Is Aberdeenshire in favour of 10:10 after all?

Yesterday, the Provost refused to allow a motion on 10:10 from Martin Ford to be debated, saying it needed discussion at Policy and Resources. But today, a news release on Aberdeenshire's website asked residents to support 10:10. Now any support is welcome.

But as Martin says

"What happened overnight? Certainly there was no meeting of the Policy & Resources Committee. Yet the Council's public relations department has now issued a press release quoting leading members of the administration group backing 10:10.

"But this U-turn has made the Council look ridiculous and vulnerable to a charge of hypocrisy. The Council itself wouldn't sign up yesterday. Today it wants others to do what it wouldn't."

I spotted the news release at lunchtime today and felt disgusted that two councillors from the ruling group were now asking for support for 10:10 and that council officers had given their very thin release official sanction.

It would be a serious matter if Council staff are being used for party political purposes. Are officers acting impartially towards the different political groups on the Council?  Will the Council now be publishing my press releases?  I doubt it as they won't link their website to my blog!


  1. Cllr Storr,

    Your blog entry on 10:10 is a bit harsh no? The council cannot commit to reduce its emissions by 10% by 2010 on the basis of a motion! there needs to be work done to consider if the resources are there to achieve this, which is the purpose of the policy and resources committee i assume?
    but 10:10 also applies to individual citizens and therefore the council has in my view taken the right course of action to make a press release informing the public of the campaign that Cllr Ford wanted to be promoted.
    Finally, I fully respect your right to criticise other councillors, thats politics, but i think to question the integrity of officers is below the belt and unnecessary.

  2. Steven,
    If the Council had wanted to publicise Martin's initiative, it could have asked him for quotes ... and perhaps mentioned the 10:10 motion in the press release on the Council meeting.
    In fact, the Provost could have allowed Martin to move the motion and then asked for the referral to P&R.
    None of this happened.
    What conclusion does a reasonable person draw?

  3. Cllr Storr,
    Your response suggests that the 10:10 initiative belongs to Cllr Ford,it does not. He wants to promote the initiative, and the council are doing so. Surely it is irrelevant which Councillor is quoted so long as the message is being spread to citizens in Aberdeenshire?
    Admittedly it did not occur to me that the motion could have been moved, but is the initiative not being looked into by officers now? in which case I am confused as to why you are complaining?

  4. No Steven,
    I specifically said that any support for 10:10 is welcome and you'll see that I have promoted it on this blog.
    It's the behaviour of either the ruling administration or officers that I questioned.

  5. Cllr Storr,

    From what i have read both the ruling administration and officers have behaved in a manner which indicated support for the initiative? Or are there actions behind the scenes which the public are unaware of?

  6. Now why won't the council support 10:10? well perhaps it's because it will only serve to highlight their diabolical failings regarding C02 emission reductions in 2010? How much did they cut emissions last year and the year before etc? well I just googled them and had a look at their climate change declaration annual review for CO2 emission and it's not looking too clever, since 2005/06: buildings -0.3%, street lighting +5.7%, business mileage +6% there is no figure for transport and no total. Now waste is interesting because they say they have claim to have made a 15.4 % cut in CO2 from waste yet Aberdeenshire has had the worst biodegradable municiple waste record for two yrs running (SEPA)? So I'm not sure how this is calculated? They are no where near on target to meet 2012 targets or 2020 carbon neutrality. In fact they are heading in the wrong direction! hmmm... for some reason I can't find a press release on this ?
    we need action to back up the fine promises that they have made. If it wasn't for the likes of councillors Ford and Storr I doubt that we would hear anything about such matters? Their PR department must be extremely cautious about what gets out. I want to know what real action they are taking to cut CO2 emissions? e.g. number of renewable energy projects planned over the next 5 yrs and estimated savings, energy conservtion measures and incentives to get people using public transport and cycling scheme? There is a renewables strategy (2004) but is it on target? it suggests that they should be contributing to the national target to produce 18% of energy from renewables by 2010 and 40% by 2020 - is this going to happen in council buildings? Are their planned measures sufficient to make the necessary cuts, and, if not what will they do about it and who is ultimately responsible? If they are failing, which is the case, and investment is insufficient, then we have to assume that they are quite happy to turn a blind eye to the impact this will have on those least able to cope with the consequences of climate change. Councillor Storr can you tell us what the Council plan to do about their failings - who is answerable? it's no use making paultry savings in one area if we are going to increase CO2 emissions in another. Local authorities must be accountable for their actions, awareness raising and promotion of small initiatives just isn't enough . They even publically supported the decadent trump development and destruction of protected land and the AWPR which will all no doubt have a significant impact on CO2 emissions from building and transport .....what message does this send out to the public? Looks to me like our local council don't take climate change seriously and don't care about how it affects those least able to cope!

  7. Apologies I made an error in my last post , the council made a reduction of 3% in CO2 emissions from buildings, not 0.3%. They need to make a 20% cut by 2012 to meet their target . The report states that this will not be achieved. The report can be found at

    I noticed that the Wirrel Council recently asked members of the public to sign up to 10:10 but only after they had signed up themselves, whisch is as it should be.


I am happy to address most contributions if they are coherent. Comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will be posted.

Please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person.

The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.