A burning issue revisited

Today the Cornwall Council waste strategy panel met to decide whether to ask their contracted waste company SITA to submit revised plans for an incinerator. SITA's previous incinerator plan was rejected by the Council's planning committee before the local elections last year. SITA appealed against this decision. There will now be a public enquiry in March, followed by a decision by the secretary of state after the latest possible date for a general election.

It was the Liberal Democrat Cornwall County Council elected in 2005 who chose incineration as their preferred approach and contracted with SITA. The comments on today's meeting to a local newspaper by Matthew Taylor MP would be comical if it weren't for the fact that - for financial as well as environmental reasons - practical decisions need to be made. Conveniently ignoring that it was a Liberal Democrat Council that agreed the contract with SITA, Matthew Taylor MP was the first to throw stones in the glass house: "The Conservatives opposed the incinerator to get elected, but now they are in charge they are about to double-cross electors and back the incinerator."

The fact is that the panel of five Tories, four Liberal Democrats, four Independents, and one MK councillor today decided a recommendation that will go to the Council's Cabinet. The majority backed incineration as an approach by recommending SITA develop a revised proposal.

The argument about Cornwall's waste strategy has run through three Councils and (so far) two general elections. It is fair to say that the issue is not Party political, in that representatives of the three main Parties have spoken for and against incineration in different representative roles, where there are different local factors to take into consideration, and at different stages of the process; for Labour, the only government view is that the chosen approach to waste management should be a local decision. And if anyone failed to deliver that, it was the Liberal Democrats.

I agree with Matthew Taylor MP that "Other communities are developing better, more environmental options for dealing with waste." Like him, I have consistently supported objections to his Party's original choice of incineration and at every subsequent decision stage; and the political boundary changes have not weakened the opposition of my constituency Labour Party to a single, centralised incinerator.

The Liberal Democrats dug the Council into a hole by supporting incineration and then allowing SITA to submit a plan that was refused planning permission. Financially, today's meeting may start to move the Council into a more manageable position and make it more likely that costs can be stopped from escalating.

For Cornwall's environment and carbon emissions it is still the wrong decision, caused by the Liberal Democrats who could have stopped the incinerator many of their supporters oppose when they were elected five years ago, and by now delivered a sustainable waste strategy for Cornwall. And fortunately, it may still be possible to do that, provided a single, centralised incinerator can be stopped.

Cornwall's Cons - we can't go on like this

The latest press release from Cornwall's Tories claims of their plans to dispose of 48 office buildings and spend £12 Million plus on remodelling three main offices:

"Capital receipts from property disposals will be re-invested in better services."

Whereas Local Government Association guidance published in October 2009 confirms the legal position:

"Councils can only use assets sales to finance capital spending."

This fact was made clear to Cornwall Council's Cabinet on Wednesday 13 January 2010, and the Tory press release was published after that meeting.

While we are on the subject of Tory bogus claims, the fact that buildings which are no longer Council offices will not contribute to the Council's carbon emissions may do nothing to reduce Cornwall's carbon footprint if these buildings continue to be used by others without being retro-fitted. What has happened to Cornwall's climate change action plan?

Climate justice and poverty

The Queen's speech commitment to increase international aid to 0.7 per cent of the UK's national income by 2013 has had limited coverage, partly because the Tories fell in behind the proposals rendering them politically neutral. And yet the stalling of the UN conference at Copenhagen showed that global co-operation needs new momentum. Since the Make Poverty History campaign, one of Gordon Brown's strengths has been finding ways to provide aid as practical support - such as HIV vaccination - rather than as liquid funds which can be diverted away from their intended purpose. The global response to climate change needs to provide practical support for sustainable development and adaptations to climate change, and accept that developed economies need to make bigger cuts sooner. It is better to be where we are now than for the UN to have put a detailed but inadequate agreement in place. The agreement as it stands includes funding of 10 Billion dollars a year. Now we need to raise our game by agreeing robust targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions - the next opportunity to discuss these will be in February.

Deal or no deal?

There's a media strategy which says if you raise hopes too high you may end up disappointing people, but if you lower expectations you may be able to snatch success from the jaws of failure if things turn out better than you have led people to expect.

The messages put out before the Copenhagen summit - that a deal might be reached but it was expected to take more time to make it legally binding - reminded me of the latter. Several of Obama's big US policy shifts - including health reform - have gone right to the edge of possible failure before the decision-makers votes were counted and the reforms came in.

So - as the Copenhagen conference comes to an end - the prospect of a fragile accord on the longterm goal of stopping climate change, with no agreement on targets for 2020, feels like a let-down. In the world of politics, it will be easy for people to emphasise the negative uncertainties left lying on the table as the world leaders and negotiators pack their bags to go home.

I'm a natural optimist, but following the G20 I wrote about why it was going to be much more difficult to get agreement at Copenhagen. I would love to have been proved wrong. And yet, comparing where we are now to Kyoto, real progress has been made. At Copenhagen we have three things that weren't there at Kyoto: a scientific consensus on the need for action that withstood the climate change deniers best efforts to undermine the reasons for action; a US President at the conference calling for agreement and pledging an 80 per cent cut in his country's emissions by 2050; and perhaps most importantly, poorer countries with the confidence to bite the hands that partly feed them by demanding a further shift in their direction to achieve a fairer global deal, and prepared to walk from the negotiating table when it wasn't forthcoming.

The threat of climate change is the opportunity to utilise the growing necessity of climate justice to end global poverty. Creating a stable and prosperous world economy will not be easy - it will take much more than tinkering with the financial systems we make until they start up again. But the international dialogue in the past two weeks put the real issues out on the table, and it isn't really surprising the deal is still some way off.