Ensure all spending and investment decisions are aligned with the net zero target at both a national and local level
Last Updated on August 21, 2024
This includes £4.7 billion East Sussex Pension Funds of which Brighton and Hove Council is a member, money that could be invested in renewable energy, sustainable farming and green transport
Governance and finance – 36%
Single tier average is 27%
Brighton and Hove Council scored well in terms of reducing area wide carbon emissions; prioritising the climate emergency as part of its corporate plan; in embedding climate action and waste reduction into their procurement policies.
It scored less well in response to the following questions:
According to the council’s own reporting, have the council’s own greenhouse gas emissions reduced since 2019?
This question was weighted ‘high’
Score 0/3 (my note – this is inaccurate, not a fair score, see comment below)
Three tier criteria
- Councils must meet the minimum criteria of question 4.3a to be able to get points for this question. (weighted ‘low’ click to see question 4.3a)
- Criteria met if, using the councils’ own reporting mechanisms, there has been a 5% or more reduction of scope 1 and 2 emissions when comparing 2019 to 2021 (or financial years 2018/19 to 2021/22) data.
- Additional points awarded if this emission reduction has been 10% or more, or further points if the reduction has been 20% or more.
- Further points awarded if there has been any reduction from scope 3 emissions.
We (Climate Score Cards) recognise that there is currently no standard way that all councils use to report on emissions. We will score councils’ own calculations, despite the differences, as long as they fulfill the requirements in 3a.
My comment: any score for this question is dependent on an answer to the previous question 3a which asks ‘is the council reporting on its own greenhouse gas emissions?’ The answer to this is surely ‘Yes’ – see page 7 of 2030 Carbon Neutral Programme – in which case they were unfairly awarded a zero mark to question 4.3a.
This brings us to the present question, 3b (or 4.3b): has there been a reduction in the council’s greenhouse gas emissions of 5% or more? Again, the answer is surely ‘Yes’ since pg 7 states clearly:
“Brighton & Hove City Council’s total internal emissions for 2020-21 were 18,081 tonnes of greenhouse gases (CO2e), Figure 1 shows a breakdown of the total footprint. Compared to the council’s 2019-20 footprint of 19,626 tonnes CO2e, this represents an annual reduction of 1,545 tonnes CO2e (7.87%).”
To conclude: neither this score nor the zero score to the previous question are fair or accurate. In defence of Climate Score Cards, they rely partly on volunteer research who do the best job they can and human error is inevitable. (referred back to Climate Scorecards)
Background Note:
- Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from corporation-owned and controlled resources as a result of a set of activities
- Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy, from a utility provider e.g. electricity company
- Scope 3 emissions are all indirect emissions – not included in scope 2 – that occur in the value chain of the reporting company, including both upstream and downstream emissions. In other words, emissions are linked to the company’s operations. According to GHG protocol, scope 3 emissions are separated into 15 categories. (Plana Earth website)
Has the council adopted a new governance or decision making process to put tackling the climate emergency at the heart of every council decision made?
This question was weighted medium
Score 0/2
Two tier criteria
- Criteria met if climate implications are listed or referenced for all council decisions at full council. Climate implications can be considered through Environmental Implications or an Integrated Impact Assessment if this includes a climate or environmental sub-heading or section.
- Additional points if the council is using a detailed impact assessment tool to assess the climate implications of all council decisions.
My comment: Is this document relevant? Is it solid evidence to underpin the score? Because of the lack of clarity I looked up minutes of full council. These are difficult to access because of the muddle and small writing on the B&H website. While climate change is often discussed, it is not clear that it is referenced for all council decisions at full council so the score 0/2 is probably right.
17 single tier councils got a full score 2.0/2. This includes Bristol, Derby, and Cornwall Councils.
Derby City Council has committed to “introduce Climate Impact Assessments for all reports where Key Decisions are made. This means that if you develop or change a policy, project, service, function, or strategy, you need to identify the impact of the activity regarding the climate. This will be done by conducting a Climate Impact Assessment (CIA) using this document. It is similar to a risk assessment, or an equalities impact assessment” (see document) (also this form)
Cornwall Council has developed a ‘decision wheel’ applied to all major decisions based on Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economic model “The Cornwall Development Decision Wheel aims to balance the needs of a thriving society with those of a thriving planet, with the goal being to find the sweet spot wherein both can flourish” (see Decision Wheel document)
Has the council raised income for climate action from property development?
Question weight is ‘high’
Score 0/1
Criteria is met if the council has used either the Community Infrastructure Levy or Section 106 to raise any amount of funds for climate action, in England and Wales. There must be explicit reference to these funds being used for climate action, such as being used to deliver the council’s climate action plan.
No reference to climate change or low carbon/zero carbon targets can be found in the document Annual Infrastructure Funding Statement for Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 developer contributions
There are 45 councils out of 186 which use such funds to fund climate action.
Has the council launched a Climate Bond, Community Municipal Investment or equivalent?
Question weight is ‘medium’
Score 0/1
Criteria met if the council has launched a Climate Bond, Community Municipal Investment or equivalent of any amount as a way to raise funds for climate action.
Evidence: no evidence available
There are 12 out of 186 councils who got full marks for this question, among them: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, London Borough of Brent, London Borough of Camden.
- Barnsley have used Ethex, a non-profit ethical investment online platform allowing people to invest in Energise Barnsley, a social enterprise set up by Barnsley Council. According to written evidence submitted by Ethex to Parliament: “Ethex has been at the forefront of providing around £50 million of enabling finance to more than 40 community energy organisations across the UK”
- Brent council have used Hymans Robertson, an independent consultant who published ‘A Roadmap to Net Zero’ setting out investment options for Brent Council pension fund. Within that document they propose that a proportion of the fund’s portfolio be invested in climate solutions (e.g. renewable infrastructure, green bonds, companies with >90% revenues from climate change activities) by 2030. However, while Brent Council have a number of climate initiatives, including a Business Climate Charter, there is no evidence they have actually launched a climate bond initiative.
Has the council’s pensions fund committed to divesting from all fossil fuels?
Question weight is ‘medium’
Score 0/2
Two tier criteria
- Criteria met if the pension fund has committed to partially divesting. For example, it has committed to divesting only from coal, tar sands or oil.
- Additional points if the pension fund has committed to divest from all fossil fuels.
Evidence: no evidence available (according to Climate Score Cards)
Supporting Comment: according to Climate Score Cards, Brighton and Hove council passed a motion to divest on 6-April-2017 (see the Divest website table). However they are part of East Sussex Pension Fund which still has a 1.4% investment stake in fossil fuels. Moreover the motion passed was a non-binding, indicative vote – the most common type of motion passed by councils. It does not commit the Pension fund itself to acting on the motion, and usually “resolves” the council to an action such as writing to the pension fund.
The second type of vote involves a clear ‘commitment to disinvest the council’s direct assets and never invest in fossil fuels again (again see the Divest website). The administering authority is East Sussex County Council and there is no evidence that they have passed a similar motion.
Limitations of the Divest campaign: The 1.4% investment stake amounts to £48.2 million out of the £4.7 billion fund total. This seems a very tiny stake but this itself exposes the chief limitation of the Divest campaign in giving a false picture: in theory a council may have zero investment in fossil fuels yet still invest in high carbon emitting sectors such as steel, aluminium, concrete, chemicals, aviation, marine shipping. The Divest campaign doesnt take account of that. Its sole focus is direct investment in fossil fuels. While this is an important starting point it is far from the last word in a councils carbon footprint with regard to pension fund investments.