders of cities should be celebrated and supported as a great force for change. They will al have been inspired by each other and each others support and will be stronger as a result......and so, for those of us old enough to remember the song it is "Hi Ho, Silver Lining" now.

And Manchester will be bidding to host COP18, right?
COP18 is a way away........I am thinking this: when we are a year or two further down the track and Manchester - A Certain Future is accompanied by the sign-up of a raft of Manchester organisations large and small and we have some Delivery Plans with detailed targets and costs and time-lines in place, we will be in a strong position to consider what kind of global conference we'd like to host.

Richard Leese at the GMex

Richard Leese, Leader of Manchester City Council, was at the Copenhagen Rally to launch Manchester's Climate Action Plan “Manchester. A Certain Future.” As well as telling Ed Miliband, Minister for the Department of Energy and Climate Change that we need a deal at Copenhagen, he was keen to talk about the commitment Manchester City Council was making to deal with climate change. The 41% C02 reduction target by 2020 was reiterated as well as the belief that Manchester needs to move towards low carbon for the health of the economy and not to the detriment of it.

Leese was also open about the fact that the council still has no idea how they are going to meet those targets, or where they were going to get money to finance their actions but insisted that they were committed to finding the resources and meeting their ambitious targets. Whilst the council leader highlighted behavioural change as the biggest aim of the plan, he maintained that the Climate Change Plan must demonstrate that tackling climate change will not lower people's quality of life but improve it. MCC's climate change plan was hailed as the 'fantastic' outcome of a collective effort but as we all know delivering and implementing the plan is real measure of its success.

The beginning of the end?

Ed Miliband, your government's climate change top bod, couldn't resist the Churchill allusion. Asked by the chair of tonight's huge public meeting for an inspirational summing up about Copenhagen (which happens to be the subject of a pretty cool cartoon by Marc Roberts), he reached for the “it's not the end, it's not even the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning" line. And, through more gritted teeth (note to subs: do flies have teeth?) MCFly says he might be right...

The meeting took place at GMEx (or “Mancheste Central” for anyone not up with the very latest rebrand). It was confirmed less than two weeks ago, so a turnout of 5 to 600 or so (the biggest ever event on climate change in Manchester?) is a pretty good effort.
After useful “fluffing” by the ubiquitous Phil Korbel, we had the main event. Joining Ed “I like MCFly” Miliband were Mike Childs (campaigns lead for Friends of the Earth), Len Wardle of Co-op and Richard Leese, Council Leader and frequent target of MCFly snarks and questions. It was chaired by John Harris of the Guardian, who has been Ed's shadow of late.

Of especial interest to MCFly readers will be Richard Leese's launch of the “Manchester. A Certain Future” action plan. He started by telling his Labour Party colleague Ed “don't come back without a deal”.
He then said what he's said before, but bears repeating: The writing of the Action Plan (which is for the City, not just the Council) was a collective effort. It's been endorsed by the City Council, and the hope is by a lot more organisations and bodies in the coming year. (Most of the Council's greenatariat were in the audience) Behaviour change is vital, above and beyond the ambitious 41% target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. But There'll be a separate blog post about this by MCFly's other editor, so, onwards to the “main event” (not to disparage the FOE and Co-op, who will be dealt with in a later blog post!).

Miliband was usefully brief, as usual. He looked at why the Copenhagen deal was needed. The science was indeed urgent (he'd been got to by Professor Kevin Anderson before the meeting), but also the world focussed in a way it had never been before. This he credited to the campaigners in the global movement. His fear had been that Copenhagen would pass without notice, but not any more. We were, he said, not where we need to be, and may not be by the end of the conference, but we would be closer.
He agreed with Mike Childs on the need for “maximum ambition” and laid out the government's 34% by 2020, 40% as part of a high ambition deal (NB this is not about embedded carbon; the UK has exported its emissions, as Dieter Helm makes clear in his Tanner lecture)
He puffed Gordon Brown as the guy who first put numbers on adaptation funding.
He emphasised that Copenhagen was not the end, or even the beginning of the end, and that what we've learned from other movements is the need to carry on. We need to “realise it's a long hard road and the people have to keep on it” (Chomsky, btw, says ditto. In the West people ask him what to do, expecting a magic bullet. In the rest of the world, they tell him all the things they're doing.)

The question and answer session was, even to this hardened activist, a little drawn out, and predictably threw up more heat than light. Not the chair's fault, or the panellists (mostly), but perhaps a lack of imagination in the questions, many of which could have been dealt with via a google search or visit to various government websites. That said, questions on engagement are always worth asking...

To this Q and A MCFly will return- our OCD was such that we took copious notes, but it's late and some of us have day jobs to go to, so time to triage.. Suffice to say Ed and Richard, politicians both, were scrupulous in answering all questions put to them (so people like us can't accuse 'em of ducking!) Leese was careful to say -in response to a pre-meeting snark- that there will be lots of opportunities for dialogue and discussion in the coming years. Can't wait...


Props to:
Manchester Friends of the Earth and also the Department of Energy and Climate Change for putting it on in short time frame.
Ed Miliband for not talking out the clock and calling it like he sees it, and doing less ducking and weaving than you'd expect
More than half a thousand or so Mancunians for coming out and sitting still for a loooong meeting of middle-aged middle-class white men (this is not how a social movement should look, says one middle-aged middle-class white male)

Maybe next time we could have the chair encourage people to talk to the person behind them for a bit (it works, even in a tiered lecture theatre) to create some weak ties. Maybe even name badges? It all helps with the coercive mingling that should be a sine qua non of these events, and might even move things towards the elusive “two thumbs up” rating. Much else to say, some of it worth reading, but a Climate Slamdown day summary has yet to be written, and proof-read...

From words to action (plans)

This is a LONG blog post, so here is the take home: Manchester City Council hosted a surprisingly “open” meeting that seems to have generated a lot of good ideas (more on that later!) and left people with a sense of where this process is headed, and why. But talk is cheap, and delivery is everything, as the Council itself acknowledged. So, time will tell if we look back on this conference as more waffle or the first step on the road to sanity and survival.

After coffee and schmoozing, the “Three Richards” kicked the day off
Richard Cowell, Executive Member for the Environment (the local Ed Miliband, sort of) was pleased at the great turnout, a sign that people were committed to “forward looking" and living and working in a prosperous low carbon city.

He thanked the Environmental Advisory Panel, the members of the writing groups (over 100 people involved) and he thanked the Green City team and other Council officers for their hard work. He also specifically mentioned that he was inspired by the Call to Real Action, (he brandished a copy) not just for its ambition, but also in its way of working (and we know how vulnerable that lot are to the old "de-fanging through praise" tactic).

He pointed out that the Action Plan was a plan for Manchester, not just the Council, and that Manchester was a city that other towns and cities looked to for a lead. He wanted people to leave from today's Conference feeling that they were part of a process, inspired and ready to work in 2010 towards 2020 and beyond

Richard Leese, leader of the Council and blogger extraordinaire, followed him and started with a reference to the Greenpeace protesters on the roof of Parliament (who knows where some of us who were in the hall today might be this time next year, Richard, if that's what's needed...). He said it was important so many people were in the room to help the process along, but that there was a lot of work to do on behaviour change more broadly. He highlighted the importance of the next few years for 2020 but also 2050 and beyond. He pointed out that by 2050 he wouldn't be leading the council (you never know...) but that the next 10 years were vital for our long term future.

Climate change was, he said, a challenge and an opportunity, and that thinking and acting on opportunities like this "made Manchester what it is and what it will be." Low carbon living would have to become “embedded, routine, automatic”, the city would have to generate and use low carbon energy. By 2020 all new buildings would be carbon neutral, with some carbon negative.
There'd be new industries, and opportunities (that word again) to be national leaders.

He said that the Draft plan built on existing strategies and that there were four overriding themes to it.

1) Climate change would affect everyone and therefore everyone had a part ot play, as individuals, in neighbourhoods, in businesses etc.

2) Nobody (“especially the council, some would say” he added sotto voce) has all the answers. The Action Plan doesn't replace but rather assists and connects existing plans

3) The Council would have to lead by example. Manchester is the biggest Local Authority to sign up to the 10:10 campaign, which he admitted would not be easy to reach.

4) The plan was not the finished article, but would be evolving and innovating

When the Call to Action was agreed, the target was “at least a million tonnes”, and that has now become a percentage target of “41% lower than 2005 levels, which is in the region of 1.25 million tonnes.

Some of this would come from projects already happening, some from national policy, but over half the savioniswould have to come from new projects. Leese finished by saying that the price of carbon was set to challenge the price of oil as an economic barometer in the future, and that producing this first version was part of the engagement with the international process, that he would be taking a copy to Copenhagen for discussion with other leaders of the big cities.

Finally, Richard Sharland, the director of Environmental Strategy spoke. He outlined the background to the Plan, which is mostly looking at mitigation (reducing emissions), with some elements of adaptation. He re-iterated that this was an “iterative” process (i.e. That it would change through dialogue and reflection and new information coming to hand) . He (rightly) said that it was a sign of boldness and strength to admit that the plan will have to change. He was emphatic that the plan must not be a glossy document that sat on the shelf.

On “governance” he said that there would be lots more work to do in 2010, on targets, involvement and resources. He felt that the first objective- of reducing carbon emissions by a million tonnes was crucial, but so two was the second objective of creating a cultural shift towards low carbon living. That was partly why there was such a focus on cultural change and engagement.

He highlighted that as of 2013 the City will be using a “Total Carbon Footprint,” and thus including the embedded carbon (from the production of goods imported to Manchester)

He gave examples of just how challenging some of the actions in the plan would be- the cost of insulating 170,000 homes would be in the region of a billion pounds, and then invoked the spirit of Kirklees, where £1 invested results in £4 flowing back into the economy. He cited Toronto, Berlin and Melbourne as examples of big cities that have tackled this.

He said there would be an annual conference about the Action Plan, and a steering group. The conference would be a chance for annual review and continuous improvement. There would need to be endorsements by stakeholder organisations links to existing (governance) structures.

There would, obviously, need to be delivery plans for key actions, for actions already in the plan and those not yet devised.

He closed by saying the conference today was not an editing/technical run through, but a chance to discuss engagement and 'sector priorities'. How could we take this process, he asked, from the 160 people in the room to 1600, to 16,000, to 160,000. Rather a good question, actually....

Workshop One
We were all of us assigned (randomly before lunch) to tables, and asked to talk about how culture change happens and what would 'work'. Personally I am not convinced this was the best use of our limited time, but hey-ho, it's what all the tables did.
Because of some fairly (unnecessarily) lengthy introductions about what we were supposed to do, we didn't get to the real meat of the matter- what are the barriers for action, before we broke for lunch.

A word on lunch.
On the very plus side, the food was lovely and locally sourced. On the mildly minus side, we had a bit too long for schmoozing and networking (and this, from the guy trying to foist MCFlys on all and sundry!)

Questions, questions
After lunch, in the 'graveyard shift' the head of the Green City Team, Bev Taylor ran us through an interesting “quiz.” We all had little handheld devices on which to press A, B, C, D, E or F to a series of questions she posed. (She assured us that these were anonymous, but it's MCFly's sad duty to report that one participant was mercilessly coshed and dragged away by goons for giving insufficiently adulatory answers. Good luck Pat Karney, wherever you are).

I did copy down all the results (you say "OCD", I say "reflex"). The age range was thus; 14-20; 8 people, 21-35; 29, 36-50; 43, 51 to 65; 12 and over 65; 3. For a conference about the future, this is not good at all! I shan't detain y'all with too much info on this, you can find it in the technical appendix. They asked how many people thought the plan went too far versus not far enough versus just right (The goldilocks problem). Not far enoughs won with 45, versus too far 21, just right 23 and don't know 7.

This sort of thing is potentially very useful, and the Council is to be applauded for using the technology better than it was used last year at the Community Strategy conference, and also for asking questions that did have some 'embarrassing outcomes.' Next time they could take ideas for what questions to ask the whole audience, beyond the demographic ones, and use it at the beginning and end of the day to see what (if anything) has changed.

For the second workshop we were sat in tables based on whether we were business, community groups, education or regional/national government, and we were also sort of encouraged to move from table to table if we so desired (without the law of two feet being explicitly invoked).

We were asked which actions were most important in the plan, or, if we werent' familiar with the plan, what actions should be in there. Again, this was perhaps a mis-framing, and I saw some people vote with their feet and leave at this point. If you are going to ask people to stay beyond lunch, there has to be a clear rationale and set of ways they can really feel useful. Sitting in a group of ten with variable facilitation is not it, simply. We were then asked to look at what the “easy wins” might be.

These were being typed up and displayed on a huge screen as...

Richard Sharland put us out of our misery with the penultimate speech.
He asked people to email him the “one thing they'll do” to campaigns.team@manchester.gov.uk.

Here's MCFly's- "we are going to keep holding your feet to the fire every way we know how (and ask our readers if they have some other ways in mind). And should the flames be insufficiently fun for our purposes, we will send out scouring parties for more (locally sourced and carbon neutral) firewood."

The final draft of the plan, with comments and ideas integrated over the 2 to 3 weeks, be accepted by the Executive, go to the Manchester Board for adoption. In 2010 they'd be seeking endorsement from other organisations, and working on a template to relate those organisations actions to the CCAP.

The City Council would also obviously be working on its delivery plan (see below), and he finished with a brief plug for the Council's December Climate Change Festival

Vicky Rosin, assistant chief exec of the City Council (as big a cheese you get without being Howard Bernstein) was next, citing and whole-heartedly endorsing something she'd seen on one of the tables- “delivery delivery delivery.” On a welcome personal note, she pointed out that while she wouldn't be around in 2050, her daughter would be, and her children. She then closed the meeting by thanking all for their input.

Who was there
In these situations it's good to assess the audience broken down by age and sex. And yes, most of them looked like they were.

Who wasn't there? Oh, you know this by now- the young, the black, the muslims, the poor. Plus ca change and all that...

So, one and three quarters thumbs up. Next time (and especially for the mooted youth conference):

• Fewer people per table, better briefed facilitators (obviously you either then have a smaller conference, or more table, which means more facilitators. You could always ask the skilled C2RA crew...)
• The “overall facilitator” must use the powerpoint facilities more- that everyone can see- to explain what the task at hand is. This will mean he/she intervenes less frequently in what was free-flowing discussion that ended up being very stop-start..
• More tightly focussed questions that really get to the nub(s) of the problems (this is difficult- since there was massive information-disparity, with some people knowing the Action Plan backwards, and others not having seen it at all). e.g. Ask explicitly “what are the elephants in the room” and “how might it all go horribly wrong, and how can we make that less likely”
• Ask for what the audience wants to talk about (using open space technology)
• Make full use of the wonderful technology and wonderful facilities that the Council has.
• Feedback forms about what was good/bad/indifferent

Thanks to the Council for having the guts to think and act a little outside of its boxes (all the prodding and poking is working!). Thanks to the catering and support staff, who did (as usual) a really good job. The easy bit is over, and we all know it.

MCFly 34- "Reasons our Children will hate us #94"

"Writing this at 5am on my Blackberry on the way to a meeting with Kingfisher Airways in Mumbai. Been here since Tuesday promoting Manchester in an economy growing at over 6%, the effect of the global slowdown being to reduce it from around 10% annual growth. The visit has been targetted on three things, the most important being to work on getting a direct air route to India."

So writes Sir Richard Leese, leader of the Council, on his blog. Later this year, Sir Richard will be offering a huge gift to the climate denialist nutters who want us to take no action in Manchester, by flying to and from the Copenhagen Summit and turning a positive story about the Council's bold actions into a defensive mess about personal hypocrisy. Such is life.

Ecocities launch

Ecocities launch

Very much a game of two halves

First half we have speeches from

Professor Alan Gilbert, President of the University of Manchester

After a few not-so-gentle digs at Thomas Friedman's “The World is Flat”, Prof Gilbert warmed (ho ho) to his theme – that it would be dynamic city regions that drive growth and have a competitive advantage in the 21st century. He seemed quite taken with the work of Richard Florida (on where the nimble creative classes want to live) and argued that sustainable cities would have to happen not merely because of regulation but also to Attract and Keep the Talent.

He pointed out that knowing it's vital is one thing, doing it is another, that there'd be intense competition from other cities

So the University with it's 2015 role was looking at

• a scale/quality of research that as world class, but also one that shaped the agenda
• not just theoretical research but practical stuff, that made a difference.

He extolled existing international partnerships, for example with Harvard and also US, Singapore, Bangladesh and Japan.

He closed with “Bruntwood and Manchester and the Universities” would succeed or fail together.

Dr Michael Oglesby, Chairman of Bruntwood

He opened by arguing that battle for the recognition of a problem was won, but the question of what to DO was not (question of always wanting someone else to pay for it!)

Observed it is easy to sit back and wait for regulation and then complain about it, but that this is too important an issue to leave to Westminster.

No point in asking developing world to change if WE don't act.

How to achieve? Strong base, partnerhsip keey. Manchester University one of top 4 in UK, Bruntwood recognised as one of the best, very good customer relationships. Over 2000 customers

Too much focus thus far on the new. Retrofitting is where it is at.

Need clear guidelines. Unis to come up with what would really make a differnece, Bruntwood to look at practialities, Council to decide what's feasible.

There are going to be recommendations we don't like, unpalatable. Have to take these on board. If not, fail, with serous consequences.

Impacts from temperature increase, 60% increase in rainfall, leading to flooding because we've paved over so much. Some problems will not be soluable, Large areas we will not be able to live in in the future.

Sir Richard Leese, Leader of Manchester City Council

Birthplace of the Industrial Revolution [Oh, if I had a quid for everytime I have heard THAT lately]
Mcr wants to be part of solution
Cities critical (over 75% of energy, 80% of greenhouse gases)
Mentions Call to Action [but not, naturally, Call to Real Action!]
Increased public understanding.
Extols the “surprising range” of partners writing the Action Plan
Once again talks about the targets as being a minimum: “At least,” he is at pains to emphasise

Then the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding and a chance to hoover up more food. Your MCFly reporter got three feeds out of the Council last Thursday Truly, “snouts in the trough.”

So, then we had an “Overview of the Eco-cities initiative” by Professor Simon Guy and then a very detailed presentation on “Climate Change Impacts in the Manchester city region” by Dr John Handley, before Dr Jeremy Carter led off the workshop component.

This involved having us in groups of 8 or fewer, with a facilitator, getting us to look at “Challenges” and then “Opportunities.” Lots and lots of ideas, which the Eco Cities crew are going to collate and send out.

As with the speeches, the gender balance appalling. MCFly did a head count. There were 53 participants, of whom 14 were women. Of all the people, only one could be classed as Black or Ethnic Minority. Want to be clear though- this is NOT down to any conscious action or oversight on the part of the Ecocities crew. 3 to 1 seems to be the male/female ratio in any climate event MCFly goes to, with anything labelled “Transport” significantly worse. What is to be done?

They think it's not all over. It is soon.

City Council's call to action: eyewitness report

by MCFly editor Arwa Aburawa

The Council Executive had its monthly meeting this morning. Climate Change was one of the topics under discussion. Manchester Climate Fortnightly has previously reported on the Council's summary of the 'Call to Action'. Rather than rush to judgement, we were waiting for the nitty-gritty details and targets in the main report. Sadly we are going to be waiting a while longer. A spokesperson stated that the “Council will work with its partners and other organisations to draw up a detailed action plan to be approved later in the year...”

From the outset there were two main issue which we felt needed to be dealt with: the unspent 1 million Carbon Reduction and Innovation Fund (a story we broke in September 2008) and the so-called 'Green Airport'. Around 30 minutes were spent on discussing the report and Richard Cowell, the Executive Member for the Environment, summed up his position by stating that

“Climate change is the single biggest challenge facing the the world. It demands an international response, but the action we take in Manchester will determine whether the shift to a low-carbon society creates new opportunities for Mancunian families and businesses.”

Although this 'Call to Action' was labelled as a climate change strategy, it seems pretty clear that the council are following a strict business growth agenda. There was lots of talk of 'opportunities with economic and business advantages' and 'driving the economy forward'.

A Green Airport?

Simon Ashley, leader of the Liberal Democrats, was quick to point out that the 'Call to Action' and Manchester's climate change strategy couldn't be taken seriously with what he called a “cop-out” with regards to the airport. He went to say that although he recognised that the airport was a great economic driver, it was also a great polluter and this needs to be reconsidered. Ashley also remarked that the excuse that Manchester council couldn't take unilateral action should be dismissed and that the entire issue needs to be tackled again as “you can't give the airport a pass.”

[Ashley is part of the Advisory Panel of fifteen (six Labour and nine Liberal Democracts) which can raise issues and ask questions at Executive meetings but can't vote on the final decision.]

The chair, Sir Richard Leese, who seems recovered from his run-in with car thieves yesterday, replied that they can't legally constrain the Airport and that if the planes didn't fly out from Manchester then it would probably be from somewhere else, causing more pollution. Following this logic, extending the airport is the ONLY sensible way to stop more CO2 emissions. At a national level, it seems the Labour Government agrees with him, since all the indications at time of writing are that a third runway will be approved for Heathrow.

All said and done, the Executive stuck by their plans for a 'Green Airport' which involves the continued support for the Airport's growth whilst helping it to achieve its aim of becoming carbon neutral reduction in site energy use and vehicle fuel.

Carbon Reduction and Innovation Fund 1 Million
Again, the issue over why no money has been spent from the Carbon Reduction and Innovation Fund over the last year and a half was raised by the Advisory Panel who stated that there was a need to “start delivering actual programmes”. The response was that the plans were in the full report which was waiting for approval, the chair nevertheless agreed that it was unacceptable.

With regards to this fund the reports says:

“The City Council intends to deploy resources from (sic) Fund to help explore options for delivering major public-private investment in energy efficiency low carbon energy infrastructure, including a possible Manchester ESCO (Energy Service Company). It is also envisaged that funding will also be made available to support a proposed Low Carbon Communities pilot and a range of other activities that demonstrate different approaches to realising the benefits of shifting to low carbon.”

The final troubling issue was the lack of clear strategy for measuring outcomes. The full report which analysed the strategies, exhaustively judged their indirect/direct impacts as 'small', 'none', 'significant' and even 'unquantifiable'. A council spokesperson noted that

"These actions will not of themselves achieve deep cuts in carbon, but they will give rise to the mainstream understanding, partnerships, vision and capacity across the city to hit the City’s target of a reduction of in excess of a million tonnes while securing economic and other advantage, and to be ahead of the curve.”

Here's the full report:

An unofficial hyper-linked version of the Executive Summary and a 2-page 'Bluffers guide' which decodes the report can be seen here: http://www.manchesterclimateforum.org.uk/calltoaction.html

For background and analysis see MCFly 15: http://www.manchesterclimatefortnightly.info/mcfy015.pdf