8 Carbon Offsetting
Object
Net Zero Carbon Development Plan Document - Regulation 19
Representation ID: 72170
Received: 08/05/2022
Respondent: BLAST (Bringing Leamington Allotment Societies Together)
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
8.1 The offsetting of vegetation planting is not viable if the vegetation does not survive. Profit based organisations fail to maintain and support vegetation as it is cheaper to re-plant, as is the protocol for the massiveily high carbon / high cost HS2 project. Measures to invalidate the offsetting if it does not survive the climate changes happening now and over the next 3 decades are needed. Droughts, fierce storm damage and flooding are caused by the high carbon infrastructure / built environment in the first place.
8.6 Re-wilding is the most efficient carbon reduction system and climate change reducer.
8.1 The offsetting of vegetation planting is not viable if the vegetation does not survive. It is the nature of profit based organisations to fail to maintain and support vegetation as it is cheaper to re-plant, as is the protocol for the massiveily high carbon / high cost HS2 project. There need to be measures to invalidate the offsetting if it does not survive the climate changes happening now and over the next 3 decades. Droughts, additionally fierce storm damage and flooding are caused by the high carbon infrastructure / built environment in the first place.
8.6 There is an opportunity to introduce re-wilding as the most efficient carbon reduction system and climate change reducer.
Comment
Net Zero Carbon Development Plan Document - Regulation 19
Representation ID: 72197
Received: 08/06/2022
Respondent: Warwick District Labour Party
Option to upgrade completed building efficiency may be possible and preferable to a carbon offset payment; this should be made clear in the policy.
If it is necessary to include offsetting (which we do not favour) it must pass a stringent technical alternative test and NOT be permitted simply as an easier or cheaper option.
If a 9-year performance reassessment is required as suggested elsewhere, the same option - upgrade to original standard or costly carbon offset - should also be in the policy.
Will WDC set an example by committing not to seek carbon offset solutions to efficiency challenges?
Option to upgrade completed building efficiency may be possible and preferable to a carbon offset payment; this should be made clear in the policy.
If it is necessary to include offsetting (which we do not favour) it must pass a stringent technical alternative test and NOT be permitted simply as an easier or cheaper option.
If a 9-year performance reassessment is required as suggested elsewhere, the same option - upgrade to original standard or costly carbon offset - should also be in the policy.
Will WDC set an example by committing not to seek carbon offset solutions to efficiency challenges?