DRIVERS of `green' cars could pay cut-price congestion charges under a plan to slash carbon emissions in Manchester by nearly a third.
The council is also looking at a network of 20 huge wind turbines across the city and offering households incentives to heat water with solar power.
New developments will be expected to ensure renewable energy provides at least 20 per cent of their energy needs. And up to 20,000 homes could be linked in district heating schemes - using plants or waste products to create bio-fuels.
The moves are part of a massive anti-climate change drive announced by the council today. Manchester aims to cut its annual carbon emissions from 3.3 million tonnes to 2.3m by 2020 as part of a bid to become Britain's greenest city.
The council has pledged £1m to kick-start the changes - and is hoping that amount will be matched by business, public bodies and other organisations.
The cash will fund a list of specific measures that include:
Creating 20 large wind turbines in or around the city;
Offering `incentives' - possibly including cash grants - to all households `for the uptake of solar water heating';
Putting 10 per cent of Manchester businesses on combined heat and power systems, or their own mini-generators;
Exploring `emissions-based charging' of motorists as part of the promotion of hybrid and bio-diesel fuels.
Coun Neil Swannick said that could include offering reduced rates to drivers of `cleaner' cars if the planned congestion charge goes ahead.
Motorists have previously been told they face a peak-hour charge of up to £5 a day if a bid for £3bn of public transport cash is successful.
Coun Swannick said: "We are having discussions about the congestion charge and how an environmental element could come into it.
"Climate change is inevitable and we have no choice but to address the issue in a practical way. No single sector or organisation can deliver the necessary level of reduction on its own. We have a collective responsibility to reduce the negative impact as far as we are able."
Coun Swannick confirmed that the council - which declared itself the first `nuclear-free city' in 1980 - would continue to oppose the increased use of nuclear power for energy.
The climate change proposals will be subject to full public consultation before approval. The move comes amid growing pressure on countries to act decisively on greenhouse gases.
Experts at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, at Manchester University, have warned even a 60 per cent drop in worldwide carbon emissions would not be enough to stop average temperatures rising 2 per cent by 2100.
That could have catastrophic effects, leaving 2.8bn people at risk of water shortage, destroying 97 per cent of coral reefs and rendering the polar bear extinct by the loss of summer Arctic sea ice.
Prof Erik Bichard, of Salford University, praised the Manchester initiative.
He said: "Scientists are telling us we have a very narrow window in which to act. "We have five to 15 years to not only stop accelerating carbon emissions but radically reduce them."
Tweet
C-charge relief for 'green' cars
January 30, 2008

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Chris, Irlam (30/01/2008 at 09:56)
I'll believe it when I see it.
And forcing developers to use 20% renewables in new developmets will just starve the area of investment - I know, I work with them every day and they will just build elsewhere believe me....
Dave (30/01/2008 at 09:57)
But why do MEN present it as just another congestion charge story?!
Blue Ape With A Drum (30/01/2008 at 10:34)
ace, manchester (30/01/2008 at 10:48)
ace, manchester (30/01/2008 at 10:55)
Mark Spencer, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire. (30/01/2008 at 11:23)
So the very people who would switch to public transport etc to "save the planet" are to be encouraged to buy polluting vehicles and help perpetuate congestion.
I am always reminded of what a history tutor told the class - It was only after the water mill took over from the windmill that reliable manufacturing took place. A point that seems lost on todays thinkers.
ace, manchester (30/01/2008 at 11:44)
Blue Ape With A Drum (30/01/2008 at 12:10)
ace, manchester (30/01/2008 at 12:21)
Im in full agreement with what you say,and that goes for drivers who use cars without insurance etc. totally irresponsible to the community.
The Bobelesque (30/01/2008 at 12:22)
The citroen C1 qualifies for toll free travel in the London congestion zone.
Rick D'alaglio (30/01/2008 at 12:31)
Craig (30/01/2008 at 13:13)
The Bobelesque (30/01/2008 at 13:25)
ace, manchester (30/01/2008 at 13:32)
At the time of buying these bulbs the mercury problem wasnt known .but it only becomes a problem is if the bulb is smashed.But as soon as the new "OLED" lights come on sale no doubt we will exchange the older bulbs for the new safer bulbs.
polkyb (30/01/2008 at 14:10)
I do agree with cutting costs, though, to such an extent that my house is FULL of energy saving and green(er) devices than I used to have. At the end of the day, the money, however small, is better off in my pocket than in the coffers of an energy cartell member.
My problem with this story is simply this. I have a standard, off the shelf, same as any other, Mazda 6 Diesel which I am running on BioDiesel.
Now then, although my emmissions (soot, CO2, sulphur, etc) are WAY lower than my same car running on mineral diesel, I can get NOTHING from the government for my ecological efforts.
The reason is that although I run on Biodiesel (and intend to for some time, as it's 82.9p/l), I COULD switch back to mineral at any time and they'd have no way of knowing, so to be on the safe side, they charge the full mineral diesel rates for road tax, London c-charge, etc.
The whole thing is OBVIOUSLY a money making scam if they can't be arsed promoting the use of cleaner and healthier diesel.
For the record, I have a 2004 Mazda 6 TS TD running on 100% biodiesel and aside from a little white smoke on cold start, you wouldn't notice any difference.
alvinlwh (30/01/2008 at 14:40)
The worst offender is actually Manchester City Council themselves. I am a building surveyor and I inspect loads of their buildings. What do they have? Ordinary light bulbs, drafty single glazed windows and boiler that are stuck on full power year round, its so hot that some staff need to open their windows in the winter to let the heat out!
I will be dead by 2100, so why would I care about a 2% rise in temperature?
Chris, Irlam (30/01/2008 at 15:32)
First they need to ensure all old housing stock is as well insulated as it can be before chasing fancy headline-grabbing technology such as solar water & heat pumps.
bluetony (30/01/2008 at 15:50)
Blue Ape With A Drum (30/01/2008 at 16:48)
Fran M, Stockport (30/01/2008 at 17:33)
shayla (30/01/2008 at 19:41)
We need to keep a bit warmer when we are forced to walk to work 'cos we can't afford to drive. As well as energy price hikes, we are being drained to death.
They won't be happy until we are stranded at home huddled around a candle.
I'm off abroad, where you can LIVE !
Call me Dave, Manchester (31/01/2008 at 08:02)
Blue Ape With A Drum (31/01/2008 at 11:36)
Lastly the argument about the all powerful eco/climate/science lobby is completely bogus too...Texaco,the oil industry,the US government,all have done their utmost to deny climate change (though the oil giants,have at times pretended to be green,whilst funding anti-climate change research)..but they have failed miserably..because the evidence of melting ice,freak weather,growing desert areas etc...is undeniable.
Fran M, Stockport (31/01/2008 at 16:09)
Do you use the term "Climate Change deniers" deliberately, with a clear reference to Holocaust denial? Do you really believe that there is a parallel? And on your figures, I would go and do a little bit more research.
polkyb (01/02/2008 at 13:55)
Climate change IS happening. It's NOT caused by man because it's happened before.
The reason we are hearing all about it now is so that the Government(s) can extract a little bit more money out of the general population.
If you stand back and take a fresh look, you'll see a LOT of climatologists do NOT agree with the IPCC reports. If you look a little harder at the IPCC members, you'll find only a few Climatologisits left... Most of the 2500 scientists are from different fields.