All Perth and Kinross bin lorries will run on vegetable oil
Perth and Kinross Council chiefs want all of the authority's heavy goods vehicles to run on vegetable oil by the end of this year.
It follows successful trials of hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) in bin lorries.
The green fuel will now be expanded to all 26 refuse collection vehicles in Perth and Kinross.
The council has 80 HGVs in total across its fleet.
Councillors agreed the plan on Wednesday, despite a plea to scrap it and spend the £100,000 cost on rural buses instead.
HVO costs about 15p more per litre than diesel.
But bosses say the scheme could reduce the authority's carbon footprint by 725 tonnes of CO2 a year.
Councillor David Illingworth compared the proposal to 'trying to whistle in a hurricane' in the era of Donald Trump and Chinese industrialisation.
'It will have virtually zero impact on carbon reduction across the globe,' he told colleagues on the climate change and sustainability committee.
'And at the same time we are incurring extra costs that we just don't need to have.'
However, his motion to divert the money towards enhancing rural bus routes was defeated by seven votes to four.
The committee's convener Richard Watters said it was 'a dangerous message to send'.
Perth and Kinross Council agreed to trial the use of vegetable oil instead of diesel in six bin lorries last February.
The experiment was a success, and 18 of the vehicles are now using it.
The HVO expansion is part of a five-year fleet decarbonisation strategy agreed by councillors on Wednesday.
It also outlines ambitions around technologies such as electric and hydrogen.
The council's fleet currently numbers 452 vehicles, most using diesel or
petrol.
However, it's hoped the Binn Ecopark Hydrogen Facility being developed by Green Cat Energy at Glenfarg could make hydrogen a viable option within the next few years.
The size and rural nature of Perth and Kinross means there's still a limit to the usefulness of electric vehicles.
But bosses want the vehicle pool to increase to 15% electric (around 30 EVs) over the next five years.
A report to the committee said: 'The most appropriate strategic approach will include options for electric, hydrogen, HVO and a smaller number of diesel vehicles as a backup support for outlying areas.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Trump bombing Iran: an illegal and reckless act
Donald Trump was predictably quick to claim victory following the illegal US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities: 'Completely and totally obliterated,' he crowed. Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel and sycophants at home rushed to fawn over his 'courageous' and 'brilliant' decision. The most senior US military official, Dan Caine, offered a more muted assessment: it was 'way too early' to know the full outcome despite severe damage. We cannot yet know whether the blow has ended Iran's nuclear aspirations – or will spur it to pursue the bomb. It may be weeks or months, too, before Iranian retaliation plays out, with all its potential repercussions. Two nuclear-armed states have gone to war on the unevidenced claim that a third state is on the verge of acquiring its own nuclear arms. In March, the US director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said Iran was not building weapons (though she has now scrambled to align with Mr Trump). Israel is clear that its attacks will continue, and has increasingly talked of regime change. The price is being paid not only by a reviled regime but by the Iranian people. Senior administration figures insisted that the US is solely focused on the nuclear programme. As a candidate, Mr Trump vowed to 'stop the chaos in the Middle East' and 'prevent world war three'. Yet the risk of regional conflagration is growing, and now he warns of 'either peace or … tragedy for Iran' if it does not end uranium enrichment. Mr Netanyahu lured him into this attack and may lead him into more, paying gushing tribute to a history-making president and thanking him on behalf of 'the forces of civilisation'. Mr Trump described them as working together 'like perhaps no team has ever worked before'. Iran has been notably cautious since Israel's attack began. The pillars of its security – its regional networks, missiles and nuclear programme – have all suffered punishing blows. To do nothing invites further attack; to hit back – particularly by targeting US personnel in the region – courts disaster. Close the strait of Hormuz and oil prices would soar. But that would hit Iran's own exports and risk involving Gulf states. Russia and China condemned the US strike but are hardly rushing to offer Tehran assistance. Israel's strike – and the US's – on Iran cannot be justified under international law's self-defence doctrine. The UN secretary general, António Guterres, rightly warns of catastrophe in the Middle East, urging diplomacy as the only solution. Yet Mr Trump walked away from the Obama-overseen deal that slowed Iran's programme, and now has struck Iran when it sought negotiation despite Israel's attacks. Sir Keir Starmer, too, called for de-escalation and negotiation, though he backed the US strike. The US did not request British assistance – but the fear remains that European powers may be drawn into another criminal and disastrous war in the Middle East. In rejecting diplomacy and choosing war, not only in breach of international law but at the behest of a country pursuing annihilation in Gaza, the US has delivered a resounding blow to the architecture of global affairs. It has signalled that countries that negotiate (Iran) face stark consequences, which those which rush to own the bomb (North Korea) can avoid. Its embrace of pre-emptive strikes is handy for Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and any leader who might want to carry out their own. Even if the immediate crisis in the Middle East can be contained, the cost of this reckless act may not be fully felt or comprehended for decades.
BBC News
42 minutes ago
- BBC News
Diplomatic tightrope on Iran just got more precarious for Starmer
Sir Keir Starmer has been treading a delicate diplomatic tightrope all week on the issue of night's airstrikes by the US mean the challenges facing the prime minister could now continue for Keir's repeated calls for de-escalation have clearly not been heeded by the White he has avoided direct UK involvement in military action and has sought to maintain what British diplomats claim is a solid and valuable relationship with US president Donald Trump. The response from ministers appears to be it was not the means they wanted, but they supported the UK has not explicitly endorsed the method, but the result - a delay in Iran getting nuclear weapons - is, they argue, in the UK's national Keir's position has shifted since Tuesday, when he seemed confident Trump would not intervene, after sitting next to him at a G7 dinner in Canada."I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was," he four days later the president intervened. Did the prime minister misread Trump? Or did the president - whose unpredictability is central to his foreign policy approach - just change his mind? No 10 has told us it was given advanced warning of the US action, but the UK was not asked to take part. We do not know had been speculation that US B-2 stealth bombers could have used the UK's Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean as a waypoint en route to "Operation Midnight Hammer" involved B-2s flying non-stop for 18 hours to reach their targets, according to the latest on US strikes on IranIran's secretive nuclear site that only a US bomb could hitWhat we know about US strikes on IranIt is possible the UK was not asked for assistance because it would have been a difficult request to have been debates at the top of government in recent days about the legality of any UK involvement, with the attorney general, Lord Hermer, providing advice on a range of the next steps in the conflict unclear, the US could end up requesting military support from the UK in the coming weeks - prompting further difficult decisions for the prime minister. So, what next? US defence secretary Pete Hegseth has responded to concerns the US attacks could prompt the start of a long conflict by insisting: "This is most certainly not open-ended".Yet the actions of both the The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) suggest they fear retaliation from is why British diplomats have been planning a flight early next week to help "vulnerable British nationals and their dependents wanting to leave Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories".Defence sources have told me measures to protect British armed forces in the Middle East have been strengthened in the past few hours, with additional fighter jets already in the region and at "high readiness".One UK diplomat told me UK-US relations remain strong, as demonstrated by Foreign Secretary David Lammy's long meeting with secretary of state Marco Rubio and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff on we do not know if - or how - Iran might respond, or whether the UK or its military could be targeted. Starmer's high-wire act has just become even more dangerous.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
JD Vance warns Iran retaliation to US strike would be ‘catastrophic mistake'
JD Vance has warned Iran that retaliation to the US strikes on three nuclear sites would be a 'catastrophic mistake'. Tehran has accused the US of crossing a 'very big red line', following Donald Trump 's announcement that US warplanes had 'obliterated' the three nuclear facilities on Saturday (21 June). Speaking on Meet the Press on Sunday, the vice president emphasised the need for peace following the US air strike. He said: 'Our national interest is for Iran not to get a nuclear weapon.' Mr Vance added:'If the Iranians want to enlarge this by attacking American troops I think that would be a catastrophic mistake.'
