Congratulations to the Emir of Qatar

Copy of email sent the Qatar Embassy in London

Dear Ambassador,

I would to like send my congratulations to your new Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Khalifa al Thanion, for taking over from his father and maintaining the integrity of the dynasty.  I am sure the people of Qatar are equally delighted and pleased at avoiding the degrading process of going to election booths to decide for themselves.  

I can’t help but notice how young and virile your new leader is. At 33 years old he is just a bit older than Kim Jong Un; another person who successfully is maintaining a family dynasty. Not that I would ever suggest there is any comparison between the two.  

I will be posting this email on my blog if you want to have a look. The address is http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.co.uk/. It would be nice if your new Emir could get chance to read it. However it is blocked in Qatar. Please pass the link on to him so that when he flies to the UK in his private jet he can read it.  I know that he will busy with his investments here, but it won’t take too much of his time.

I am sure that your censors must have made a mistake.  I only write on climate change, the military industrial complex, human rights, war and the linkages between them. I am sure that these are all topics dear to your new Sheikh’s heart. 

I know he must be interested in climate change as Qatar was proud to invite people from all over the world for last the climate change conference.  I do understand that under your chairmanship it disastrously delivered nothing and moved the world one step closer to cooking; still mistakes like this can happen to the best of us.  I also hope your new Emir is not too embarrassed by ruling a country with the world’s highest per capita carbon footprint when runaway climate change is killing thousands of people by the day.  Hopefully, the comfort of his private jets and luxury homes will stop him worrying too much.

I would also like to wish your new Sheikh good luck with all the new military hardware he is buying. I am sure it will keep him very happy. I also understand that some of your military big wigs are coming to our Fairford Air Tattoo this year to buy even more stuff. With a bit of luck I might be able to meet them to ask how their arms sales will protect your country and the world from climate change. I don’t quite understand how they will, but as your new Emir is so clever I am sure he can explain it. Good job that your country managed to derail climate change talks and you kept your oil and gas sales up, because without these you could never buy all this hardware.

Pass my congratulations to your new Emir on securing the World Cup and I hope your bid for the Olympics is successful. Qatar is a much better place for these events than Brazil as you don’t have to worry about impoverishing your people. They are all filthy rich and if they did complain you can always shoot them.  The people impoverished through the climate change these events help us ignore all live in poor or war torn countries, such as Syria, Lybia, Tunisa and Eygpt which have all suffered massive food price spikes. Wait a minute, isn’t that the Arab Spring countries whose revolutions Qatar did so much to support? Maybe I am making a silly mistake.

Anyway, enough of this. All I can say is good luck to your Emir’s continued abuse of human rights and conspicuous consumption. May he continue to buy lots of weapons to secure his hold on power and keep our most destructive corporations in power.

I am sure you must be delighted to be representing him,

Kevin Lister

Complaint to the common standards committee again Neil Carmichael MP

20^th August, 2012

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (the Commissioner)

The House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

Dear Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (the Commissioner),

Subject: Complaint against Neil Carmichael MP

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

The breaches of specific clauses are outlined below: 

Clause III.  Public Duties of Members

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

Breach 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breach 2

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

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

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

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

Breach 3

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

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

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

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

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

Clause  IV.  General Principles of Conduct

Leadership

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

Breach 1

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

In no way can this be called leadership by example.

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

Clause V.  Rules of Conduct

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

Breach 1

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

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

Sincerely,

Kevin Lister BSc (aero eng), MBA

cc:    Neil Carmichael MP

        38-39 Palace Chambers

        London Road

        Stroud

        Gloucestershire GL5 2AJ

Fun and games at the Fairford Air Tattoo

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

Letter to the Serious Fraud Office

Dear Sirs,


We are growing increasingly frustrated with your inability to uphold the law by refusing to instigate an investigation into Birmingham Airport.

To put the matter in context – I have been on bail for 9 months for fraud. My alleged crime was to host a spoof web site purporting that last year's Fairford Air Tattoo would be the last due to growing evidence on climate change. The fact that all references to climate change in it were correct did not stop an early morning raid on my house by the police force along with a search and seizure of my computers.

In glaring contrast, Birmingham Airport is deliberately and fraudulently misrepresenting its position on climate change, and no action is being taken. It is hard to imagine a worse fraud than this.

Your inaction is demonstrating a deeply disturbing development, where the law enforcement agencies of this country are legitimising the right to pollute and destroy over the rights of citizens and the victims of climate change.

Time is running out as the climate change clock ticks faster and more loudly by the day. Large organisations such as Birmingham Airport that deliberately ignore the evidence are directly placing our lives and environment in danger, and are being given state support to do so.

We therefore remind you that under the Freedom of Information Act, you have until close of business today to provide the legal justification as to why you are deciding to allow this fraud to go uncontested.

If we receive no response, we will refer the matter to the Information Commissioner and instruct lawyers to determine our rights as oppressed people to self defence under international law.

Your sincerely,

Kevin Lister

See facebook group: Get Birmingham Airport Prosecuted for Environmental Fraud

We must not glorify excess consumption

Police Statement

My name is Kevin Lister, and I am writing this statement in response to my arrest in August of 2010 on charges of fraud and criminal damage.

I was interviewed in August 2010 were I answered all questions put. I was first bailed to appear in October, then November, then January, then March and now April. No charges have yet been pressed against me and this statement is in preparation for my return bail hearing on the 12th April and in place of any interview.

The fraud allegation was made against me because of a spoof web site that I posted which purported that the Air Show in 2010 would be the last Air Show ever due to concerns about the carbon foot print of an event such as this. I posted this to challenge the legality and morality of an event of this nature which is both highly polluting and is an advertisement for other highly polluting industries and ways of life. Despite the supposedly charitable nature of the event, one of its charitable objectives was "to support aviation in all its guises." It should be noted that aviation doubles greenhouse gas emissions every 17 years whilst simultaneously enjoying high degrees of tax protection; it therefore hardly warrants charitable support.

It is now clear that the planet, our home, is on target to exceed the worst case scenarios of the 2007 IPCC report (ref 1). Latest measurements show CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing at the rate of 3.4% per annum, which will lead to a doubling of CO2 within 20 years. (ref 2). With this rate of increase it is inconceivable that the planet will still be habitable at the end of this century. Recent ideas on super exponential growth of CO2 emissions are further reinforcing this argument (ref 3) and indicate we have even less time to act than we previously thought.

Therefore the requirement for all people to speak out about the injustice of climate change grows by the day as the science solidifies and every new piece of emerging evidence supports the worst case conclusion. In fact, it is a moral obligation to speak out; to quote both George Osborne and Barrack Obama, “we are all in this together.” Furthermore, staying quiet is not an option as being quiet is effectively being complicit to the ecocidal destruction of our planet.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of the science, it is still legal and acceptable by large corporations to add to the planet's pollution overload. Not only is it legal to add to the planet's pollution load, but the legal system as it is currently structured actively supports this aberration by making any attempt to make effective protest a criminal act.

Our legal system, and that of the Western word was initially based on the protection of rights for the individual. Equivalent legal protection for corporations was only granted towards the end of the industrial revolution, which gave the corporation the legal status of a “fictional person.” This was given without any proper legal, moral or economic consideration.

Treating corporations as a fictional person arms them with constitutional prerogatives designed to protect people, yet corporations do not have to consider the moral implications of their actions and it is these moral implications which normally acts as a natural constraint to human actions. They are therefore free to maximise profits, irrespective of the damage they do in the process.

The balance of power to the corporation is further reinforced by the strict liability clause. As a consequence of this clause the human being who is suffering at the hand of the corporation can be at risk of imprisonment for protest, yet the corporation can not be imprisoned for its damages as it is only a fictional person.

When the concept of fictional person was introduced, there was no concept of runaway climate change, no concept of peak oil and resource depletion and no concept of the necessary reduction of liberties due to over population. It is therefore wholly incompatible with the environmental reality of today.

By allowing corporations equal rights to people yet subjecting them to lesser punishment, legal imbalances automatically develop, which people are now experiencing across the planet. This is leading to growing discontent and anger across all stratas of society, especially amongst those people that have  made all the possible sacrifices to their lifestyles that their governments have asked of them in their attempts to be responsible global citizens and to reduce their CO2 emissions, or are already suffering as a direct consequence of climate change.

I site my own unsuccessful experiences of using the available legal channels to try and effect the the changes necessary to stop corporations abusing their right to pollute;

1. Gloucestershire Police were unprepared to investigate a fraud claim against Gloucestershire Airport after they falsely claimed they would impose a 4,000 tonne annual limit on their CO2 ceiling to achieve planning consent, yet simultaneously presented a conservative business case to the Council for funding that at a minimum would produce 7,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum.
2. The Advertising Standards Agency would not act on my complaints regarding misleading Airbus adverts in the National Geographic that falsely claimed Airbus was working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, when they are selling A380 Super Jumbos as private jets.
3. The serious Fraud Office would not act on complaints against the pro-aviation lobby group Flying Matters who falsely claimed that the aviation industry will be able to reduce its emissions by 2050 to 2000 levels, despite their intention to triple growth over this same period and who also claimed that a result of their false lobbying environmental taxes were dropped.

Given the above failures, my arrest under the fraud act is wholly inappropriate and serves to demonstrates a one sided application of the law, where corporations are clearly given more protection that the citizens for whom the law is ultimately supposed to protect.

By definition of the fraud act, I am guilty if I intend to cause loss through false representation. However, the objective of the web site was not about intending to cause loss to another. Instead the objective of the web site is to encourage the Air Tattoo and its supporters to join with the others that are already making the sacrifices necessary to minimise our collective CO2 footprints.

The world wide distribution of income demonstrates the top 5% of society create 30% of the greenhouse gas emissions through their excess consumption. It is hard to think of any event that more blatantly supports the immoral concept of excess consumption than the Air Tattoo, yet cutting excess consumption is the quickest, least environmentally damaging and most socially acceptable method of making greenhouse gas emission cuts. Thus contrary to the assertion that my action is intended to cause loss, in reality my action is intended to prevent the biggest loss to us all which is the loss of the environment and for which there is no legal protection against the perils of climate change.

Given the above facts which outline that the law is not fit for purpose in addressing the challenges of climate change and that my act was intended to prevent a far greater loss from which none of us can escape, I will make no further comment during any further police interview on the issue of fraud.

As regards the criminal damage charges for defacing the advertising banners with CO2 logos, there is no evidence linking me to these crimes and I will plead not guilty.

References:

Note 1

IPCC report; http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html

Note 2

Doubling of CO2 emissions: http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/2010/11/aviation-and-climate-science.html

Note 3

Super exponential growth in CO2 emissions: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2832v2.pdf

Note 4

Correspondence with Flying Matters

http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/2010/11/dear-michelle-regards-statements-on.html

Letter to US Ambassador regarding Fairford Air Tattoo

Attention of Louis B. Susman

Subject: US support for Fairford Air Tattoo and possible legal action against US officers.

Dear Mr Ambassador,

This letter is to formally advise you that US support for the Fairford Air Tattoo would support a violation of the 1^st Amendment of the US constitution if the Air Tattoo was held in the US. Furthermore, the Air Tattoo is in violation of the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (UN act 1976) and the continued support of US forces would be in breach of international law.

To put the matter in perspective, this year two B52 bombers where flown to the Air Tattoo from US bases, two F22 fighters where flown in from bases in Alaska with the support of the air-to-air refuelling tankers, along with many other planes representing US forces.

As you should be aware, events such as the Air Tattoo create significant greenhouse gas emissions, whilst simultaneously advertising and supporting the advancement of the aviation industry and its associated emissions which double every 17 years.  This is in deliberate defiance of the evidence on climate change. Direct representations have been made to the management of the Air Show along with peaceful protests. They have all be ignored.

By allowing the air show to continue, the State is in violation of the the following human rights (based on recent European Right to Life case) :

1. States have a positive legal duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life where they have:
   1. knowledge of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of individuals from from acts of a third party (in this case death and serious injury due to Climate Change caused by emissions from eg, Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station/Athabasca tar Sands/flaring in the Niger Delta/Amazonian forest razing etc etc), and
   2. States have a positive legal duty to take reasonable measures within the scope of their power which might have been expected to avoid that risk (i.e. close down all coal power stations/stop flaring/oil extraction/deforestation), and
   3. must put into place legal and administrative mechanisms to deter the commission of offences against the person (ie put in place the crime of ecocide), and
   4. applies specifically to dangerous industrial activity (such as coal power plants/flaring etc) that is known to put lives at risk.

As the Air Tattoo's management were clearly unprepared to listen to any direct representation, or to consider the morality of continuing to hold a show of this nature in deliberate defiance of the evidence to make immediate and substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, an internet based protest was launched in the lead up to last year's event with the intent of provoking debate. The State and the Air Show had the perpetrator arrested, which is a clear violation of his rights under the European Human Rights Act, Article 10.

The actions of the Air Tattoo in pursuit of this case is an unequivocal strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) which is a deliberate attempt to censor, intimidate and silence critics until they abandon their legitimate rights to criticism or opposition. This action is in violation of the US Constitution's specific protection in the First Amendment's fifth clause. The Air Tattoo's actions would therefore be clearly illegal in the US.

Due to the extensive US presence at the show and its objective of projecting US military power in as positive a light as possible, you have a moral obligation to ensure that you do not support an organisation that would be in such clear violation of a key principle of your own constitution and law.

Furthermore, allowing US forces to attend this show is a violation of the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (UN Act 1976). The term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing - through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere.

As you and your senior officers should be aware, we face runaway climate change and have already significantly exceeded the safe limits of 350ppm of atmospheric CO2 and within 20 years we will reach unrecoverable climatic tipping points. The science is unequivocal on this fact and much of the best scientific evidence comes from US sources, e.g. Jim Hansen et al. You will also be fully aware that the deliberate addition of large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere that will be necessary from the US forces that support this event will further contribute towards climate change and that supporting an air show is neither a humanitarian act nor an essential and unavoidable activity.

By continuing to deliberately defy the ENMOD Act, the US military will be committing a hostile act on the citizens of the planet. This hostile act supports the aggressive and hostile position that the US Senate and Congress is taking to the rest of the planet by deliberately seeking to overturn, ignore or minimise the effectiveness of climate change legislation.

Under the ENMOD Act, we therefore warn that any that any US forces exhibiting at this year's show, or any other similar future shows such as Farnborough/Paris etc, will be liable to prosecution and the senior officers and administrators will be personally liable under the Superior Responsibility Act.

Under Superior Responsibility, as defined under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 28:

A superior shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by subordinates under his or her effective authority and control, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such subordinates, where:

(i) The superior either knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes;

(ii) The crimes concerned activities that were within the effective responsibility and control of the superior; and

(iii) The superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

In this case crimes would be violation of the ENMOD Act and “crimes of aggression” (Rome Status of the ICC, Article 5) due to the wilful disregard of climate change. Furthermore, US forces may also be liable to the future crime of Ecocide which will be applied retrospectively, as Genocide was applied retrospectively in the Nuremberg trials.

Thus, any senior US officer or official that agrees to support the Air Show will violate his superior responsibilities and will be liable to prosecution in the international court of law for these crimes.

We are expecting legal action to commence in the UK imminently to test the legality of the Fairford Air Show and we will subsequently seek further prosecutions under international law against those individuals in superior positions who have deliberately ignored the evidence of climate change and the responsibilities invested in them.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Appeal to MP to support a world wide military air show ban

Dear Neil Carmichael MP,


I have read with interest the offer in the Stroud News and Journal you made this week to adopt a charity that you wish to support in the coming year.

I offer you a proposition:

I am starting a campaign for a world-wide ban on military air shows and would welcome your engagement and support. To understand the seriousness of this proposal, I ask you to consider the wider picture and imagine of what would happen if we were able to make it a success, and the path that it could lead to. Please read on:

1. The inescapable conclusion is that runaway climate change which will lead to the loss of most life on this planet by the end of this century is inevitable with business as usual. Despite this, no country has succeeded in making the required deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and no worthwhile international agreements have been achieved that have led to any carbon reductions. The appalling outcome from Copenhagen was but the latest in a series of disappointments and is made even worse by the revelation in the Guardian’s August 4th article that loopholes in the current agreement are so large as to make it worthless to the point that it will simply allow emissions to continue rising. The situation is so dire that the Copenhagen Accord is widely accepted to be a step backwards from the already ineffectual Kyoto agreement.

2. There are two interlocking and fundamental reasons that no worthwhile agreement has been made. Firstly no democratic government feels it has the mandate from its people to insist on the lifestyle changes necessary to allow the CO2 cuts we need - in fact none are even prepared to start the discussion. Secondly, agreeing to the cuts would compromise the power base that the developed world has over the developing, and that power base is delivered by the military-industrial complex which needs to be continually fed with vast amounts of fossil fuel.

The desire to hold on to this power base led directly to the “Danish text” at the Copenhagen Conference demanding that the developing world make cuts in their CO2 emissions in exchange for financial aid from the developed. This was a racist attempt to push for a two-tier emission world where the powerful continuing emitting whilst the weak are paid to die.

3. To have any realistic chance of combating climate change, we must make significant emission cuts now and at all levels of our society. The only way we can do this quick enough is to cut all unnecessary consumption. Whilst we may make progress on renewables and nuclear technologies in the long term, we no longer have the luxury of time on our side to implement these solutions. Even with the best possible scenarios, these much hyped new technologies will not provide the energy we need for our society to operate anywhere near its current standards and levels. Finally, unless there are restrictions to consumption, the fossil fuel savings made will simply be squandered elsewhere, such as the ridiculous sale of A380 Super Jumbos as private jets.

4. As our global society becomes increasingly unstable due to the combined effects of over population, resource shortages and climate change we will move towards a worldwide arms race which will exacerbate the underlying problems. These issues are already evident in the many conflict zones of today. As worldwide tension builds it will become increasingly unlikely that we will ever reach the international agreements that our survival depends on and which is already proving so hard to achieve. In the face of this continuing failure, rather than enlightening our population of the problems and seeking to educate them on the solutions, we do the opposite by glorifying war and fossil fuel consumption.

5. The glorification of war and fossil fuel consumption comes in many guises, from adverts for cruise holidays in the Caribbean, F1 racing and military air shows. However, it is the military airshows that stand out as a particularly pernicious target. They combine unwarranted displays of power and fossil fuel consumption together, with a government blessing that implies cutting CO2 emissions will always be someone else's job.

6. Given the above, achieving a worldwide ban on military air shows and other unnecessary displays of force is vital for the following reasons:

a. All long journeys start with a single step. To expect the worlds nations to agree on the massive cut backs necessary in a single step, such as that proposed at Copenhagen is fantasy. Better by far to try a series of small steps which lead to the end goal, and where each step allows confidence to be built up so the next step can be taken. So far, not a single significant step has been taken, not at Kyoto, not at Bali, not at Copenhagen.


b. Banning military air shows is an easy first step. No one suffers, all countries can be involved, it is verifiable and the logic is clear and obvious. Further more, it has precedent with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and Strategic Arms reduction agreements which were made at the height of the cold war and which are credited with saving us from nuclear Armageddon.


c. Governments around the world, but especially those in the developed nations, would be able to determine if they have the mandate from the people to make cuts in living standards and expectations necessary to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions that we need.


d. As airshows are predominantly events carried out by the powerful nations, it would send a message to the developing world about our determination to cut emissions - it is an action that is the polar opposite to the destructive Danish text of the Copenhagen Conference. This single action will speak louder than all the words that can be delivered and will be heard by leaders and populations alike.


e. The Fairford Air Tattoo, like many other similar events, is a shameless attempt to glorify militarisation, to seek a mandate from the tax payers to continue funding the arms trade, and to recruit our young people into the forces. This leads to self fulfilling prophesies where governments of the day become infatuated with the war machine at their disposal and are more inclined to wage war. You may remember Hans Blix’s recent statement that “George Bush was high on military” prior to the second Gulf War. This attitude in both our leaders and population at large is especially dangerous when we are rapidly moving to the brink with critical resource shortages, mass migration and other mounting pressures around the world.


f. A ban on military air shows can quickly be followed by similar bans on provocative military exercises, such as those being held off the Iranian and Chinese coasts. These lead directly to increased tensions and arms races around the world, at a time when we can least afford such distractions. The recent reports of China's development of new anti-aircraft carrier capability in direct response to the US exercises off their coast is a case in point. These weapons which deliver mass death within seconds massively increase the chance of an accidental holocaust, whilst simultaneously diminishing the chance of achieving successful agreements on climate change.


g.  If tensions can be reduced, then a space opens up for the kinds of intentional agreements that are so urgently needed, such as the introduction of carbon rationing or carbon taxation. Defusing of tensions is the first step to sapping the lobbying strength of the military-industrial complex that worked so hard on undermining the last Copenhagen agreement and it will allow recognition that we must enter a difficult era of international co-operation rather than international competition.


The global response to climate change is reaffirming the ferocious law which states, "To he that has, will be given; from he that has not, will be taken away." Failure to challenge this law will lead us to world wide chaos and anarchy, yet challenging it will be the first step toward a genuine solution to climate change. Providing the right governance that we need in a planet afflicted by limits requires courage to do the things we would never expect nor imagine and to have the vision to see the path ahead.

This initiative needs political and activist support. If you are willing to provide the political support that is needed, I will explain to you the next steps that we are taking.

Finally, it has widely been stated that we need a crisis to galvanise the world wide response to climate change. This summer we have witnessed the deaths of thousands and destruction of the way of life for millions. If now is not the time, then when is?

Regards,

Kevin Lister