Comments received so far...

Below you will find some of the feedback we have received. Many thanks to those who have already contributed and for those who would like to, click here for the form.

• I recommend that the board examine the New Local Government Network (www.nlgn.org.uk) publication “Carbon Footprints, Local Steps. How local government can rise to the climate change challenge”
• Our area has much more biomass energy than stated on the flyer as biomass is co-fired at our power stations. For example, Drax alone typically fires about 10% of its fuel as biomass. This is about 10% of 4000MW = 400MW.
• We are missing a major opportunity by not using CHP to a much greater extent. Sheffield’s CHP scheme based on wastes shows what can be achieved bearing in mind that most of the non-reusable waste is biomass (dirty paper, cardboard and wood).
• We should be leading the country in CO2 sequestration technology. Our big export is electrical power.
• It seems to me the idea that the balance to be had between climate change and economic performance is illogical. You cannot continue to promote an economy based on the narrowly defined measurement of GNP/GDP (growth) and expect to have a realistic reduction in CO2 emissions. Unless we start to measure our economy in a different way so that it is truly sustainable we can't make progress.
• I am concerned that we should be measuring our carbon footprint as carbon emissions are just what is produced in the region. If we are importing products from other regions and their carbon input is not measured we are just shifting the problem of carbon accounting to others.
• Let’s see procurement so that it promotes a local low carbon economy.
• Headline point is that you can't judge climate change performance just by carbon.
• Can we simultaneously aim for economic growth and greenhouse gas emission reductions?- what takes priority?
• How are we going to decouple economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions increases?
• Can we refocus on quality of life and sustainable development (sustainable livelihoods) as a measure of success instead of economic growth?
• How have the findings of Stern Review informed regional economic decision making?
• When looking at the issue of climate change it can be broken down into individual contributory factors - whereas greenhouse and other omissions have been highlighted; there appears to be a lack of recognition and support for those groups and agencies who are making a contribution towards reducing the affect of some of the contributory factors.
• Can we simultaneously aim for economic growth and greenhouse gas emission reductions?- what takes priority?
• How are we going to decouple economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions increases?
• How have the findings of Stern Review informed regional economic decision making? (I think Stern is overly optimistic- but embedding the findings would be better than business as usual)
• Can we refocus on quality of life and sustainable development (sustainable livelihoods and 5 types of capital) as a measure of success/as a goal instead of economic growth? (I would support this)
• Why has Yorkshire Forward stopped funding to Microgeneration Yorkshire – I’d like to know which criteria are used for success if they didn’t meet them, and also
• how much public money was spent (wasted?) on their new website?

Re the commitments in Yorkshire Forward’s corporate plan:-

• Transport policy could include promotion of cycling as a regional level initiative
• Urban and rural renaissance policies should include more to ensure new building is carbon neutral.
• Massive carbon impact of region’s coal fired power stations is one of the biggest challenges we face and does not seem sufficiently confronted in the corporate plan.
• http://www.lighthousebypotton.co.uk/ This website leads to a Code for Sustainable Homes, level 6 house – as the client, we can do more to have houses in the region built to this level and push the industry to learn the skills before regulation requires. I showed this to a local builder and he seemed to doubt it would get through the council planning permission, if this is true what can be done to change the view of planners.
• My concerns are that Baroness Andrews is about to sign off a 15 year plan which ignores key recommendations of its own sustainability appraisal, and which will lead to an increase in carbon emissions from our region. This is totally unacceptable in the light of the current scientific consensus that immediate action is required if atmospheric concentrations are to be kept within tolerable limits. (See Met Office Hadley Centre document attached). Top down policies like the Northern Way have had inadequate sustainability assessment and will import unsustainable fossil-fuel intensive development patterns into our region.
• When looking at the issue of climate change it can be broken down into individual contributory factors - whereas greenhouse and other omissions have been highlighted; there appears to be a lack of recognition and support for those groups and agencies who are making a contribution towards reducing the affect of some of the contributory factors.
• Simply log onto any friends of a park or other similar group and you would find that there are many local organisations throughout the region, who have been active in reducing the effects of global warming for a number of years.
• Until receiving this flyer through the York Environment Forum, I was unaware of this strategic Climate Change Planning/Review in Yorkshire. If the word can be spread on what the (continuing) plans and developments are for the region (e.g. in the form of flyers, radio, local news, ‘Environment Days’ and perhaps a series of community lectures) this may help stimulate local awareness and subsequently action at the ‘grassroots’ level. Obviously key if we are to develop a ‘can do’ attitude to lowering individual carbon footprints.
• I believe that bodies such as the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly have a role to play in promoting a change in culture for both individuals and government. I suggest that this role falls into three parts.
• Promoting education about the facts of climate change.
• Encouraging people to understand that everyone has a role to play in conserving resources, especially fossil fuel.
• Encouraging Local Authorities and Central Government to consider the impact of their operations and projects with respect to climate change. This will require something of a shift in mindset in some cases, by starting to think and act for the longer term - i.e. to get out of the NIMTOO (not in my term of office) mindset.
• A key issue is the extent to which climate change considerations are pivotal in the nature of investment choices. Yorkshire Forward (amongst others) has a very significant “agenda setting” role to play here
• I am very concerned that the YHA is not doing enough to tackle climate change, in particular in the area of aviation. The assembly claims to take the issue of GHG emissions very seriously, so I would like to know what measures it is taking to curb the expansion of Leeds Bradford airport. The airport’s “materplan” envisages a twofold increase in passenger numbers by 2016, at a time when many thousands of people across the region are suffering unprecedented flood damage to their homes and possessions, and the region’s farmers are experiencing massive crop failure. How is this compatible with stated policies to reduce GHG emissions?
• Humber Industry Nature Conservation Association (INCA) is interested in how climate change mitigation and adaptation will affect its members around the Humber estuary, and the impact climate change will have on the European Marine Site. We are a member of the Humber Advisory Group that supports the implementation of the Humber Management Scheme (HMS), produced to meet the requirements of Regulation 44 of the Habitat Regulations 1994. We employ on behalf of the Humber Relevant Authorities’ Group the HMS Project Officer. We also have a place on the Environment Agency’s for “Planning for the Rising Tides” Steering Group - the Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy was recently launched.One of our particular interests is the development of new intertidal wetlands by the managed realignment of floodbanks to compensate for losses in protected habitat caused by engineering works and sea level rise. We feel that over the long term more land once “claimed” from the estuary should be returned to it as intertidal habitat. We put this forward to, and it was included in, the Hull and Humber Ports City Region Development Plan (2006): “There is potential for a much larger area of wetland to be created than is currently justified on strictly flood risk management grounds. This is particularly relevant given the 20 year time horizon of the Northern Way. Such an ambitious … perspective could provide benefits for wildlife, public enjoyment, and education, eco-tourism, associated business opportunities (particularly in rural areas) and a sink for carbon and nutrients.” (page 9).We believe that the uptake of carbon by lowland and upland wetlands will make a valuable contribution to mitigation. “Making Space for Water” is vital for both mitigating climate change and adapting to the likely more variable runoff patterns in the non-tidal river catchments of the Yorkshire and Humber Region, as well as around the estuary. However, there is growing competition for lowland farmland for food crops, biofuels and habitat. At the least the latter use does not maintain or extend monocultures.Information is attached on Humber INCA.
• Can we be reassured that this most vulnerable area of Yorkshire and Humberside will be fully considered with respect to climate change.
• In my opinion I feel that we have missed the opportunity to develop a sustainable transport network which would have had a long term impact on reducing carbon emissions during the recent period when our region's economy has been growing fast. I can only really speak for West Yorkshire but the Leeds tram debacle demonstrates the lack of willingness to move forward in this area. There have been some successes, for example, the reopening of Brighouse station, but these have had to be fought for on an individual basis. I think West Yorks would be an ideal area for a system similar to the successful Tyne and Wear Metro utilising existing and derelict railway lines and reopening stations en route.
• In towns such as Bradford and Halifax bus and rail stations (Bradford Forster Square - Bradford Interchange) are too far apart to make transport truly integrated.
• I also note with dismay that no-where in Yorks has expressed an interest in the pilot road charging schemes. Greater Manchester has and I think it is likely that their transport infrastructure will improve greatly compared to ours as a result with subsequent reduction in carbon emissions.
• As for cycling in our region I see few examples of how it has become safer - I wouldn't risk it at rush hour.