East Surrey rejects climate emergency declaration amid cost fears
New authority narrowly votes down 2030 net zero target after heated debate over affordability
A motion to declare a climate emergency in east Surrey, including a pledge to decarbonise by 2030, has been voted down by the area's incoming council.
The proposal was put forward by Councillor Jonathan Essex, of the Green Party, at a meeting of the full shadow council this week.
It was defeated after forty of the council's seventy-two members voted against it, following a debate over the cost and pace of the plans.
What the motion proposed
Councillor Essex's motion called on East Surrey Council to "meet or exceed" existing climate targets.
It asked for the council itself to reach net zero emissions by 2030, alongside a 2050 target for the wider area.
It also proposed setting up a cross-party working group after East Surrey Council takes over local government powers in April 2027, which would review progress against the targets.
Surrey County Council, which is being abolished next year and replaced by the new West and East Surrey Councils, declared a climate emergency in 2019.
Cost concerns dominate debate
Several councillors said they supported the aims of the motion but could not back it without clearer costings.
Councillor Andy Burton, of the Liberal Democrats, said the specific commitments could not be backed without knowing their cost.
"As we don't know either the cost of this commitment or the affordability of it, I don't think we can give this current commitment now," Councillor Burton said.
Opposition leader Councillor David Lewis, of the Conservative Party, echoed these concerns.
"While we all recognise the risks posed by climate change, we must ensure that the actions we commit to are affordable, achievable and evidence-led," Councillor Lewis said.
Others say the plans did not go far enough
Not all opposition to the motion came from those concerned about cost.
Councillor Claire Malcomson, of the Liberal Democrats, argued the plans were too cautious given the creation of the new council.
"Why simply repeat a declaration?
It's weak," Councillor Malcomson said.
Councillor Jeremy Pursehouse, an independent councillor, criticised the broad reluctance among colleagues to back the motion.
"We have run out of time, we haven't got it anymore.
Yes, some things are going to cost a bit more to do it the right way, but experience shows us that those actually save us money in the long run," Councillor Pursehouse said.
Motion defeated despite broad support for climate action
Despite general agreement among councillors on the risks posed by climate change, the motion was defeated by forty votes to a minority in favour.
Some councillors who opposed the call for ambitious climate targets said they would have supported the working group proposal, but the motion had to be voted on in full.