How green is your local authority?

Interesting article in The Guardian recently discussing the top ranking councils on action to cut carbon emissions and prepare for climate change. See "Leading by example", Wednesday, 3rd January.

One dimension is still not at the forefront of thinking, however, namely a measure of resources use. Below is my letter of response (or read the published version here: Society Guardian letters).

Dear Sir
I welcome Terry Slavin's report highlighting the actions and initiatives of some local authorities to combat climate change. ('Leading by Example', Wed 3 Jan)

However, we also need to start ranking local authorities by their Ecological Footprint, ie. measuring their use of resources in global hectares per person (as calculated by the REAP project from the Stockholm Environment Institute at York University).

There is a strong link between wealth and size of footprint: the richest areas, such as Kensington & Chelsea, Woking, Guildford and Epsom & Ewell, have a footprint of 6.5 and above, whilst the lowest consuming local authorities are also among the poorest: residents of Merthyr Tydfil, Rhondda Cynon Taff, Torfaen and Blaenau Gwent each use less than 5 global hectares per person for their needs.

So whilst Woking should of course be praised for slashing CO2 emissions, it is starting from a very different point from Blaenau Gwent (4.8) or indeed many others, eg. Easington in County Durham (5.07) or Barking & Dagenham in London (5.02).

What is needed now is more recognition, incentives and support for areas with smaller ecological footprints and the people living there - people who have less and so consume less, thereby producing fewer emissions per person. If this led to new ways of measuring the health and success of the country, instead of in purely economic terms, so much the better.

Yours faithfully
Cathy Aitchison

----
(see my website for a list of some of the local authorities with their ecological footprints)