New 'Routemaps' Outline Council's Plans To Achieve Net Zero By 2030

[RollingJ]

Just now, hackey lad said:

Edit  " justify their wage " 

If you say so, but I prefer my original text.

[hackey lad]

2 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

If you say so, but I prefer my original text.

[Anna B]

8 hours ago, master jedi said:

What do people think about some of these proposals ?

 

https://sheffnews.com/news/new-routemaps-outline-council-s-plans-to-achieve-net-zero-by-2030

 

A friend of mine works for the council and while in the pub yesterday we were discussing the above link. 

 

She drives her petrol car to get to and back from work , 9 miles there and 9 miles back , she also uses it to do business driving for the council , she also has caring duties to her parents who frail and now in their 80s and her car is essential to do all of these. She is not a well paid council employee so buying an EV is out of the question for her.  

 

The thing she is worried about is a little section which is in rout map 1 ,     

 

• Provide training for Council employees and Councillors -, to ensure everyone is carbon literate and fully engaged on the journey to net zero.

 

She disagrees with this as she  needs her petrol car to live and to provide caring duties for her parents .

 

Would the SCC council go down a similar route like some banks have been doing  , and if you don't agree with what they believe , you will be cancelled . 

 

Or in her case , dismissed ?      

   

 

 

I think this has voiced the concerns of many people. It's certainly something I worry about.

 

Like it or not, people need cars to travel, for all sorts of reasons. The world moves faster than it did, and more and more has to be packed into the day. Even efficient public transport takes far longer than a door to door car journey and simply won't do. In my case a commute of 15 minutes by car would take at least two hours on a bus. They simply don't go where you want them to. 

And for many, an electric car is out of the question.

This, and many other worries about a questionable future which is unworkable, is why so many people are suffering with mental health issues, notably anxiety and depression, in unprecedented numbers.

 

In spite of all the many wonders of the modern world which are supposed to help us, they seem to be adding to our uncertainties  and stress levels which now seem to be going off the scale.

Not a good time to be alive.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Anna B

[geared]

I wonder how much carbon is being wasted on this complete drivel.  It's plain to see from their own document there is only one goal to consider:

 

Quote

• The Council’s housing stock makes up 89 per cent of its emissions.

If the housing stock creates 89% of total emissions, then spend 89% of your time and resources fixing it.

 

Quite clearly, they're spending most of their time fiddle-arsing around and little actually doing something that will combat the problem.

 

for example:

 

Quote

Provide training for Council employees and Councillors

 

Quote

vehicle fleet make up three per cent of the Council’s emissions.

 

That's a very small percentage compared to the massive amount from the housing stock, furthermore replacing this fleet is extremely expensive, for example a small electric van is near £30k, an electric transit is near £50k.

 

When it's only 3% of total emissions in the first place, that's very poor value for money to reduce carbon.

Edited July 31, 2023 by geared

[RollingJ]

Exactly - but upside down planning is a 'feature' of Council operation.

[ads36]

there is some half-decent stuff in that 'routemap'.

 

but we need them to actually get on with some of it, not endlessly avoid doing anything, instead choosing 'death-by-consultation'...

Edited July 31, 2023 by ads36

[sheffbag]

3 hours ago, geared said:

I wonder how much carbon is being wasted on this complete drivel.  It's plain to see from their own document there is only one goal to consider:

 

If the housing stock creates 89% of total emissions, then spend 89% of your time and resources fixing it.

 

Quite clearly, they're spending most of their time fiddle-arsing around and little actually doing something that will combat the problem.

 

for example:

 

 

 

That's a very small percentage compared to the massive amount from the housing stock, furthermore replacing this fleet is extremely expensive, for example a small electric van is near £30k, an electric transit is near £50k.

 

When it's only 3% of total emissions in the first place, that's very poor value for money to reduce carbon.

dont forget its 3% of only 7% of the total emissions in session

 

so council vehicle emissions are 0.21% of Sheffield's emissions aka SFA difference regardless how much you throw at it and what changes you make. 

This reminds me of when the PTE decided it was going to do its bit for the environment and held a series of meetings (in air conditioned offices) for all the staff on how it could help reduce its carbon footprint by amongst other things reusing the single use plastic cups that the PTE had bought to use in the electrically powered, water chillers it had installed. Someone had actually calculated how much this would save in energy costs.

 

Evidently the person didn't understand the concept of total impact on the situation.

 

Bit like the fake bushes they planted outside under the premise of "environmental wellbeing of staff" - but i digress

 

the emissions from the council building where this was thought up and agreed will be higher itself

Edited July 31, 2023 by sheffbag

[geared]

1 hour ago, ads36 said:

there is some half-decent stuff in that 'routemap'.

 

but we need them to actually get on with some of it, not endlessly avoid doing anything, instead choosing 'death-by-consultation'...

 

Yet not much being said about expanding the tram network, despite so many people calling for it for so many years.

 

If you want to get people out of their cars and onto public transport, give them a sodding tram to do it with.

[HeHasRisen]

1 hour ago, ads36 said:

there is some half-decent stuff in that 'routemap'.

 

but we need them to actually get on with some of it, not endlessly avoid doing anything, instead choosing 'death-by-consultation'...

But then you get people moaning they werent consulted (see the CAZ thread, where someone said this, and someone then pulled out details of (I think) three separate ones). Can they win either way? Maybe not.

 

The OP's mate isnt going to be sacked for driving a petrol car though, thats absurd.

[sheffbag]

34 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

But then you get people moaning they werent consulted (see the CAZ thread, where someone said this, and someone then pulled out details of (I think) three separate ones). Can they win either way? Maybe not.

 

The OP's mate isnt going to be sacked for driving a petrol car though, thats absurd.

Maybe not sacked but councils like Leeds are stopping mileage claims for non hybrid cars as soon as 2025 so if she is doing council work as indicated then it would be at their cost.