We haven’t a clue… starring Rotherham Council

When you consider the huge sums being spent by local authorities on their ‘fight’ against climate change, you would expect them to have a full understanding of their aims and what they expect to achieve.

They do things differently in Rotherham.  It is the town where everyone matters, but evidence that informs their actions does not.

An AM reader has kindly brought to our attention this Rotherham’s FOI response to a local greenbelt campaign group (posted on their campaign website) which asks a number of reasonable questions about  Rotherham Council’s consistency and understanding when approaching the issues of ‘climate change’ and ‘reducing carbon emissions’.

Rotherham Council proposes to build 12,750 new homes from 2012-2027.  But the impact of this would surely undermines their stated environmental policy. So the campaign group wanted to understand how Rotherham’s policy proposals of building on large swathes of scenic greenbelt land can be reconciled with their climate change and carbon emissions efforts.  The FOI response below shows just how vacuous and dogmatic Rotherham Council’s position is.

Asked if concreting over greenbelt land will result in an increase in CO2 emissions Rotherham MBC’s official response is that they do not know.  Incredible.

This begs the most obvious question.  If all they can cite is a graph and a generic link to the Met Office website, should they be spending massive amounts of taxpayers’ money on the fight against evil CO2 in the first place when their growth agenda contributes to increasing urbanisation which counteracts it?

7 Responses to “We haven’t a clue… starring Rotherham Council”


  1. 1 Rereke Whakaaro 31/07/2011 at 11:59 am

    The two names in the response should have been redacted, in order to protect the incompetent.

    Also, the graph shown does not exhibit the characteristic hockey stick shaped icon of global changing. It is obviously a fake. Rajendra will not be amused.

  2. 2 The Gray Monk 31/07/2011 at 12:42 pm

    Patently a motion pushed through by some starry eyed incompetent elected to the council who has heard of the evil “carbon,” has a vague idea that its caused by sommething humans do, and supported by equally ill-informed morons who voted yes just to shut him/her up. Then they moved on the next item – increasing the borough population will bring extra money to the council so they can spend more on things that will get them re-elected or can be funnelled through relatives back to their own bank accounts …

    I sometimes wonder why our politicians can’t see why the public no longer trust them or believe a word they say, and even more, wonder why they can’t see they are being steered, misled and downright lied to all the time by their civil servant ‘advisers’ and town hall administrators.

    But then I recall the conversations I’ve had with a larger number of MPs, Councillors and public servants over the years…

    The planet they inhabit does not have the same number of moons as the one the rest of us occupy.

  3. 3 Delphius 31/07/2011 at 10:58 pm

    The killer blow would be to ask about the cost of carbon reduction measures and then ask about the costs of the results any future increase in temperature. Comparing the two will give you the cost effectiveness of those carbon reduction measures..

    I’m sure Rotherham wouldn’t be troubled by increased sea levels and increased average temperatures would result in less cost during winter (less gritting of roads, etc).

    Common sense says the results of higher temperatures would be a net benefit to Rotherham, so spending money on reducing CO2 emissions is actually not cost effective.

    In reality the council tax money should be put into pumping as much CO2 as possible into the atmosphere in order to reduce future council costs. Bugger swamping some small atoll in the Pacific, they aren’t paying Rotherham’s council tax.

    That is, if man made global warming was actually true.

  4. 4 Newminster 01/08/2011 at 1:07 pm

    Delphius, that is an excellent response, and it’s a great shame that it will be misinterpreted by the usual eco-loons who see mankind as one amorphous lump of putrescence on the face of the planet.
    Indeed Rotherham (and 90% of other UK authorities — actually nearer 100% but we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt) has nothing to fear from global warming and as you so rightly point out has no responsibility towards small Pacific atolls which will have to take their chances.
    There appears to be no evidence at the moment that they are actually under threat; when there is the inhabitants can evacuate. Those that haven’t already left for the fleshpots of New Zealand (oxymoron alert!).
    Adaptation is the name of the game. We’ve been doing it for millenia. We’re good at it.

  5. 5 AJC 01/08/2011 at 3:12 pm

    Hasn’t Rotherham already far exceeded and likely CO2 reduction targets through the decimation of its primary industries? It certainly smells a lot better.

  6. 6 Norseman 01/08/2011 at 10:10 pm

    The absolute cause of the problem is the electorate who continually elect these useless councillors in Rotherham. The people who just can’t vote anything other than labour, because their parents/grandparents always voted labour. Get these morons to get an original thought and we may then begin to get somewhere.

  7. 7 Clive Phillips 03/08/2011 at 9:31 am

    Sadly, the voters of Rotherham get what they ask for by “Always voting Labour cos me dad did; he was a moron as well, a top moron!”


Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive