Birmingham council leader insists net zero ambitions are not being ‘sidelined'
The leader of Birmingham City Council has insisted the organisation's net zero ambitions are not being sidelined.
The council declared a climate emergency in 2019, saying it would aspire to become net zero carbon by 2030 - or as soon as possible thereafter.
The authority said its net zero ambitions were about reducing and removing greenhouse gases to mitigate against increasing climate risk.
READ MORE: Watch tense moment Birmingham council leader faces bins strike fury as man asks 'would you'
The term specifically means achieving a balance between the greenhouse gas emitted into the atmosphere and the greenhouse gases removed from it.
The council's annual net zero report covering 2023 said last year the authority was making 'good progress' in tackling its emissions and had brought together its key teams working on climate change.
But during a meeting this week, Green Party councillor Julien Pritchard asked why the annual report for 2024 had not been brought before full council yet - and questioned whether the council's climate work was still a key focus.
During the last two years, the net zero reports were published ahead of meetings at the start of the year in either January or February.
'We have a rather crowded agenda of reports that have been coming through city council,' council leader John Cotton told the meeting of the city council yesterday, June 17.
'The intention was to bring the [net zero] report to this meeting - unfortunately, some other issues of business meant that had to be moved back.
'But that will be brought to the next meeting of city council.'
Coun Pritchard responded that it was 'a bit disappointing' they would have to wait until July for the report.
'It doesn't fill people with a lot of confidence that the council is living up to its climate change commitments when it can't even report on its progress once a year,' he said.
'Can you reassure us that the council's climate work isn't being sidelined?'
READ MORE: Birmingham set to welcome more Afghan refugees amid 'perilous conditions' under Taliban rule
Coun Cotton said he was aware 'we live in political times where there's someone to question the whole concept of net zero'.
'That is not a position that this administration of this council will ever take,' the Labour councillor continued. 'The reasons why we've not brought the annual report to council is purely around the pipeline of business that comes before this meeting.
'I can absolutely assure him the work to ensure net zero takes place in this council 365 days a year.'
In last year's report, the council said it took numerous important steps on the road to net zero.
This included securing funding to improve the energy efficiency of 2,076 council homes; delivering the £1.7m natural rivers and green corridors project; and installing 828 electric vehicle charge points across the city.
'We are proud of our successes to date,' the council said in early 2024.
'We look forward to working with our city's stakeholders and citizens in delivering our climate change, nature and net zero programme, reducing our emissions and improving our resilience to climate change.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
42 minutes ago
- Washington Post
As Israel strikes Iran, many wonder if the US will deepen its involvement
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — As Israeli strikes kill top Iranian generals, take out air defenses and damage nuclear sites , many wonder if President Donald Trump will deepen U.S. involvement in the conflict. Trump has long railed against what he refers to as the 'stupid, endless wars' waged by his predecessors, including in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. helped overthrow governments. But with Iran's government looking increasingly fragile, if the U.S. does get involved, its strikes could help severely damage the country's nuclear program or even end its 4-decade-old theocracy. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' Trump said in an exchange with reporters at the White House about whether he has decided to order a U.S. strike. 'I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' But the recent history of U.S. attempts to remake the Middle East by force is one of costly blunders and colossal failures — and there are plenty of hard-earned lessons for anyone who wants to try it again. U.S. special forces and Afghan allies drove the Taliban from power and chased Osama bin Laden into Pakistan within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. American tanks rolled into Baghdad weeks after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Both wars went on for years. The Taliban waged a tenacious insurgency for two decades and swept back into power as the U.S. beat a chaotic retreat in 2021 . The overthrow of Saddam plunged Iraq into chaos, with Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias battling each other and U.S. forces. Israel may succeed in taking out Iran's air defenses, ballistic missiles and much of its nuclear program. But that would still leave hundreds of thousands in the military, the Revolutionary Guard and forces known as the Basij, who played a key role in quashing waves of anti-government protests in recent years. Airstrikes have never been enough on their own. Take Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, for example. His forces withstood a seven-month NATO air campaign in 2011 before rebels fighting city by city eventually cornered and killed him . There are currently no insurgent groups in Iran capable of taking on the Revolutionary Guard, and it's hard to imagine Israeli or U.S. forces launching a ground invasion of a mountainous country of some 80 million people that is about four times as big as Iraq. A split in Iran's own security forces would furnish a ready-made insurgency, but it would also likely tip the country into civil war. There's also the question of how ordinary Iranians would respond. Protests in recent years show that many Iranians believe their government is corrupt and repressive, and would welcome its demise. But the last time a foreign power attacked Iran — the Iraqi invasion of 1980 — people rallied around the flag. At the moment, many appear to be lying low or leaving the capital. Some of the biggest cheerleaders for the U.S. invasion of Iraq were exiled opposition figures , many of whom had left the country decades before. When they returned, essentially on the back of U.S. tanks, they were marginalized by local armed groups more loyal to Iran. There are several large Iranian opposition groups based abroad, but they are not united and it's unclear how much support any of them has inside the country. The closest thing to a unifying opposition figure is Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah who was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought the theocracy to power. But many Iranians have bitter memories of repression under the shah, and others might reject Pahlavi over his outreach to Israel , especially if he tries to ride to power on the back of a foreign invasion. In Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya — and in Syria and Yemen after their 2011 uprisings — a familiar pattern emerged when governments were overthrown or seriously weakened. Armed groups emerged with competing agendas. Neighboring countries backed local proxies. Weapons flowed in and large numbers of civilians fled . The fighting in some places boiled over into full-blown civil war, and ever more violent extremist groups sprouted from the chaos . When it was all over, Saddam had been replaced by a corrupt and often dysfunctional government at least as friendly to Iran as it was to the U.S. Gadhafi was replaced by myriad militias, many allied with foreign powers. The Taliban were replaced by the Taliban.
Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
As Israel strikes Iran, many wonder if the US will deepen its involvement
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — As Israeli strikes kill top Iranian generals, take out air defenses and damage nuclear sites, many wonder if President Donald Trump will deepen U.S. involvement in the conflict. Trump has long railed against what he refers to as the 'stupid, endless wars' waged by his predecessors, including in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. helped overthrow governments. But with Iran's government looking increasingly fragile, if the U.S. does get involved, its strikes could help severely damage the country's nuclear program or even end its 4-decade-old theocracy. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' Trump said in an exchange with reporters at the White House about whether he has decided to order a U.S. strike. 'I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' But the recent history of U.S. attempts to remake the Middle East by force is one of costly blunders and colossal failures — and there are plenty of hard-earned lessons for anyone who wants to try it again. Initial success is often fleeting U.S. special forces and Afghan allies drove the Taliban from power and chased Osama bin Laden into Pakistan within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. American tanks rolled into Baghdad weeks after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Both wars went on for years. The Taliban waged a tenacious insurgency for two decades and swept back into power as the U.S. beat a chaotic retreat in 2021. The overthrow of Saddam plunged Iraq into chaos, with Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias battling each other and U.S. forces. Israel may succeed in taking out Iran's air defenses, ballistic missiles and much of its nuclear program. But that would still leave hundreds of thousands in the military, the Revolutionary Guard and forces known as the Basij, who played a key role in quashing waves of anti-government protests in recent years. Ground forces are key but do not guarantee success Airstrikes have never been enough on their own. Take Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, for example. His forces withstood a seven-month NATO air campaign in 2011 before rebels fighting city by city eventually cornered and killed him. There are currently no insurgent groups in Iran capable of taking on the Revolutionary Guard, and it's hard to imagine Israeli or U.S. forces launching a ground invasion of a mountainous country of some 80 million people that is about four times as big as Iraq. A split in Iran's own security forces would furnish a ready-made insurgency, but it would also likely tip the country into civil war. There's also the question of how ordinary Iranians would respond. Protests in recent years show that many Iranians believe their government is corrupt and repressive, and would welcome its demise. But the last time a foreign power attacked Iran — the Iraqi invasion of 1980 — people rallied around the flag. At the moment, many appear to be lying low or leaving the capital. Be wary of exiled opposition groups Some of the biggest cheerleaders for the U.S. invasion of Iraq were exiled opposition figures, many of whom had left the country decades before. When they returned, essentially on the back of U.S. tanks, they were marginalized by local armed groups more loyal to Iran. There are several large Iranian opposition groups based abroad, but they are not united and it's unclear how much support any of them has inside the country. The closest thing to a unifying opposition figure is Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah who was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought the theocracy to power. But many Iranians have bitter memories of repression under the shah, and others might reject Pahlavi over his outreach to Israel, especially if he tries to ride to power on the back of a foreign invasion. Chaos is practically guaranteed In Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya — and in Syria and Yemen after their 2011 uprisings — a familiar pattern emerged when governments were overthrown or seriously weakened. Armed groups emerged with competing agendas. Neighboring countries backed local proxies. Weapons flowed in and large numbers of civilians fled. The fighting in some places boiled over into full-blown civil war, and ever more violent extremist groups sprouted from the chaos. When it was all over, Saddam had been replaced by a corrupt and often dysfunctional government at least as friendly to Iran as it was to the U.S. Gadhafi was replaced by myriad militias, many allied with foreign powers. The Taliban were replaced by the Taliban.
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
He Helped American Soldiers in Afghanistan. Now He's in ICE Detention
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Federal agents detained a former U.S. Army interpreter from Afghanistan, forced to flee his home country because of the Taliban, at his asylum hearing in California last week. The arrest at an immigration court in San Diego on Thursday was caught on video, with Sayed Naser heard calmly telling the masked agents detaining him that he worked as an interpreter in his home country. Newsweek reached out to Naser's attorney and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for comment via contact form and email Wednesday morning. Why It Matters Afghans who worked with the U.S. military during its 20-year stretch in the country were welcomed to the U.S. as refugees, on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) following the U.S. withdrawal in 2021, but some have had TPS withdrawn by the Trump administration, opening them up to the prospect of deportation. Sayed Naser is arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at a courthouse in San Diego on June 12, 2025. Sayed Naser is arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at a courthouse in San Diego on June 12, 2025. AfghanEvac What To Know Naser was legally paroled into the U.S. in 2024, per immigration documents shared with Newsweek, having applied for asylum using the Biden-era CBP One app and entering via the San Ysidro port of entry on the southwest border. The interpreter, who worked with the U.S. military for about three years, had a pending SIV application, wanting to stay in the U.S. out of fear he would be detained, tortured and killed should he return to Afghanistan. His brother was killed by the Taliban in 2023, while his father was abducted. "While collaborating with U.S. forces, I faced numerous threats and attacks," Naser wrote in his declaration to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). "Several times, I narrowly escaped harm, but over seven of our vehicles were burned by the Taliban. "To them, anyone or any company working with foreign forces is considered an infidel and a legitimate target for killing. For this reason, after the fall [of the] government, it became impossible for us to live in Afghanistan. We had to leave the country by any means necessary." Naser's story is similar to many who had helped American troops and were left behind during the chaotic U.S. withdrawal in 2021. He first traveled to Brazil before making the journey north to the U.S.-Mexico border via the notorious Darien Gap. On Thursday, Naser had his immigration court hearing in San Diego, but the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorney reportedly said that his case was "'improvidently issued," giving Naser and his attorney, Brian McGoldrick, 10 days to respond. McGoldrick said at a briefing Tuesday that an asylum hearing was set for September and court was adjourned. Outside the courtroom, ICE agents were waiting and demanded to know Naser's name. When agents asked McGoldrick for documents, he said in the video that he had none for them. Agents then moved to take Naser, placing him in handcuffs as he turned to the camera. "I worked with the U.S. military back in my home country, I have all the documents, I didn't have a credible-fear interview," Naser said, repeatedly saying he worked with the U.S. military before agents took him away to the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Naser's arrest was denounced by the group Unite for Veterans, which said that the U.S. had a responsibility to protect Afghan allies. The advocacy group #AfghanEvac also called out the federal government for breaking its promise to those who served alongside U.S. troops. ICE has increased its detention efforts at immigration courts across the country, amid pressure from the White House to reach a daily arrest target of 3,000 immigrants. What People Are Saying Brian McGoldrick, Naser's attorney, at a press briefing Tuesday: "It's really shocking what's happening in the courthouse in San Diego and around the country. You walk down the hall and it's like you're walking down executioner's just so intimidating. The clients are terrorized." #AfghanEvac, in a statement shared with Newsweek: "Let's be clear: "Improvidently issued" is being abused. It has no standard meaning, no transparency, and no accountability. It is being weaponized to short-circuit due process and to meet quiet enforcement quotas. And Sayed is not alone. This is part of a broader pattern: quietly shutting doors, denying pathways, and undermining the very mechanisms we created to keep our promises to our allies." Unite for Veterans, in a press release: "Our Afghan allies protected us when we needed them. They shared our humvees. They were wounded with us. They gave their lives to protect us. Now it is our turn to look after them. We owe them. They are our teammates, our fellow soldiers, patriots. We cannot let those who risked their lives for our shared values be denied the safety and opportunity they deserve and that we promised them." What Happens Next Naser remains in custody and is awaiting further hearings. ICE has not commented on the case.
