A time for deeds not words

Every time I pass a sign which welcomes visitors to Peterborough, I feel a growing sense of impatience whenever I read the portion which states “Creating the UK’s Environment Capital”. Really?

It doesn’t seem that way, given the traffic jams on Bourges Boulevard; from my own car, I can see the effluent rising from the exhausts of all the cars in front of me. Our area doesn’t seem to be any more eco-conscious than any other. However, we say we are: shouldn’t our deeds match our words?

We are being told important facts by both scientists and the evidence of our own senses. Australia burned to a cinder: over 30 people died in the recent blazes. Vast swathes of land were devastated. We have had three storms over three consecutive weekends. While we cannot directly control the weather, our actions can contribute to the likelihood of events. If you knew that a change in your behaviour would reduce the possibility of a disaster, wouldn’t you act on that information? You wouldn’t eliminate risk entirely, but you would make it less likely.

We can and should do our part in Peterborough. As welcome as they are, recycling bins alone are not the answer. The council should have a carbon budget, which it sticks to as rigorously as its monetary one. When the council procures goods and services, we should insist on an environmental audit, and understand the impact of what we do. Then we should take tangible steps to address this impact. We should demand estimates like how much carbon is emitted by the cars idling on Bourges Boulevard while they wait for the Rhubarb Bridge re-construction to be completed.

The council can, and should, improve local bus services to get people out of their cars. The council can and should revise its working practices to encourage even more home working, which prevents car journeys. The council can, and should, insist on using renewable resources in its construction projects: when social housing is built, how much of it is timber frame, for example? Are enough trees planted to replace the ones used?

I realise that it is in this Administration’s nature to implement short term fixes to immediate crises. This newspaper reports something terrible. Either publicity or money is thrown at the problem in the hope the narrative will change. With climate change, however, we are faced with a problem of an entirely different magnitude. We are talking about a future which extends beyond any Administration’s term in office. This should be not a matter of politics either: no one, no matter their ideology, is safe from the raw power of nature. We have a limited time to ensure that our children have a future which could be called “tolerable”. This will require the Administration to rise above its current habits, and to see the bigger picture. If not, we in the Labour Group will take up this task once we take office after May’s election.