Brighton and Hove City Council ranked less energy efficient than airport (From The Argus)

Brilliant! A Green council is elected, and they chop down trees, and now this. Talk about pass ups in breweries......

Taxi for Lucas, Kitcat and twenty-two others please! And perhaps they can squeeze in Tom 'Dirty Diesel' Druitt at the same time.

Perhaps if Pete West and his colleagues stopped spouting so much meaningless hot air, it could help?

It really hasn't been a good week for the "greens" has it?

While it is dissapointing that B&H's CO2 emmissions have gone up by just under 1%, having done a carbon audit or two, I am suspicious of such radical changes overall. The article does not explain whether this is down to more accurate measurement, more or less honest accounting of emissions nor what the baseline or methodology is. It is clearly nonsense that an airport generates less CO2 than a council as the flying of planes is clearly missed off. For example, if you go to http://calculator.ca
rbonfootprint.com you can work out that B&H Council's total carbon footprint is just over 12000 individual flights between London and New York or about 15 return trips with a Jumbo Jet, probably not not even a days worth of flights to that destination from Heathrow.

Pete West says that there has been years of inactivity. So there are lots of areas for improvement. Lots of areas to take B&HC up the league table

Somehow we get worse and go down the table. How did the "greens" manage to not achieve better? I would sympathise if we were near the top of the league - improvements there are hard year on year. But if there really have been "years of inactivity" even simple changes can make a huge difference.

East and West Sussex (not run by "greens") can improve (by 35%) where we go down by 1%. Proof that green issues aren't best dealt with by the "green" party.....

Doubt driving around the 20 mile zone in thied gear is hardly going to reduce emissions

A German friend of mine, who has been a member of the German Green Party since 1983 moved here last year and has had a look at the air quality and transport policies of the B&H Greens. This was after noticing serious pollution problems in her area caused by totally unregulated taxis. She then discovered that it is reported that 1/2 of the pollution in Brighton is caused by taxis, vans and lorries but the greens haven´t even got them on their radar. No efforts made to reduce their pollution unlike other non-green councils. She tried to alert the greens, but could not get anywhere with them Seems they were not interested in this!

NickBtn wrote:
It really hasn't been a good week for the "greens" has it?

Have they ever had a good week?

Looks like a Non story if I have got it right as the relevant dept of environment website states; The information published in the Performance League Table (PLT) is based on information provided by participants. Therefore, we cannot warrant or guarantee that this information is accurate, complete or up to date, or will be suitable for you to use for any particular purpose.

HJarrs wrote:
Looks like a Non story if I have got it right as the relevant dept of environment website states; The information published in the Performance League Table (PLT) is based on information provided by participants. Therefore, we cannot warrant or guarantee that this information is accurate, complete or up to date, or will be suitable for you to use for any particular purpose.

Bang on cue...the green party village idiot finds the need to post another double set of nonsense. She really is quite stupid

Somethingsarejustwro
ng wrote:

HJarrs wrote:
Looks like a Non story if I have got it right as the relevant dept of environment website states; The information published in the Performance League Table (PLT) is based on information provided by participants. Therefore, we cannot warrant or guarantee that this information is accurate, complete or up to date, or will be suitable for you to use for any particular purpose.

Bang on cue...the green party village idiot finds the need to post another double set of nonsense. She really is quite stupid

Third trolling from you today, yet still no relevant comment regarding the article subject.

There is correction to my post above, the quote comes from the Environment Agency.

HJarrs is a delight.

She goes on, as ever, desperately struggling with the command of the English language and violating the generally accepted rules of punctuation. What would comrade Hawtree say?

Now she has taken to spewing out flumes of ill-informed statistical nonsense.

Surely the Kitcat/Lucas Politburo and the acolytes can find a better messenger for their dismal message. They need all the help they can muster at the moment.

Save the Tree - Stuff the Council!

HJarrs wrote:
Looks like a Non story if I have got it right as the relevant dept of environment website states; The information published in the Performance League Table (PLT) is based on information provided by participants. Therefore, we cannot warrant or guarantee that this information is accurate, complete or up to date, or will be suitable for you to use for any particular purpose.

I don't understand. Yes, like a lot of statistics that the government collates the information comes from the councils/companies which provide it.

Are you suggesting that the council couldn't count this year, or couldn't this time last year, or that all the other participants are wrong? If the difference was marginal then you could argue small differences. However B&HC "greens" have now got us in the bottom 10%. Many of the people who voted green would, quite reasonably, have expected the green performance of a "green" council to improve, not worsen. Particularly not worsen when other local councils are doing so well

Also on B&HC own figures, which must be comparable, performance has got worse year on year.

Well done though for trying to defend the indefensible!

NickBtn wrote:

HJarrs wrote:
Looks like a Non story if I have got it right as the relevant dept of environment website states; The information published in the Performance League Table (PLT) is based on information provided by participants. Therefore, we cannot warrant or guarantee that this information is accurate, complete or up to date, or will be suitable for you to use for any particular purpose.

I don't understand. Yes, like a lot of statistics that the government collates the information comes from the councils/companies which provide it.

Are you suggesting that the council couldn't count this year, or couldn't this time last year, or that all the other participants are wrong? If the difference was marginal then you could argue small differences. However B&HC "greens" have now got us in the bottom 10%. Many of the people who voted green would, quite reasonably, have expected the green performance of a "green" council to improve, not worsen. Particularly not worsen when other local councils are doing so well

Also on B&HC own figures, which must be comparable, performance has got worse year on year.

Well done though for trying to defend the indefensible!

HJarrs, truly is a waste of space and serves to remind us of why Labour and the Greens are fundamentally wrong for our great country and the people who do care.

Martha Gunn wrote:
HJarrs is a delight.

She goes on, as ever, desperately struggling with the command of the English language and violating the generally accepted rules of punctuation. What would comrade Hawtree say?

Now she has taken to spewing out flumes of ill-informed statistical nonsense.

Surely the Kitcat/Lucas Politburo and the acolytes can find a better messenger for their dismal message. They need all the help they can muster at the moment.

Save the Tree - Stuff the Council!

Yawn...

How is it ill informed if the disclaimer comes from the source of the government tables? My comment puts the story into the context; that the league table is rubbish.

I would have been grateful if the Argus had explained why B&H emissions had increased and what is being done to reduce them in future. That would have been informative journalism rather than another easy headline with no substance behind it.

HJarrs wrote:

Martha Gunn wrote:
HJarrs is a delight.

She goes on, as ever, desperately struggling with the command of the English language and violating the generally accepted rules of punctuation. What would comrade Hawtree say?

Now she has taken to spewing out flumes of ill-informed statistical nonsense.

Surely the Kitcat/Lucas Politburo and the acolytes can find a better messenger for their dismal message. They need all the help they can muster at the moment.

Save the Tree - Stuff the Council!

Yawn...

How is it ill informed if the disclaimer comes from the source of the government tables? My comment puts the story into the context; that the league table is rubbish.

I would have been grateful if the Argus had explained why B&H emissions had increased and what is being done to reduce them in future. That would have been informative journalism rather than another easy headline with no substance behind it.

Your comments provide no factual context.

NickBtn wrote:

HJarrs wrote:
Looks like a Non story if I have got it right as the relevant dept of environment website states; The information published in the Performance League Table (PLT) is based on information provided by participants. Therefore, we cannot warrant or guarantee that this information is accurate, complete or up to date, or will be suitable for you to use for any particular purpose.

I don't understand. Yes, like a lot of statistics that the government collates the information comes from the councils/companies which provide it.

Are you suggesting that the council couldn't count this year, or couldn't this time last year, or that all the other participants are wrong? If the difference was marginal then you could argue small differences. However B&HC "greens" have now got us in the bottom 10%. Many of the people who voted green would, quite reasonably, have expected the green performance of a "green" council to improve, not worsen. Particularly not worsen when other local councils are doing so well

Also on B&HC own figures, which must be comparable, performance has got worse year on year.

Well done though for trying to defend the indefensible!

It is entirely possible that methods of measurement are becoming more accurate as the scheme grows. The table is on this link...

http://crc.environme
nt-agency.gov.uk/ppl
t/web/plt/public/201
1-12/CRCPerformanceL
eagueTable20112012

The table is as clear as mud, but it looks like there are several hundred new entries pushing B&H down the rankings. However, what is more worrying is the government's plans to simplyfy reporting to just gas and electicity. My office will do well as it is oil heated!

george smith wrote:
Doubt driving around the 20 mile zone in thied gear is hardly going to reduce emissions

no it actually increases emmisions which is why i do 30 in a 30mph zone (20mph is not law)!

you would of thought a green party would practice what they preach!! another reason why theyll be ousted in the next elections!!! lying cheating corrupt scumbags!!!

The city also has one of the lowest recycling rates.
It also has two recycling centres which both close at 4pm in the week and the Hove one closes on a Saturday so all the city's recycling customers head across town to Wilson Avenue where they sit in a long queue spewing out fumes. So much for an integrated waste and transport policy.
Also remember that with the Lewes Road scheme the cars are now queued up Coombe Road almost to te top every days now spewing out fumes outside the primary school when this never happened before. What do the Greens do, offer residents eco driving lessons using tax payers money.
The lunacy of this lot would be amusing if it were not to dangerous.
Their efforts to be Green have actually alienated vast numbers of people. I see that even Caroline Lucas seems to be distancing herself from the council probably to save her own seat.

This is laughable. Someone please name one improvement the Greens have made since being elected? HJarrs, you must have a long list for me?!

Air pollution will also greatly increase as traffic trundles along their blanket 20mph zone or sits in gridlock on the Lewes Road. I was chatting to a taxi driver the other day and I mentioned the new 20mph zone and how crap I think the Green Party are and he said that's all he hears these days. Everyone thinks they are doing a terrible job.

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
This is laughable. Someone please name one improvement the Greens have made since being elected? HJarrs, you must have a long list for me?!

Air pollution will also greatly increase as traffic trundles along their blanket 20mph zone or sits in gridlock on the Lewes Road. I was chatting to a taxi driver the other day and I mentioned the new 20mph zone and how crap I think the Green Party are and he said that's all he hears these days. Everyone thinks they are doing a terrible job.

Fair play to you...this is the first sensible post I have noticed from you!

Somethingsarejustwro
ng wrote:

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
This is laughable. Someone please name one improvement the Greens have made since being elected? HJarrs, you must have a long list for me?!

Air pollution will also greatly increase as traffic trundles along their blanket 20mph zone or sits in gridlock on the Lewes Road. I was chatting to a taxi driver the other day and I mentioned the new 20mph zone and how crap I think the Green Party are and he said that's all he hears these days. Everyone thinks they are doing a terrible job.

Fair play to you...this is the first sensible post I have noticed from you!

Comments don't get more backhanded than that one!