Copy of complaint to the ASA regarding Airbus

The advert in the National Geographic is titled “See the Bigger Picture.”

It is an attempt by Airbus to portray environmental credentials by sponsoring a biodiversity photographic competition. It has deliberately chosen the National Geographic to partner with as a further attempt to increase its environmental credentials.

The advert claims “Airbus sees the bigger picture, and works to minimize environmental impact by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, lowering fuel consumption, and creating quieter, more efficient aircraft.”

This is misleading for the following reasons:

Airbus’s obligation is to maximise profits for its shareholders. It can only do this by selling as many planes as possible. Achieving this objective results in an overall increase in total CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. This contradicts the message of the advert which is the company aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The total emissions from aviation have increased ever since the first flight by the Wright Brothers. No improvements in efficiency in the past have ever been sufficient to overcome the increase in flights and despite Airbus’s rhetoric there is no evidence that the future will be any different from the past. This is especially so when the 2nd law of thermodynamics limits engine efficiency improvements and other fundamental laws of physics also limit aerodynamic efficiency improvements. Thus it is impossible to expect that technology improvements will offset the increasing number of planes. It is important to note that the aviation industry has run a campaign suggesting that technological advances can reduce their greenhouse gasses whilst the industry continue to expand. This advert must be seen as part of this initiative. The advert is thus misleading because it contributes to the general erroneous perception that the aviation industry can reduce total emissions by technological advances.

Past experience shows that making planes more efficient does not reduce total greenhouse gas emissions. It merely allows more passengers to travel further. Thus the advert is thus misleading as it suggests that lowering fuel consumption will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The aviation industry is pushing the biofuel argument. Biofuels have already led to mass forest clearances in the pursuit of palm and sugar beet production and the National Geographic has reported extensively on these problems. Estimates have already been advanced that moving the aviation industry just part of the way to a biofuel solution will require as much land as Western Europe. This is already causing an incalculable loss of biodiversity. The advert is thus misleading as it portrays Airbus as being primarily concerned with the protection of biodiversity, when their biofuel solutions represents the biggest threat to biodiversity on the planet.

The advert refers to “lowering fuel consumption” and “more efficient aircraft.” These statements are clearly intended to reinforce the perception that the greenhouse gas reductions relate to those greenhouses gases emitted during the flight and not just in the manufacture of the plane. This is misleading for the reasons set out above.

Airbus has deliberately pursued the sale of A380s and A340 as private jets. The use of these planes in this manner is totally contrary to any attempts at improving fuel efficiency per passenger. Thus as Airbus is prepared to sell these massive planes for single person use it cannot in anyway claim to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions or producing more efficient aircraft. In this context the advert is totally misleading.

The scientific consensus is that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050 to have a reasonable chance of avoiding runaway climate change. In this context the idea that minor efficiency improvements in aviation can be environmentally adequate is false and the fact remains that flying an A380 to Australia will always be environmentally destructive. The advert is thus misleading in deliberately ignoring this basic fact.


Click here to get the Advertising Standards Authority to submit your complaint.

BBC at it again - giving free advertising for Airports

Copy of complaint to the BBC (submit your complaint at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/):

Today’s BBC Breakfast publicised the new programme the “Hidden Life of Airports.” This is another example of the BBC’s subliminal advertising for the aviation industry. The interviewees presented an exiting and glamorous image of aviation and airports. They talked about the baggage handling systems and the shopping malls. The marketing department of BAA would be delighted with this free coverage, especially as BAA faces the real risk of administration.

Not once did your advert talk about the local or global environmental destruction airports cause, or airports use of anti terrorist legislation to try and stop protestors, or airports attempts to infiltrate protest movements with spies, or airports attempts to subvert the science of climate change, or airports lobbying of politicians at local and national levels. This is true hidden life of airports, which no doubt the BBC 4 programme will ensure remains hidden and your advert on this morning’s BBC Breakfast certainly kept hidden.

The BBC have already used Blue Peter to advertise for the aviation industry and I complained then, see

http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/2008/11/complaint-to-bbc-about-blue-peter.html

In the subsequent exchange of emails, the editor of Blue Peter (Tim Levell) assured me “It was wrong not to include a section on the environmental impact of flying, the growth of air travel, or the concerns of people, such as local residents.”

If it was wrong then, it is wrong now. I am angry and frustrated that the effort I previously went to in highlighting your discrepancies has been wilfully ignored. Thus the BBC which I am forced to fund, through my licence fee, is continuing to serve as the mouth piece for organisations intent on the destruction of our planet. Can you confirm when the BBC will be the impartial organisation it is supposed to be?

Letter to Gordon Brown

Dear Gordon,

I am sending this letter to you first class. Despite your reprieve from the backbenchers last night, I think that it is still important that this arrives as quickly as possible as there is still a high chance that you get deposed in the next couple of days.

In your isolated towers you have been divorced from the chaos and uncertainty that everyone else in this country has experienced for too long. Marriages are breaking up under financial stress and home repossessions; the education system is falling apart under budget cuts, social breakdown and excessive regulation; companies are going bankrupt and the redundant employees have no chance of fulfilment in a society whose main values are consumption and production; good people around the country are facing criminal charges for protesting against the injustices that they see, pregnant women get stabbed to death on the street – the list goes on.

I am a mathematician and am particularly fascinated by fractals. This is the idea of self replicating patterns that expand to infinity or contract to the infinitesimal. Go to You Tube and search on fractals to see what I mean– you should be able to find them as I understand that you are a proficient user of You Tube. The chaos that we small people are experiencing is now being replicated on you big people. They bring us no pleasure and you should not expect any either.

The only light relief that many of us have is the schadenfreude of seeing you descend into a sea of chaos of your own making.

So what are these forces that drive us all to chaos? They are the collapsing economy in the face of looming energy shortages and environmental catastrophe and the inability of governments to recognise the enormity the emerging crisis. Put simply, we are entering a phase of contraction for which we have no precedent and of which we are only in the foot hills. We have no vision of how an economy based around growth will respond when faced with permanent contraction and now we have no government to provide leadership in these difficult times.

Despite the inevitability of the crisis your approach is to ignore, to fudge and to lie. You are now experiencing the result of this, examples are many:

You and your government will still not withdraw support for the 3rd runway at Heathrow. This is despite the accumulating reports that BAA is facing administration and an appalling set of interim results that were recently released. This expansion has never been about benefiting London or the UK. It has always been about BAA expanding to reduce its debt ratio. Despite the illogical arguments of BAA you have continued to support them and ignore the local and global environmental damage that this will cause.

You have ignored the warnings from last year when oil price rose to $145 per barrel wiping out much UK’s industry. You continue to support an unsustainable economic model that is centred on automobiles and aviation despite oil prices rising again and the IEA warning of oil shortages in three years.

You and your government have continued to push for biofuels as a substitute to fossil fuel, safe in the knowledge that those who are hungry and impoverished as a result will be confined to the third world and you will still be fed.

You have failed to provide any vision or discussion on the sort of future we will have that is not dependent on fossil fuel. We should not even be debating a third runway at Heathrow. We should be debating how we use the second runway and infrastructure at Heathrow as a benefit to the local community. Can the terminal buildings be used as a local college; can the runway be used as a solar and wind power farm, etc?

Whilst you continue to push for economic growth around an unsustainable model, you will continue to drive us into a chaotic state, from which you will not be able to escape. In the circumstances, to hear you claim you are the person to bring unity to your party simply demonstrates how out of touch you are with reality.

I would like you to confirm that if you are lucky enough to stay in power you will put the environment and sustainability at the forefront of your policies to avoid plunging us small people into further chaos, such that our only pleasure will be in watching further chaos unfolding around you.

I will publish this letter on my blog and will copy it to my MP (David Drew), who is not a supporter of you.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Orwellian Approval process for airport expansion

Copy of letter printed in the Gloucester Citizen


Dear Editor,

The decision by the Tewksbury planning to back the expansion plans of Gloucestershire Airport is a new low. It is the culmination of a process that could have been taken from George Orwell’s novels.

We have seen examples of “double speak” from 1984. There is Steve Jordan (Cheltenham, Lib Dem) saying “They would manage emissions down after the runway extension.” There is Paul James (Gloucester, Conservative) saying he supports the Green Management plan to cap Greenhouse gas emissions, but saying (Echo, 13th Jan) that additional flights to Europe, “Is good news.” There is the airport claiming their grass will sequestrate all their CO2. There is the airport’s “Green Management Plan” which has no penalties if restrictions are exceeded. There is Tweksbury Council signing up to the Nottingham declaration to put climate change as the top priority, then ignoring it. There is the airport claiming that the project is about safety, then moving the take off point 200 metres towards residential areas in Innsworth and Churchdown and saying “all safety risk assessments are classified.”

We have seen Councillors behaving like the sheep in Animal Farm where they bleat in support of their leaders. Chirs Witts (Gloucester, Lib Dem) bleated "that I can not understand what the fuss is about.” We were assured that that there would be robust debate in the Scrutiny committee and then watched all the councillors unquestioningly voting 32 in favour with only Jonathan Whitaker (Gloucester, Lib Dem) having the moral fibre to vote against the airport’s proposal.

We have watched our democratic process becoming a charade. The hundreds of letters sent to Gloucester and Cheltenham councils and the 400 objections to the planning department have been ignored. Faced with this failure in process, we had no option other than to peacefully protest, and were subsequently arrested.

Whilst this farce played out, we watched the economy crumble and the outlook on climate change blacken. Our schools and public services now face budget cuts. Yet the council is still backing a multimillion-pound loan for a business with no viable business plan. This is a development that will benefit a tiny elite minority of the county and will be paid for by everyone else.

Where have the Airports photovoltaic lights gone?

Where have the Airports photovoltaic lights gone? We have them!!

It is hard not to be cynical when airports attempt to demonstrate environmental credentials by using low energy light bulbs and solar power. The carbon savings from Gloucester Airport’s photovoltaic lighting for their welcome sign will not even register when compared with the emissions from just one scheduled flight.

At the last two council meetings, I have asked what happens if the ceilings for CO2 emissions of 4,000 tonnes per annum and plane movements of 95,000 per year are breached. I have been told that good management will ensure that this does not happen.

This answer does not inspire confidence that these limits are serious attempts to constrain and eventually reduce emissions. Unless there is a serious restriction on operations if these limits are breached, the Green Management plan is an irrelevance. And if good management does not work to keep the emissions below target, what is to stop creative accounting ensuring that they do?

The “Green Management Plan” has no specific year-on-year CO2 reductions, other than the vague statement “Ensuring that climate change issues are addressed in future plans for the airport.”

At Cheltenham we were told that the targets would be assessed in light of any new evidence. However, they had totally ignored Copenhagen Climate change conference, which was only 1 month ago. This heard evidence from the Hadely Centre that a business as usual approach would lead to a 7 deg C temperate rise by the end of century. The conference concluded, “Inaction is inexcusable.” If a world event of this magnitude has been ignored in the preparation of the document, what type earth-shattering event does it take to make the vested interests realise that we must stop talking about CO2 emissions and start acting.

So, we look forward to handing the lights and photovoltaic equipment back to the airport management when:

• The council confirms that if the ceilings are breached then operations at the airport will be discontinued for the measurement period.
  
  


• When the council confirms a reduction target for the total CO2 emissions that reflects the latest scientific evidence presented at the Copenhagen Conference.
  

Getting Ready for the Fairford Air Tattoo

Why we hate the Fairford Air Tattoo

We hate the way that you make killing fun and that you give our kids free entry to the event while we are trying to teach them about global respsonsibility.

We hate the way that you glorfy competition between nations when the planet's survival depends on nations cooperating.

We hate the way that you claim to represent the people who defend our security but ridicule the science of climate change.

We hate the way that you are an advert for the aviation industry, yet you pretend to be a charity.

We hate the way that the companies at your airshow will be the same ones that can only respond to climate change with million pound marketing budgets to peddle greenwash lies and laugh at those of us that care about climate change.

We hate the way that we are paying for incompetent bankers and also paying for new planes for climate criminals, while our schools and hospitals are forced to make cut backs and our taxes rise and rise.

We hate the way that the BBC and ITV give your show wall to wall free advertising, but never give it any criticism, just because you can wine and dine the reporters.

We hate the way that you play to the stupid and self interested minority in our society who are easily fooled by your loud planes, big bangs, expensive toys and promise of instant gratification, and then you tell us that this is what people want.

We hate the way that your industry buys off the government that fobs us off.

We hate to see our police force being used as a private army in defence of your industry's destruction of our planet.

We hate the way that your industry patronises us with talk about being environmentally friendly by using biofuels, and then starves to death the billions who can not compete.

We hate to see the oil that you need for your toys washed up on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico. We hate to see the destruction of the Candian forests as the oil indstury scrapes the bottom of the barrel to satisfy your insatiable thirst for fuel.

We hate your childish boasts about being the worlds biggest airshow, when everyone else is cutting back.

We hate to hear the queen lecturing us about climate change, and then seeing you arranging a 200 plane fly past for her.

We hate to see the business that you do with those terror regimes around the world.

We hate being forcibly reminded of our hatred for you by having your planes flying over us, and having no right of complaint about the noise.

We will be at your show to say "Screw you" to you that is screwing us.

We leave you with Bob Dylan's Master of War and recent art work.

New inquiry into the future of aviation - or new farce

The government is doing what it always does when it wants to put off a difficulty decision whilst appear to be doing something. It has an inquiry, this time it is a "New inquiry into the future of aviation."

A new inquiry that starts with the comment, "It [aviation] has a good safety record. Demand for air travel has grown substantially," and goes onto say that "The Government's aim is to develop a long-term framework that will maximise the beneficial aspects of aviation," will not be a new inquiry. It will be the same old farce where the aviation industry gets the platform to lie about how environmentally concerned they are; about how they want an International agreement on emissions knowing full well it will never happen; about how they want carbon trading without saying that the rest of our industry must be shut down to allow aviation to continue growing, and about how there are other bigger polluters so there is no point targeting the aviation industry.

The politicians who are either in the pockets of the industry or like the sheep of George Orwell's Animal Farm will all shout in agreement, while trying to look knowledgeable and concerned. They will furrow their brows as they pretend to wrestle with the difficult decisions, and then patronise us by telling us that they have made the difficult decisions and compromises that will satisfy everyone. When in fact, all they will have done is to give the green light to the aviation industry. Meanwhile, the planet overheats and burns, civil liberties are trampled and critical science is treated with the contempt that one would expect from a Big Brother contestent.

A new inquiry is certainly needed; one that will address how we will urgently reverse the airport expansion of the last 30 years before it is too late.

My submission for this farce is here.

Meeting and greeting passengers

Just before Christmas, we meeted and greeted passengers arriving at Gloucestershire Airport to explain climate change and why they needed to take personal responsibilty.

We had previously hoped that reason had triumphed over stupidity with the Gloucester Council's decision at their scrutiny committee meeting to reject the airport's expansion proposals, however no such luck. The airport came before the committee again, but this time armed with a "green environmental management" plan which claims that they and Manx2.com can expand their business and not increase green house gas emissions. This would not fool an average 5 year old. However, Gloucester council is not made up of average 5 year olds, instead they unanimously accepted the proposals and said that they would "trust" the airport to get its emissions down. This is despite the airport have been found to be lying on every claim that they have made about the project, and clearly needing to break all the laws of physics to comply with the green management plan.

Climate change leaflets were handed out to passengers arriving and departing. These explained that runaway climate change has now started and that the latest predictions are that the Arctic ice cap will be gone in the summer by 2015, the situation will be unrecoverable by 2030 and the seas will be devoid of fish by 2050. Yet despite this, Gloucester council is going to use council tax payers money to back an airport expansion.

We would like to thank the passengers who expressed concern about climate change and now appreciate the urgency of action. This was unlike the airport staff, who described us as hippies, banned us from the terminal building and called the police.

Blue Peter emails

Dear Mr. Montgomery,

Thank you for your reply, however your response is wholly inadequate and you have clearly failed to grasp the implication of my complaint.

Whilst it is appropriate for Blue Peter to report on Terminal 5 as it is a major infrastructure addition to this country, it is absolutely inappropriate to give such biased coverage. I can only imagine that the marketing and publicity department of BAA where delighted with the free advertising that you provided.

Not once in the article did you refer to the damage that Terminal 5 is doing to either the local or global environment. To suggest that the environmental damage that Terminal 5 is causing can be offset by solar powered cars or renewables as you have done in your response is complete nonsense. To further suggest that the situation is mitigated by having other Blue Peter programmes showing how to holiday in the UK is absurd. You need to imagine yourself in the shoes of our young people. On one hand they are given the message that runaway climate change is imminent and that their prospects are completely dire; on the other hand they have Blue Peter extolling the pleasure of flying. To unthinkingly deliver such a contradictory message to our young people is cruel breach of the trust that a programme like Blue Peter has with them.

A copy of this email will appear on my blog.

Kevin

--- On Thu, 4/12/08, complaintresponse@bbc.co.uk wrote:
From: complaintresponse@bbc.co.uk Subject: BBC Complaints - Blue Peter [T2008112101B0S010Z4777502]To: kevin.lister@btopenworld.comDate: Thursday, 4 December, 2008, 2:46 PMDear Mr Lister

Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Blue Peter'.

I understand you were unhappy to see the topic of Terminal 5 feature on theprogramme as you feel this was glorifying an industry which has done a tremendous amount of damage to our global environment.

The show decided to report on Terminal 5 because it's a significant addition to British infrastructure. In the past the show has reported on major British infrastructure such as the Channel Tunnel, St Pancras rail link and something as significant as terminal 5 is a valid subject.

The report was designed to show the inner workings of an airport, and as such concentrated on the activities in what is essentially a workplace. Our presenter engaged in tasks such as checking in passengers, following baggage reclaim and making PA announcements and not on the facts which overtly "glamorise" flying.

The report overall should be viewed in the context of the amount of 'Blue Peter' coverage which is incredibly environmentally-friendly. We had a Green Peter special last year which included tips around holidaying at home not flying and we have featured a solar powered car recently on the programme. We're also planning a whole special on renewable energy for next spring. I realise you may continue to feel that Terminal 5 should not have featured on the programme and please be assured I've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Thanks again for taking the time to e-mail us.

Regards
Ross Montgomery
BBC Complaints
____________________________
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Complaint to the BBC about Blue Peter

I am not yet born; O fill me
With strength against those who would freeze my
   humanity, would dragoon me into a lethal automaton,
      would make me a cog in a machine, a thing with
         one face, a thing, and against all those
            who would dissipate my entirety, would
               blow me like thistledown hither and
                  thither or hither and thither
                     like water held in the
                        hands would spill me.

Let them not make me a stone and let them not spill me.Otherwise kill me.

Blue Peter presenters extoll the virtues of Terminal 5 and brain wash our kids into unthinking automaton consumers and cogs in the machine of consumption and destruction. If you read this, please also complain, click here for the link. My complaint follows:

"I am outraged that the BBC is using Blue Peter to provide free advertising for BAA's Terminal 5.

BAA is a company that has lied about the environmental damage that they have already caused and are continuing to lie to support their plans for a third runway,which will destroy an entire village and cause more greenhouse gas emissions than many third world nations.

Runaway climate change has now started. The arctic ice cap will soon be gone and this will result in more heat being absorbed by the planet than all the CO2 since industrialisation. Programmes such as Blue Peter have a unique responsibility to prepare our young people to become stewards of the remaining ecosphere on the planet. It should not be glorifying an industry that has done so much to destroy our planet by providing it with free advertising.

Many people have already taken pledges not to fly and have made sacrifices to their lifestyles to cut down on CO2 emissions. An article of this nature is an outrageous insult to them and its implications are far more serious than the Russel Brand and Jonathan Ross affair.”

I trust that Blue Peter will follow this article with a counter balancing view point explaining to its audience the implications of flying on climate change and the importance of taking a no fly pledge."

Dear Mr. Wain,

I am writing to you with regards to the expansion plans at Gloucestershire Airport which are due to go before the council in the near future. In particular I wish to highlight the blatant attempt by the airport's management or those closely associated with it to solicit support from organisations that have no interest in either the local economy of Gloucestershire, the environment or the quality of life in this region.

It has been bought to my attention that the Airport or one of the operators from the airport have posted a request on a flying blog to encourage like minded aviation enthusiasts to write to yourself, see the link at:-

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=49937

This post raises a number of major concerns.

Firstly the opening paragraph of the post states “As you may know, Staverton has been seeking for some time to make some CAA-mandated improvements at the Western end of 09/27, to bring its overrun and obstruction-free area up to the standard where it can again accept PT flights up to ~50-seater (rather than the present ~20-seater) turbprops, and analogous types.” This is unequivocal evidence that the intent of the investment is to expand the existing operations. No amount of carbon budgeting will constrain the environemental damage associated with this.

We have obtained a copy of the letter from Mark Ryan, referred to in this post, which is being circulated to those people with a vested interest in developing the airport. It again raises serious concerns about the true motive behind the investment and demonstrates blatant distortions of the truth.

Mark Ryan's letter claims “During the lengthy consultation period, associated with this project, the feedback received from local businesses has been highly supportive.” Other analysis carried out indicates that most businesses in the area are totally ambivalent to the development of the airport. The main employers of the region such as GCHQ make no use of the airport and have no intention to do so. In fact most forward looking businesses are now attempting to use technologies such as video conferencing to avoid flying altogether in their attempts to minimse carbon foot prints. We would expect that most businesses that support the airport do so because the directors of the company use the airport for private aviation purposes or are directly linked to the airport such as the aviation companies there and are tenents of the airport.

Mark Ryan's letter also claims that “These developments together with our multiple runway configuration, convenient M5 and A40 access, will consolidate our position as the leading General Aviation and business airport in the South West and create a first class facility urgently needed to serve the Airport's thriving business catchment population of more than 2 million.” This paragraph is a blatant admission that the intent behind this investment is to expand and develop the existing business.

This intent is totally contrary to the airport's claims to have climate change as their top agenda item in every board meeting. It is also totally contrary to the evidence on climate change. The hard and uncomfortable truths are now these:-

• Runaway climate change has now started. The warming that the planet is experiencing is so significant that the arctic ice cap is melting far faster than ever predicted and methane releases have also started in the high Arctic . These two factors alone will result in more heat being added to the planet than that from all industrialisation to date.

• The rate at which CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere is increasing. By 2030 CO2 will be at a level that is unrecoverable, at which point in time both CO2 and global temperature will rise rapidly, catastrophically and irreversibly.
  
• The UK government's Climate Change Bill will mandate an 80% cut in CO2 emissions. Barack Obama has also stated that this will be his position. A cut of this size in emissions is not compatible with any significant aviation industry, much less any attempt to make further investments in airports. The future for the aviation industry is thus retrenchment and not expansion of any kind.
  
• The scheduled services are for weekend breaks in the Isle of Mann and Jersey. Calculations show that each passenger's return journey will contribute approximately 220kgs of CO2 to the atmosphere. Given the severity of the climate change problem facing us, it is immoral to allow this level of damage for such a frivolous activity. The situation is even worse for business jets which are the most carbon intensive mode of travel and when most of these flights are for leisure purposes or other non-essential travel.
• As the share holders, the council tax payer will ultimately be liable for the loans. Given the collapsing economy, it makes no sense to impose further financial risk on the tax payer, especially for such a large investment with such an inherently poor business case and which will benefit so few people. This liablity will come at a time when many essential services will come under increased financial pressure.

It is clear that despite the public position that the airport management has taken on climate change, they are still putting their personal responsibilities on climate change far below their short term interests of expanding the business and thus have not moved on since their infamously discredited report last year when they attempted to disprove climate change existed.

We trust that your council will recognise the folly of supporting this investment and reject the proposal outright.

A copy of Mark Ryan's letter is attached with the email.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Biofuel report submission to Tesco

Thank you Andrew,

If I do not hear from you within two weeks, I will contact you on the 4th November for an update.

Kevin

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

From: Slight, Andrew
Subject: RE: Biofuel report
To: Kevin Lister
Date: Tuesday, 21 October, 2008, 3:22 PM

Kevin

We need to consider the evidence you have sent in the context of the other information we are collecting. As I am sure you will appreciate, to do this diligently will take some time. We will get back to you in due course.

Kind regards
Andrew

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

Dear Andrew,

As I said in the earlier email, we look forward to working with you on this and not having to hold a gun to your head, but if we hear no response within two weeks, we regret that we will be forced to move to the next level of campaign that we have been planning.

Kevin

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Slight, Andrew Subject: RE: Biofuel report

To: "Kevin Lister" Date: Tuesday, 21 October, 2008, 12:50 PM

We will review this as soon as we can, alongside the other evidence we are looking at but unfortunately cannot guarantee it will be in the next two week.

Kind regards
Andrew
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin Lister

Sent: 21 October 2008 12:58

To: Slight, AndrewSubject: RE: Biofuel report

Thank you for you acknowledgement, could I ask that you reply within two weeks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Slight, Andrew Subject: RE: Biofuel report

Date: Tuesday, 21 October, 2008, 8:09 AM

Dear Kevin

Thank you for your report to help us with the wide range of information we have collected on biofuels. I will let you have our thoughts on it in due course.

Kind regards

Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin Lister [mailto:kevin.lister@btopenworld.com]

Sent: 20 October 2008 23:53To: Slight, AndrewCc: Leahy, TerrySubject: Biofuel report

Dear Andew,

Following our conversation on the 26th August, I enclose a response on the Gallagher review to help inform your thinking, with particular emphasis on the lack of account that the Gallagher report takes on the impact on the biosphere from biofuels.

I trust that you find the report useful and that you will take the opportunity to use the influence of Tesco to stop the damage being inflicted on the environment from the biofuels industry.

I look forward to your response.

Kevin Lister

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

How do environmentally friendly Airport Managers get on with their customers?

email to the directors of Gloucestershire Airport, after another slick environmental presentation:

Dear Mark and Darren,

Congratulations on the all the effort that you have made on your green policy. Your business is becoming a leader in minimising its waste and using data analysis to assist in environmental management. Your efforts could be used as a model for other companies in this area. It is genuinely exciting to hear of a company that discusses climate change at every board meeting.

But (and this is a big but), as you are aware most of the emissions that your business produce will be in the air and include large amounts of Nitrous oxides, which are 300 times more powerful as a green house gas than CO2. So I am trying to imagine the scenario and how the conversation would go with George Davis, as he readies his plane for weekend skiing break. I think it would go something like this:

Mark: “Hello George, what a lovely car. You know, our entire staff car share and cycle now. Would you like to keep your emissions down by car sharing when you come to the airport.”

George: “Sorry Mark, I really don’t give a damn.”

Mark: “George, come into my office and I will explain to you about climate change, and why it is such an issue. Please don’t trip over anything as the lights are off because we are keeping our emissions down.”

During an excellent and slick presentation (which has now been practised many times), and which lays bare the inevitability of runaway climate change, Darren attempts to dissuade George from flying,

Darren: “Well George it is like this, we have calculated the distance that you are going to fly on Google Earth and applied a 10% uplift, and multiplied by some other figures that DEFRA have given us. We estimate that your flight will produce about 10 tonnes of greenhouse gases, but we have assumed radiative forcing impacts are zero because nobody can agree where between 2 and 5 the actual figure will lie.

George, let me level with you, the problem is that your weekend skiing trip will wipe out all the savings that we have made over the year and completely trash our aims of becoming an environmentally friendly airport, and even though you say your jet is a business jet, the only thing that we have loaded for you are skies.”

George, “Sorry Darren, I really don’t give a damn. Is my plane ready?”

Darren: “Well yes, it is actually, enjoy your flight and keep coming because we have a £3.5 million pound investment to pay off and if people like you stop coming because of our green policy, it will take over 25 years to pay off.”

However, on the assumption that the airport does not expand, and does close down, as you keep threatening, you at least now have the experience to set up as Environmental Consultants. You have clearly achieved more in reducing your waste than many other companies have done. You never know, if I do not get the air traffic controllers job at the airport, I may end up working for you!!

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Job Application and ensuing row

To:

"Councillor Andrew McKinlay" cllr.andrew.mckinlay@cheltenham.gov.uk

Dear Andrew

Further to our email correspondance, I write to apologise to you for the childish sarcasm.

A bit of humour to illustrate such a serious issue as climate change is clearly not appropriate to you.

If you want to understand how serious people are now taking climate change, then read here:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89180

Maura Harrington planned to end her hunger either by death or the stopping of Shell's proposed new pipe line, so concerned is she by climate change.

Can you confirm that hunger strikes rather than childish sarcasm would be a better method of pursuading councillors of the folly of allowing Staverton Airport to expand?

Could I also suggest that you go and read some books.

Kevin Lister

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

Dear Mr Lister,

I fear there is little else to say. I am saddened to hear that you intend to continue making a fool of yourself in this way.

Can I ask that you delete me from your mailing list?

Regards

Cllr Andrew McKinlay

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

Dear Andrew,

Maybe a childish bit of sarcasm. However, that is a lot less damning than expecting the tax payer to back a multi million pound investment at the start of an economic collapse.

It is also a lot less damaging than the CO2 emissions that will come from the additional flights from the airport, especially at a time when we are staring down the barrel of the fully loaded climate change gun. Supporting this airport is an insult to those of us that are doing everything that we can to minimise our emissions.

In case you have not noticed, the airport has publicly tried to claim that they are not expanding. However the job advert confirms that they are.

Maybe you might want to clarify exactly were you stand on the airport and how you reconcile yourself with their lies.

And finally, we will not stop until the airport expansion proposals are finally off the table.

Kevin

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

email from: "Councillor Andrew McKinlay"

Dear Mr Lister,

I'm not sure who you are trying to impress by doing this.

Can I take this opportunity to make it clear that I am not impressed by this pathetic stunt.

Clearly not content with giving us your ill researched views on the impact of air travel in Gloucestershire, you have now decided to treat us all to a taste of your childish sarcasm.

Please stop!

Cllr Andrew McKinlay

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

Dear Rob Dobney,

I enclose my details for the position that you have been advertising:

Aerodrome, Approach and Approach Radar Controller

I would be delighted to join a company which has such positive expansion proposals, and is clearly totally immune to the world wide credit crunch and recession. As your advert points out , you have a “rapidly expanding market offering point-to-point, niche services, which are a cost effective, viable alternative to scheduled services from major airports saving that most precious of business commodities, time.” It would be a great privilege to serve those members of the public that are able to afford the luxury of private jets and who are not bothered with the minor inconvenience of their climate change impact.

I am also delighted that your advert mentions “Significant operational developments

are also planned, including removing obstacles from the runway ends and installing ILS, further enhancing commercial capabilities.” It would indeed be an exciting career move to be part of this development. As your organisation is owned by Gloucester and Cheltenham Councils, it would be great to know that I am helping to use to the tax payers money to subsidise holidays and private jet operations.

Please let me know when the interviews are being held. I look forward to attending.

I am reasonably well know to the airport management and therefore, should not have to bother providing references. However, if necessary, they can be provided.

Regards,

Kevin Lister

Comments on minutes from Andrew Slight

Dear Kevin

Thank you for your summary of our conversation on the 26th August.

From my perspective, the points that we agreed were:

* That climate change is a massive issue that requires urgent action.
* That you (on behalf of Biofuelswatch) would send us your response to the Gallagher Review to help inform our thinking, particularly on your claim that it does not take into account the impact on the biosphere.

* That Tesco will continue to engage with the debate and the science and that this is still not fully settled.

On the basis of the above, I look forward to the scientific views that you provide us with in due course.

Kind regards,
Andrew

Minutes of Telecom with Tesco regarding biofuels

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for making time for the telecom on Tuesday, 26^th August. To reiterate the main points of our conversation and agreements that we came to:

• The CO₂ levels in our atmosphere are far in excess of past measurements. As a result we are in uncharted territory. It is thus difficult to predict with any accuracy the resultant temperature that the climate will stabilise at, other than to conclude it will be far in excess of today's temperatures and most probably not conducive to life on earth.

• As a consequence of this build up of CO2, we face the very real prospect of catastrophic climate change. To have any chance of avoiding this, we must preserve what we can of our biosphere to allow CO₂ to be removed from our atmosphere.

• I have explained to you that preservation of our biosphere is not compatible with expanding biofuels.

• You have agreed that Tesco proceeded down the route of biofuel, along with other companies, before the science was fully settled.

• You said that Tesco's are preparing a response to the Gallagher report. I have agreed to provide information to you that will support your response.

• I have explained that the the concept of biofuel fails when one factors in the loss of CO₂ absorption from the atmosphere. I explained to you that given that extremely high CO₂ in the atmosphere then the first priority must be to have a functioning biosphere that allows the CO₂ to reduce. I further pointed out to you that that Gallagher report does not cover how this loss of CO₂ absorption will be covered following biofuel developments.

• I also explained that the conclusions of the Gallagher report, i.e. that we should slow down the introduction of biofuel targets is not compatible with underlying message of the report, which is largely that biofuel use leads to increased CO₂ emissions due to land use change. I also explained that the main justification that the Gallagher report uses for its final position is to preserve the biofuel industry and to ignore the risk to the environment. This is clearly an unsustainable position.

• I explained my demand, that Tesco divest from Greenergy and support calls for a moratorium on biofuel. You have explained that Tesco will consider solid scientific evidence towards this demand.

• I have explained to you that those objecting to biofuel, ranging from individual protestors such as myself to world organisations such as the UN World Food programme are all losing the battle on biofuel as more land gets converted to biofuel, more money gets invested into biofuel and new government targets are being imposed.

• Finally, I explained to you that it is increasingly clear that our economy is a zero sum game as limits to growth are appearing simultaneously in numerous areas, e.g. food supply, water availability, CO₂ build up. In a zero sum game, (such as chess) one person's gain is another person's loss and no additional resources come into play. In a zero sum game, the only strategy to adopt is competition. This is a nightmare scenario which all sides must recognise and do all to avoid. It places a special onus on organisations such as yours to take full cognisance of the available science to avoid further damage.

A copy of the presentation outlining the position is attached. I will provide the information that you request within the next 4 weeks.

These minutes will be posted on my blog.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Letter to David Drew MP - following Climate Camp at Kingsnorth Power Station

Dear David,

I was at the climate camp last week. As you may have seen on the news, the police response was completely totally over the top and was blatant oppression. We had helicopters over us during the night to stop us sleeping, we had helicopters over us during the day to stop us talking. We were searched when entering and leaving the camp. The camp was frequently attacked by riot police at 5:00 am. This is a disaster for free speech and could be taken out of the worst nightmares from George Orwell.

As you are aware, climate change is going to become a bigger and bigger issue and it will become more contentious. The authorities, who are clearly frightened were this will lead, are taking the worst possible approach to this by driving us towards a police state.

Further to this, Eon has been successful in getting a misleading message across about how clean the new power station will be compared to the existing station that they plan to replace. They have kept reiterating that the new power plant will be 20% more efficient that the existing. However, in Eon's environment statement it says that the power plant operates at 37% efficiency, so the 20% improvement will merely raise the efficiency to 45%. So the absolute improvement is only 8%. Furthermore, the existing power plant is rated at 450MW and the new power is 800MW, representing an increase in emissions of 77% . With their projected increase in efficiency, the total emissions from the power plant will increase by 63%. This picture of massively increasing emissions is completely counter to that presented by Eon and is disastrous when we now face the prospect of catastrophic climate change.

I would therefore like the following question to be asked to the either John Hutton, or Malcom Wicks:

"Can ministers confirm that the absolute increase in efficiency at Kingsnorth Power station is only 8%, based on Eons environment statement (page 4). Also given that the output of the new plant is planned to be 77% higher that the existing plant, then the total CO2 emission increase is 63% once the efficiency improvement is taken into account. Can ministers explain how this is justified in light of the government's climate change bill?"

Also you may have seen the article in the Guardian by Prof Watson, the chief advisor to DEFRA, who states that the fight against climate change is now lost and that we should focus on adapting to a 4 deg C increase. Adaptation to a 4 deg C increase will be done by dieing in our billions and taking the natural world down with us. To give the lie that we can adapt to a change of this order, is the worst spin that has yet been thrown at us.

If no questions have been asked on this, could you ask:

"Can ministers explain what adaptation is possible if we get the 4 deg C temperature increase that Prof Watson warns, given that our cities will be flooded, our food chains will have collapsed and we will be managing a massive environmental refugee crisis. Is is not better to ban the building of more fossil fuel power stations, such as Kingsnorth, to invest in nuclear and renewables, and immediately start the implementation of a carbon rationing scheme?"

Protesters injured at Tesco's Subsiduary company following failure to deliver sustainability report

Dear Sir Terry,

Following our repeated requests from your organisation for sustainability reports for your biofuel products, we have still not received any further information. I summarise below the statements that your organisation has provided so far:

1.Your organisation stated that your biofuels were sustainably sourced and environmental audits could be provided.
2. After email correspondence your organisation admitted that the science supporting biofuel was no longer clear and that you would be commissioning a study with Manchester University which would be made publically available.
3. We asked for a copy of the remit that you would provide Manchester University and a timescale for delivery of the report. We received no response.
4. We contacted Manchester University and they confirmed that no remit could be agreed.
5. Your Andrew Slight was commissioned to look at the situation and confirmed Tesco's policy was to provide a sustainability report as initially promised.

As a result of your continued delay to provide any assurances on the sustainability of your biofuel products and the gravitas of the problem of biodiversity loss and global warming, my colleagues have been left with no option but to blockade your subsidiary company, Greenergy to highlight the consequences of your policies.

You should be aware, that this protest brought about by your policies and inability to provide evidence of sustainablity has resulted in several of my colleagues being seriously injured.

We now view your organisation's inability to provide the evidence that we have reasonably requested extremely seriously

This email will be post on my blog.

Kevin Lister

other web address for the Fairford Airshow organisers

The following email was also left on the RIAT web site for the organisers of the airshow:-

To the RIAT director:

Some other web sites you may want to comment on:-

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/403310.html

and

http://www.planestupid.com/

Further email to the organisers of Fairford

The following note, was handed into the director of the Fairford Airshow (self proclaimed as the worlds biggest military tattoo), click on the picture to see a full size version or click here

The following email was left on the RIAT web site, just in case the director did not get the hard copy.


Copy of email sent to the organisers of the world biggest tattoo:

In case the director of the RIAT does not get the note I left for him today, he can see it on my blog, see http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/. Please make sure that this important message is passed to him

Also, I see that you have removed the poster that we marked up with CO2 warning signs yesterday. Don't worry, we have done others in the area as well so people get the message. We will leave it as a challenge for you to find them.

We note the signs are not recycleable.

Kevin

----------
P.S. I am delighted to say that the organisers have spotted out protest, see http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/688607