Kev's Climate Column

UK Low Carbon Transition plan says make carbon budget for Trident

2012-02-08T13:59:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr Lacy,

Thank you for your last correspondence and ongoing assistance in helping me understand the government's plans for abiding by the intent of the Durban Platform deadline date of the 28^th February for submission of proposals to raise the level of ambition for international co-operation on climate change.

I have read the document that you referenced:

http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/lca/application/pdf/pl-_09-19-ambition.pdf .

Unfortunately, this does not give any specifics about what this government or any other will do to raise the level of co-operation. It is merely a skeleton document with no flesh. It acknowledges the most optimistic scenarios will result in catastrophic global heating and that the level of ambition needs to be raised such that we can achieve a 50% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050.

It is worth pointing out that today's global emissions are already twice those of 1990. We therefore need to reduce global CO2 emissions to a quarter of today's.

I am delighted you have confirmed “the government will submit as part of the EU its views on increasing the level of international mitigation ambition by the 28 February.”

I, and many others, would simply like to know what these are. On the basis that nothing has yet been published, there has been no media debate on the issue and no government announcements, we are entitled to be sceptical that the issue is being treated with the seriousness it merits. Can you confirm the government will announce before hand its proposals and give a date for these?

I would also like to thank you for referring me to the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan

Page 7 of this document says, “For the first time, UK Government departments have been allocated their own carbon budgets.” This flatly contradicts your previous response when you said, “The five year Carbon Budgets introduced by the Climate Change Act 2008 set a cap or limit on greenhouse emissions on an overall economy wide basis and therefore don’t apply on an individual sectoral basis or a particular policy basis.”

Likewise, Page 36 says, “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.” It is therefore not acceptable that for you to say that there has been no carbon budget impact assessment of pursuing Trident.

The comment on page 7 suggests that there should be a specific carbon budget for the ministry of defence and the arms industry. The comment on page 36 suggests that a decision to proceed with Trident should be subject to a carbon impact assessment. There can be no decision in in government more major than the Trident replacement.

Please confirm that UK Low Carbon Transition Plan will be adhered to when it comes to the Trident Replacement.

I also note that the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan relies on carbon capture and storage being successful. As this is proving to be a failure globally, then there needs to be increasing focus on carbon budgets elsewhere and honesty in impact assessments.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

DECC climate change strategy is based on out dated documents

2012-02-08T13:42:00.000-08:00

7 February 2012

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your email of 5 February, in response to my letter to you of 3 February (TO2012/01525/BL).

The Government is clear that domestic legislation alone is not enough to tackle climate change and that international cooperation is needed, as the Durban Platform states. In this sense, I would reiterate the achievements at Durban: the successful agreement to a roadmap which would lead to a new global legally binding agreement with emissions reductions commitments for all but the poorest and most vulnerable countries; a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to be agreed next year; and the establishment of the Green Climate Fund to help deliver financial support to developing countries to reduce emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change.

The UK remains committed to tackling global emissions, and will submit as part of the EU its views on increasing the level of international mitigation ambition by the 28 February, as set out in the Durban Conference on Climate Change. The EU submission of 20 September gives some indication of the views held by the EU on this issue. Please see the following link: http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/lca/application/pdf/pl-_09-19-ambition.pdf

I would also say that choosing between economic growth and going green is a false dichotomy; indeed, the two are inextricably linked. It is from the green industry that economic growth will come (to take one example from just one industry, up to 10,000 jobs will be created in the the solar panel industry in the next three years).

On Trident, I reiterate that the five year Carbon Budgets introduced by the Climate Change Act 2008 set a cap or limit on greenhouse emissions on an overall economy wide basis and therefore do not apply on an individual sectoral basis or a particular policy basis.

I appreciate your strong views on the issue of Trident. However, as we have said before in previous correspondence, the Government’s position is that, while we are committed to the long-term goal of nuclear disarmament, we believe we can best protect ourselves against these threats by the continued operation of a minimum, credible nuclear deterrent. Accordingly, this Government has committed to maintain the deterrent and to continue with the programme to renew it as debated and approved by Parliament in 2007.

Whether or not you agree with it, Parliament has taken a conscious and well informed decision and we are not sliding towards Trident’s replacement.

Carbon budgets are legally binding and Government is totally committed to meeting them. Indeed, the latest emissions projections (published June 2010) show we expect to reduce emissions to below the first three carbon budgets by 29 MtCO2e, 68 MtCO2e and 50 MtCO2e, respectively (central emissions scenario).

We do not agree that not meeting our emissions targets is ‘likely’. However, if the budgets are not met through reductions in domestic emissions, carbon credits can be bought to meet them. Government has to set a limit on the amount of credits that can be purchased on a carbon budget by budget basis. The limit for the first budget period is zero.

If a carbon budget is exceeded, even taking into account of any credits, section 19 of the Climate Change Act requires that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out proposals and policies to compensate in future periods for the excess emissions.

The statutory basis of the targets and budgets in the Act means that any failure to meet a budget carries a risk to Government of judicial review.

In answer to your question on carbon reductions, please refer to the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009), found on the DECC website, which plots how the UK will meet cuts in emissions by 2020:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/carbon_plan/lctp/lctp.aspx

Yours sincerely,
Bill Lacy
DECC Correspondence Unit

Further request for the proposals for international co-operation on climate chaange

2012-02-05T13:48:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr. Lacy,

Thank you for your reply on 3^rd February.

You say “The ‘Durban Platform’ is a roadmap to a global legal agreement applicable to all parties. Negotiations for the new agreement are to begin early this year.” This I understand. What the Durban platform states is “that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries.”

I have referred to the report you quoted. It makes it clear legislative policies are inadequate to avoid runaway climate change. Its introduction states, “With the latest figures on global emissions showing a 6% increase in 2010, it is clear  that  more  needs  to  be  done  to  slow  and  reverse  the  emissions  of  greenhouse  gases  if  the  international  community  is  to  have  a  realistic  chance  of  limiting  global  average  temperature  rise  to  2^oC.    This  report  demonstrates  that  legislators  are  responding to this challenge albeit not at the level of ambition required,” and goes on to say “Domestic legislation is not a substitute for international concerted action.” As it is international concerted action that is needed, my question still stands - what will the UK government propose by the 28^th February to ensure the international cooperation for tackling climate change happens?

Your response gives no evidence that either the government or your department is thinking through the implications of cooperation on climate change. Instead, your responses indicate thinking that remains wedded to the concept of maintaining business as usual. Your proposal of a Local Sustainable Transport Fund has as its objective creating economic growth. This is the opposite to what is needed to tackle increasing carbon emissions. Likewise carbon savings from the CRC reduction scheme will be quickly negated by economic growth. Furthermore, neither of these proposals will do anything to increase international cooperation on climate change. This is the objective of the Durban Platform.

Your admission that no assessment of the construction and operation of Trident has been incorporated into our climate change commitments is quite incredible. As you will appreciate Trident requires a massive military industrial complex and a significant proportion of our economic activity must be devoted towards raising the taxation for it. By pursuing Trident, we also force other nation states to follow suite and they will be caught in the same carbon trap. The end result is that the Trident type systems that nations are busily building around the world to protect their security have become the biggest threat to us all by locking us into high carbon industries and inevitable runaway climate change. This makes climate change agreements of the type we need impossible and forces nations to compete rather than cooperate.

As your response also says, “Through collaborative discussion and analysis, the preferred policies and measures to meet carbon budgets are agreed across government,” I again ask for the carbon budget associated with the construction, operation and funding of Trident. If you are not able to do this, then please answer the following:

Which sections of society will be the first to be forced to make cuts in the likely event the CO2 emission targets are not achieved?

Of the carbon reductions that you have quoted to 2022, how much of this is due to exporting manufacturing to highly polluting countries such as China?

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Government does not quantify the carbon impact of the military industrial complex

2012-02-03T13:16:00.000-08:00

Email response from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (correspondence@decc.gsi.gov.uk)

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your email response of 29 January.

The ‘Durban Platform’ is a roadmap to a global legal agreement applicable to all parties. Negotiations for the new agreement are to begin early this year and are to conclude as early as possible and no later than 2015. The commitments in the new agreement will take effect from 2020.

Many details remain to be worked out over the coming months, including specific emissions reduction targets, the length of the commitment period, and a process for dealing with surplus emissions allowances. But the headline message is clear. The ‘Kyoto architecture’ – the rules and legal framework for managing emissions – have been preserved and can be built on in the future.

You asked for a copy of the GLOBE International research which has found that every major economy has now enacted climate or energy related legislation. Please see http://www.globeinternational.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-2nd-GLOBE-Climate-Legislation-StudyFINAL-VERSION.pdf.

We are doing much to move to a low carbon economy. On transport, for instance, we also promoting smarter travel choices through the £560 Local Sustainable Transport Fund – the fund will allow Local Authorities to invest in sustainable transport projects to help create economic growth and reduce carbon emissions.

There are other examples. We have introduced the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme as part of our long term strategy to combat climate change and secure our energy supply. This will change behaviours and effectively tackle energy waste. The CRC contains drivers such as the Performance League Table to provide reputational motivation, and thorough reporting of energy use to drive best practice energy management. The price signal of the financial element increases incentives and will bring the fight against climate change to the boardroom.

So, we are taking significant and ambitious action to go low carbon and tackle climate change on the domestic front.

You finished your letter with a number of specific questions about carbon budgets which I shall deal with in turn:

As it is the job of your department to speak to others with regard to carbon budgets then can you confirm the following to me:

What discussions your department has had with the Department of Defence about incorporating the carbon budget of building, operating, maintaining and disposing Trident within the UK carbon budget and Climate Change Act?

The five year Carbon Budgets introduced by the Climate Change Act 2008 set a cap or limit on greenhouse emissions on an overall economy wide basis and therefore don’t apply on an individual sectoral basis or a particular policy basis.

What discussions has your department had with the Exchequer about quantifying the carbon produced from the section of society that must keep consuming and producing to raise taxes to fund Trident and how will this be incorporated into the Climate Change Act?

No discussions have been held on that basis. The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions figures are calculated on a territorial or production basis rather than on a consumption basis, because international reporting to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change require this and also because emissions reporting data on a consumption basis is not as reliable. You may be interested to know that with current planned policies, latest projections published in October indicate that the UK is on track to meet its first three carbon budgets to 2022 and that we expect to reduce emissions to below their levels by 96, 132 and 87 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) respectively, based on central forecasts.

What discussion has your department had with the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Business about accommodating the carbon for the arms and weapons systems we manufacture for other nations into our carbon budgets? As you should be aware, we are providing Saudi Arabia with arms such as the Typoon jet. This is despite Saudi’s record of impeding climate change negotiations and the majority of the suicide bombers flying planes into the Twin Towers coming from Saudi Arabia.

Through collaborative discussion and analysis, the preferred policies and measures to meet carbon budgets are agreed across government. The resulting information on emissions savings estimates by policy provide a tool for assisting in tracking progress and risks to delivery and act as a benchmark for what we expect policies to deliver. Departments are held accountable for delivery through a framework of regular monitoring and reporting against their actions and indicators of progress. You may be interested to read the Carbon Plan, the Government’s strategy which sets out scenarios for achieving the 2050 80% reduction target, and emissions reductions and decarbonisation that will be needed along the way. The Government reports publicly on progress against the actions in the Carbon Plan on a quarterly basis and provides more detailed updates via its response to annual progress reports by the Committee on Climate Change every year.

If you have not yet instigated these discussions, can you confirm that they will immediately commence and that conclusions will be made public before the 28th Feb.

As mentioned previously given that we don’t calculate our carbon budgets on an individual policy basis, there are no plans to discuss individual projects or policies in this way.

Yours sincerely,
Bill Lacy
DECC Correspondence Unit

Trident and climate change - demand for answers before 28th Feb from DECC

2012-01-29T07:23:00.000-08:00

Dear Lacy,

Thank you for your email response. However, you have not answered the questions that I asked.

To be clear, I asked what proposals DECC would put forward to the Durban Platform on the 28^th February that would increase the level of co-operation on climate change needed to avoid runaway climate change. Other than the EU-ETS, you have provided none. As you are aware the EU-ETS is not a beacon of co-operation on climate change. The Chinese, American and Indian government's are all working together to overturn it and the carbon trading scheme under which it operates has been proved to be a mechanism for fraud and obfuscation.

The lack of vision your department is showing is highly disturbing.

You quote “Research by GLOBE International has found that every major economy has now enacted climate or energy related legislation.” However I can find no reference to this on their web site. You have also not provided evidence on the effectiveness of their proposed legislation in reducing the totally of CO2 emissions. I would therefore appreciate a copy of GLOBE International research that you refer to.

In contrast to GLOBE International, the International Energy Agency have a much more pessimistic view of our future. They predict that current policies are locking us into global warming in excess of 6 deg C as we continue building carbon dependent infrastructure.

The events in this country over the recent weeks supports the IEA vision of the future. Our government wants to pursue a major additional hub airport in the Thames, has authorised a high speed rail requiring locomotives with 12 times the power consumption of those used in the past and supports a range of other high carbon industries.

In your response to me to, you asked that I refer the question of Trident to the Ministry of defence. However, as it is the job of your department to speak to others with regard to carbon budgets, then can you confirm the following to me:

What discussions has your department had with the Department of Defence about incorporating the carbon budget of building, operating, maintaining, defending and disposing Trident within the UK carbon budget and Climate Change act?
What discussions has your department had with the Exchequer about quantifying the carbon produced from the section of society that must keep consuming and producing to raise taxes to fund Trident and how this will be incorporated into the Climate Change Act?
What discussion has your department had with the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Business about accommodating the carbon for the arms and weapons systems we manufacture for other nations into our carbon budgets? As you should be are aware, we are providing Saudi Arabia with arms such as the Typoon jet. This is despite Saudi's record of impeding climate change negotiations and the majority of the suicide bombers flying planes into the Twin Towers coming from Saudi Arabia.
If you have not yet instigated these discussions, can you confirm that they will immediately commence and that conclusions will be made public before the 28th Feb.

Trident and climate change - have DECC asked about Trident's carbon budget

2012-01-29T07:09:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your email to my colleague Hadiza Kasimu, in response to her correspondence to you (reference TO2011/23141) about nuclear disarmament and climate change agreements.

I appreciate your concerns at the Durban outcomes but must emphasise that while Durban may not immediately place the world on the path to limiting climate change to our two degrees objective, it does make this path possible in a way it was not before. Durban acknowledged the gap between countries; existing mitigation pledges and the global 2 degree goal. It also agreed to a work programme to look at options for addressing this gap, with a view to increasing global ambition.

Aviation is an area where we are committed to press ahead despite the lack of international action and where the EU is standing firm. But a lot is already being done in Europe to lead the way and re-energise the debate. In January 2012 the EU has successfully included in the EU emissions trading system all emissions from incoming and departing flights into the EU territory. We are determined to make this work and the UK and EU are engaging with governments and industry around the world to make this happen.

Whilst we agree that there is still work to be done, it is not fair to say that countries will only start to reduce their emissions in 2020. Countries accounting for around 80% of global emissions have already pledged mitigation commitments or actions to 2020, and research by GLOBE International has found that every major economy has now enacted climate or energy related legislation. It is particularly encouraging that the large developing countries of Brazil, China, India, and South Africa – who together are likely to represent the engine of future global economic growth – are developing comprehensive laws to tackle climate change.

I note your comments on Trident and nuclear strategy. However, I can only reiterate the points made by my colleague Hadiza Kasimu about the Government’s position on this issue. That is, the Government believes that we need to take action to safeguard our national security at home and abroad. Clearly, the renewal of a nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system is not a decision to be taken lightly. However, the Government’s view is that this is not the right time for the UK to give up its nuclear deterrent. In many respects, we face a more dangerous situation now than we have for several decades. There are substantial risks to our security from emerging nuclear weapons states and state sponsored terrorism.

So, while committed to the long-term goal of nuclear disarmament, we believe we can best protect ourselves against these threats by the continued operation of a minimum, credible nuclear deterrent.

Accordingly, this Government has committed to maintain the deterrent and to continue with the programme to renew it as debated and approved by Parliament in 2007. Whether or not you agree with it, Parliament has taken a conscious and well informed decision and we are not sliding towards Trident’s replacement.

We are not in a position to answer the specific questions you ask about nuclear strategy. We can only outline the Government’s position as above and anything more specific on strategy is a matter for the Ministry of Defense.

I hope you find this response helpful.

Yours sincerely,
Bill LacyPreview
DECC Correspondence Unit

Protesting the Olympics and Met Police Support

2012-01-25T12:43:00.000-08:00

Dear Theresa May,

What a strange story on the news tonight. You are reported as doing all you can to stop protest at the Olympics, yet the assistant commissioner of the Met Police, Bob Broadbent speaks out in favour of protecting the right to protest.

The Olympics is about the politics of power. It always has been and it always will be. The London 2012 Olympics has as its sponsors powerful mega-companies such as Shell, BP, BA, BAA amongst others. These are the very companies who have done everything to delay agreements on climate change and will continue to do so. Their business plans rely on continuing environmental destruction despite overwhelming evidence on climate change. They are deliberately and knowingly pursuing a scorched earth policy.

The last organisation that ran the Olympics and attempted to implement a scorched earth policy was the Nazi party. Today’s corporations use the Olympics to justify their hold on power in exactly the same way. Fortunately for this generation, the Nazi’s were not successful. Unfortunately for the next generation, the companies using this event to legitimise their business plans are on track to be totally successful with their scorched earth policies.

Bob Broadbent speaking out so publicly on the right to protest is hugely significant. So far, the mega-corporations have had protection from the monopoly of legitimate violence that nation states use to impose laws that are pro-growth and pro-environmental destruction. Perhaps Bob Broadbent recognises preservation of the status quo is not in his interest or in the interest of the men and women under his command. Once the people who implement the violence of the state become repulsed with the recognition their mission is to support its destructive corporations then we will get genuine action on climate change.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Response to DECC - urgent proposals needed for Durban Platform

2012-01-12T15:47:00.000-08:00

Dear Hadiza

Thank you for your email, reference TO2011/23141 in response to my letter linking the failure to achieve nuclear disarmament and the failure to agree climate change agreements.

Your letter confirms the worst fears. We should prepare for the worst possible future of global heating, nuclear war and economic collapse.

To address your points:

The Durban platform is flawed. It is premised on starting CO₂ reductions in 2020, we cannot wait this long. Atmospheric emissions are currently rising faster than the worst-case scenario of the IPCC report. Section 4 of the Durban platform suggests a review of the IPCC report is carried out over 2013-2015. A two-year review is unnecessary and time wasting. Basic maths that is within the capabilities of a secondary school student shows the worst case scenario is already being significantly exceeded.

In 2010 the biggest ever atmospheric greenhouse gas increase of 6% was recorded. If this trend continues annual emissions will have increased by 69% in 2020. We are not witnessing a mere increase in greenhouse gases. We are witnessing an explosion.

The situation is so severe that even cutting emissions to zero today would not guarantee that global heating can be kept below 2 deg C. By contrast, a downward reduction starting at 2020 following the exponential increase that we expect over the coming years makes planetary survival impossible.

In these circumstances it is absolutely incredible to hear that time continues to be wasted with debate on what to do with unused carbon credits from the first period.

It is hard to see how you can be so positive that the Durban Platform sends a signal to industry and business to invest in low carbon technology. There are no targets, other than to acknowledge that the existing targets will not keep the planet's temperature rise below the 2 deg C threshold and the leisurely timescale allows them 10 years of unfettered growth.

By contrast, restoration of economic growth remains the objective of all nations along with increasing greenhouse gas output. In the UK we are seeing proposals being put forward for an additional airport in the Thames, an energy consuming high-speed rail network and support for virtually every other high carbon industry. This country is no different from any other country in the world. There is absolutely no evidence of any substantive behavioural change since the Durban COP. Instead, there is increasing effort to preserve the business as usual scenario, despite it being manifestly more impossible and immoral to sustain. The current efforts by USA and China to overturn aviation's incorporation into the EU ETS further highlights how little the Durban COP has impacted actual behaviour.

This failure to see significant change in behaviour is in contrast to the opening sentence of the Durban Platform which acknowledges, “that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation.” However, the nation-state system that forms the basis of the COP compels nations to compete economically and militarily. Failure to achieve success in either sphere results in national collapse. The cooperation that is needed is therefore impossible in a competitive environment and it becomes impossible to transform to a zero carbon economy.

The epitome of this competition is the possession of nuclear weapon systems such as Trident. They require huge resources to build and huge economies to raise enough taxes. The maximum cost estimate quoted in your response of £17billion for the platform and warhead is impossibly low. It takes no account of cost growth, which is likely to be high given the technological risks involved. It does not include operational costs, or the costs to defend Trident. Greenpeace’s well-prepared report suggested a more likely figure would be £100billion for the entire through life cost. Even their report does not include the cost for the eventual decommissioning of the submarine and disposal of the nuclear waste from both the reactors and the warheads. Once the decision is made to pursue Trident, it becomes impossible to build a zero carbon economy, as consumption must be kept high to raise the taxes and a high carbon industry must be kept in place and operational to build it. Trident massively increases the stakes in a competitive environment.

What makes this expenditure totally inappropriate is that it is impossible to foresee any time when Trident could be used. Your letter correctly suggests, “We face a more dangerous situation now than we have for several decades. There are substantial risks to our security from emerging nuclear weapons states and state sponsored terrorism.” If deterrence is credible we must be prepared to pre-emptively destroy cities such as Tehran in the event of a nuclear threat from Iran and before they strike our cities. It is hardly surprising they feel the need to build their own nuclear weapons. Likewise if a terrorist group such as Al Qaeda obtains nuclear weapons, which is not affiliated to a state, though gets state support such as from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, are we proposing to destroy Islamabad or Riyadh? It is better by far to focus on the dirty work of stopping nuclear weapons proliferation.

Given the strategic failure of Trident in the face of climate change, it is hugely disturbing that the initial gate document states a primary objective of the decision to proceed with a Trident replacement is that “We must retain the capability to design, build and support nuclear submarines and meet the commitment for a successor to the Vanguard Class submarines.” This objective will be shared by our competing nations who also must continue to build nuclear submarines to keep their submarine building capability intact. This is the ultimate paradox; the thing that is meant to protect us has become our biggest threat. The nation states have become more concerned about the preservation of their arms industries than the security of their people. Both the UK security review of 2008 and the American Centre for Naval Assessment concluded that their biggest threat was climate change.

As a further disconnect from reality, the initial gate document states that the Trident replacement will “deliver our minimum credible nuclear deterrent out until the 2060s.” This is beyond 2050, when the planet is not expected to be habitable through global heating. If Trident is successful in preventing nuclear war, then the last survivors on the planet will be the crews of the Trident submarines and their equivalent submarines from other countries. If for no other reason, this is the strongest reason for not proceeding with replacement. There will be no intact economy able to safely decommission the submarines and these will pose too big a risk to the few survivors.

Section 8 of the Durban Platform states “Parties and observer organizations to submit by 28 February 2012 their views on options and ways for further increasing the level of ambition.” As a party to this I would ask that by this date you raise the linkage between nuclear disarmament and action on climate change.

I would therefore ask that you submit the following proposals for submission by the above date:

1. There is a global agreement to stop further building of strategic nuclear forces.

2. The existing strategic forces are put under a multinational command and any country committed to greenhouse gas reductions can join this grouping and seek protection from it.

3. That an alternative economic system is introduced based on personal carbon rations and these are tradable within the countries committed to carbon reductions.

If you are not able to advance these ideas, then please advise what alternatives you propose that will allow the international co-operation needed to avoid disaster.

This correspondence will be made public on my blog http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Response from DECC about the linkage between Trident and Climate Change

2012-01-09T10:30:00.000-08:00

The following response has been received from the Department of Energy and Climate Change in response to my letter to Chris Huhne prior to the Durban Climate Conference. My letter argued that maintaining a nuclear arsenal makes it impossible to agree the greenhouse gas reductions we need for planetary survival.

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

Department of Energy & Climate Change

3 Whitehall Place

London

SW1A 2AW

www.decc.gov.uk

Our ref: TO2011/23141

9 January 2012

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your email dated 28 November to the Secretary of State, about climate change and Trident. I have been asked to reply and apologise for the delay in doing so.

The Coalition Government regards climate change to be one of the biggest challenges facing the world today. The United Nations climate conference in Durban took place from Monday 28 November to the very early hours of Sunday 11 December. The UK and EU had one overriding goal for Durban – to secure agreement to a roadmap which would lead to a new global legally binding agreement with emissions reduction commitments for all but the poorest and most vulnerable countries – and we were successful in getting this. This is referred to as the Durban Platform. Countries have committed to negotiating this new agreement no later than 2015 and that it should enter into force from 2020.

We also agreed that we would adopt a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol next year. Between now and the next conference in Qatar we will need to develop the detail of a second commitment period - including emissions reductions targets and how we will deal with surplus assigned amount units (carbon credits) from the first commitment period.

This is a major step forward in tackling climate change. But there is still work to be done. The emissions reduction pledges countries have put forward to date are not enough to meet the goal of limiting average global temperature increases to below 2°C. That is why in Durban we agreed a work plan to enhance mitigation ambition and explore options to close the gap to 2°C. This work will start immediately.

The Durban deal sends a very strong signal to industry and business that governments are serious about climate change – giving them the confidence to invest in low carbon. While Durban may not place the world on the path to limiting climate change to our two degrees objective, it does make this path possible in a way it was not before.

The Government also believes we need to take action to safeguard our national security at home and abroad. Clearly, the renewal of a nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system is not a decision to be taken lightly. However, the Government’s view is that this is not the right time for the UK to give up its nuclear deterrent. In many respects, we face a more dangerous situation now than we have for several decades. There are substantial risks to our security from emerging nuclear weapons states and state sponsored terrorism.

So, while committed to the long-term goal of nuclear disarmament, we believe we can best protect ourselves against these threats by the continued operation of a minimum, credible nuclear deterrent. Accordingly, this Government has committed to maintain the deterrent and to continue with the programme to renew it as debated and approved by Parliament in 2007. Whether or not you agree with it, Parliament has taken a conscious and well informed decision and we are not sliding towards Trident’s replacement.

We have carefully reviewed the replacement deterrent programme to ensure that it represents the absolute minimum capability that we require. We have concluded that we can reduce the maximum number of nuclear warheads onboard each submarine from 48 to 40 and reduce the number of operational missiles that the submarines carry to no more than eight (on 29 June 2011, we announced that the implementation of these reductions had already begun). We also concluded that it is possible to extend the lives of the existing submarines so that the first of the new submarines need not be delivered until around 2028. Main Gate, the point at which we will sign the main construction contracts and when we will decide how many submarines to build, will be in 2016. In all, the review has saved £1.2 billion and deferred spending of up to £2 billion over the next ten years from the submarine and nuclear programme.

However, this does not mean that we need to take no action until 2016; indeed the Parliamentary vote in 2007 gave the Ministry of Defence a clear mandate to proceed with the programme and on the 18 May 2011 the Government announced the approval of the Deterrent Submarine Initial Gate. This is the point at which initial investment decisions in the programme are confirmed and where the broad design parameters are decided. A summary of these decisions was published in Parliament in May 2011.

In this report, the Government also provided an update on the overall cost of the programme, confirming that we still expect to deliver the programme within the estimates made in the 2006 White Paper (i.e. £11-14Bn for the platform and £2-3Bn for each of the future warhead and infrastructure elements, all at 06/07 prices).

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Hadiza Kasimu

DECC Correspondence Unit

How to stop climate change and how to fight future war

2011-12-17T10:08:00.000-08:00

So the Durban COP result is another fudge. The biggest surprise is that we are still surprised. What did we expect after the monumental failures of Bali, Copenhagen and Cancun – a miracle? A flawed system has left us with a failed outcome. We are told to be grateful because by 2020 we will have a legal agreement to reduce CO₂ emissions. Well, I am not grateful. How can I be? This agreement is a death sentence for my children. They have been deprived of a future and of hope. Those that agreed the legal agreement did not even think through the obvious question of who will enforce any climate change law and how it will be done.

To put this failure into perspective, atmospheric CO₂ is at 392 ppm. This is far above the 350 ppm safe limit and the rate of increase is increasing. By 2030, atmospheric CO₂will exceed 450 ppm. When this happens a slide towards runaway climate change is guaranteed. Not even bugs and bacteria will escape this planetary disaster.

By continuing to expand carbon intensive industries and infrastructure, we are setting the mechanisms in place to ensure in the next 20 years the same amount of CO₂ will be added into the atmosphere as we have added since the start of the industrial revolution. As a result of our collective stupidity atmospheric CO₂ will not just increase, it will explode. This is what the economic growth means that our politicians vie with each other to deliver and are egged on by the pundits in the press.

Our atmospheric CO₂ levels are already far above any level that we have seen for the past 500,000 years. No past precedent exists to suggest that the planet can return to stability. What we are witnessing today is not a cycle. It is step change.

The blunt reality is that we do not have another eight years to play with. We need to reduce CO₂ emissions today and get them down to zero as quickly as possible. Even a heroic achievement of this scale may not allow us to escape dangerous climate change. We will rise to this challenge only if we understand exactly what it means. That understanding means escape from the ridiculous notion a zero carbon economy can be done entirely with renewable energy and our existing economic and philosophical systems do not need to change. Those that peddle these lies are every bit as malevolent as the big carbon companies that manipulate governments and international climate change agreements.

Like it or not, despite huge investment in renewable energy across the world, it still only accounts for a small percentage of total energy consumption. Worse, despite all this effort, dirty coal has remained the fastest growing new energy source, meeting 47% of all new electricity demand. Coal is the energy source of today and unless there are drastic policy changes, it will be the energy source of tomorrow. Its advocates in industry and government ameliorate their guilt with talk of clean coal and carbon capture and storage. A gullible population easily falls for this. They are not told basic laws of thermodynamics make the idea of carbon capture and storage a non-starter. It takes so much energy to extract the carbon, compress it and then mine and transport the additional coal needed to run the process it barely passes the basic test of viability.

Our inability to transition to a truly zero carbon economy means the economic growth our politicians demand will drive greater demand of fossil fuels. Our politicians are targeting economic growth of 3% per annum. At this rate the economy doubles in 24 years. Most seriously, in the doubling period the economy will consume the same amount of energy as it has consumed since man first crawled out the caves at the end of Stone Age. It will also produce the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The energy needed for this economic growth come from increasingly dirty and dangerous sources such as Canadian Tar sands, which further accelerates the growth of CO₂ emissions.

If the fantasy world did materialise were all today’s energy was created by renewables, the price of oil would go down and people would find to new ways of burning it. There would simply be more luxury cruises liners, more excess plane travel, more cars on the road and more of every other thing that can be used to wastefully burn oil. This is a function of the market economy and its fundamental flaw. The inescapable fact is the top 5% of our society produce 30% of emissions. By contrast, the bottom 20% produce only 3% of emissions. Quite simply, lack of money restricts the pollution you create and the excess wealth we glorify can only be spent with further pollution.

Worse of all, the emissions from a few excess and irresponsible consumers negate the efforts of thousands of people who cut their emissions. The maths behind it is simple. There is a strict limit of zero below which you cannot reduce your emissions any further. The frugal and energy responsible people will have already reduced their emissions to a couple of tonnes of CO2 per year. Beyond this point further reductions are incredibly hard to achieve. Because of this, it takes hundreds of people making huge sacrifices to their lifestyle to offset the damage from a few people making regular use of private jets or taking repeated first class flights to Australia.

If we are to be serious about climate change, which need to be, we must introduce personal carbon rationing. It is the only thing that will rapidly cut destructive excess consumption and it is the one thing that we can do to bring about an immediate and significant reduction in CO₂ emissions that we know will work. Without it, CO₂ emissions will never reduce as those who do not care will easily consume the savings made by those that do.

However, the idea of carbon rationing is a big challenge to all. It is a challenge to aspirational people at the bottom of the income scale as it says to them that they can never be rich. It is a much bigger threat to those elites that control the power centres of our economy. They will be forced to live like the rest of society and thereby make the biggest sacrifices of all. They will do all in their power to stop this.

But let us pretend that we did not to pursue the idea of carbon rationing. Then what? We would continue with our existing system based on exploitation of planetary resources and unrestricted rights to pollute. A key aspect of the current system is the reward for success is the right to pollute further. So if someone works hard or shows ingenuity and makes money, they are allowed to take an allocation of planetary resources and pollute some time in the future at a time and place of their choosing. That allocation of future rights to pollute is essentially what money is. All financial transactions fundamentally relate to the amount of energy associated either directly or indirectly with the goods or service provided.

The additional problem is that money is introduced into our society through a debt based financial system. This means when a bank lends money, only a small percentage of the amount lent needs to be held on deposit by the bank. The rest is conjured up from thin air and lent on the basis that the borrower commits to paying the interest.

This system works so long as the economy is growing to pay the interest that compounds on loans after loan. This has been a perfectly acceptable paradigm since the industrial revolution, but it is doomed to failure as growth is no longer possible. We are have simultaneously run out of staple resources such as oil and food and we have already collapsed our environment. The very things we have destroyed are the things economic growth depends on.

The amount of money the banks hold on deposit is so small, that an economic contraction of little more than 3% is all that is needed to wipe out their collateral. This will collapse both our banks and our financial system. A fate governments around the world are forced to do everything within their power to avoid, but the inevitable cannot be avoided.

Those who are weak and struggle at the bottom will be the first to be sacrificed. By contrast, those at the top will manipulate the laws and commerce systems to ensure they preserve their wealth and position. The gulf between these groups will grow. The examples are endless. In the weeks prior to the UK inner city riots, the local community centres and youth clubs were closed in inner cities, yet the UK government awarded a £30m grant to Augusta Westland to develop a new a generation of executive helicopters. To cope with tightening government finances, students have to pay increased tuition fees when the city elite enjoys the benefits of expanded operations at Farnborough Airport to allow them to commute in their private jets from their European tax exiles. At the COP climate change talks, the wealthy nations subvert the process to protect their interests despite the growing death toll from climate change in poverty stricken countries.

The situation is analogous to the Titanic. When it hit the iceberg, those in the lower classes were locked below decks to drown, while those in the upper classes used the privilege of their position to get into the lifeboats. The existing system is specifically designed to be just as unfair and our ship is going down. It is the justifiable fear within the lower income classes of being marginalised and having a future devoid of hope that is driving people into the protests movements across the world. It is the same fear fuelling the Arab Spring, the Occupy movements and the new wave of protests in Russia and China, not some love for democracy that many pious Western politicians like to claim. Just as the people in the steerage class of the Titanic knew immediately the ship was going down because they could see the water coming in, then those at the lower income levels know the economy is crashing. Their relative poverty attunes them to the impossibility of survival when basic costs are rising far faster than incomes.

So why don’t we all recognise the incompatibility of our existing system with the reality and embrace a rationing system? It is because we are trapped within the nation-state framework that forces nations to compete with each other. That competition is based on economic and military might and there is a symbiotic relationship between the two.

The nation state concept became a fully established concept in the 1815 Treaty of Vienna. The concept was simple. The world would be split into blocks called nations. The nations would grow their economies and populations. Each nation would govern itself and protect itself from threat by other nations using wealth from their economies to raise armies. Each nation-state would introduce its own finance system to distribute resources and raise taxation to fund their armies.

The problem came when nations chose to industrialise. Very quickly, the nation-states grew to the point where they needed to secure resources from beyond their own borders to continue growing. When critical resources had to be secured from beyond the borders security diminished. Other growing nation states also had desires to the same critical resources. For the UK, this meant exploiting its linkages within the Empire and elsewhere in Africa. For Germany, it also meant securing resources in Africa. It also meant competing for markets abroad, in particular for lucrative arms contracts. Economic growth laid the seeds of conflict.

The seeds of conflict sprouted. Both the UK and Germany found themselves locked into a disastrous military and economic race for control of new markets. The epitome of this was the Dreadnought race. Both sides raced each other to build the biggest fleet of super battleships. These were fighting machines far beyond anything that the world had ever seen. Their construction required vast resources and taxation. Not only did Germany and Britain have to race to build the Dreadnoughts, but also they had to race to build their economies to continue the Dreadnought race. This required more resources to be secured from abroad, further destabilising the security of both countries. The end result was a downward spiral into the First World War followed by nearly a century of industrial warfare.

The incredible paradox was that other than Jutland which was inconclusive, the Dreadnoughts played no part in the First World War. They were too valuable to risk. Instead, the war was fought with humans trapped in trenches in the fields of Europe – something far cheaper and more easily replaceable.

This is the crux of the nation state system. It is based on competition and in the long run this is expensive and destructive. In all interstate competitions, be they military or economic, one nation always loses.

As a result of this system we are obliged to secure both our borders, our access to critical resources abroad and our foreign markets. If we do not we are no longer a viable nation state. We are therefore committed to responding to any threat at home or abroad that will impact our viability as a nation state. That threat can be economic or military. Securing our viability as a nation state in a competitive environment becomes more important than cooperating on global security threats.

This mind set continues. In this time of economic crisis, the political and economic pundits across the media explain how we need to up the game to compete for new export markets so we can rebuild our economy and pay our debts. The competition they are advocating will be against other nations states that are in as desperate an economic state and who require the same scarce resources and access to the same markets.

This is what mathematicians call a zero sum game, where the total wealth available to all players is either constant, or in our case going down. This sets a fundamental problem to a powerful player who is going to be weakened – he must strike prematurely to secure resources while he is still strong enough. Failure to do so will result in his destruction. This is the reason we waged war on Iraq in 2003. In the calculus of George Bush and Tony Blair they must have been aware, even if only subconsciously, that if they delayed the war they would not have the economic strength to wage the war as their economies weakened through rising oil prices.

We are therefore forced to ignore our responsibly to collective global threats, the most pressing of which is the threat of climate change. As a measure of this, both the UK National Security review of 2008 and the Centre for Naval Intelligence in the US both concluded that the biggest security threat was climate change.

Despite this escalating existential threat, no state can act rationally and reduce CO₂ emissions because of the basic requirement to compete economically and militarily with other nations. It makes the idea of introducing carbon rationing impossible because it would kill the economic growth needed for successful interstate competition.

So we are in a trap. The ultimate manifestation of this trap is the replacement of the Trident submarines, along with the equivalent submarine building programmes in China, Russia, USA, France and now India. They serve no military purpose. All they can do is to destroy the planet in an orgy of suicide. They are a statement of ego – they allow their possessors to say to the rest of the world they are a top nation state and prepared to defend the interests of their nation state by destroying everyone and everything else. It is the antithesis of cooperating on global threats.

Having determined to go down the Trident route, the UK must commit to growing its economy by using competition to secure scarce resources from elsewhere in the planet and causing pollution that will be threaten others. It will do this to the best of its ability. It must do this because to build and operate a Trident submarine force requires two things - resources to build the submarines and resources to grow an economy across which the costs can be amortised through taxation.

To put it in perspective, the Trident programme will cost the UK government at least £100bn. This will require at least £250bn of additional economic activity across which taxes can be raised. These sums can only be raised in a debt based and expansive economy.

Resources to grow this economy are secured by force across the world. This has been done through declared wars such as with Iraq that was fought with illegal depleted uranium munitions leaving the cradle of civilisation an uninhabitable radioactive wasteland. It is also done with undeclared wars such as illegal land grabs in the developing world to secure land for food and biofuel. This has displaced millions and killed untold numbers. Other big corporations such as Shell have also waged war on our behalf through the destruction of the Niger delta and ordering the execution of anyone who stands in the way such as Ken Saro-Wiwa.

In parallel with this orgy of declared and undeclared wars the increased consumption we need to raise taxes belches CO₂ into the atmosphere. This makes it impossible to agree climate change agreements.

Our collective fear of failure within the nation state competitive arena creates an environment in which it is impossible to agree to the mutual sacrifices to tackle climate change. It is leading us to planetary disaster.

So now we must turn our attention to how we break this cycle of destruction. If we fail the disaster of the Dreadnought races will be repeated. The resource and taxation necessary for Trident submarines systems will cause continued war but the Tridents may not be used in any war, nor be able to influence any outcomes. To break this cycle we must rethink how war is conducted.

We are accustomed to think of war as being fought between belligerent nation-states as they protect their own interests and protect their people from attack. However, this premise is outdated. The nation states now protect the interests of corporations over the interests of the people that they are meant to represent.

The aviation industry has provided us with a perfect example of this. For many years they have made bogus protestations of virtue about being concerned with climate change and how they want an international agreement. Nothing else would do for them. When an international agreement did eventually come about through the European Carbon Trading scheme, the airlines of China, India, Russia and the United States lobbied their governments to overturn the agreement, which they are currently doing. This is an extraordinary state of affairs. Every one of these countries is nuclear armed and involved in military stand-offs against each other. Every one of these countries has already suffered catastrophic consequence as a result of climate change that has killed many of their citizens. It is the in interests of the people in every one of these counties to agree a cut in carbon emissions. Yet the governments of these countries, which cannot agree on carbon reductions in the Durban COP, can work together in support of the aviation industry’s right to expand the pollution they cause.

The international arms industry is another example. In both the West and Russia, arms fairs are held which have exhibitors from competing nation states. It can be of no benefit to the people in western counties to have companies such as Sukhoi from Russia displaying their bombers and fighters at our Airshows where our enemies come to buy them. However, our government encourages these events and the Fairford Air Tattoo is even given charitable status. What is good for our arms industry is equally good for the Russian arms industry, and the interests of the arms industries superseded the interests of the people. Our defence industry could not justify itself if Russian companies did not oblige by coming to our shows to terrify us into agreeing to continue arms spending. The Trident replacement decision works on the same balance of fear. The only beneficiaries are the submarine building companies. These companies continue their symbiotic relationship by working together across the borders of nation-states to continue building new submarines and lobbying governments for necessary funding.

What the arms industry and aviation industry have in common is that competing companies within these industries cooperate to force nation-states to operate against the long-term interests of their people. They do this using modern global communication systems and their economic power to pursue their interests at the expense of all others. The same applies to many other industries such as the oil and auto-mobile industries. The only way that they can prosper is to ignore climate change and ensure that the nation-states secure a flow of energy and resources to enable them to continue production. These corporate conglomerations now act as market states, which stand above the nation states and dictate what they can do. To comply with their demands the nation states are no longer able to protect their citizens and they abrogate their the most important responsibility, namely to provide security to their citizens. These corporate conglomerations can loosely be termed as pro-growth market states as the essential objective they must all support is the continuance of economic growth. With out this, they collapse.

In direct competition to the rise of the pro-growth market states with their nation state servants, are the anti-growth market-states. These states are the anti-establishment groups and are focusing around issues such as nuclear disarmament, the environment, climate change and social justice. These have similar characterises to the pro-growth market states. They pursue their own agendas. They have global reach enabled through the communication channels of social media. These new anti-growth market states are now the main opposition to the governments of the existing nation states.

A global clash of pro-growth and anti-growth market states has already started. This is the new face of war. Warfare is no longer segmented vertically with one nation state fighting against another. It is horizontal with different layers of the global society fighting against each other to pursue their interests. We now move from the concept of war against the people to war amongst the people.

This war amongst the people driven by the need for resources for the pro-growth market states and for them to continue to avoid their responsibilities to climate change will fundamentally change the nature of the nation-state. Masses of people are already rising in countries across the world against their governments as they realise that the nation states will not and cannot protect their rights. Democracies and dictatorships are equally at risk. The new warfare that we are seeing is between those organisations committed to the destruction of the planet and those committed to its defence.

This global war between pro-growth and anti-growth market states is not merely a hypothetical wars of ideas. This is war in the true sense of the word were people die in the process, where many more stand to die in the future and were many of those who fight in the anti-market states forces are subject to summary arrest, torture and discrimination.

Battles that have already taken place within this war are the depleted uranium attacks in Iraq; the mass deaths from biofuel related land clearances and the Canadian government deliberately sacrificing future generations by leaving the Kyoto agreement to pursue their tar sands developments. Already an estimated 315,000 people die every year as a result of climate change disasters.

The anti growth market-states can only win this war amongst the people by combining and having a clear and common objective. It is as important for them to be clear about their objectives as it is for any force in a military campaign.

At present they are competing and weakening themselves. The environmentalists claim runaway climate change is the biggest threat to the planet. The anti military nuclear campaigners claim the nuclear war is the biggest threat to mankind. The anti-capitalists in the occupy movements claim the banking crisis is the biggest threat. All three groups compete against each other for attention in the media and the ears of the politicians without realising how tightly intermeshed their arguments are and that one can not be won without simultaneously winning the others.

The battle against climate change cannot be won and social equity cannot be achieved in a declining economy without carbon rationing. A carbon rationing cannot be introduced while most powerful nations on the planet continue to build and operate nuclear arsenals. The nuclear arsenals prevent the mutual sacrifice needed to fight climate change. It is the destruction of this downward spiral that needs to be objective of the forces within the anti-growth market states organisations.

The strength of the arguments of the anti-growth market states increases when they are combined. The most powerful argument against nuclear weapons is that they make climate change agreements impossible as they lock economies into growth when growth is no longer possible. In this respect, they are more dangerous that ever thought. The normal argument against Trident type systems is that they might destroy the planet through nuclear war. This is weak compared to the argument that they will destroy the planet by stopping climate change agreements.

The proposition that climate change agreements can be achieved in the absence of discussions on security and nuclear weapon ownership would be laughably stupid if it were not so tragically destructive. Likewise the proposition that climate change agreements can be achieved without incorporating discussions on fundamental economic reform is equally stupid. This is why COP process fails. Meanwhile the nation states and the pro-growth market states co-operate with each other to oppose any move towards reducing CO₂ emissions.

The final objective of the anti-market state forces is to control the nation-state's monopoly of legitimate violence. It is this that allows the enforcement of law and introduction of new laws. In our growth-based economy, the monopoly of violence is used to support the rights of the most destructive industries and excessive consumers to continue polluting in defiance of climate change agreements.

If this is achieved it will be ultimate statement of success. Without it, it is not possible for nation-states to enforce legally binding agreements to cut CO₂. Simple scenarios demonstrate the fallacy of ignoring this truth. If Canada withdraws from future climate change agreements as it has done with the Kyoto agreements, would America as the self-styled world's policeman invade and close down the Tar Sands operations? Totally improbable. If China continues to operate its coal fired powered stations to provide the goods and capital Europe needs, would the EU take action to have them shut down? Totally improbable.

So now we come to possible scenarios for the end game. There are only three.

The first scenario is the “current strategy.” This is the strategy the nation states are currently pursuing. It is the outcome we get if the pro-growth market states are allowed to dominate. They will lead the nation-states into protracted resource wars, climate collapse and economic collapse. The horrifying scenario emerges where the last people alive on the planet are the crews on the Trident submarines as they cruise silently through lifeless oceans pointing their missiles at vacant cities. The replacement Trident submarines will only be half way through their operational life in 2050 when the planet will no longer be habitable. Trident submarines become the modern day equivalent of the Easter Island Statues.

The second scenario is the “accidental strategy.” This is where the actions of the pro-growth market states cause full-scale industrial war to break out resulting in nuclear exchange on all sides. In the near future, with food, water and energy increasingly scarce and with critical weapons systems made vulnerable due to the technical advances of their adversaries the risk of an accident nuclear exchange massively increases. This risk increases as it becomes in each nation-states interest to launch a premature strike through the dynamics of a zero sum economy.

The third scenario is “survival strategy.” This is where the anti-growth market states dominate and implement an economic model based on survival rather than growth. Just as the First World War warns us about the danger of headlong competition and arms races, it also provides inspiration for this scenario. In the midst of battle and surrounded by the death, when it came to Christmas the most extraordinary truce occurred when the soldiers of the British and German forces put down weapons and met in the middle of no-mans land to play football and share their love for each other. The Christmas truce was the first time that the anti-growth market states co-operated internationally against the power of the pro-growth market states. Unfortunately they did not have the tools that are available today to continue their action.

There are no easy solutions to difficult problems.

Letter to Citizens of Earth

2011-12-06T08:36:00.000-08:00

Citizens to Earth: “Earth, we have a problem.”

We have a problem. CO2 levels and temperatures readings are rising uncontrollably. Scientists have warned for years if we do not do act fast we will suffer catastrophic runaway climate change. The only two problems is that their predictions are coming true far faster than first thought and the CO2 build up in the atmosphere is far higher than their worst case scenarios.

This is a problem worse than Jim Lovell’s little issue of an exploding oxygen tank on his doomed Apollo 13. It is worse because climate change will wipe out billions more people than in an Apollo capsule along with the planet’s entire ecosystem. It is also worse because those in control room are collaborating together to do exactly the wrong thing.

The aviation industry is just one example of being guilty of knowingly forcing those in the control room to deliberately do the wrong thing.

Big Aviation has said for years they are concerned about climate change and want an international agreement to limit CO2 emissions. These protestations of virtue are bogus. The first chance to put words into action was the European Carbon Trading agreements (EU-ETS). This is an international deal in every sense of the word, but an international deal so weak and open to fraud it will do nothing to stop CO2 emissions rising and hardly impact the aviation industry at all.

Its ineffectiveness has not stopped big aviation ganging up on their governments to over turn it. The US, Russian, Indian and Chinese governments are now all working in concert to overturn it and to support the desires of big aviation.

The citizens of this planet must ask how their Government’s can act like this. At one extreme they compete with each other by building nuclear arsenals and refuse to accept mutually binding climate change agreements. At the other extreme, they co-operate to support Big Aviation’s continual efforts to avoid its responsibilities to climate change.

Open letter to Chris Huhne on the eve of the Durban Climate change talks

2011-11-26T09:22:00.000-08:00

Dear Chris,

In common with your predecessors and opposites in other countries you offer false hope in your Telegraph article that we can make progress towards tackling climate change in the next round of climate change talks due to start next week.

To properly tackle climate change, we must accept it is the culmination of all the problems that humanity has inflicted on this planet. The corollary of this is that to tackle climate change we must challenge all the fundamental concepts that underpin our economic development. To challenge these problems, we must first understand them.

The trajectory of the CO2 increase is so rapid the planet will exceed 450 ppm by 2030. At this point we will be committed to runway climate change with catastrophic temperature increases that will potentially wipe out all life on the planet. To avoid this fate and because of the cumulative damage that we have already done to the planet, we must immediately move towards a zero carbon economy.

It is impossible to move to a zero carbon economy whilst maintaining the same growth based economic system we have today. Renewable energy sources will not be able to do anything more than scratch the surface of our growing energy demands. Even a mass expansion of nuclear will be unable to meet our requirements in the time frame we have.

We therefore have no option but to implement an economic system based on contraction, not growth. To do this in a way that avoids war and mass civil unrest requires the courage to co-operate in ways that are completely counter to the competition based society we have inherited and with which we have been indoctrinated on since birth to believe is unassailable. If we fail to rise to the challenge, war and mass civil unrest are inevitable.

The ultimate statement of our competition-based economy is the structure of the nation state. It is this that forms the basis of the forthcoming climate change negotiations. However, the nation state structure simultaneously forces all nations to compete with each other for resources and markets. Interstate competition is either economic or military and there is a symbiotic relationship between these two approaches. This competitive framework is incompatible with the objectives of the climate change agreements, which is to co-operate fully.

To make maters worse, the nation state has become subservient to the “market-state.” One example is the worldwide aviation industry. Though comprised of competing corporations, it musters a collective international voice and acts as a borderless state to protect its own interests above all others. This is evidenced by its successful efforts to stop nation states from limiting environmentally destructive growth. In recent weeks the competing governments of the USA, Russia, China and India all collaborated together to ignore climate change following concerted lobbying by the aviation industry to support its collective demand that international aviation should not be included in the EU-ETS.

The ultimate manifestation of this combined market state and nation state competition is the possession of nuclear arms. In the UK we are sliding towards the replacement of Trident at a cost of £100billion. This decision will also require us to generate another £300bn in economic activity to raise the necessary taxation.

This is the antithesis of what we need to do, which is to reduce economic activity in the face of climate change, peak oil and other resource shortages. These factors are already destabilizing the planet and resource wars have started. The replacement of Trident accentuates these problems.

There is no military requirement to replace Trident as it is impossible to use in anyway that can defend our nation-state without simultaneously destroying it, so we need to consider the rationales that are leading us to its replacement. There are two.

The first rational is to jointly keep alive the submarine building capabilities of the military industrial complex in this country and in our competitors. Thus, the nation state is subservient to market state of the arms industry, in the same way as it is subservient to the aviation industry.

The second rational is to preserve our ego as a pre-eminent nation-state and a Permanent Five member of the UN. Preservation of ego is an inevitable consequence of a competitive system of engagement. It is completely counter to the requirement to make mutual sacrifices to tackle climate change and avoid total war.

Progress can only be achieved with radically different approaches to negotiations. That radically different approach must start by nuclear weapons being placed on the climate change negotiation table.

By eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons we simultaneously allow nation states to co-operate on saving what is left our planet while making the nation state subservient to the people rather than destructive market states. Elimination of nuclear weapons also makes the clear statement that we are more concerned about collectively tackling global threats rather than the destructive preservation of national borders.

We must recognize our failure to agree to nuclear disarmament is intimately linked to our failure to achieve climate change agreements. If we do not link these crises, we will not address climate change and so we must accept that we will continue our actions until we extinguish life on the planet.

The nightmare scenario is that by 2050 when our planet is no longer habitable through climate change, and our Trident replacements submarines are only half way through their operating life, that the only survivors on the planet will be the crews of the various nuclear ballistic submarines silently cruising the depths of the polluted and lifeless oceans. Trident is set to be the ultimate modern day Easter Island statue.

Why Trident is the biggest cause of Climate Change

2011-11-08T11:29:00.000-08:00

I will be giving talks on why replacing Trident will be the single most effective way of ensuring we never achieve international agreements on climate change and how it will set us on an unstoppable path to war.

Northcourt Centre, Northcourt Road, Abingdon at 8.00 pm, 15th November
http://www.abingdonquakers.org.uk/peace.html

Friends Meeting House, Lechlade Rd, Faringdon (Opposite the Duke of Wellington) at 8.00pm 7th December
http://www.faringdonpeacegroup.org.uk/

See previous blog on Trident here.

More correspondence with Jonathon Porritt on selling out

2011-11-06T04:01:00.000-08:00

Dear Jonathon

Thank you for your reply, (at the end of this post).

To ensure that there are no misunderstandings, I do not hold your work on population in disdain. Quite the reverse. My concern is that you do not state the seriousness of the issue. A colleague of mine asked at the end of your presentation what you considered the sustainable population to be. You said 5 billion. However, we know atmospheric CO₂ was increasing in 1957 when first measured with less than 1 billion people living in industrialised communities and with lower per capita CO₂ emissions than today. We know huge damage has been done to the ecosystem since then. This simple comparison suggests that you have overestimated the sustainable population by a factor of at least five.

You finish your email with reference to my absolutist moral framework. My moral framework is irrelevant. All that is relevant is the message from the science and the underlying mathematics. It is that message that is absolutist.

As we cannot get the population down to anything like sustainable levels within the time frames available to us, then we must drastically reduce consumption and liberties. We have a very short time to do this. If we fail the consequences will be catastrophic.

I can assure you that it gives me no great pleasure to campaign on these dark and difficult issues. I do not pretend the transformation needed in our society will be easily achieved or pleasant and I fear for what I wish for.

However, to pretend the dangers we face can be ignored is more dangerous. It provides false hope to those people who have genuine concerns. It prevents debate on the necessary transformation. It allows those people and organisations committed to the destruction of our planet a free pass. Worst of all, it guarantees an explosive increase in CO2 emissions in next 20 years that our planet will not sustain. This is addressed in the Plane Stupid submission to the government’s sustainable aviation strategy.

The evidence suggests your strategy of partnering with companies inherently committed to the destruction of our environment in the hope that you can persuade them to act in less unsustainable ways is misguided. By definition, they will remain unsustainable and your strategy is defeatist.

At talks of yours I have heard you speak eloquently of the need to cooperate rather than compete. It is one thing to talk about these ideas in the company of soft and receptive audiences. It is quite another thing to put these into practise against the destructive centres of power that govern our economic system through competitive advantage.

I contacted you in the past to solicit your support to help us move towards a cooperative society with a request to support us in the campaign against the Fairford Air Tattoo. This event glorifies the very worst of destructive competition, which is the ability to wage war. It rolls out the red carpet to Saudi Arabia that systematically abuses human rights and actively lobbies to stop climate change agreements. You did not reply to our request for help. Maybe you were busy on more important things.

As a statement of inadvertently supporting destructive competition, we now see the prospect of you working with TUI to validate their attempt to lead the aviation industry into exploiting the biofuels disaster. To understand the scope of this disaster, you may want to discuss the issue with your partners in Shell. Shell is investing $12billion in sugar cane production in Brazil. Even for Shell, this is a huge investment. It involves illegal land grabs, murder, deforestation and environmental pollution. Survival Intenational reports of the impact on the local communities as being so severe that it could reasonably be considered an act of war on the indigenous people. To assist you in helping TUI become “less unsustainable” you could discuss the biofuel disaster with organisations such as ActionAid and Biofuel Watch. My colleagues in these organisations would be delighted to talk to you.

If you get involved with these debates, you will realise that the number of people on the “front line” on climate change has increased enormously in the 15 years since you vacated it. Some people like me are compelled to go there from the comfort of middle class backgrounds. Events have forced many other people there before they even realise that they are there. These new people are the of lower income sector having being marginalized from society by increasing food and energy prices driven by climate change and resource shortages. They are rising-up in the millions in all countries of the world. Simultaneously, starvation is displacing millions in countries such as Somalia. Contrary to your assertion, that you “couldn’t help but notice that the number of people who shared your front line hadn’t increased much,” there have never been so many people on the climate change front line.

We therefore offer you our challenge again and we will allow you to judge yourself by your action. If you want to partner with TUI to help them become less unsustainable, then challenge them to reduce flying rather than engage in destructive greenwashing.

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

Kevin

--- On Wed, 2/11/11, JP Office wrote:

From: JP Office
Subject: RE: Selling out?
To: "Kevin Lister"
Date: Wednesday, 2 November, 2011, 14:17

Dear Kevin

Selling Out?

Thank you very much for your email. As you can imagine, it’s a familiar critique for all of us in Forum for the Future, and one that we’ve had to deal with on a regular basis since the Forum was established in 1996. But let me try and answer it a bit more personally than might usually be the case – especially since you do seem to hold very strong views on this, with which you are only too ready to accost me every time we bump into each other!

You may or may not be right in your assertions about the urgency in all of this, about the inherent unsustainability of biofuels, about the moral wickedness of anybody flying, about the need for sacrifice and so on. You embrace very absolutist positions on all of these things, and have understandably come to the conclusion that our collective ability to change people’s minds and their behaviour depends on not deviating from those absolutist viewpoints.

Having spent quite a chunk of my life (15 years) “on the front line”, as you put it, I couldn’t help but notice that the number of people who shared my “front line” views in those days hadn’t increased that much over the 15 years of the duration. I discovered for myself that people didn’t respond particularly well to a set of arguments driven by primarily guilt, fear, anger and the promise of permanent sackcloth and ashes.

So when I left Friends of the Earth in 1991, I decided to try something a bit different, and to work with (rather than against) people in positions of influence in business and government. Hence the Forum, The Prince of Wales’ Business and Sustainability Programme, the Sustainable Development Commission and a number of other initiatives that I’ve helped establish along the way.

15 years into that journey, do I feel that I’ve made more progress by adopting that “inside track” than by continuing to campaign against those same people of influence? I do – but not with any great elation, simply because progress has been (and still is) gut-wrenchingly slow – and wholly inadequate given the scale of the challenge. And we are at one on that score.

But do I feel personally compromised – from an ethical position – working with the likes of Jaguar Landrover, Shell, TUI (thanks, by the way, for keeping the list so short!) and many others seen by campaigners such as yourself as being in the front line of destroying the Earth’s life-support systems? I do not. In a modest way, all of us in the Forum think that what we’re doing is important work, which we know results in a lot of organisations acting in less unsustainable ways in the short term even as they work out what it means to be genuinely sustainable in the long term.

But do I then feel personal discomfort in doing that work? Yes, I do, from time to time.

And I guess the question that I keep asking myself is whether or not that discomfort might reach the point where I could no longer continue to work in this way. It’s possible. I’ve never ruled out returning to that “front line” at some point in the future, and since the demise of the Sustainable Development Commission, I’ve ended up doing a lot more campaigning work anyway – including my work on population about which you are so disdainful.

In short, I admire the uncompromising spirit in which you address these issues, though I do not share the non-negotiable black and white absolutism with which you present your moral universe.

Very best wishes

JONATHON

BA Advert 2011, To Fly. To Serve

2011-10-30T06:45:00.000-07:00

Is it a mere coincidence that BA launches the "To Fly, To Serve" advert slap bang in the middle of the government's sustainable aviation consultation process?

We offer an alternative take:

Southend Airport protest

2011-10-29T04:50:00.000-07:00

Press Release

12.20pm Saturday 29^th October for immediate use

Note: new number for press information 07584955708

16 Protestors Arrested at Southend Airport

16 protestors, who occupied the runway at Southend Airport , have been arrested by Essex Police. It is believed they are being held at Southend Police Station. Campaigners from Plane Stupid and Climate Rush entered the airport shortly after 9am this morning. The protest is against the planned expansion of Southend Airport .

Plane Stupid installed solar panels on the runway. Campaigners from Climate Rush, dressed as pilots and cabin crew, were on a nearby footpath performing a dance routine (1).

A spokeswoman for the protestors said: “Southend Council say the expansion will bring jobs. But investment in renewable energy would create many more jobs without damaging the climate. What we need is solar power not plane power. The bigger runway is bad for climate change, bad for local residents under the flight path and is not needed to help the local economy.”

Southend Airport has been bought by Stobarts, the logistics firm. Easyjet has announced that it plans to start operating commercial flights from the airport in spring 2012.

There has been a major local campaign. It has focused on the impact the airport would have on the thousands of people who will live under the flight paths.

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

(1). Climate Rush are dressed as pilots and cabin crew with a Britney dance routine and doctored words to TOXIC:

SOUTHEND CAN’T YOU SEE

THEY’RE ROARING

AIRPORT EXPANSION SHOULD COME WITH A WARNING

IT’S DANGEROUS

GLOBAL WARMING

AND THE LIES OF THE AIRPORT WE CAN’T ABIDE

THEIR TOXIC FUMES CHOKING OVER

WITH THE NOISE FROM THIS POISONED PARADISE

IT’S OUR WARNING TO YOU: DON’T YOU KNOW THAT THEY’RE TOXIC

AND YOU’LL HATE WHAT THEY DO: DON’T YOU KNOW THAT THEY’RE TOXIC.

For further information call:

07584955708

Forum for the Future, Greenwash and the sell out of Jonathon Porritt??

2011-10-22T05:27:00.000-07:00

Dear Jonathon

You may remember our conversation after your presentation on sustainable population on Thursday at Cirencester.

You will probably remember I took exception to you focusing your anger on the environmental and social justice movements for not raising the issue of population. By contrast, you said at the beginning of your presentation that you would not focus on the Catholic church. This is despite them pursuing a dangerous expansionist policy of population growth by preaching against contraception, which is line with the most odious regimes of the past.

I commend you for starting this difficult debate on how to get to a sustainable population.

However, we have pressing issues that must be addressed immediately. Failure to address these within the very short timescale that we have left will result in our society collapsing through war and climate collapse. This is were the focus of the environmental movement is. Those of us on the front line do not have either the time, resources or emotional energy to tackle the vexing problem of our population growth. We also realize that tackling population growth is a long term issue and unless we urgently eliminate excess consumption we will not be around long enough to debate issues of optimum population.

It is therefore extremely dispiriting to see the companies Forum for the Future lists as partners to work with to create a sustainable future.

To name a few:

Jaguar and Land Rover - manufacturers of the most environmentally destructive brands of cars.

Cargill - One of the biggest players in the biofuel disaster leading to widescale deforestation, compromise of food supplies and disruption of our climate.

Shell - who led the way into the Niger Delta destroying the environment and settled out of court for collaborating in the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa.

Then there is also the ongoing relationship that you have with Richard Branson. A man that has the unique ability to simultaneously support action on climate change and aviation expansion without the slightest hint of shame.

All these organisations that you are working with are actively contributing to the explosive growth in atmospheric CO2 which I address in my submission to the government's sustainable aviation strategy.

However, the greenwashing that most angers those of us on the front line of campaigning on climate change is your relationship with TUI, who prominently feature on your web site.

TUI's subsidiary company, Thomson Airways, have recently launched a service using biofuels. This is the start of dangerous development where the aviation industry wishes to cynically exploit loopholes in the EU ETS giving free carbon allowances for biofuels. This is despite no evidence that biofuel reduces greenhouse gas emissions and overwhelming evidence that it forces food prices up, it leads to deforestation and displacement of millions of people.

A recent statement from TUI is attached below. They state that they will be "working in partnership with Forum for the Future to facilitate discussions." We can only presume you will attempt to prove that their use of biofuels will make their environment destruction sustainable.

The evidence is that the aviation can only be made sustainable by quickly reducing flying. This is the unanimous statement from all credible environmental groups. You have spoken on many occasions on the need for cooperation rather than competition, but have been silent on the point that cooperation requires self sacrifice and discipline.

We therefore challenge you to practice what is preached. We ask that you demand TUI reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by cutting flights rather than attempting to pursue unfounded and dangerous ideas such as biofuels and that they work with other airlines to achieve this. We also challenge you to support other environmental groups who take this position such as Friends of Earth (Brimingham), Airport Watch, Plane Stupid, Biofuel Watch, Action Aid and the Tyndall center.

Kindest Regards,

Kevin Lister

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

Response from Christian Cull, communications director at TUI UK & Ireland...

At Thomson Airways, we realise that there is no perfect solution out there, and we certainly don’t have all the answers. So we welcome the challenge by the WWF-UK to demonstrate our sustainability plans, and we are working in partnership with Forum for the Future to facilitate discussions. We simply want to do the best we can.

We are fully committed to the use of sustainable second generation aviation biofuel – and there’s a big difference between first and second generation biofuel. Thomson Airways belongs to the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group. That means we have pledged to use only feedstocks that do not compete with food or natural resources; and which have significantly fewer total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than fossil jet fuel.

Once the supply chain develops, feedstocks grown in developing areas must have a positive socio-economic benefit to local communities and areas of high conservation value. Also, local eco-systems must not be cleared. That has always been our view.

We are certainly aware of the potential negative impact of using biofuels irresponsibly. Indeed, we want the whole industry to work together with initiatives such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels [http://rsb.epfl.ch/] to find more sustainable alternatives to fossil fuel. This is a journey, and we need to find the best long term route forward and we know that there are challenges ahead, particularly in terms of supply limitations: the current biofuels supply chain is in its infancy. But we – and the aviation industry as a whole - cannot stand still and do nothing.

We need flexibility to find the best solution. So yes, our current operations are being conducted with biofuels made out of used cooking oil, and we are comfortable with that. But Thomson Airways has partnered with a fuel supplier that is not feedstock or technology specific. The sustainability of alternative aviation fuels depends on many factors and has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. To make the right decisions now and in the future, SkyNRG is advised by an independent Sustainability Board, consisting of the Dutch wing of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-NL), Solidaridad, and the Copernicus Institute of the University of Utrecht.

We also fully support the move for all modes of transport to move towards more sustainable energy sources. Whilst in a transition phase, at Thomson Airways we believe that sustainable liquid fuel should be prioritised for aviation because there is no near term alternative (such as electric or hydrogen for ground based vehicles).

This view is supported by the WWF Energy Report 2011: ‘Although the Ecofys scenario favours other renewable resources wherever possible, there are some applications where bioenergy is currently the only suitable replacement for fossil fuels. Aviation, shipping and long-haul trucking require liquid fuels with a high energy density; they cannot, with current technology and fuelling infrastructure, be electrified or powered by hydrogen.’ (page 40 of link )

which then also says: "Some industrial processes, such as steel manufacturing, require fuels not only for their energy content, but as feedstocks with specific material properties.By 2050, 60 per cent of industrial fuels and heat will come from biomass. 13 per cent of building heat will come from biomass and some biomass will still be needed in the electricity mix (about 13 per cent), for balancing purposes with other renewable energy technologies.")

In response to comments from the WWF-UK, we appreciate the need to clarify the statement regarding the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB). The RSB announced that their methodology can hold for used cooking oil, but that doesn't mean it is RSB certified. To be more precise: even though the RSB criteria exists, no used cooking oil has been RSB certified to date.

For more information on sustainable options for aviation biofuel, please read http://www.enviro.aero/Content/Upload/File/BeginnersGuide_Biofuels_WebRes.pdf

Sustainable Aviation document submitted

2011-10-21T06:47:00.000-07:00

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your email. The submission that we have made to the government's sustainable aviation consultation is available on line at:

http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads/Plane_Stupid_and%20People_and_Planet_response.pdf

Our statement regarding Tesco is in the bio-fuels section. We maintain that our comments are a fair reflection on Tesco's position. The reality is the aviation industry will use increasing amounts of bio-fuels to exploit loopholes in the EU ETS scheme. This will impact food supplies. This is being done despite no credible evidence this will reduce greenhouse gases.

You suggest that the relationships between greenhouse gases, biofuels, food prices and food production is complex. We disagree and the world bank disagrees. The evidence support us.We know food prices correlate strongly with biofuels. We know that biofuel production has made Indonesia into one of the world biggest emitters of CO2 after China and US.

Recent events demonstrate that food supply companies such as Tesco are so compromised they are unable to engage in the debate and that we therefore need more proactive intervention from the government.

--- On Wed, 12/10/11, Yeo, Andrew wrote:

From: Yeo, Andrew
Subject: RE: Re: Biofuels in relation to Tesco
To: "Kevin Lister"
Cc: "Gorrie, Angela Z"
Date: Wednesday, 12 October, 2011, 11:21

Kevin,

Thank you for your most recent email. As I have already said we take our commitments to the environment very seriously, and your statement is not a fair reflection of our position.

As you will appreciate, we face a range of medium and long-term sustainability issues, driven by global population growth and increased levels of consumption. On an on-going basis we review what these trends mean for our business and look at how we can mitigate the risks these present, while helping to reduce the impact of our business on the environment and meeting our customers' needs.

As I am sure you would recognise from your own research, the relationship between GHG emissions, biofuels, food production and prices is complex and multi-faceted. It is a subject of ongoing public debate, which includes many different points of view,and impacts many other stakeholders. Specifically on biofuels, we ensure that as far as possible the ingredients we use for biofuels are from sustainable sources, use waste-based biofuels wherever possible, and abide by all relevant Government sustainability requirements. As a responsible retailer we continue to review the existing and emerging evidence, and will respond to the challenges that this represents.

We are committed to keeping prices down for our customers and we are committed to protecting our environment and creating more sustainable ways of doing business.

Best regards, Andrew

From: Kevin Lister [mailto:kevin.lister@btopenworld.com]
Sent: 06 October 2011 21:28
To: Yeo, Andrew
Cc: Numero_in
Subject: Fw: Re: Biofuels in relation to Tesco
Dear Andew,

Following our recent correspondence when you confirmed that you would not comment on Thomson Airways development to use biofuels, the following paragraph will be added to our submission to the government's sustainable aviation document

"Following the recently introduced service by Thomson Airways using biofuel, we asked Tesco to comment on the risk this would impose to their ability to maintain food security. Tesco's refused to comment, most likely because they have significant investement in Greenery – a major biofuel supplier. This is highly concerning when the biggest food retailer in the UK is neither able or willing to enter debate on an issue of such critical importance. It leaves the governement with no option but to take a highly proactive role in seeking an immediate moratorium on any further biofuel development."

Please confirm that this properly reflect Tesco's position.

Nuclear disarmament

2011-10-02T01:00:00.000-07:00

To tackle climate change we must also tackle nuclear disarmament

Tesco unprepared to protect food security

2011-09-30T10:32:00.000-07:00

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your reply to my email. Though I understand that you may find it difficult to comment on an issue as sensitive as this, it is not enough to state that that Tesco have a general policy of not making statements on these issues when your company has already made statements on biofuels. I refer you to the following:

Terry Leahy said in the City Food Lecture (see http://www.cityfoodlecture.com/lecture_09.html)

"A few years ago, governments offered subsidies to encourage farmers to plant biofuels, as a means of cutting carbon emissions. But by turning thousands of acres over to growing biofuels, forests were cleared and less land was available for other crops. The biofuels bonanza is estimated to account for 70 per cent of increase in corn prices and 40 per cent of the increase in soybean prices ."

and at http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5648

"But the supermarket giant(Tesco) tells ClimateChangeCorp it is now “reviewing the emerging evidence” about the impact of biofuels on food prices and the environment and may change its policy"

Tesco is clearly prepared to make statements on these issues - and we would therefore appreciate that you reconsider your position and make a clear statement on the impact that you perceive the move to biofuels by the aviation industry will have on your ability to maintain food supplies at affordable costs. As a measure of the importance of this, the move by the aviation industry will massively increase demand for biofuels far beyond current levels, which as Terry Leahy acknowledges, has already lead to food price rises.

This email will be published on my blog.

We look forward to your reply.

Kevin Lister

--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Yeo, Andrew wrote:

From: Yeo, Andrew
Subject: Biofuels in relation to Tesco
To: "Kevin Lister" , "Sarah Clayton"
Cc: "Gorrie, Angela Z"
Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 13:58

Kevin and Sarah,
Thank you for your respective emails on the response you are preparing to the consultation on the UK Government's sustainable aviation policy, and your request for a statement from Tesco. We take our commitments to the environment very seriously, however we have a general policy not to make public statements of the sort you envisage, so we will not be able to contribute to your consultation response.
Best regards, Andrew

Andrew Yeo
Head of Supply Chain Carbon Reduction | Tesco plc
Email: andrew.yeo@uk.tesco.com
Mobile: 07957 805995

Request to Tesco for Statement on Aviation Thrust to Biofuels.

2011-09-29T12:09:00.000-07:00

Dear Andrew,

Following my previous email to Philip Clarke, I am writing to see if you are closer to being able to produce a statement regarding Tesco's position on the aviation industry's dangerous thrust towards Biofuels and the pressing danger it imposes on your company's ability to maintain food supplies to your customers.

So you fully understand the urgency, I enclose a press release from Thomson Airways who are already moving towards biofuel services. We also have a tight deadline of the 18th October to complete our submission to the Department of Transport on the Sustainable Aviation Consultation, and would request you statement by then at the latest.

If you would like to speak to anyone for first hand and expert knowledge on these vital issues, please do not hesitate to contact me and this can be arranged.

Regards,

Kevin Lister,

mobile 07768 991063

--- On Mon, 26/9/11, ceo.customerservice@tesco.co.uk wrote:

From: ceo.customerservice@tesco.co.uk
Subject: Email to Philip Clarke
To: kevin.lister@btopenworld.com
Date: Monday, 26 September, 2011, 9:07

Ref: 12101597

Dear Mr Lister

Thank you for your email addressed to Philip Clarke, our Chief Executive Officer. I have been asked to respond on his behalf. Please accept my apologies for the delay in doing so.

I can see that you also sent your email to Hannah Clare, our former Climate Change Manager, and know a copy was then received by Andrew Yeo. Andrew is best placed to comment and will reply to you directly.

Thank you for taking the time to bring your comments to attention of our Chief Executive.

Kind Regards

Angela Gorrie
Customer Service Executive

.................. Original Message ..................

To: Philip.Clarke@uk.tesco.co.uk
From: kevin.lister@btopenworld.com
Received: 25/09/2011

Subject: Tesco support against massive aviation expansion of biofuels

Dear Philip, Hannah,

I am currently preparing a submission for the government's consultation on sustainable aviation, see http://www2.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/2011-09/. The submission that we make will be prepared with young people will therefore will represent those with the greatest stake in the global warming debate.

A key piece of the current aviation strategy is that aviation can become green and sustainable through extensive use of biofuels.

However, this a very ill considered position which will have devastating implications for the environment and for food supplies. It will have direct implications for Tesco's ability to supply food to the population of this country and other other countries.

Large scale biofuel production will require huge land grabs and will adversely impact food production, at a time when meeting world food demand is becoming more difficult due to rising population, climate change and peak oil. To achieve the goals of the aviation industry, an area the size of Europe would be needed.

In short the issues and implications are:

As food prices rise due to biofuel, the increasing number of people at subsistence levels in this country and abroad will be forced into total poverty leading to large scale social unrest and economic collapse.

Biofuel will lead to rapid and substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions due to the amount of land that has to be cleared and the subsequent loss of carbon sequestration

All of these issues were predicted in the report that I prepared for Tesco in 2008 and all of these are now coming to pass.

However the situation is now far worse. Any chance that we have for making significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions have evaporated with the disaster at Fukishima which will stop the nuclear renascence in its paths and with the collapse of carbon capture and storage due to engineering and financial issues.We must now brace ourselves for the nightmare scenario of an overpopulated world with average temperature rises in excess of 4 deg C.

In these dire circumstances we would appreciate a statement from Tesco, as a major food retailer condemning the ill considered support that this government and others are giving the aviation industry to pursue biofuels which we can then incorporate into our submission.

Regards, Kevin Lister

RAF Croughton March and Rally

2011-09-25T04:04:00.000-07:00

This major U.S. communication base supports many US military bases in Europe and world wide war operations.

These include space communications, data links, guiding bombers, missile defence, diplomatic communications, and command, control and other war fighting functions.

A connected base is at Barford St John, near Bloxham, Banbury, Oxfordshire. ‘RAF’ Croughton main gate is on the B4031, off the A43, 2 miles North of M40 junction 10, just South of Brackley, Northamptonshire.

Travel west on the B4031, past the main gate, turn left at mini-roundabout on eastern edge of Croughton village, and park at signed site, not at maingate. Starts 12.00 car park, along B4031 to Main Gate, return 3.30pm.

(Oxford Tea and Food tent together with a disabled toilet at main gate.)

No to U.S. Missile Defence! No Weapons in Space!

Minibus leaves St Giles, Oxford 10.45 & Oxford Rail station 11.00
Tickets £6.00 – pre booking essential – contact:-
01865 749459 / oxonpeace@yahoo.co.uk
Oxfordshire Peace Campaign

The sinking of the titanic

2011-08-12T04:46:00.000-07:00

When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. When nothing extends beyond not being able to afford the latest must have non-essential consumables, but also means having no moral values, no hope for the future, no vision of a way forward, no voice, no knowledge of how to articulate your concerns and no way of achieving any of these, then you have created the perfect environment for total despair and social disintegration.

The evidence from the riots of today is that we have created a society in which despair is the only thing to be found in abundance. The situation is so bad, it is hard to find any time in human history when despair, especially amongst the young, has been in such abundance over hope. Even in the darkest days of the Second World War or on the cusp of the Cuba Crisis, our social structures remained intact, as hope triumphed over despair.

It is almost impossible for anyone to read the papers today and not feel overwhelming anger, panic and dis-empowerment. Climate change, peak oil, ecosystem collapse, social decay, stigmatisation are all themes that were not even on the agenda during the last set of riots in 1980s. Despite these clear warnings of imminent collapse, our government and governments around the world to cling on to the outdated concepts of maximising economic growth, which is an even more stupid concept than the Titanic proceeding at full speed through a sea full of icebergs. There was always the chance the Titanic might of missed the icebergs, we have no chance of avoiding economic collapse.

Just as it was the steerage class on the Titanic who were the first to know that the ship was going down when they hit the iceberg, because they saw the rivets popping and the water coming in, whereas the elite in first class carried on oblivious as they were insulated from the first warning tremors of the unavoidable crisis, then so it is today. The steerage class of today's society can see the ship going down as they experience at first hand the pain of high food prices, energy costs, transport costs and declining public services. Today's steerage class is made up predominantly of the young who are drowning in despair. Just as the steerage class of the Titanic did not need to be qualified Naval Architects to know disaster was looming, then the steerage class of today do not need to have degrees in Economics to know that today's society is sinking.

Meanwhile those in the first class, which are predominantly baby boomers over the age of 45, idly pontificate over their dinner parties about how the next generation will have to simultaneously solve runaway climate change, tackle peak oil, pay off the national debt, reduce over population whilst at the same time they should gratefully accept being saddled with student debt, survive in an economic system that will never allow them to buy their own home, nor offer them secure employment nor allow them to save for their future.

The young people, the steerage class of today, must tackle all these challenges within a morally bankrupt framework which rubs in their face the vision that if you can not be a top consumer you are nothing, and which blatantly transfers wealth from the poorest to the richest of society.

Only one week ago, a £32 million grant was given to AugustaWestland for them to convert an existing military helicopter design into a private helicopter for executive use. This is money that would be far better spend on supporting the social services for those confined to the steerage class, rather than supporting the most carbon intensive mode of travel for the super rich. This immoral transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest of society is but one example of many. The list barely needs repeating, but includes such events as MPs expense scandals, on going tax avoidance by the super rich, BAE Systems systematic overcharging on defense contracts, blatantly fraudulent environmental claims for developments such as airports which ignore the existential threat of climate change, nonsensical ideas of carbon trading, ill conceived and corrupt ideas on biofuels, all of which further marginalize and weaken the poorest.

But just as it was in the Titanic where the first in the life boats were the first class and the steerage class were locked below deck to die, then so it is in today's society. The strongest will use their strength to survive, whilst the crisis simultaneously weakens the strength of those at the bottom.

Following the last financial crisis the top bankers held on to their bonuses, whilst those at the bottom of the social ladder suffered spending cuts and increased costs. In the ensuing debate, the bankers told us that the bonuses were essential to their continued utility to society and they held on to them. What outrageous rubbish – the bond market collapse over recent days has seen the banks profits collapsing yet again and the humble tax payer is being geared up for more bail outs. It demonstrates the banks profits are determined by market conditions, not their ability to pay massive bonuses, but more importantly it shows that each emerging financial crisis simultaneously weakens the dispossessed and strengthens the possessed. This is the only outcome that can be expected in an economy that now has fixed limits and where one persons gain must be another persons loss.

And regrettably, the bankers are but just one group of people who are able to use the economic crisis to strengthen their power. The biggest corporations receive more tax breaks and grants because economic growth is now deemed to be so much more important in a slump and by the same rational more sacrifices are to be made of the environment to support economic growth. All these contribute to a further weakening of those at the bottom and strengthening of those at the top.

The only fundamental difference between today and the Titanic, is that today the first class passengers expect the steerage class to save the ship while they simultaneously drown. This is a situation that can only be described as madness made all the more apparent by the wanton and criminal disregard for the environment and equality in society that the elite have shown. In the circumstances, we should not be too surprised when this madness becomes infectious and passes down through through the layers society to the point where it arrives at the people who can only be victims and have no way of articulating their concerns. But now, it is time to be cool, calm and sane at all levels of society and for us to face reality together.

The stark reality is that we now face a bleak future, which we are all genuinely in together from steerage class to first class. We must all recognise that our society is currently based on economic growth and our laws and institutions are predicated on supporting this model, but economic growth is neither our present nor our future. By contrast, the bleak future of continuing economic contraction has started now. As a consequence of rising raw material costs, food costs and population, economic growth has already reversed for the majority of our community, especially those in the steerage classes. The contraction will go harder and quicker as the implications of climate change and resource depletion bite deeper into the fabric of our society at the exponential growth rate of today. It will be accelerated if we maintain the collective madness that has now broken out and finally gripped all levels of society.

Cool heads will now be needed, because as the sea levels rise, as the food rations get consumed, we will suddenly realize that there are not enough life boats to go around, because we all liked to think the ship was unsinkable.

Email to Rob Garnham,Chair of the Association of Police Authorities and supporter of the rich, on the riots

2011-08-09T04:51:00.000-07:00

Dear Rob,

It was interesting watching your interview on Sky News this morning when you expressed the usual outrage that the rioters were criminals, which strictly in accordance with the law they are. However, to dismiss them as such without seeking answers to the broader question as to why so many youngsters are prepared to become criminal on mass, sets the foundations for further riots.

You may remember that we had correspondence in the past on the implications of policing in the face of climate change and future societal collapse.

I warned that in a society that creates a hopeless future for our children, as we are currently and deliberately doing, then societal break down can be the only outcome and that it would come quick, suddenly and overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, you found my argument and warnings offensive. It gives me no great pleasure to see it coming true.

Our young people face an increasingly bleak future and they instinctively know it. People of our generation (the people over the age of 45) continually talk about how the next generation will have to simultaneously solve climate change, peak oil, pay off the national debt, whilst at the same time we ignore their peaceful protests on student debt, we create an economic system that will never allow them to buy their own home or secure employment and create an environment devoid of moral values.

Yet at the same time we condone criminality at the upper reaches of society. In your own backyard, you supported the fraudulent business case for Gloucestershire Airport which forced the local community to back a development to provide an airport for private jets whilst simultaneously polluting their own environment, all at the time of public service spending cuts. These crimes funnel wealth from the poorest to the richest systemically and efficiently, and they do it on a far bigger scale than the rioters have achieved. Gloucestershire Airport is but one of many instances, so it is hardly any wonder vast sections of our society are angry and disenfranchised.

We have seen infectious madness passing through the upper reaches of society through their wanton disregard for science and morals for many years. We should not be too surprised when we see infectious madness passing through society's disposed.

In previous correspondence (copied to you) I pointed out that “Our society is currently based on economic growth and our laws and institutions are predicated on supporting this model. Economic growth is unlikely to be our future.” That bleak future is starting now. Economic growth has reversed for the majority of our community as a consequence of rising raw material and food costs and will reverse quicker as the implications of climate change bite harder.

What we are seeing today is a foretaste of the future and if we carry on with the current moral and economic framework, things will get worse much quicker.

As the Chair of the Association of Police Authorities, it is incumbent on you to take the time to understand the root cause of these events and have the courage to grasp hold of the dreadful realities that face us. You can not rely on wishful thinking and the preservation of the current destructive status-quo.

Kevin Lister

BIOFUEL RELATED WARFARE

2011-07-21T12:33:00.000-07:00

AVIATION PROTESTERS AT THE ROYAL INTERNATIONAL FAIRFORD AIR TATTOO CONDEMN THE PERVERSE SUGGESTION BEING MADE BY SOME AVIATION INDUSTRY SUPPORTERS THAT "AVIATION BIOFUELS" CAN BE MADE SUSTAINABLE

WARMING THE PLANET WITH UNNECESSARY JET TRAVEL AND MILITARY EXTRAVAGANCE IS BAD ENOUGH; DESTROYING BIODIVERSE FORESTS AND EXACERBATING HUMAN HUNGER IN THE NAME OF "GREENING" BOTH CIVIL AND MILITARY AVIATION IS UTTERLY OBSCENE - THIS IS THE ULTIMATE MANIFESTATION OF WAR BY THE RICH ON THE POOR

Please Sign This Alert Against Lufthansa's Sickening Biofuels Scam
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuelwatch/message/4865
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuelwatch/message/4866

See Here for FOE Europe Report and Peer Reviewed Studies on Biofuel Deception:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuelwatch/message/4828
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/925075/uk_scientists_launch_scathing_criticism_of_eu_biofuel_targets.html
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/lca_assessments.pdf

Fun and games at the Fairford Air Tattoo

2011-07-18T15:09:00.000-07:00

Some interesting statistics and facts for our protest (just like the Air Shows who like to boast their interesting stats)

Over 50 people involved in the protest, on the front line and in support.

Transport for banners, protest material and protesters kindly provided by the UK Police force

10,000 offensive leaflets distributed (see here for front page and back page)

Forced the Air Tattoo to implement crude and embarrassing censorship to prevent the leaflets being circulated inside the base.

10 Free T-shirts handed out to visitors

Millions of pounds of advertising by some of the worst offenders of climate change and human rights totally screwed up.

Hundreds of pounds raised for charity.

Not one single arrest made by the police, not even for the A-10 pilots who violated the Geneva Convention by firing depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What would the great Beethoven make of our collective stupidity??

Protesters offer free T-shirts to the visitors of the Fairford Air Tattoo

Protesters trying to get into the Fairford Air Tattoo

Censorship at the Air Show

Protesters get excellent logistical support from the Police

Trying to ask how the arms deals will protect us from climate change

The joys of A-symmetrical warfare on a bike

Its not all hard work fighting the military industrial complex - our lovely Nicki doing far better than the dolly birds straddling the missiles on sale inside the Air Tattoo

Leafleting and Megaphoning at the Air Tattoo

Final Thoughts

Demand for police statement on violation of the Geneva Convention

2011-07-13T03:07:00.000-07:00

To: "StephenTempleton"
Cc: Mark.Ravenscroft@gloucestershire.pnn.police.uk
Date: Wednesday, 13 July, 2011, 10:44

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your call yesterday. You may have seen the article in today's Gloucestershire Echo regarding the protest where we have praised the cooperation that we have had from yourself and Mark. Thank you again for that help and cooperation.

As discussed yesterday, we do want a statement from Gloucestershire Police prior to the show on your position as regards our demand for a police investigation of the A-10 pilots for violation of the Geneva Convention and breach of international law in the use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions. As you have probably also seen, the petition for a police investigation is attracting new names by the day and many people are asking what response we have had.

We believe that it is vital that a criminal investigation is carried out. Not only is the evidence overwhelming that depleted uranium causes birth defects and environmental degradation, but there is no viable counter evidence from the military that its use is safe.

Thus, fundamentally it is no longer our responsibility to prove definitively that DU is the causing agent. It is for the military to prove that DU does not cause the cancer and birth defects that are now so prevalent in every theater of war and that this should be tested in court.

Violations of International law and the Geneva Convention have historically been carried out by state on state investigations, were the victorious state instigates the investigation. However, with this potential breach of the Geneva Convention and international law, the situation is different as we and our allies are the potential perpetrators. This makes it more important than ever to ensure that the law is upheld. If we take no action, then we send the message that the Geneva Convention and international law is redundant and we will slide into a world of total chaos.

I look forward to working closely with you during the Air Tattoo and your reply.

Kevin

Details of Fairford Air Tattoo Sponsored Bike Ride

2011-07-12T11:56:00.000-07:00

We will join Oxford CND on Friday afternoon at Gate G. Gate G is for the VIPs. From there we will later move to the 4 Pillars Hotel at about 5:00 pm

On Saturday morning we will meet at 8:00am at the Cirencester MacDonalds, Cricklade Road, Gloucestershire, GL7 1NP from there we will cycle to the entrances of the Air Tattoo.

There is parking there for those arriving by car. If you are arriving by train and either need a pick up or a bike please let us know in advance. The nearest station is Kemble.

We will cycle to the Kempsford end of the Air Base where we will be setting up stands on climate change and depleted uranium.

We will be staying at 2 Butts End, Poulton, Nr Cirencester, GL7 5HY, where there is crash space and we will put up a tents in the back garden.

Any problems, contact mobile 07768 991063

We currently await a statement from Gloucestershire Police on their position on investigating violations of the Geneva Convention by the A-10 pilots that will be attending the show following our on-line petition.

Fairford Air Tattoo and online petition

2011-07-09T06:27:00.000-07:00

If you have not already done so, please sign the on-line petition to have the A-10 pilots that are visiting the Fairford Air Tattoo arrested for violation of the Geneva Convention from the depleted uranium attacks make in Afganistan, Iraq and now Libya, see the link below:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fairford_air_show/

DU victim from Basra

Fairford Air Tattoo Weekly Bulletin No. 5

2011-06-24T03:35:00.000-07:00

Dear All,

We have had our police escorted ride around the perimeter base. How things have changed - he was just so helpful and helped us work out all the best places to demonstrate.

Importantly, he has given us the offer of providing us with a police escort on our rides.

The main area of contention remains the leaflets that we have prepared - first draft below. Our police friends are concerned that they may be deemed offensive to visitors and therefore may not be allowed - well on the basis that the Air Tattoo visitors have made the conscious decisions to attend the show, and to be awed by the weapons on display and that the Air Tattoo literature has made no mention of depleted uranium, then we don't really see why we should be censored on an issue of major public interest, just because a few might be offended. The police are reviewing the material with their lawyers.

Draft copies of leaflets and please feel free to suggest any changes:

Originals at this address:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16411325@N04/5867080367/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16411325@N04/5864162979/

Great debate ongoing at direct action station, where Kate Holcombe has exposed the totally corrupt way that the Air Tattoo is granted its charitable status.

Also there will be a talk on the 6th July in Bristol on the theme of how we stop the rich waging war on the poor.