Agenda item

CEAC is asked to review the interim aspirational target for reduction in carbon emissions as a district, and provide any recommendations to Cabinet.

Presented by Jessie Fieth, Senior Climate Action Officer

Senior Climate Action Officer Jessie Fieth introduced the progress report and explained the challenges to a district wide target. We had worked hard towards working with neighbouring councils in order to tackle this, working in partnership was the most effective method. Too much was out of the council’s control, so this was a difficult target to achieve.

The officer explained that before taking this report to Cabinet in September 2024, she would consider recommendations from CEAC and also use the data from 2022 that was previously unavailable. The officer added that she had checked the new data and they do not considerably impact the discussion today.

We look set to reach a emissions reduction of 55% by 2030, based on the 2008 baseline. When the target was set, we agreed to use a 2017 baseline (based on Ether consultancy report), but we could not replicate the methodology. We adopted a 2008 baseline as used by other councils. Now, we would be able to calculate against a 2017 baseline using a new methodology when we have the data. We would need to reduce emissions by double the current speed to reach the countywide target of 2050. It was stressed that we as a council had an important role, but a lot of issues were out of council control. Working with stakeholders and neighbours was important. We needed to formally acknowledge that we cannot meet our interim target and reconfirm our commitment to carbon reduction. Members will be updated with yearly tracking.

Members asked questions of clarification.

·       It was confirmed that new methodologies could be employed instead of Ether methodology, with a baseline being calculated from 2017. The reporting officer confirmed lessons were learned from a procurement perspective.

·       If modelling annually, would this come back to CEAC? It was confirmed yes.

·       Members discussed the data sources and discussed the potential causes of the drops and in emissions over the period, such as Didcot Power Station closures.

·       It was explained that this was nationally sourced data and that individual projects were not calculated separately and there was not the capacity to calculate to that level of granularity. Individual projects would have consultants who would calculate specific impacts.

·       The team leader confirmed that some areas had higher emissions, the example given was Cherwell and the impact of the M40. It could be similar for other areas in our district, but it was difficult to ascertain.

Members discussed their thoughts on the recommendations of the report, in order to conclude with a recommendation from the committee.

A member considered that 2045 was an appropriate target date but that we should formally recognise that the interim 2025 target was an unachievable target. Members discussed whether the interim target, if formally acknowledged, could be dropped or not. Some felt that the interim target could be dropped considering it was out of the council’s control.

A member considered that only having the 2045 target was not meaningful enough. Could the interim target instead be a pathway of targets, replacing the current interim target.

There was concern about this target being largely out of the council’s control. This context was important in this decision.

A member considered that with a new government in place, the targets being kept would help with future lobbying of government on climate targets.

A member mentioned the Oxfordshire Net Zero Route Map and Action Plan, and considered whether we could align with that as a form of partnership work. An officer explained that the target in this work was 2050, with no interim target.

Members concluded that they supported ‘recommendation b’ as it is written.

‘Recommendation a’ was debated further due to varying opinions given. It was generally felt that interim targets were helpful for working with partners and government and driving ambition.

A member considered an extra recommendation was needed, but others asked whether the data was complete enough yet to consider a new interim target. The team leader explained that there was not enough resource before September to understand carbon budgets. This report and recommendations were going to inform the Corporate Plan targets in September. Members were reminded that there was a balance between officers conducting more data research for target setting and the resource needed to get projects up and running. CEAC did recognise that the timing of creating new interim targets depended on resource availability.

Members asked whether officers could investigate the practicality of setting more plausible interim targets every five years? The officer confirmed the team could provide a guestimate alternative interim target from the PAZCO report data, to present to Cabinet in September.

There was recognition of the fact that this target was widely out of the council’s control, and the original setting of targets were without a baseline of data that we have now built.

Recommendations:

a) CEAC formally recognises that the interim aspirational target of achieving a 75 per cent reduction in district carbon emissions by 2030 cannot be met.

(b) CEAC agrees with the recommendation that Cabinet re-affirms its commitment to accelerating progress towards achieving an ambitious 2045 target to be a net zero carbon district

Added recommendation

(c) CEAC recommends that Cabinet considers developing new 5-year interim targets (carbon budget) up to 2045 using available “Pathways to a Zero Carbon Oxfordshire” (PAZCO) data, for a more accurate interim target.