Bristol not expected to meet its own 2030 net zero target
The report said people in more affluent areas had a higher consumption of carbon, because of travel habits, heating, and buying more goods and services.People in Hartcliffe and Withywood produced on average 36% fewer emissions than those in Redland, for example.Most air pollution in the city came from cars, vans and gas boilers.But the report said that increasing the use of green electricity would be "the most significant driver" of cutting carbon between now and 2030.
After declaring a Climate Emergency, the council also committed to cutting its own emissions to net zero by this year, another goal that would not be met.These "direct emissions" included those from council-owned buildings and vehicles. which were forecast to have been reduced by 88% between 2016 and 2025."This is well ahead of any other major UK local authority", the report added.Councillor Martin Fodor, Chair of the Environment and Sustainability committee, said the city's efforts were "bearing fruit" towards carbon neutrality, which he described as "one of the most ambitious and important endeavours we've ever set out to achieve".But he added, "whilst we can allow ourselves a moment to celebrate the positive progress made to date, we cannot linger long if we're to meet the national target set in law."UK law sets a date of 2050 for the whole of the UK to be carbon neutral.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
12 minutes ago
- Times
Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties
E ugene Shvidler left the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained refugee status in the US before being granted a UK visa under the highly skilled migrant programme. A British citizen since 2010, Shvidler and his family chose to build their lives in England. He has not set foot in Russia since 2007, holds no ties to its regime, and has never been a citizen of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in 2022, he publicly condemned the 'senseless violence' in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that year the British government took the draconian step of freezing Shvidler's assets on the basis that he was 'associated with' Roman Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea FC; and that he was a non-executive director of Evraz, a mining company carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to Russia. Critically, because Shvidler is a British citizen, the asset-freeze makes it a criminal offence for him to deal with his assets anywhere in the world — subject to certain limited exceptions. Roman Abramovich, left, with Eugene Shvidler, centre ALAMY Ironically, had Shvidler not become a British citizen, the asset-freeze would be limited to his assets in the UK — he would have been better off. Instead, he cannot even buy food without obtaining a licence to do so. This is in circumstances where he has done nothing unlawful. It is unquestionable that the asset-freeze interferes with Shvidler's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is whether such interference is justified in the public interest. Having failed to persuade the government and the lower courts that the answer to that question was a resounding 'no', Shvidler appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold his rights. Sadly, they did not do so — the majority decision of four to one deferred to the government on the basis that the executive branch has a 'wide margin of appreciation' when imposing sanctions for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Lord Leggatt did not defer. In a dissenting judgment that will roar through the ages, he championed the constitutional role that our courts should play in keeping checks and balances on the executive powers exercised by the government. Without that separation of powers, our fundamental liberties are under threat. Citing Magna Carta and Orwell, Lord Leggatt stood up for those liberties and declared unlawful the asset-freeze 'without any geographical or temporal limit' which has deprived Shvidler of the basic freedom to use his possessions as he wishes, a freedom to which he should be entitled as a citizen of this country. In 1989, Shvidler left a country in which — in his words — 'individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections'. He has since left the UK for the same reason. James Clark is a partner at the firm Quillon Law; Jordan Hill, an associate at the firm, also contributed to this article
The Sun
14 minutes ago
- The Sun
Ex-Army chief Lord Peter Inge famous for ‘putting the fear of God' into officers leaves staggering sum to family in will
FORMER Army chief Lord Peter Inge left £3million in his will. Lord Inge died in July 2022, aged 86, after a five-decade career in which he rose from National Service conscript to Field Marshal. He was the last Field Marshal to actively serve in the Army, with those since elevated to the highest rank, including King Charles, only done so after their retirement. Lord Inge was famous for putting the fear of God into other senior officers with cutting remarks and incisive questions. He was appointed Chief of the General Staff in 1992, then Chief of the Defence Staff in 1994. Lord Inge later became a fierce critic of the British campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and blasted the Ministry of Defence for failing to 'think strategically'. The South London -born officer took the top Armed Forces job after his predecessor was caught having an affair with a Tory MPs wife, and while British forces were struggling in Bosnia. Sir John Major 's Conservative government had also pledged to further slash the size of the Army – with Inge under pressure to accept fresh cuts. The no-nonsense officer led forces through the conflict and was reportedly 'delighted' to come under mortar fire during a ride around Saravejo in a French armoured SUV. After being elevated to the House of Lords, Lord Inge of Richmond, Yorks., became a vocal critic of further plans to cut the Army. He left £3,167,854 in his estate, reduced by £150,000 after deductions. His wife Letitia died in 2020 so it was divided between daughters Antonia, 63, and Verity, 59. They also get their South London-born dad's vast collection of military memorabilia, farm estate in Leyburn, North Yorks, and central London flat. 1
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Gordon Brown calls for gambling tax to cut child poverty
Former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown has repeated his call for higher taxes on gambling to lift half a million children out of has backed a think tank report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), saying the move could raise £3.2bn to fund scrapping the two-child limit and benefit who was also chancellor under Tony Blair, said taxing online casinos and slot machines would be "the first crucial step in the war we must wage against child poverty".A spokesperson for the Betting and Gaming Council rejected the proposals, describing them as "economically reckless" and claiming they could push gamblers onto the black market. The Department for Media, Culture and Sport has been contacted for comment. The two-child limit and benefit cap affects 1.6 million children and is blamed for rising rates of food insecurity by anti-poverty campaigners, who say getting rid of the cap is the "single most effective" step the chancellor could take to reduce child two-child limit restricts child tax credit and universal credit (UC) to the first two children in most households, while the benefit cap sees the amount of benefits a household receives reduced to ensure claimants do not get more than the government is expected to publish a child poverty strategy in autumn, and children's charities and campaign groups have been united in calling for the two-child limit to be in the Guardian, Brown states: "Britain is now enduring the worst levels of child poverty since modern records began, even worse than in the Thatcher-Major years, and far worse than in most European countries..."These are austerity's children, the victims of 14 years of Tory rule, an era whose most vindictive act was to treat newborn third and fourth children as second-class citizens, depriving them of all the income support available to their first and second siblings."Flagging that child poverty is set to rise to "a wholly unacceptable" 4.8 million, Brown urges Chancellor Rachel Reeves to make "a straightforward budget choice" to raise taxes on online gambling companies to fund tackling child proposals focus on online gambling firms - the fast-growing part of the industry - and avoid any changes to bingo or lotteries. The IPPR suggested increasing taxes on online casinos from 21% to 50% and raising those on slots and gaming machines from 20% to 50%.Many online gambling firms are based offshore and pay little or no UK corporation tax, the IPPR report flags, and already benefits from unique tax advantages, including a complete exemption from VAT. The IPPR said raising gambling taxes in the way they suggested would be unlikely to reduce overall government Parkes, principal economist and head of quantitative research at IPPR, said: "The gambling industry is highly profitable, yet is exempt from paying VAT and often pays no corporation tax, with many online firms based offshore. "It is also inescapable that gambling causes serious harm, especially in its most high-stakes forms."Set against a context of stark and rising levels of child poverty, it only feels fair to ask this industry to contribute a little more."But a spokesperson for the Betting and Gaming Council said they rejected the "economically reckless, factually misleading" proposals which they insisted "risk driving huge numbers to the growing, unsafe, unregulated gambling black market, which doesn't protect consumers and contributes zero tax".They added: "Further tax rises, fresh off the back of government reforms which cost the sector over a billion in lost revenue, would do more harm than good - for punters, jobs, growth and public finances." Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
