Comments from Bruce Rowland (Independent, Kingsmead)
Generally your options are too cut and dried and not wide enough in their content to elicit a response. I will therefore give you a resume of my position with reference to your queries. 1. The CO2 argument is not totally proven and other possible causes of global warming are constantly being put forward. There have been periods in the past, long before man was interfering, when the temperature of the Earth has appreciably risen and fallen, which may or may not have been caused by CO2, and, though pollution generally should be reduced, to embark on measures against unproven causes, may well be folly. B&NES's role should be to address the problem and act on it, whereas at the moment it merely 'bolts on' initiatives to the status quo as it sees necessary, often politically motivated. 2. A zero waste policy is totally achievable and properly thought through should pose no problems for B&NES. A focused recycling strategy, perhaps involving targeted contractors who specialise on single waste matter, such as plastics, metal, glass, paper products, compostables and so on, instead of the current free for all of many independents, often resulting in several trash wagons each making one collection in a given street, itself ecologically very unfriendly; a side effect of this could be that recyclable waste has value thus reducing the cost to the council tax payer. Health and safety may have to be flexible in certain aspects of this. 3. As long as housing is expensive in this country any carbon neutral objectives must very cheap, either in cost or in showing a speedy return on any outlay, or be heavily subsidised; expensive fuel may be one method of achieving this, but would be politically unacceptable. The real problem is shortage of housing which, if addressed, would necessitate a large building programme of new homes, however, though this would fulfil the two objectives of providing housing for those wishing to buy their own properties and also enable new technologies to be used to achieve carbon neutral environments, it would have the politically disastrous effect of plunging house prices; no government would implement this. 4. The school run is a problem everywhere. Earlier starts and late finishes to the school day would be one solution, enabling early homework and late sports activity to take place in situ, which in itself might improve both academic performance and health. It is a fact that commuters work in the city and the schools are for the mostpart outside the city centre, resulting in empty buses going out of the city in the morning and coming into the city in the evening; this is particularly so with the park and ride buses. A policy of free public transport for all students, which would be partly offset by the empty bus syndrome, restricted access for private vehicles at relevant times of the day, which incidentally might also encourage the use of park and ride transport and a coordinated strategy of better deployment of the existing bus and train infrastructure would surely considerably reduce pollution and congestion. 5. Every airport should cater for the needs of its catchment area as far as is possible, for not to do so merely transfers the inconvenience and pollution to someone else; if YOU want to fly YOU must bear the responsibility and accept the downside that this may involve. The larger issue of whether air transport should be restricted has no relevance as far as the expansion of Bristol airport is concerned, and Bristol being one of the larger conurbations in Britain, it is not unreasonable, in return for the benefits of being a regional centre, it should provide the regional airport. Nimbyism is a selfish attitude that should be expunged, as those who most suffer from the fallout of this attitude, are invariably the most disadvantaged, which itself is immoral. 6. Generally Bath is well blessed with open spaces, most of which are pretty well unused, save on high days and holidays when the sun shines. Thus, before considering the expansion of open spaces, one must consider why this should be necessary. The under use of the present parks and gardens would suggest that any further green spaces should be to provide something that does not already exist, and for which there would be a predetermined demand or which might encourage a relevant advantage to the well being of the residents: the river is one area which could fall into this category; it has been so mismanaged as to be criminal, and it would be hard to think of anywhere in the world, where a river, which meanders its way through the centre from east to west, is so devoid of character, and this in a World Heritage Site. Bath is a small city, with very easy access to the countryside, and a more pressing problem should be to maximise what is there to the benefit of all, rather than create spaces which will not be used and subsequently fall into disrepair.