Hustings for a Sustainable Future – what do Edinburgh councillors have to say?
Candidates from each political party gathered on Tuesday 25
April to discuss and answer questions from the audience on their approach to
sustainability if they are elected to Edinburgh city council on the 4 May.
Representing the Green Party was Chas Booth, a current
councillor for Leith ward. The conservative candidate was Cameron Rose, a
councillor for Southside/Newington. For Labour was Maureen Child, current
councillor in Portobello/Craigmillar; for the SNP, Adam McVey, current
councillor of Leith, and for the liberal democrats was Vita Zaporozcenko, a
candidate for Leith. Speakers were asked to answer six main questions which
would shape the evening’s debate:
1.
If elected, would you call for the divestment of
fossil fuel holdings from the Lothian Pension Fund and re-invest them in
renewable energy?
2.
Would you support the introduction of a Low
Emission Zone (LEZ) in Edinburgh to combat air pollution?
3.
What would you do to improve the quality of home
insulation across Edinburgh?
4.
Would you commit to increasing the number of
solar panels on public buildings in Edinburgh? And how?
5.
Would you support the use of land for allotments
and community growing food projects in the city?
6.
Given how Westminster has already totally
ignored the wishes of local people by overturning Lancashire County Council's
decision not to permit fracking, what do you and your party think are the
biggest threats to the people of Edinburgh from fracking and what are you doing
about this?
First up to speak was Chas Booth of the Green Party. Booth
claimed that electing more green councillors would bring Edinburgh rent
pressure zones, a living wage plus of £9.20, and an expanded public transport
network. He spoke proudly of past achievements, such as a successful motion in
February 2015 which called for a ban on Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking)[1] in
the Edinburgh area. Booth said that he will continue the push for divestment of
the Lothian pension fund from fossil fuels, after a recent motion on divestment
was not able to pass the pensions committee.
Second to pitch their vision was SNP councillor Adam McVey.
McVey outlined key SNP manifesto policies such as 1000 new trees in the urban
environment, and spoke of the ambitious targets in the council’s current Sustainable
Energy Action Plan that commits to a 42% reduction in carbon emissions by
2020. Several other topics were brought up, such as the expansion of community
growing spaces, minimising waste through efficiency of production and
consumption processes, and higher standards for new build homes. McVey said
that the council’s energy company, Energy
for Edinburgh, which he chairs, is looking at expanding solar energy, rolling
out district heating, and measures to reduce fuel poverty. Finally, McVey’s
approach on divestment was that it is a difficult issue, and that the issue of
fiduciary duty (for fund managers to maintain consistent profit for their
pension holders) was a significant impediment. Nevertheless, McVey said that
addressing this issue is on his to-do list.
Cameron Rose of the local conservative party was next to
outline his case. Rose took each question at a time, first addressing why he
believed there were many pragmatic, legal, principled and academic reasons why
he thought that the divest Lothian campaign was inappropriate. Second, Rose
believed that the introduction of Low Emission Zones (LEZs) should be partnered
with evidence-based policy, and third, that the conservative manifesto has a
section on improving home insulation through efficiency and council house
maintenance. Fourth, Rose said he would only commit to increasing solar energy
on public buildings unless there was a proper business case; fifth, Rose would
support the increase in growing spaces due to the substantial waiting list for
allotments. Finally, Rose said that his position on fracking was that the
government needs to get on with it. His argument behind this is that cheap energy
(fracking proponents argue that it would reduce the price of energy) has been
able to alleviate poverty in the past, and can do so again in Scotland.
The Liberal Democrat candidate for Leith, Vita Zaporozcenko,
spoke next. Zaporozcenko described that liberal democrat policy is to support a
healthy mix of renewables, an expansion of community growing spaces and
allotments, not building on the green belt, improving the public transport
fleet, and the introduction of low emissions zones. She mentioned how the
liberal democrats in the 2007-2012 council administration worked on introducing
LEZs and creating an allotment strategy with an annual target for new
allotments. Finally, Zaporozcenko spoke in favour of the introduction of a
deposit return scheme, and efficiency schemes not only for council and private
housing but also for ex-council houses, which are often left out of support.
Finally, Labour’s Maureen Child voiced her opinion on both
her and Labour’s vision for sustainability in the council and beyond. Child
spoke of several measures as ‘no-brainers’: the introduction of a LEZ,
increasing the number of solar panels on public buildings, and growing more
community food. Child also mentioned her continued manifesto push for
congestion charging in Edinburgh, of which the revenue could be used to invest
in making public transport easier for those who have accessibility issues. On
Fracking, Child spoke of the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and that
the potential benefits are more than outweighed by the environmental costs.
Child referenced her support for Labour MSP Claudia Beamish’s plan to pass
a bill in Scottish Parliament calling for a ban on fracking.
Child took issue with divestment, stating that there is a
need for responsible investment but simply divesting is not the answer, as it
is other people’s money that ‘we should not be playing politics with’, and any
holdings that the council sells off just go straight into the hands of those
who care even less about ethical investment. Instead Child attributed the fact
that in Scotland, Lothian pension fund has the lowest investments in energy
companies, due largely to the engagement strategy they have implemented in
asking fund managers whether they have considered pulling their money out of
stranded assets.
Fracking
The debate then moved on to questions from the audience. The
first of these was related to misinformation around fracking, with the
questioner claiming that a report from 2014 found fracking in Scotland to be a
safe endeavour. The opinion of the questioner was that banning fracking in the
UK would increase global emissions as the UK would resort to importing energy
from elsewhere.
In answer, Zaporozcenko stated that she felt that the
reports stating fracking was safe were in the minority, and that the overall
liberal democrat party policy is to ban fracking. Cameron Rose agreed that
there was misinformation on the fracking debate, and outlined his scepticism on
the severity of the effects of anthropogenically-induced climate change. Rose
said that Friends of the Earth England & Wales were fined by the Electoral
Commission in the 2015 general election for misinformation on fracking, and
reiterated his point that fracking is key to reducing emissions in a low-carbon
energy transition as, he argued, the US has reduced their emissions
substantially by increasing fracking.
McVey responded directly to Rose’s comments, that the US,
whose emissions are ‘gargantuan’ and whose environmental standards are of poor
quality, cannot be compared to those of Scotland. He mentioned that the Leith
SNP had started SNP
Members Against Unconventional Oil & Gas (SMAUG) under efforts to ban
fracking.
Booth mentioned that if you go to Lanarkshire, or the US, or
Australia, where fracking has affected the groundwater and the air for the
local residents, it shows that it is not safe, and reiterated that fracking has
no place in Scotland.
Later in the debate, the audience member who mentioned the
misinformation on fracking claimed that the 2014 report on fracking was the
most comprehensive report he had ever read, and that regulation in the UK is
different to the US, where it is not as safe. He said that he was happy for people
to criticise something so long as they do it with evidence, claiming that the
reason the SNP didn’t go ahead with fracking was because of political reasons.
Zaporozcenko claimed that she was waiting to see more peer reviewed papers on
the effects of fracking. Rose agreed with the audience member on
misinformation, questioning how he could know what Booth was saying about
fracking was accurate.
Efforts to address
the food system
The second question was on whether the parties would commit
to being more ambitious on food growing. Zaporozcenko agreed that food justice
was important, and that there is a need to raise awareness on local organic
producers and healthy eating, particularly for those on low incomes. Rose
agreed on the need to make the most of unused spaces for growing, but believed
the food system itself did not need changing, as supermarkets like Aldi and
Lidl provide cheap good quality food due to efficient supply chains, affordable
to those on low incomes.
McVey claimed that the problem with the urban environment is
that it does not make visible the sheer amount of chemicals being sprayed on
the food being bought in supermarkets, and this can be addressed with more
local growing. Finally, Booth mentioned Edinburgh’s efforts to address the food
system change through Edible Edinburgh, and that the Green party’s manifesto
contained a significant amount of this taken from Nourish
Scotland’s suggestions.
Meeting the council’s
emission targets
The third question related to a criticism from one audience
member, asking the current councillors why they are not doing enough to meet
their emissions reduction targets which they are unlikely to meet. McVey
responded that he is optimistic about meeting these targets, citing the
considerable emissions reduction experienced recently from the decarbonisation
of the electricity supply. He said that so long as the council expands public
transport and rolls out district heating, then heat and transport can
experience the same level of emissions reduction and Edinburgh will meet its
targets.
Booth agreed on the need for councillors to be held more to
account, claiming that had the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) not changed the method for emissions accounting, Edinburgh
would have missed its most recent reduction targets by 8%. He claimed that the
council was taking steps in the right direction with Energy for Edinburgh, but
that this needs to be staffed more to be effective. He cited the need to work
with Lothian buses to completely phase out diesel buses, with the help of LEZs.
Furthermore, Booth claimed we need to mainstream sustainability in the council
by having a dedicated member of staff to hold the entire council to account on
their emissions targets.
Maureen Child took a slightly different stance, mentioning
that the council cannot achieve sustainability by themselves, and that they
need the help of the residents of Edinburgh to meet their targets. Child stated
that the person in charge of sustainability in the council should be the CEO,
but again they can only do so with the political will from Edinburgh’s locals.
Community Energy
A fourth question was asked on what councillors will do to
encourage community energy projects. Booth mentioned the Green party manifesto
commitment of a 10MW target for community energy in Edinburgh, but stated the
need for council officers to be better at supporting community groups,
identifying opportunities and bringing them forward. McVey stated that the
council itself cannot decide what would work, but that demand needs to come
from the community.
Rose said he would be happy to support community energy
projects if they have a viable business case. Answering a follow-up question on
strengthening the Edible
Sustainable Development Partnership (ESDP), Child reported on her
involvement in ESDP and its overall positive effect on the Edinburgh
partnership model, while McVey stated that whatever mechanism is used, there is
just a need for a strong political mechanism to be able to get things done.
Low Emission Zones
Next, an audience member provided a rebuttal on an earlier
comment by Rose, stating that Friends of the Earth England & Wales was
fined by the Electoral Commission for fear that their campaign would lead to
people voting for anti-fracking candidates, and that the fine was never
anything to do with misinformation. He then asked the candidates why
councillors denied the recent motion on Low Emission Zones, put forward by
Booth. Child said that Booth was quite good at putting in motions on things the
council was already doing, while Booth argued that the motion was
uncontroversial and should have been carried forward. McVey claimed that the
motion was politically motivated, but that he would personally be lobbying the
government to make sure Edinburgh is the recipient of the single LEZ as
promised for the nation. Zaporozcenko reiterated the liberal democrats’ support
for LEZs.
A comment was made by an audience member on how the evidence
is clearly out there on the negative effects of fracking. They claimed that
moreover, there is a systematic attack on democracy across the world,
symbolised by the UK government’s decision to overturn Lancashire County
Council’s decision to ban fracking, which they had put considerable time,
resources and expertise into making. Booth and Rose agreed that the planning
system was not suitably democratic for a situation where local government
decides to ban fracking, and that this needs to change.
Local housing
development
Finally, a question was asked on the new housing development
in Portobello, regarding how candidates would ensure it was as green as
possible. Child and Booth both mentioned how they voted against the development
from the outset, but now there was a need to make sure the standards are effective.
McVey explained that his reason for voting for the development was that there
is a need to expand the housing supply and that this location was the best
possible as it is close to public transport. Rose talked of how the standards
for energy efficiency have gone up considerably, and that pushing them up
further puts the cost of energy even higher. He claimed that he was the only
panel member talking about the effects of this on those in poverty.
Zaporozcenko argued that they are talking about poverty
because improving the standards of housing and district heating schemes helps
with poverty by bringing energy consumption down. She criticised the system we
have where elderly people are freezing in their homes, and that this needs to
be tackled.
***
Overall the debate was fruitful, interesting, and
controversial in areas, inviting thoughtful discussion. Friends of the Earth
would like to express gratitude to all the councillors that gave their time to
voice their opinions, and all the audience members that came to listen and
contribute. We hope to keep the debate ongoing on how we can ensure a
sustainable future for Edinburgh and beyond.
[1]
Fracking is an
unconventional process of gas extraction whereby water and chemicals are
injected underground at high pressure to fracture rocks, releasing the gas
within.
Comments
Post a Comment