Why do climate change talks fail

Why do climate change talks fail? If the eighteenth round of talks failed, can we expect the 19th to succeed?  Why are all nations collectively committing mutual suicide? Why are we ignoring the science of climate change? Why do we not care about our children? What can we do? What sequence of events must we demand to make progress? Is the concept of the nation state dead?

These fundemental questions are being addressed in a book I am writing.

This will be freely available to anyone. If you want to help review chapters, help with research, dissemination of ideas, or anything else that you can think of please let me know.

Chapter 1 - No hope, false hope, some hope - the three witches of the apocalpyse

Chapter 2 - Dreams and realities

Chapter 3 - Why climate change agreements are not working


Chapters, completed book and research materials will also be published on www.nucli.biz

Submission to the independent aviation commission

The "Independent Aviation Commission" treads in the footsteps of the disbanded "public consultation on sustainable aviation" that led nowhere. The fact that aviation can never be sustainable might have something to do with it.

The independent aviation commission, like the public consultation before it, has asked for comments on equally stupid questions concerning the long term viability of aviation. The aviation commission like many other government departments, quangos or think-tanks totally ignores that climate change is already collapsing our economic model and things have hardly begun to get going yet. Today we are struggling with a 1 degC temp increase and are on track for the temperature to rise by 6 degC.

Like many others the Independent Aviation Commission assumes our economic model will last forever, simply because it has lasted fifty years so far.

Instead of having the courage to face reality and act on it, they want to pontificate on the fine tuning and accuracy of the demand forecast models provided by the aviation industry which guess how many passengers will go to holiday destinations in 2050 despite climate change science telling us those destinations will be either flooded or so hot that you will die if you venture outside.

It is hard to know what to say in the face of such institutionalised ignorance.

Our submission can be found here.

Bedroom Tax

As the bedroom tax is the next body blow to hit those suffering from the inevitable economic collapse as we reach the limits of growth caused by climate change and peak resources, it is worth having a look at some photos  my MP's house (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Conservative).

Not only has he got a nice house, but we have been paying for it as this is his second home. His first home is a little flat in London. When I stood against him in the last election and asked him to justify how this could possibly be a second home, he assured me that flipping homes as he had done was not illegal and I would have done the same if I was in his position.

Perhaps that is why he got elected and I didn't.

Sustainable avaition consultation and the threat to democracy

Letter to No. 10 Downing Street in response to the government decision not to proceed with the sustainable aviation consultation.


Dear Mr. Cameron,

Ref: Aviation consultation.

 

After spending considerable time preparing a submission for the Sustainable Aviation consultation on behalf of Plane Stupid and People and Planet, it is with horror and rage that I read in the press this weekend your government is not going to publish the result of its consultation because, according the FT, “the question is being handed over to an independent commission.”

  

If you decide not to publish the conclusions from your government’s year long study into the future of aviation, you are saying to the public that we should never again bother wasting our time engaging with any public consultation exercises, because when those in power do not like the result they will simply change the rules.

The aviation debate is of such importance that it must be resolved through our elected representatives, irrespective of how messy and distasteful this becomes. To delegate this to an independent commissioner says that our elected representatives are of no importance, and by inference the process of voting is a wasted effort. You should be fearful of what happens when you undermine the process of governance and democracy, especially as we enter hard times ahead and when we are already seeing the strains on our society.

Any proposition that the commission will be independent is nonsense. The commissioners will no doubt be powerful leaders of businesses, aviation and finance companies that have vested interests in expanding aviation. I am prepared to bet that no credible climate change experts or representatives from local communities that stand to be destroyed will be invited to the commission. Your commission will only be independent in as much that it will be independent of any environmental consideration.

We met with Theresa Villiers MP and the Department for Transport in July 2011 and were encouraged to make submissions to your consultation. We were assured of a fair and transparent process that would fully consider all evidence submitted. The Department for Transport presented their strategy for making aviation sustainable by controlling greenhouse gases through a combination of biofuels, carbon trading and new technological innovation. My report totally discredited all these approaches. Its “unpalatable conclusions” were:

1. The strategies of introducing new technology, biofuels and carbon trading which form the basis of the sustainable framework document will not deliver any reduction in aviation greenhouse gas emissions. This is an unacceptable position given the critical risk that humanity faces due to the unsustainable build up of greenhouse gases.
2. Aviation emissions can only be reduced by imposing a strict ceiling on plane movements or aviation fuel sales. This ceiling must then be reduced in line with the objective of reducing CO2 emissions by 80%.
3. The principle objective of the Department for Transport should be to work with other equivalent departments in other countries to implement similar policies (as point 2) and to find ways to reduce demand for transport.
4. The Department of Transport will have to show considerable courage to stand up to the advertising and lobbying campaigns that the aviation industry has already launched to subvert any movement towards recognising and taking action on climate change. The legal definition of fraud should be reviewed and test cases implemented against companies that make blatantly false environmental claims.
5. The final adjudication that the government makes must take cognisance of the impact that rising oil prices will have on both the long term viability of the aviation industry and the full risk of wider instabilities in society and in the international arena.
6. The forced reduction in aviation will fundamentally change the economic model and philosophies that our society has built on by forcing a clear acknowledgement that economic growth cannot continue indefinitely and limits have been reached. As such, this consultation must be integrated with the debate on the introduction of individual carbon rations or the imposition of a carbon tax, where the receipts are distributed directly to the population as advocated by James Hanson.
7. It will not be possible to achieve the large reductions in aviation within the debt based economic system that we operate today. However, to maintain the existing growth based system will result in large scale impoverishment of society, climate collapse and war.

I can only conclude that your decision to move to an independent commission and not publish the results of your consultation is to avoid addressing the points that I raised in my submission.

The rapidly unfolding events since preparing this report underline all the above: The rate of melting of the Arctic Ice cap far exceeds the worst scenarios of the IPCC report of 2007, with the real prospect of an ice free ocean by 2015 leading to the collapse of the climatic stability upon which we have built our fragile civilisation. Syria is enmeshed in civil war following the destruction of its economic stability after a prolonged drought wiped out 85% of its live stock and converted a wheat exporting nation to a wheat importing nation at the mercy of world food prices. World food production is in a state of collapse following extreme droughts and floods. The list goes on.

It is against this background that you and your government continue in a state of blind hubris to believe airports should be built to cater for the holiday needs of a society in 2050, which in all likelihood will have ceased to exist by that time, and you will pervert the processes of governance to ensure this happens. These policies of hell bent expansion in defiance of blatantly evident limits to growth make our democracy as illegitimate as a dictatorship hell bent on expansion through force of arms.

You need to recognise that we now live in a new age where we are systematically learning that the glories of our past are being exposed as lies in all their dirt and gore. We now know our banks operated fraudulently, that we went to war on fraudulent claims and that top athletes like Lance Armstrong cheated. They all crashed, destroying themselves and many innocent people in the process. However, the biggest lie is still being played out; it is the one that you are continuing, which is that we can make a better future by destroying what is left of our environment. Your lie like every other will crash taking many innocent victims with it. When our system of governance ignores the science and calls to reason; persecutes those that protest peacefully, you might want to wonder what the prospective victims are left with and what they should do.

Yours sincerely

Kevin Lister

Complaint to the common standards committee again Neil Carmichael MP

20^th August, 2012

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (the Commissioner)

The House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

Dear Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (the Commissioner),

Subject: Complaint against Neil Carmichael MP

Neil Carmichael has steadfastly refused to respond to emails and correspondence I have sent him on matters of supreme importance to the future of this nation and the global community. In doing so he is violating the following clauses of the “Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct ofMPs”

The breaches of specific clauses are outlined below: 

Clause III.  Public Duties of Members

6. Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents.

Breach 1

I have asked that he raise the question in parliament of the carbon budget associated with the decision to proceed with Trident.  At present the government is working towards the "Low Carbon Transition Plan" which was issued in the last parliament. A key commitment of this was "that all major decisions would be subject to a carbon audit." This position has been echoed in other documents and position statements of this administration.

The decision that we take on our nuclear deterrence is the most major decision of all. Its construction, operation, defense and our subsequent response to adversary nations who are forced to respond in kind requires massive military industrial complexes that are energy hungry and require expanding economies to fund.  As well as having enormous implications for this country, it forces our competitor nations to reciprocate and makes a dangerous situation on climate change much worse. 

I had previously written to the Department of Energy and Climate Change on this topic, copying the correspondence to Neil Carmichael, requesting that they commit to preparing a carbon budget for Trident and incorporate Trident with climate change talks. They refused. This makes a mockery of all statements and positions that the government takes on climate change. It is hard to see how any meaningful progress towards international climate change agreements can be made without honest debate on the carbon budget of those items that preserve the existing status-quo of the power structures and nation state competition.

It is therefore of supreme importance that this is raised proactively in parliament and debated thoroughly.

Following the lack of response from DECC, I asked Neil Carmichael to raise this question in parliament. He has not done so, nor even replied to my correspondence.

By willfully ignoring my correspondence he is supporting the status quo position that the Trident decision should be made independently of its climate change impact. That status quo position is leading us towards ecological breakdown, which is against the interests of the nation. Neil Carmichael is therefore failing in his duty “to act in the interests of the nation as a whole.”

Breach 2

Following a peaceful protest at the Fairford Air Tattoo in 2010, when I hosted a spoof website to protest at the climate change impact of the military industrial complex, I was subjected to an early morning raid on my house, arrested for fraud and had my job threatened. I remained on police bail for 18 months, at which point all proceeding were dropped without charges even being made and without apology.

This was a blatant and crude attempt to muzzle dissent and impose a de-facto restraining order. A state response of this type is normally associated with the odious dictators that we profess to abhor, and which we build our military to protect ourselves again.

I arranged a meeting with Neil Carmichael in his constituency surgery to raise the issue. He agreed to raise the issue further with the Chief Constable and advise accordingly of the response. He did nothing, and I had no further response from him.

This is a clear case of Neil Carmichael failing in his “special duty to [his] constituent” whose right to free speech and peaceful protest was denied by the apparatus of the state acting in the interests of large corporate interests.

Breach 3

I along with some mathematics colleagues analysed the claims climate change claims of the aviation. Their claims were (1) The industry is committed to improving fuel efficiency of new planes by 50% by 2020 and (2)  the industry is committed to getting emissions down to 2000 levels by 2050 despite a trebling of air passengers.

Basic maths and engineering demonstrates conclusively these claims are impossible. Yet they were peddled consistently by the now defunct lobby group Flying Matters on behalf of the aviation industry. Similar false claims continue to be used by others and have had a significant impact on government policy and public attitudes to aviation. False claims of this nature are supported by combined marketing budgets measured in the billions.  This is fraud, which by definition is the use of false information to seek gain.

This evidence was presented to Neil Carmichael. We asked that he raise in parliament the issue of fraudulent advertising on the environmental credentials of the aviation industry.

He took no action on this. On the contrary, he continued to raise questions in parliament in support of aviation.

By not raising this issue he is failing to “act in the interests of the nation as a whole” as the nation must have correct information on the climate change impact of large corporations and public debate needs to be held to determine how they can be prevented from abusing their power.  

Clause  IV.  General Principles of Conduct

Leadership

Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

Breach 1

We note that Neil Carmichael is a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. Despite this he publically supports the construction of the Trident replacement system and been an advocate for high carbon industries such as aviation.

In no way can this be called leadership by example.

By contrast, his actions are a classic case where people with a diametrically opposed position to the objectives of a group gain a position of influence to subvert its good intention.

Clause V.  Rules of Conduct

9. Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest.

Breach 1

Neil Carmichael has made it clear he has a personal interest in high carbon industries such as aviation. He has written in the local press on his reflections on holidays in Morocco and Turkey, all of which involve flying. By contrast his predecessor, David Drew, refused to fly on environmental grounds. 

His inaction to follow up any request I have made of him on the environmental impact of aviation contrasts with his evident personal interest in allowing aviation’s continued destructive growth.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lister BSc (aero eng), MBA

cc:    Neil Carmichael MP

        38-39 Palace Chambers

        London Road

        Stroud

        Gloucestershire GL5 2AJ

Greetings to Plane Stupid Germany

Fairford Air Tattoo Noise - 20 miles away

Dear Mark, Stephen

I hope that you are both well and have survived the Air Tattoo unscathed. 

I wish to make a complaint of Breach of the Peace.  

We have just had 7 jet fighters flying in formation over Nailsworth along with 2 bi-planes and one vintage single engined piston plane. They have created a totally unacceptable level of noise and disturbance. To add further damage to our environment they also did smoke trails over our houses. 

 If I were to create this level of noise, my neighbours would be entitled to complain and you would be entitled to start proceedings. 

I have already phoned Gloucestershire Police to complain. The lady on the phone dismissively told me to stop complaining as the planes are coming from the Fairford Air Tattoo and this event is only once a year. She went on to say that I should refer the matter for the Civil Aviation Authority and my MP. However, I and many others have exhaustively tried these avenues before and we have all collectively failed.  It is also important to note that this is not once in a year disturbance. Our peace and quiet is continually breached by general aviation. An unrequested extreme event such as today's disturbance in simply the icing on the cake. 

We did not ask to have an aerobatic display above our house by some very rich people showing off their toys, and it gives us no great pleasure. 

As you are aware, I have been subject to various arrests by Gloucestershire Police in the past for peacefully protesting against the damage the aviation industry is doing. I am therefore extremely concerned the initial reaction of the police is to instantly dismiss this complaint withthe statement "What do you expect us to do?" In the spirit of police neutrality, I would appreciate if you can start investigations into this complaint and ensure that the full weight of the law is brought to bear on the people responsible for creating this unwarrented disturbance and unecessary pollution. 

I look forward to your response and updates into your investigation of this complaint. 

Regards,

Kevin Lister

Embedding Sustainable Development: An update

E-mail sent to all members of the Environmental Audit Committee

I note that the above session will be held on the 11^th July.

I note with extreme concern that the referenced document “Embedding sustainable development: the Government’s response,” is premised on the oxymoron that development can be sustainable. As such, the measures in this document are totally insufficient to meet our 2050 climate change targets or provide an example to the rest of the world.

I trust this committee will be cognisant of the following facts and ensure they receive adequate consideration:  

1. All critical measures of climate change now exceed the worst case scenario of the 2007 IPCC report. This puts us on track to a 6^oC heating profile by the end of this century. This will lead to the loss of virtually all life on the planet. The further heating in the following century will render the planet totally lifeless. Far from addressing this threat by decreasing greenhouses gasses into the atmosphere, greenhouse gases emissions are increasing super-exponentially. As a result of this trend we will exceed all key climatic tripping points by 2030 if not considerably beforehand. No recovery will be possible past this point. The committee should also be aware that in 2010 significant methane gases releases started in the high Arctic  indicating that worse case climatic runaway scenarios may already be upon us.
2. This government has not considered its obligations to the Durban Platform. It did not present any proposals “to increase the level of ambition to tackle climate change” and is ignoring the future aspiration to have legally binding cuts in CO2 emissions from 2020. This is evidenced amongst other things by government pressure to expand airport capacity in South East. This environmental audit committee should note with extreme alarm that climate change has been virtually censored out of the debate. What few discussions there are have been limited to statements that aviation emissions can be catered for by carbon trading within the EU ETS. This has not been subjected to any scrutiny.  It is despite all the evidence pointing to the concept of carbon trading being totally flawed and aviation emissions doubling every 17 years.
3. The environmental audit committee should also consider that the military industrial complex is never considered in any climate change documentation or initiatives. However, to maintain our ability to compete with other nations on the international stage, we need huge energy intensive manufacturing facilities. These are  are funded with arms sales to other countries, usually oil rich countries, and through an economy which must continue to expand to raise the taxation. The high carbon industries needed for these arms races are considered “strategic” and are in receipt of considerable government support which is both political and financial.
4. Allied to the above point, the Environment Audit Committee should also challenge the decision to build Trident. The construction of Trident requires a huge military industrial complex which can only be funded through excess consumption in an expanding economy.  Our competing nations will be forced to reciprocate by expanding their own military-industrial complexes and economies. This is the antithesis of cutting consumption to minimise greenhouse gas emissions to achieve a sustainable economy. Thus Trident and the associated nuclear weapons race across the planet makes committing to international climate change agreements impossible. The document under review states ministers will have the “opportunity to raise sustainability issues and identify where policies might otherwise compromise sustainability.” I trust that the committee will press ministers to explain how they think the decision to proceed with Trident does not compromise sustainability. The committee should also note that under the Low Carbon Transition Plan, which all parties agreed to, Page 36 states that, “To stay on track, the Government is moving to a radical new approach. Every major decision now needs to take account of the impact on the carbon budget.” The committee should be aware that no carbon budget has been produced for Trident despite this being the most major decision any government can take.  

Yours sincerely, 

Kevin Lister