email to inspector chester - justify why you will no pursue fraud over airport lies to justify expansion

Dear Inspector Chester,


I refer you to your letter of the 26th Oct 2009, which was in response to my request to have charges of fraud brought against Gloucestershire Airport’s directors under the Fraud Act 2006.

As you are no doubt aware, the charge of fraud is serious, but the evidence of fraud, as defined by Fraud Act 2006, against the airport is overwhelming. It is clear that this development will result in severe environmental damage due to increased greenhouse gas emissions despite the airport claiming this will not happen. The alternative is that the airport sticks to its greenhouse gas commitments and there will be no return on investment. This will result in the taxpayers of Gloucestershire being forced to pay the £2.3 million pounds loan. Either way the taxpayers are being defrauded.


This absurd position comes about because the council’s of Gloucester and Cheltenham being owners of the airport have a conflict of interest. This forces them to maximise the profits of the airport rather than represent the views and long term interests of their constituents.


Further to the initial dossier I submitted to PC Dill in September, I have also prepared a report at the request of the Gloucestershire Echo to quantify the CO2 emissions. This has been circulated around all of Cheltenham’s councillors.

A copy of the report is attached to this email. It adds further evidence to the case that the airport’s directors and their supporters within Gloucester and Cheltenham falsely represented the case for the airport and did so knowingly.


The report categorically demonstrates the Green Management plan cannot be complied with whilst simultaneously meeting the flight programme necessary to make an appropriate return on investment. The Green Management plan stated that the current CO2 emissions from the airport are 3,700 tonnes per annum and will be capped at 4,000 tonnes, thus allowing for a maximum increase in CO2 emissions of 300 tonnes per year.

The simple analysis in the report shows 8,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions are likely to be produced to meet the flight programme necessary for the predicted return on investment. This far exceeds the permissible 300 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions that are allowed under the green management plan.

It is also important to note that Councillor Les Godwin omitted to include the CO2 targets in the business plan that he submitted to Cheltenham and Gloucester councils, yet he included the other less onerous commitments in the Green Management plan. This selective quoting of the Green Management Plan points to a deliberate attempt to mislead the councillors into supporting the proposals for the airport. It is in violation of section 3.a of the Fraud Act, which states “A person is in breach of this section if he — dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose.” As the planning application was granted on agreement that the Green Management plan would be implemented, then there was a legal duty to fully disclose the full implications of the CO2 targets.

Following this latest manoeuvring of the airport and its supporters, the case for a fraud investigation is mounting. If this mounting evidence of fraud is still not adequate for you to start proceeding, then you need to justify to us why you are not prepared to instigate proceedings.

We look forward to your reply.


Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about Express

This complaint relates to the front-page report of the Daily Express that headlined “CLIMATE NUT BROWN WILL RUIN BRITAIN.”


The complaint is being made under Article 1 of the editors code of the practise – “The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.”

The article claims that the Gordon Brown’s proposed cut of CO2 emissions “was made despite a continuing debate about whether mankind is to blame for climate change.”

This is incorrect. There is no debate about whether mankind is to blame for climate change. It is a fact that since the industrial revolution, CO2 emissions have increased by 40% from 280 parts per million to 390 parts per millions and given the current trajectory they will soon rise to well beyond 450 parts per millions. It is a fact that basic science shows a CO2 rich atmosphere warms more quickly. It is a fact that all temperature trends over any statistically significant period show warming has happened and is continuing to happen.

No scientist has yet been able to provide any suitable alternative hypothesis to explain the observed warming trends. No peer-reviewed work has been produced to disprove mankind’s influence in climate change.

The only debate about whether mankind is to blame is fuelled on by those with either no scientific understanding or with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

The article goes on to quote the taxpayers alliance claiming that the cuts would “require the economy to be slashed by 30 per cent from expected levels.” However there is no counter balancing view to argue that if we do not make deep and urgent cuts in our CO2 emissions the consequences of climate change will result in a far more serious societal collapse.

The article closes with the statistic that, “Daily Express readers showed their distrust of Mr Brown’s sweeping plans this week, with an overwhelming 98 per cent of those taking part in a phone vote agreeing that the nation was being conned over global warming.”

This quote is aimed at demonstrating that the public does not believe in climate change, and therefore by implication that climate change either does not exist or is not a serious issue. Without knowing exactly what questions were asked or who the questions were asked to, this is a misleading and inaccurate reflection of public opinion. As a group, Express readers are more likely than most others to be dismissive of climate change. Finally, there is no reference to the size of the sample taken.

It is clear that this article does not provide any accurate and factual report of the debate on the climate change. It merely perpetuates the arguments of the climate change deniers using half-truths and biased arguments.

As such the article is inaccurate, misleading and presents distorted information.

Parlimentary action needed on lying aviation adverts (Email to David Drew MP)

Dear David,

Good to meet up again this morning.

As discussed, I am now getting no response from the Advertising Standards Agency following my complaints against the misleading adverts of the aviation industry. All the adverts that I have complained about erroneously claim that flying can be made environmentally friendly. Claims of this nature are becoming increasingly common.

I have pointed out to the ASA that the marketing strategy of the aviation industry is the same as that employed by the cigarette industry in the late 1940s when they claimed smoking filtered cigarettes was safe. We know that it is preposterous to think cigarettes can be safe, in the same way that we know aviations claim of environmentally friendly flying is also preposterous. However, we also know that the cigarette advertising strategy was overwhelmingly successful, making Marlboro the most highly valued brand in history. By employing the same methods, the aviation industry is being equally successful in getting people to ignore the clear and present dangers of climate change and to continue flying regardless.

As I am unable to make any further progress with the ASA in having adverts that are making deliberately misleading environmental claims banned, I would therefore ask that you raise this critical issue in parliament with other like-minded MPs.

I would further appreciate that you question in parliament the merit of having a self-regulating body policing the critical issue of advertisers consistently flouting the science on climate change. Page 3 of ASA code of practise states, “The Committee of Advertising Practice members include organisations that represent the advertising, sales promotion, direct marketing and media businesses.” The lack of action on the aviation adverts demonstrates a clear and dangerous conflict of interest as advertising for business expansion is given preference over truthful statements on climate change impacts.

The adverts that I have recently complained about and the ASA responses that I have received follow below. In each case the advert is in clear breach of sections 49.1 and 49.2 of ASA code of conduct.  

• Finnair claimed on London Underground bill boards that flying with them is “Eco-smart.” I complained, but did not even receive an acknowledgement.

• Airbus  claimed in a National Geographic advert they “see the bigger picture, and work to minimize environmental impact by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”  This is unequivocal rubbish. Airbus will never work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and every efficiency improvement the aviation industry has introduced since the Wright brothers has never reduced CO₂ emissions. Despite this plain logic, the ASA rejected my complaint. I then had the matter referred to the Independent Reviewer of ASA Adjudications. However he backed the council’s initial decision, which raises serious questions about his independence. Amongst the bizarre justifications he made was National Geographic readers would understand it to be false, irrespective of the advert being targeted towards children. Again, targeting adverts at children is a case of the aviation industry borrowing another tactic from the cigarette industry. It is outrageous that the ASA are still allowing this tactic.

• Easyjet claimed that we should demand a “more intelligent approach to aviation,” with the suggestion that flying EasyJet was environmentally intelligent. Easyjet’s advert also suggested that we pressurise airlines to fly the most fuel-efficient planes. My complaint to the ASA was again rejected, despite having no response from my letter to Easyjet suggesting that they change their fleet to fuel-efficient turboprops.

I have complained about three other adverts were aviation companies made erroneous claims about being environmentally friendly. In each case the ASA has upheld the advert and rejected my complaint.

In light of the events at Copenhagen this week, it is vital as a society we demand major companies and CO₂ emitters are truthful with their adverts and are not allowed to maximise profits by subverting the science.

Regards and best wishes,

Kevin Lister

Napoleon tries to quell the rebellion

Dear Mr Godwin,

Thank you for your condescending email, in which you have continued to demonstrate your ability to distort the facts and believe your own lies. I said to you at the meeting on Wednesday that I would create as much bad publicity for you as possible. I had no idea that you would help by circulating such a pathetic email to such a wide audience.

To take your points (in red):

You suggest that I think that I am the only person in Gloucestershire that is concerned about global warming.

Not for one moment do I believe that I am the only person in Gloucestershire, there are many more. You should reflect that many of these people are becoming increasingly angry with people such as yourself who choose to ignore the science of climate change and destroy the future for short-term gains.

You say, “Global warming and better protection of the environment has been discussed ad nauseam by the Council and others for many years, which is why most of us decided a long time ago to become councillors and argue the case from inside the Council rather than continually bleat like you do from the outside.”

To suggest that you became a councillor to take effective action on climate change from the inside is nonsense. You are after all backing the airport which only relatively recently issued a report denying climate change even existed. To put the matter to rest, you might want to clarify what significant action your silly little organisation “People against Bureaucracy” has ever taken on climate change.

I point you again to Animal Farm, "No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?" As Napoleon consolidated the decision making process, then so have you.

In case you have not realised, it is impossible to expand an airport and double its "enterprise value" without massively increasing CO2 emissions. But maybe you do realise this, and have deliberately removed the CO2 targets from your report to mislead the scrutiny committee about the potential financial returns of the airport. I ask you again, please confirm if it was a deliberte omission, or were you not curious enought to enquire how the finanical targets could be achieved with the green management plan in place.

Your say, “Carping and making snide remarks at people who are doing their best to balance the arguments for and against progress is unhelpful.”

You have never made any attempt to find a balance.  Even if you did you might want to explain how that balance between expanding an airport and making cuts of 80% in CO2 emissions can be achieved.  

You say, “I would have thought that your time could have been better spent putting your concerns to the world leaders at Copenhagen who are striving to reach agreement to control global emissions.”

Well I do, and also if you bother to read to the newspapers you will learn that the prognosis for any meaningful agreement coming out of Copenhagen is virtually zero. This is why we have to take local action to stop fools like you.

You say, “Whilst the report to the Scrutiny Committee contained a summary of the main points of the approved Runway Safety Project document, it was not the intention to 're-invent the wheel' and go back over the RSP details but solely to seek approval for the funding of the project.”

You again distort the facts so much you believe your own lies. Much of the meeting was taken up with glorious claims as to how much additional business was going to be attracted to the airport.  As you say, this meeting was not about reinventing the wheel,  it was about validating the business plan before funding was approved. Unfortunately your well trained sheep bleated in your support and not one of them asked how the business plan objectives could be achieved within the constraints of the green management plan.

Also, as the airport still can not provide any documentation to demonstrate that this development will increase the safety of the people living in the public safety zone, then please stop referring to it as a Runway Safety Project.

You say "Surprisingly, there were no public questions from you or anyone else, which is why I was taken aback by your attitude after we left the committee room. It is not the way to make a point once a meeting has been concluded. Your manner was offensive to say the least."

Why should we bother asking any more questions?  We have asked hundreds in the past and not one of them has had any impact on the final outcome. Submission of formal questions merely legitimises the fraudulent way in which this development is being pursued and allows you to pretend consultation with the public has been carried out.

You say, "Finally, you know as well as I do that the figure concerning CO2 emissions contained in the approved Runway Safety Project document will be monitored from day one, as will all the other conditions in the document. If we fail to do this, but I can assure you we will, then that will be the time for you to start posing more questions"

I have already asked the question what will happen if the ceilings are exceeded. I was told, "Good management would ensure that they do get exceeded." This give no assureance especially when the the Green Management policy imposes no penalties on the airport in the event that the celing is breached and the same good management will simultanously be tasked with maximising profits. So in the inevitable event of the ceiling being breached, the best that we can do is have another round of questions, which on the basis of past experience will be totally fruitless.  

So given the lies that you have peddled, the lack of an effective democratic process, the publication of a meaningless green management plan and the inability of councillors to understand even basic science, I make no apology for my manner, which you unfortunately found offensive.

The lack of accountable process and the vested interests involved means that we are left with direct action as the only option and advise that you are a legitimate target of future protests.

Finally on your words of wisdon on flies; just because millions of flies eat shit, it does no mean it is a good thing to do.  In the same way as surrounding yourself with  many fools that agree with you does not make you right.

Kevin Lister

---

From: Les Godwin
To: cllr.garth.barnes@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.robin.macdonald@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.pat.thornton@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.andrew.wall@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.paul.massey@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.tim.cooper@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.paul.wheeldon@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.bernard.fisher@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.stuart.hutton@cheltenham.gov.uk; malcolm_stennett@o2.co.uk; Kevin Lister
Cc: Mark Ryan ; "Pratley, Pat" ; "Whittaker, Freddie" ; Michael Corely
Sent: Sunday, 15 November, 2009 19:59:41
Subject: Re: Behaving like sheep over the airport



Dear Mr Lister,

I don't usually respond to emails such as yours but on this occasion I am going to break my golden rule.

Why on earth you think that you are the only person in Gloucestershire who is concerned about CO2 emissions has amazed me since I first read your views on the matter some months ago. I can assure you that some of us have been concerned about this long before you thought of the idea.

Global warming and better protection of the environment has been discussed ad nauseam by the Council and others for many years, which is why most of us decided a long time ago to become councillors and argue the case from inside the Council rather than continually bleat like you do from the outside.

Carping and making snide remarks at people who are doing their best to balance the arguments for and against progress is unhelpful.

I would have thought that your time could have been better spent putting your concerns to the world leaders at Copenhagen who are striving to reach  agreement to control global emissions, which, if the newspaper reports are correct, are going to find it hard to satisfy the demands of every nation and an Agreement might not be forthcoming.

The Joint Airport Scrutiny Working Group have done an excellent job of coming to a sensible conclusion regarding the needs of the Airport and the needs of the wider public.

Following months of deliberation, alterations and amendments to a Green Policy resulted in the policy being included in the Runway Safety Project document that was presented and approved by Gloucester City Council and Cheltenham Borough Council earlier this year.

At both venues and on each occasion members of the public were able to put their questions to members of the committees.

Since those times, council meetings have taken place to discuss the funding of the project, which became necessary once Tewkesbury Borough Council planners decided to grant permission on the four outstanding planning applications. The council discussions were successfully concluded.

On Wednesday, 11th November I presented the JASWG report to the E, B & I Overview and Scrutiny Committee seeking their approval of the funding method.

Whilst the report to the Scrutiny Committee contained a summary of the main points of the approved Runway Safety Project document, it was not the intention to 're-invent the wheel' and go back over the RSP details but solely to seek approval for the funding of the project.

Surprisingly, there were no public questions from you or anyone else, which is why I was taken aback by your attitude after we left the committee room. It is not the way to make a point once a meeting has been concluded. Your manner was offensive to say the least.

If you were so concerned about emissions and you wanted confirmation that the ceiling in the original document still stood , why didn't you put your question?  

I am not sure whether the Chairman would have allowed questions unless they were about the funding proposals contained in the recommendations, but that would have been his decision..

Finally, you know as well as I do that the figure concerning CO2 emissions contained in the approved Runway Safety Project document will be monitored from day one, as will all the other conditions in the document.

If we fail to do this, but I can assure you we will, then that will be the time for you to start posing more questions.

There is an old saying that 'you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.' You should reflect on that.

Cllr Godwin.

Chairman JASWG,

Cheltenham Borough Council.

Email to the sheep in Cheltenham Scrutiny committee

Dear Councillors,


I attended the scrutiny committee this week to hear the debate on the airport. I can only say how appalled I was at the level of scrutiny you showed on the business case put forward by Councillor Les Godwin.

In fact there was no scrutiny at all. You merely agreed with everything said by Les Godwin and you were all unanimous in your praise of his paper.

It seems that many of you need reminding of the history of this proposal. The airport was forced to produce a “Green Management Plan” to address the genuine concerns that this development would result in significant CO2 emissions at a time when the rest of the population are being told to do everything possible to reduce their emissions and be ready to pay increased utility bills as a consequence. A key part of the Airport’s green management plan was to impose a CO2 ceiling of 4,000 tonnes annum and a commitment to an annual review.

However, section 7.3 (extract attached) of Les Godwin’s business case which covers the environment, completely ignores the CO2 ceiling and there is no reference to any annual review of the “Green management plan.”

When I asked Les Godwin why this was not included and how he expected the airport to make the returns he claimed while simultaneously staying within the CO2 targets, he pleaded ignorance and said that he did not know that the CO2 targets were not included. He is therefore either stupid or pretends to be stupid. I will leave if for you to decide.

As it does not take much intelligence to work out that it would be impossible to make the returns claimed whilst staying within the CO2 limits, I would like you to explain to me and the other people that are equally concerned by this development why you did not ask the obvious question of how the airport was to stay within its Green Management target whilst making the returns claimed.

Your behaviour skilfully re-enacts George Orwell’s Animal Farm. We have the advocates of environmental destruction, such as Les Godwin, taking over our planet in the same way as Napoleon took over the farm. Napoleon’s take over was consolidated with the support of bleating sheep in the same was as you all unanimously praised Les Godwin.

Extract:

Section 7.3 of Joint Airport Scrutiny Working Group

Amongst the conditions are a number which capture and reflect aspects of the airport’s Green Policy. These conditions specifically relate to the airport operations and are set out below:


(a) The number of air movements at the airport shall not exceed 95,000 a year (excluding police, emergency and military related flights)
(b) The airports main hours of operation shall be restricted to between the hours of 0830 – 1930 with no more than 1.5 % of movements per annum outside of these hours (excluding police, emergency and military related flights, and those arriving late for operational reasons)


(c) The number of movements between the hours of 23.00 and 06.00 shall be limited to 100 per calendar year (excluding police, emergency and military related flights).

Comment to Chris Booker, Telegraph

To Chris (and the other global warming deniers at the Telegraph)

You are either liars or stupid.

You say that global temperatures have started to drop since 1998. They have not. The trend since 1998 has continued an upward trend with roughly the same gradient as it did since 1941. Taking the data from 1941 to present, and drawing a line of best fit shows the temperature to be increasing at the rate of 0.01 deg C per year. Taking the data from 1998 to today and again drawing a line of best fit, shows the temperature to be increasing at the rate of 0.013 deg C per year, i.e. the rate of increase is increasing, not decreasing as Chris claims.

What Chris is stupid enough to do, is to mix up correlation with trends. By taking the 1998 as a start point, he starts that period with a year that was exceptionally hot due to a severe El Nino. He then compares every other year against 1998 and ignores all the data in between. The effect of 1998 on the data set taken from that date to today simply reduces the correlation.

The rapid rise in temperature in 1998 during the El Nino shows how sensitive our climate is to perturbation. It should be seen as a warning of the risks we face, not an opportunity for imbeciles to distort the science further.

Chris’s basic argument that scientists don’t know what they are talking about when predicting climate change is a bit rich from someone who does not understand basic school boy statistics.

The temperature trends follow below:

 Data source for graphs, NASA

Another Chance the ASA to show they will not stand by

Complaint to the ASA about Finnair Advert

This advert is making the claim that by choosing to fly by Finnair, you can be “eco-smart.”

This is totally misleading and breaches the ASA code, sections 49.1 and 49.2.

Section 49.1 says “The basis of any claim should be explained clearly and should be qualified where necessary.” There is no explanation of this claim. To say that their planes are brand new is not an explanation of why it is eco-smart to fly with Finnair. Put simply, planes will always produce huge amounts of emissions, irrespective of how modern they are. If an airline expands its business as a result of a market shift towards modern planes then the emissions will increase accordingly. The extra emissions will outweigh the savings. None of this is eco-smart.

Also other airlines and airplane manufacturers are making similar claims about their environmental benefits, i.e. Easy Jet, Airbus, and Boeing. Finnair’s advert makes no comparison between the age of their planes and those of similar operators or no comparison against the most fuel efficient planes available today.

Section 49.2 says, “Claims such as ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘wholly biodegradable’ should not be used without qualification unless marketers can provide convincing evidence that their product will cause no environmental damage when taking into account the full life cycle of the product.”

There is no qualification to this advert. It simply implies that the passenger is “eco-smart,” if they travel with Finnair. The advert does not provide any quantification of the CO2 emissions per person taking a flight and certainly does not put it into context, i.e. by comparing with emissions of a UK holiday.

Furthermore, the advert is aimed at users of London Underground. In general the users of Lonn Underground will not be as well versed about the issues surrounding climate change and the impact of aviation as readers of publications such as the National Geographic. As such they are more likely to be persuaded by the lie that flying by Finnair was in actual fact eco-smart, rather than highly environmentally damaging.

More ongoing dialogue with the ASA

Dear Mr Caines,

You may wish to close this discussion, but I will not and you will be hearing more from me. Every time some organisation such as Airbus flexes its marketing muscle to discredit or subvert the debate on climate change, I will complain. On the basis my past experience of complaining to the ASA on false environmental claims, I expect the ASA to reject the complaint, and I will then appeal.

I will build up a file of the all the cases where the ASA does not take action on those companies deliberately subverting the debate on climate change and present this to my MP and other politicians who are actively pressing for the level of the debate on climate change to be raised.

As for the points in your letter:

I am not wrong to state that you and the ASA have upheld the Airbus advert. Your actions speak louder than words. You have chosen to take no action when you should have done so. The ASA web site says that that one of your aims is to stop misleading adverts. Airbus's claim that "it is working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," is totally misleading and they are now free to continue these claims.

You say in your email that "I had not succeeded in making out a case." However, irrespective of what evidence that I would have presented, you would have come to the same conclusion, especially when it is absolutely clear that this decision is in breach of your own code. I would be interested to know how many ASA adjudications that you actually overturn, especially on sensitive issues such as this. I have previously spoken to people at the ASA and been told that ASA council decisions are rarely overturned by your "independent review."

It therefore seems that you are a rubber stamper, not an independent reviewer. I would therefore suggest that you consider early retirement and get out of the way to make space for a genuine independent reviewer.

So you are aware of the effectiveness of these types of adverts, only recently the government gave a 350 million pound loan to Airbus for the new A350, which was justified by Peter Mandelson as supporting the development of an environmentally friendly plane. This is after a billion of yet unpaid loans to support the A380. This comes at a time when the poorest people in our society are being told to expect to pay increased fuel bills to combat climate change. This is a propaganda coup that Goebbels would be proud of.

Kevin Lister

---

From: john caines
To: Kevin Lister <>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 September, 2009 1:51:55 PM
Subject: Re: ASA Case A09-101952: Airbus - Request for Review



Dear Mr Lister

I am replying to your email below, not because I think that there is much value in prolonging this exchange of correspondence (now that I have closed my file on the case), but because I regard it as desirable to put on record where I consider that you have got things wrong.

You are wrong to suggest that in my letter to you of 28 September I have made a decision to uphold the Airbus advertisement. You are also wrong to accuse me of supporting what you describe as Airbus' propaganda and false representations.

The only point contained in my letter of 28 September was my conclusion that you had not succeeded in making out a case to justify my asking the Council of the ASA to reconsider its decision not to investigate a complaint which you had made about an Airbus advertisement. I have not "upheld" that advertisement. Nor have I said that I support that advertisement. I have merely said that you have not persuaded me that the ASA Council's judgement was either unfair or unreasonable.

Your assertion that I work to protect the interests of business rather than the interests of individuals is both unjust and unfounded. During my ten years as Independent Reviewer there have been many occasions when my decisions have been against the interests of business.

You also imply that the ASA is biased in favour of business. It is not for me to try to defend the ASA. It is well able to do that itself. My own experience of dealing with some 500 review request cases during the past ten years has shown me that you are totally unjustified in making such a statement.

Yours sincerely

Sir John Caines

Independent Reviewer

Letter to Sir John Caines - ASA Independent reviewer

Dear Sir John,

Thank you for you letter – I am however extremely angry with your decision to uphold the Airbus advert. My anger will be shared by many others. The population is becoming increasingly terrified by the prospects of climate change and angry about the way in which large organisations such as Airbus are continually subverting the debate to protect their short term profit motives. We suffer this terror as we watch organisations such as Airbus receiving protection and support from the state, whilst the self evident rights to the future that we should enjoy are denied us.

Your action to support Airbus’s propaganda and false representations only reaffirms that the systems in place do not protect the individual, but are designed primarily to protect the rights of business to develop irrespective of the environmental damage caused.

Your decision to uphold the Airbus advert is based on several alarming, naïve and dangerous positions.

In your justification letter to me you have said:-

• “The Council’s view was based upon a judgement that readers of National Geographic would understand that the advertiser was not claiming that the aviation industry had no adverse impact on the environment.” Are you seriously trying to suggest that because the National Geographic is aimed an articulate and intelligent audience they will automatically be able to decipher fact from fantasy? History is full intelligent people who have been lead astray with disastrous consequences. Airbus’s advert is in the National Geographic precisely because it is a prestigious publication. Airbus’s marketing department clearly wanted its name associated with the National Geographic as a way of combating the debate on the impact of aviation on climate change. The fact that it is in the National Geographic gives credence to its claim that it is “working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

• “Readers of National Geographic would be unlikely to regard the advertisement as a claim that Airbus was taking actions which would lead to absolute, rather than relative, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” This a ridiculous position for the Advertising Standards Agency to take. Firstly, you have no way of knowing how this advert is perceived by National Geographic readers. Secondly, the aviation industry this week has been peddling its nonsense about being able to reduce its absolute emissions by 50% by 2050, when it has already failed to meet any of its past environmental targets. The reader will clearly assume that this advert is relating to absolute emissions. This after all, is the intention of the advert.

• “The Council has to strike a balance between preserving freedom of expression and ensuring that such freedom is not seriously harmful to the interests of others.” Are you saying that an organisation such as Airbus can be allowed to use its massive marketing budget to blatantly lie about its environmental credentials as this is essential to the preservation of freedom of expression? You should know that the combined marketing budgets and publicity machines of the many carbon intensive companies such as Airbus by far exceeds the worlds scientific budget on climate change. Ever since climate change was first highlighted as a serious problem in the late 1970s, big business has successfully subverted the debate to ensure profitability. This is not freedom of expression or open debate. This is manipulation on a grand scale, and this advert is simply part of this.

• “I know that this decision will be a disappointment to you and for that I am sorry. I realise that you feel very strongly about the impact of the aviation industry on the environment” This is patronising and belittling nonsense that I can do without. To say that I feel strongly is a gross understatement. I am angry at my environment being destroyed and my taxes being diverted to the aviation industry. Not only am I angry, but so are thousands of others. Many of these intelligent people are now sacrificing their own liberty by taking direct action, as there is no other real option to influence decision making. You have demonstrated again that the only way forward is by direct action.

Finally you may want to explain to me what the Advertising Standards Agency is for? This complaint, and the lack of adherence to your own code, clearly demonstrates that it is not to ensure truthful and honest claims to the public. Instead it seems that the ASA’s job is to ensure that the marketing interests of business are allowed to operate, irrespective of the environmental damage that may ensue. You have demonstrated the truth of the Plane Stupid claim that the "ASA are as toothless as a new born."

I will post this correspondence on my blog, and copy to my MP.

Kevin Lister

Request for appeal on the Airbus Adverts

Letter to the Advertising Standards Agency Independent Reviewer

Dear Sirs,

I have been told in email correspondence with Julia Dean that the grounds for which a request can be made is “Where there is a substantial flaw in the Council's adjudication or in the process by which that adjudication was made.”

You will note that the letter I received states that the “ASA council has considered the ad and your complaint but concluded there was no breach of the Code.”

I have since checked the code. This advert is clearly and unequivocally in breach of the ASA code. The relevant sections that it is in breach follow below: -

49.1 The basis of any claim should be explained clearly and should be qualified where necessary. Unqualified claims can mislead if they omit significant information.

The ASA Council’s justification for rejecting the complaint is that Airbus “did not make any specific claims about particular projects that the advertisers were involved with or goals.” By definition, the ASA are acknowledging that the statement is unqualified as they recognise that no specific claims are made; hence ASA Council has not abided by its own code and there is a substantial flaw in the adjudication.

The advert also says, “working towards.” Airbus do not say how long it will take nor by how much they intend to reduce greenhouse gases nor do they explain the basis of their claim, hence this is a totally unqualified statement, further justifying that the ASA Council has not abided by its own code and there is a substantial flaw in the adjudication.

49.2 Claims such as ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘wholly biodegradable’ should not be used without qualification unless marketers can provide convincing evidence that their product will cause no environmental damage when taking into account the full life cycle of the product. Qualified claims and comparisons such as ‘greener’ or ‘friendlier’ may be acceptable if marketers can substantiate that their product provides an overall improvement in environmental terms either against their competitors’ or their own previous products.

Airbus cannot present any convincing evidence that they are working towards reducing greenhouse gases. The Tindal Report, 2005 ( available at http://www.tyndall.ac.uk) quantifies the rise in emissions from aviation. All the evidence proves unequivocally that greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are increasing significantly and that any claims that the airline industry is reducing, or can reduce emissions, without major reductions in capacity is totally false.

In addition Airbus has implied in the advert that its drive to improve fuel efficiency is part of its drive towards to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, it has not qualified that this fuel efficiency is primarily being achieved on long range planes such as the new A380, were the total emissions will be far higher than any previous plane.

The ASA Council is therefore in breach of its own code as it has allowed the claim of working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions without qualification and in spite of the fact that the marketers can not provide any convincing evidence for their claim of working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is a substantial flaw in the adjudication process.

49.3 Where there is a significant division of scientific opinion or where evidence is inconclusive this should be reflected in any statements made in the marketing communication. Marketers should not suggest that their claims command universal acceptance if that is not the case.

There is no division of scientific opinion on climate change. The reverse is true. The absolute consensus is that cuts in excess of 80% need to be made to greenhouse gas emissions as documented in the Copenhagen Climate Conference report (http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport). Furthermore there is absolutely no scientific evidence that suggests the aviation industry can achieve any significant cuts at all.

Thus the ASA Council is again in breach of its own guidance as it has allowed the advert in contrary to the main body of scientific opinion. This is a substantial flaw in the adjudication process.

Climate change is the defining issue of our time. The vested interests of companies such as Airbus is fundamentally derailing the debate and putting the entire future of the planet at risk. It is vital that this sort of misrepresentation is not tolerated. Its precedent is the cigarette adverts of the 1950s, were ludicrous claims such as safety cigarettes were fostered on an ignorant population. Adverts of this nature are exactly the same, only the implications of none action are greater.

I will also copy this correspondence to my MP, David Drew

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Letter from the ASA - Nothing wrong with the Airbus Advert

Dear Mr Lister

AIRBUS S.A.S

Thank you for contacting the Advertising Standards Authority.

The ASA Council has considered the ad and your complaint but concluded there was no breach of the Code. This is because the Council noted that the ad did not make any specific claims about particular projects that the advertisers were involved with or goals achieved in terms of “reducing greenhouse gas emissions, lowering fuel consumption, and creating quieter, more efficient aircraft.” These claims were all stated as generalised aspirations, relative to the advertisers own actions and current levels of emissions, fuel consumption and noise; there was no specific claim that the advertisers could or would reduce the net environmental impact of the industry. The Council therefore concluded that readers of National Geographic would be aware of the fact that the aviation industry contributed significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, among other things, and would not regard the ad as claiming that the advertisers were taking action that would lead to absolute, rather than relative, reductions.

I realise that will disappoint you and, although we won’t be taking any other action, we’ve told the advertiser about your concerns (without revealing your identity).

Our website, www.asa.org.uk, contains information about the ASA and the work we do, including the results of investigations into other complaints, many of which have been upheld.

Yours sincerely,

Julia Dean

Email to the board of BP on Tar Sands

Tar Sands - before and after

To: tony.haywood@bp.com, bryon.grote@bp.com, robert.dudley@bp.com, iain.conn@bp.com

Dear Sirs,

I have recently returned from a presentation by the Cree aboriginal group at Climate Camp. You may not be aware that these are the indigenous people of Canada whose impoverished lives you will finally destroy with the tar sands development projects that you are about to commence. You may also not be aware that these people have inhabited this land sustainably for 12,000 years. You may not be aware that the water supply of these people is now massively polluted, their traditional hunting and fishing grounds have been destroyed, and they face premature death by a series of cancers.

You may also not be aware that the tar sands that you now seek to exploit will need more water, produce even more polluted lakes, create massive amounts of CO2, and will result in the wholesale conversion of Canada’s ancient and bio-diverse forests and fauna into a poisonous wasteland.

Or more likely, you are aware of all these facts, but you deliberately ignore them as you scrape the bottom of the world’s barrel for its remaining oil in conscious defiance of runaway climate change. If you are aware, I would suggest that you read your history books, especially the ones about the Nuremberg trials. I suggest this, because if you are not prepared to learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. Your problem is that your dilema on tar sands is very much the same uncomfortable one the guards and managers of the concentration camps experienced.

As you are aware when you read your history books, a good concentration camp general was judged on how many inmates he could process, in the same way as you are judged on how much profits you create. Good concentration camp managers enjoyed a good standard of life with their families, in the same way as good oil company managers enjoy a good standard of life with their families. The question of morality is neatly and deliberately removed from the calculations of success in both cases, and the things that determine normality for both are neatly and consciously removed from the decisions to be made at the place of work.

The decision making process for the concentration camp managers and the decision you will make on your tar sands project differs little. You will argue to yourself that you are working for the benefit of your community and that the benefits of your action will outweigh the consequences, irrespective of the evidence placed in front of you. In the same way the concentration camp manager was able to rationalise that his actions would further the fortunes of the Fatherland, irrespective of the evidence placed in front of him. In both cases, you and the concentration camp manager are insulated from the effects of the decisions by the enormous power held. No concentration camp manager lived in squalor with the prisoners and you will not have to live amongst the Cree people in a poisoned land.

Then the thought comes of if not me, it will be someone else. So you will argue that if you do not develop the tar sands some other company will do so, just as the guards rationalised that if it was not them operating the camps someone else would. This moral ambivalence leads to a race to the bottom. As you make your decision on the tar sands, I ask you to consider the scenario of what would happen if the guards and managers at Auschwitz came together with the prisoners and destroyed the camp. Would this be a mere footnote to history, or would it lead to the collapse of the principles of Nazism? I would suggest it would lead to the collapse of an evil structure. Even if it did not, it would provide hope to many, without which there absolutely can be no future.

But the parallels are not limited to the mere removal of morals and go down to the finer levels of detail, because as you read the history of the camps you will see more disturbingly close similarities, especially if you read Primo Levi’s book, The Drowned and the Saved. Primo Levi talks about how the horrific task of forcing the prisoners into the gas chambers was subcontracted to the Kapos. In case you do not read history, Kapos were prisoners, often Jews who operated the chambers; they got the living in and cleaned the dead out in exchange for a few extra privileges, which was normally a short extension to their life. None of them enjoyed this task and they did it because the task was too awful for the camp managers. I ask you now to consider the plight of the Cree people who have to work in your open cast mines and be complicit in the destruction of their own environment because the oil industry’s destruction of their environment has given them no choice but to cooperate with their destroyers. Like the Kapos, they are tasked with converting their living forests into dead zones. By doing this they get the reward of being able to live in their homelands for a short time longer, but only in the knowledge that the death of their community is made more certain by their actions. Like the Kapos, none of them enjoy this and do it because you and your colleagues do not have the courage to kill the forest and ecosystem with your own hands. You may want to explain were the moral difference lies between the Cree people being forced to work in your extraction processes and the Kapos being forced to operate the gas chambers.

Your history books will tell you how the languages in the German Camps and Russian Archipelagos were brutalised and subverted to reflect the environment, for example prisoners who were about to die were being “deloused,” in a count there could only be “42 prisoners,” not 42 men or women. In the same way, you might want to consider the language of the oil industry in Canada. The fertile soil, abundant in life which you must remove, is degraded to “overburden.” The project is described as a “Tar Sand Development,” when in reality the project is concerned with the destruction of mankind, not development of any kind.

Fundamentally, the only differences between the concentration camps manager and yourself, is that you are operating on a bigger scale of human destruction, you are not as well organised but do a better job of hiding your intentions. Rather reassuringly for you, justice is handed out by the victors, but if you succeed with your development, there will be no victors to dispense justice.

I leave you with the thoughts of Hoss, the commander of Aushwitz, who said, “My conscience compels me to make the following declaration. In the solitude of my prison cell I have come to the bitter recognition that I have sinned gravely against humanity. As Commandant of Auschwitz I was responsible for carrying out part of the cruel plans of the 'Third Reich' for human destruction. In so doing I have inflicted terrible wounds on humanity. I caused unspeakable suffering for the Polish people in particular. I am to pay for this with my life. May the Lord God forgive one day what I have done.”

If you proceed with the tar sands project, you will be condemned to suffer similar thoughts of complicity with mass destruction.

This email will appear on my blog, http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/

Kevin Lister

Response to ASA

Thank you for your letter and email. I am absolutely appalled that you have chosen not to take action on the Airbus advert.

You say in your decision that there was no breach of the code. However I have looked at the code. This advert is clearly and unequivocally in breach. I enclose the relevant sections of your code below with specific failings of the advert:-

49.1 The basis of any claim should be explained clearly and should be qualified where necessary. Unqualified claims can mislead if they omit significant information.

By your own admission the Airbus advert is completely unqualified. The advert merely says “working towards.” They do not say how long it will take nor by how much they intend to reduce greenhouse gases nor do they explain the basis of their claim. It is equivalent to a cigarette company saying they are working towards a cancer free cigarette. A cigarette addict would cling on to this false hope and be less likely to stop smoking. The same is true for a regular flier.

The cigarette manufactures’ adverts in the 1940 and 50s that claimed the safety benefits of filtered cigarettes lead to the death of millions. Climate change will now lead to the death of billions, fuelled on by vested interests such as Airbus who will mislead, misrepresent and offer false hope and false solutions.

49.2 Claims such as ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘wholly biodegradable’ should not be used without qualification unless marketers can provide convincing evidence that their product will cause no environmental damage when taking into account the full life cycle of the product. Qualified claims and comparisons such as ‘greener’ or ‘friendlier’ may be acceptable if marketers can substantiate that their product provides an overall improvement in environmental terms either against their competitors’ or their own previous products.

Airbus has no convincing evidence of any of the claims that they have made, especially with respect to the claim to be working towards reducing greenhouse gases. I refer you to the Tindal report, 2005 which quantifies the rise in emissions from Aviation. All the evidence proves convincingly that greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are increasing significantly and that any claims that the airline industry is reducing, or can reduce emissions, with out major reductions in capacity is totally false.

49.3 Where there is a significant division of scientific opinion or where evidence is inconclusive this should be reflected in any statements made in the marketing communication. Marketers should not suggest that their claims command universal acceptance if that is not the case.

There is no division of scientific opinion on climate change. In fact, the reverse is true. The absolute consensus is that cuts in excess of 80% need to be made to greenhouse gas emissions. I refer you to the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Furthermore there is absolutely no scientific evidence that suggests the aviation industry can achieve any significant cuts at all. The only supporting documents to demonstrate Airbus is working towards reducing fuel efficiency exist in their marketing departments and the marketing departments of airlines.

It is vital that you properly address this advert and that you are not seen to be failing to act on the defining issue of our time.

Please advise me of your approval process by return.

I will also copy this correspondence to my MP, David Drew.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

ASA response - totally supporting Airbus's lies

Dear Mr Lister

AIRBUS S.A.S

Thank you for contacting the Advertising Standards Authority.

The ASA Council has considered the ad and your complaint but concluded there was no breach of the Code. This is because the Council noted that the ad did not make any specific claims about particular projects that the advertisers were involved with or goals achieved in terms of “reducing greenhouse gas emissions, lowering fuel consumption, and creating quieter, more efficient aircraft.” These claims were all stated as generalised aspirations, relative to the advertisers own actions and current levels of emissions, fuel consumption and noise; there was no specific claim that the advertisers could or would reduce the net environmental impact of the industry. The Council therefore concluded that readers of National Geographic would be aware of the fact that the aviation industry contributed significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, among other things, and would not regard the ad as claiming that the advertisers were taking action that would lead to absolute, rather than relative, reductions.

I realise that will disappoint you and, although we won’t be taking any other action, we’ve told the advertiser about your concerns (without revealing your identity).

Our website, www.asa.org=.uk, contains information about the ASA and the work we do, including the results of investigations into other complaints, many of which have been upheld.

Yours sincerely


Julia Dean
Complaints Executive
Email: juliad@asa.org.uk

Further Airbus complaint - that 2% claim again

I wish to complain about the Airbus “Green Wave” web page that is again erroneously presenting Airbus as an environmentally benign organisation.

The essence of this advert is that “Aviation contributes 2 per cent to man-made CO2” which is small in relation to deforestation and power generation. The implication being that we should do nothing to aviation as a CO2 source and concentrate instead on biodiversity.

However the proposition of doing nothing to the aviation industry, is false for the reasons set out below:-

1. Emissions from aviation are rapidly growing. The advert fundamentally fails to address this.

2. Man made emissions are rapidly growing, so taking 2% of a rapidly growing total, means that the proportion in consideration is also growing. To be precise the advert should have quoted the year on year growth in CO2 emissions.

3. Greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut to virtually zero to avoid runway climate change as the planet’s CO2 levels are already well into the danger zone.

4. The 2% figure does not include radiative forcing effects from aviation. This increases the global warming effectiveness of the CO2 by a factor of 2 to 5.

5. The exhausts emissions from plans have high NOx gas concentrations. The warming effect of these gases is up to 200 times more powerful that CO2.

6. By comparing their emissions with other bigger sources such as deforestation, Airbus are effectively making the moral comparison that it is okay to rob corner shops because other people rob banks. It is well known that deforestation emissions have risen enormously and that it is a priority to stop this. However, this is not a reason to allow aviation to continue emitting. It is actually a reason for aviation to be curtailed, as the earth’s climate system is under more stress and less able to sequestrate aviation’s emissions.

7. A major factor towards deforestation is the rush for biofuels which the aviation industry is pushing as a false solution to man made CO2 emissions, e.g. Air New Zealand is using Jatrophia.

8. The 2% figure the advert quotes does not include the emissions resulting from the extraction and refining of the crude oil. Typically for every 3 barrels of crude produced and converted to a finished product, 1 barrel is needed to cover the energy associated with refining and production.

9. The 2% figure does not include the emissions from the unsustainable industries that aviation subsequently supports such as tourism, cash crops grown in the third world, etc.

10. Estimates show 80% of aviation travel is discretionary and can be eliminated with no immediate hardship. However, loss of power is critical to the functioning of our civilisation.

11. The power industry is being forced to pursue renewable power generation and carbon capture technologies. The costs associated with these will be paid for by premiums on everyone’s electricity bills, causing significant hardship to the poor. However, the rich are being actively encouraged to continue flying. Effectively the cost of cleaning up the emissions of the rich falls to the poor, as it does not matter to the climate what the source of the emissions is.

Given the points, the correct statement from Airbus should have been “Aviations emissions are growing and will continue grow as this sector develops. Aviation causes direct and indirect emissions. When the indirect emissions are included, aviation’s contribution to greenhouse gases is far higher than 2% of the total. This is happening at a time when runway climate change has started and all the credible scientific opinion in the world concludes that cuts greater than 80% are needed in greenhouse gas emissions. Runaway climate change is the biggest threat to the planet’s biodiversity.”

I trust that along with other the other ongoing complaints against Airbus adverts, you will also force Airbus to address this deliberately erroneous statement on their web site.

Many thanks to David Drew MP for supporting Airbus complaint

Copy of David Drew's letter to the ASA agency in support of my complaint.

What a guy, at last an MP who does not screw the expenses and supports critical issues of principle!!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Julia Dean
The Advertising Standards Authority
Mid City Place
71 High Holborn
LONDON WC1V 6QT

17th August 2009

Dear Julia

I have recently been copied in on the correspondence that a constituent of mine (Kevin Lister) has had with you regarding Airbus's claim that they are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I now understand that Mr. Lister’s claim will be taken to the ASA Council which I very much welcome.

I want to make it clear that my constituent has my full support. I have known and worked with Kevin for a number of years now and I admire his willingness and ability to expose some of the myths about so-called environmental improvements in the airline business. It is clear that Airbus's claim would appear to be both false and deliberately misleading which I trust the Council will recognise in its forthcoming ruling.

I would like to highlight the following for the Council to take into consideration as part of their decision making:

Climate change is real and the most serious threat facing both humanity and the survival of all life on the planet. All creators of climate change gases have a duty to reduce their emissions and it is vital that this process is transparent and fair and that all claims are verified independently and those that are not true are subsequently withdrawn and apologies made.

The latest science suggests that for there to be any chance of avoiding runaway climate change, we much reduce atmospheric CO2 from the current 380 ppm down to the 350 ppm. The magnitude of challenge must be considered against the background that not only is CO2 still increasing but also the rate of increase is increasing. Consequently, climate change can only be addressed by a fundamental change in our society and our expectations. It cannot be addressed by "tinkering around the edges" which is the implication of this advert.

Airbus's advert is analogous to Marlboro’s tobacco adverts of the late 1940s when they promoted their filtered cigarettes as a safe way to smoke. In reality there was never a safe way to smoke as we know now. Also the damage to those who are the unwilling recipients of the impact of airline pollution is analogous to those who have suffered from the implications of passive smoking. Flying must therefore accept that given the state of the science of climate change there is no environmentally friendly way to fly and therefore no way that Airbus can claim to be working towards reducing greenhouse gases unless and until there is a reduction in the level of flying and a paradigm shift in airline technology so that they are no longer dependent upon fossil fuels.

Given the nature of Kevin’s complaint I hope that you will uphold this in your judgement and that Airbus can be made to rescind its claims.

I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,



David Drew MP for the Stroud Constituency