Improved government funding or guidance on how to fund would certainly be helpful

10. Thankfully, their attempt to weaken the council’s commitment to net zero failed thanks to opposition parties strongly coming together & 2 Lib Dem Cllrs breaking ranks. I’m grateful to the support of other Councillors in doing this. Let’s double down on our efforts instead.

9. So the latest Lib Dem debacle that saw them oppose a motion in support of a Bill their own party supports is part of a concerning pattern I’d urge them to reverse. Our planet can’t wait. You can find out more about the Climate & Nature Bill at
@zerohour_uk

8. First the Portfolios for environment & sustainability have been put together to be managed by one person. This must dilute focus. Then, as the TW Green Alliance have said, their new Strategic Plan had a weaker focus on climate than the previous version

7. Are the Lib Dem’s making this mistake in good faith, like they say? I hope so. I’d give them the benefit of the doubt except this latest move is part of a pattern of weakening focus on climate & nature since they took control of the council in May this year.

6. Sometimes you have to do hard and uncomfortable things because you have no choice, & acting on climate & nature to pass on a liveable planet to the next generation is inescapable. Better an ambitious target you nearly achieve than a word salad fumble that lets you off the hook.

5. These are valid points, but hardly news. Decarbonisation was always going to be challenging & expensive- but, crucially, global warming, changing weather, and mass extinctions in nature will be more challenging & expensive than figuring out when & how to replace gas boilers.

4. What were the Lib Dem administration’s reasons? They said they wanted to be honest with the public. They said that net zero by 2030 is impossible because decarbonisation is expensive, & replacing gas boilers before the end of their life might cause more, not less, waste.

3. Instead the portfolio holder for Environment & Sustainability asked to change the wording from ‘net zero by 2030’ to ‘as soon as is reasonably possible’ a vague phrasing that would compromise the council’s longstanding commitment to the environment. Shocking.

2. The motion I brought to Full Council is a simple one - it’s primary purpose was to add our support to The Climate and Nature Bill, but it also reaffirmed a council commitment to climate action that has been a touchstone of our thinking since 2019. I didn’t foresee a problem.