13th April 2008

The provisional Gloucestershire Economic Strategy has been out for consultation, but unfortunately the County have not formally asked District councillors to contribute or those like ourselves who contributed to the initial consultation. We only learnt of the consultation last week so have not been able to put together as comprehensive a document as we would have liked.

See consultation strategy:
http://www.glosfirst.co.uk/consultation.aspx

2008 - 2015  Review 2008 Consultation Feedback Guide

Here is our submission from: Cllr. Philip Booth, Stroud District Green Party

1. Do you broadly agree with the content of this strategy?
2. Do you agree with the Economic Mission statement on page 8?
3. In your view, are the overarching Strategic Objectives (starting on page 9) right?
4. From the perspective of your organisation, what are the key measures of success for delivery of the Strategic Objectives?
5. Which key Strategic Objectives and associated actions could your organisation help to deliver?
6. Do the appendices provide about the right level of background information?
7. Have you any other suggestions for inclusion in the strategy, prior to the one-year provisional adoption?

Submission

We have unfortunately been unable to give this consultation the time it deserves as we only became aware of the consultation and deadline on Thursday. We did make a submission to the earlier consultation on this strategy and welcome that some of our comments appear to have been taken on board. This document is a significant improvement, however we still have grave concerns. I understand a comprehensive environmental assessment of the strategy had been called for and wonder if that report is available to the public?

General view of strategy.

This strategy is a business-as-usual approach with some gestures to tackling the issues around the environment. There is no real recognition of the measures necessary to cut our emissions by 90% and not even a mention of Peak Oil. I have to note my grave concerns that this does not address what is needed in our County: having said that, a recognition of the need for community resilience and measures to tackle climate change are welcomed. I also note that many of the actions that are needed, are actions that need to be taken by central government.

Here are a number of quick points regarding the strategy:

1. Economic growth.
There is a recognition in the 'Economic Mission' statement that it simply isn't possible to infinitely increase economic growth and simultaneously reduce carbon emissions to safeguard our future. Many economists now question how the commitment to competitive business model is consistent with stable ecological footprint.  How can businesses compete without out-sourcing to China, which obviously generates more CO2? The reality of "growth within environmental limits" is not spelt out and is contradicted later in the strategy document by support for Airport growth. This is a missed opportunity to call for a zero carbon future. The report, "Greening Growth: How local Government can build the green economy" by Andrew Jones of the LGIU has, despite not going far enough, does have some useful steps that could be included in this strategy.

2. Climate change.
Where are the targets to tackle climate change in this report? We must take full responsibility for our emissions and the impact they will have on other communities as well as our own. It's as if the Stern Report had never written his report.

3. Happiness.
I welcome the acknowledgement that economic growth doesn't bring happiness. However much more could have been noted on this. There is much research now that shows our economics is not only damaging our future but also encourages rampant consumerism that we use to distract ourselves from meaningless lives that no longer connect to the rhythms and abundance of the natural world. While many have higher 'standards of living',  almost all of us are poorer, when it comes to quality of life. Indeed Oliver James's book 'The Selfish Capitalist' shows how our obsession with economic growth has led to extraordinary increases in people's insecurity and unhappiness.

4. Localisation.
There is talk of cutting food miles but this issue needs much greater emphasis. Northumberland County Council for example increased the amount of money circulating in their area by 400 per cent by examining how they spend their money, and fostering links with local suppliers: a ten per cent increase in their council's annual procurement spent locally meant £34 million extra circulating in the local economy each year.

5. Economic forecast.
This section fails to acknowledge Peak Oil. Peak Oil in a nutshell is the moment in history when our global oil supply can no longer keep pace with demand. In other words all the easy-to-get at oil is extracted first, then the slightly harder-to-get-at oil, then a variety of methods are used to get the harder-still-to-get-at-oil and then, finally, when you are spending as much energy getting the remaining oil out as the energy embedded in that oil itself, you just give up and leave it there.

Oil companies and scientists estimate this may have occurred already but is likely to occur before 2012. It is quite extraordinary that this strategy leaves out this most significant factor from it's analysis. As I write this today I read that oil prices could top $300 per barrel within the next five years according to the "highly respected" Matthew Simmons, chairman and founder of specialised energy investment banking firm, Simmons & Company International. There urgently needs to be a recognition of this factor and contingency plans in this strategy.

5. Airport.
The strategy writes: "Exploit Business travel of Gloucestershire Airport and lobby for better access to Bristol Airport." This is a strong indication that climate change is not being taken seriously and furthermore a full consideration of the economic arguments for airport growth have also not been considered. Stroud District Council in their submission to the 'Draft Regional Spatial Strategy' rightly refused to support airport expansions. Many other Council's are also challenging Airport growth. Both economic and environmental cases against the airport growth are water-tight.

Some of the economic arguments: Why are taxpayers, who are already increasingly stretched, being asked to support and be liable for assets of an Airport? The risks for taxpayers having to bail out the Airport will increase with rising fuel costs and the introduction of taxes that ensure air travel pays for the damage it causes. Responsible businesses are looking at alternatives to flying, like video conferencing. The airport repeatedly overstate the Airport's benefit to the business community. It says, “30 companies based in the area regularly use Gloucestershire Airport for corporate aircraft or air-taxi services.” This is the most carbon intensive and unsustainable way of doing business possible. It is not in our long-term interest to encourage business to operate in the manner. Also, if these resources are available, it is not a surprise that business and businessmen who do not care about the environment choose to use them. It does not mean that they are vital to local business; it merely means that they are easy to use. The frivolous use of executive airplanes is demonstrated by aviation data showing that the amongst their most frequent destinations are the holiday resorts of the Mediterranean.

Some of the environmental arguments: Three years ago the Tyndall Centre calculated that if Britain were to meet its target of cutting greenhouse gases by 60 per cent by 2050, and emissions from aviation were not reduced, all other emissions – from households, businesses, energy generation and cars – would have to go to zero. Flying would take up everything that was available. The prediction is on the way to being fulfilled. Emissions from aircraft show no sign whatsoever of being reduced. It is not only that their growth seems endless, but that a tonne of plane pollution ejected directly into the stratosphere is two to four times as harmful as a tonne emitted at ground level. How can we  allow an airport to increase emissions when we know that to avoid catastrophic climate change we all need to cut emissions by 90% or more. What other sectors will need to cut their emissions if we allow the airport to expand? Lastly the IPCCs most recent and shocking report is now seen by many as being "too conservative'. Morally no one can support growth in aviation if they have read that report.

6. Canal investment.
The claim that 600 jobs will be created is contested by many, particularly if some existing canal corridor businesses are forced to close as part of the redevelopment and rise in property value and rents.  Out-commuting from the Stroud  Urban Area is already  a problem. Before conversion of canal corridor protected employment sites to housing or mixed use , there should be evidence that there is no detrimental impact on out-commuting and congestion.


Completed submissions should be returned, preferably electronically, on or before the deadline of 9am on Monday 14 April 2008 to catherine.farrell@glosfirst.co.uk
Or by post to: Catherine Farrell, Partnership Development Manager, Gloucestershire First, Chargrove Business Centre, Main Road, Shurdington, Cheltenham, GL51 4GA.