Email to the board of BP on Tar Sands

Tar Sands - before and after

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

Dear Sirs,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Lister

Response to ASA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please advise me of your approval process by return.

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

Regards,
Kevin Lister

ASA response - totally supporting Airbus's lies

Dear Mr Lister

AIRBUS S.A.S

Thank you for contacting the Advertising Standards Authority.

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

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

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

Yours sincerely


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

Further Airbus complaint - that 2% claim again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many thanks to David Drew MP for supporting Airbus complaint

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

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

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

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

17th August 2009

Dear Julia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,



David Drew MP for the Stroud Constituency

Change of tack from the ASA - watch this space

Dear Mr Lister

Thank you for your e-mails. In light of your comments we are going to pass this case to the ASA Council for further consideration. We will let you know their decision as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Julia Dean
Complaints Executive
0207 492 2155
Advertising Standards Authority

Demand for Appeal on Airbus Advert complaint

Dear Julia,

Thank you for your response to my complaint. However I am appalled by your decision that shows a wilful disregard of the facts and total contempt for your position.

You say in your response that, “We can and do take action where we feel that an ad is likely to cause harm or misleading consumers to their detriment.” This advert is a clear and blatant attempt to do this.

For Airbus to claim that they will “reduce greenhouse gases” is a blatant lie and does nothing other than mislead consumers. In your decision you have made the assumption that the airlines passengers are rational and informed individuals who care about climate change. I beg to differ. I have known many that do not care, who believe climate change is fraud, or believe that because they are flying modern jets they are environmentally friendly. Many of these people simply seek to find the information that justifies their actions. Adverts of this type perpetuate this illogically selfish attitude and provide food for their actions.

You have said, “[You] note that [I] object to the advertisers’ claim to be reducing its environmental impact by lowering fuel consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While such claims would require substantiations, we have studied the ad and note that the advertisers are in fact more circumspect. The claim in the press ad doesn’t state that they have lowered fuel consumption and reduced noise and greenhouse gas emissions by a specific amount.” The advert does not need to claim it is reducing its emissions by a specific amount. By your argument the passengers of an Airbus should understand that they are causing untold environmental damage, and hence when they read that the manufacturer “works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” they would expect a significant reduction in the totality of the emissions. In reality the reverse is true. The efficiency gains that Airbus achieves will be used to sell planes that travel further and carry more people and not to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions. Thus there is no way that Airbus can ever make a justifiable claim to be working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.


Also, Airbus has deliberately targeted the sale of A380 Super Jumbos as private jets. This is further categorical evidence that Airbus is not in any way working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

You are entirely misinformed in your decision on biofuels. You say the first generation types of biofuels “are unsuitable for use in the aviation industry.” There is no evidence at all that the aviation industry will not try and make use of palm oil, coconut (as used by Virgin Atlantic) or any other crop that they can economically purchase. Further more, the second-generation biofuels such as Jatropha (as used by Air New Zealand), which is being grown in Africa and India, has lead to wide spread deforestation and displacement of indigenous people. Despite what the proponents of biofuel say, in our over crowded planet there is no unused marginal land and Jatropha does not grow in deserts.

The much touted third generation biofuels using genetically modified algae and other crops have not yet been proven and will introduce many other dangerous environment risks. Many of these risks will have profound implications for biodiversity on our planet.

Finally you say, “We are therefore satisfied that consumers are likely to understand that, despite the increase in air traffic, the advertisers are actively seeking ways in which to reduce their environmental impact.” This assertion of yours is root of the problem and demonstration that you have not understood the implication of my complaint. Firstly, there is absolutely no way that Airbus can claim to be reducing environmental impact when they are simultaneously selling as many of the worlds biggest super jumbos as possible. Secondly, as you say many readers will fall for the claim of this article and actually believe that Airbus are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is your job to stop this happening.

You also need to consider this article in the context that denial of climate change has been the biggest fraud perpetuated on the human population. It is a fraud that has been pushed by those organisations such as the oil industry, car manufactures and the aviation industry and others through a concerted effort. I refer you to David Wasdell's You tube video. This advert, having the underlying claim that aviation can be made environmentally friendly, is part of this fraud. I re-emphasise that it is your duty to ensure that this fraud is not perpetuated at this time of planetary emergency.

I therefore insist that you take action on this or refer me to either a higher body with the ASA or an appeal process.

I will copy this email to my MP.

Yours,
Kevin Lister

.

PS.................

.

I note that the ASA Annual Report says on environmental issues, "There is a lack of official consensus on definitions and what can be called ‘green’. Set against this, ASA research last year revealed little basic understanding of environmental claims."

Given this statement from your own organisation, then your assertions that, “We think that most consumers are likely to understand their [Airbus’] claim to be working towards reducing that [environmental] detriment is relative to the industry within which they operate,” is even more ridiculous. From the statement in your Annual Report, it is reasonable to assume that most passengers are probably unaware of the environmental damage that aviation is causing and that the scientific evidence now points to runaway climate change having started. This advert, which contains the blatant mistruth that Airbus are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adds to the false impression that climate change can be stopped by simple initiatives such as flying on modern jets.

There can be no dispute that the intent of this advert is to portray Airbus as a concerned company against all the evidence of the damage that their products are causing. It is equivalent to a tobacco company sponsoring a school fete, and the parents being told that it is okay because all kids know that tobacco can kill them.

Idiot response from the Advertising Standards Authority

Dear Mr Lister

AIRBUS S.A.S

Thank you for your patience while we considered your complaint about Airbus SAS.

However we have considered your complaint and the ad in question but have decided that we don’t have grounds for further action on this occasion.

When assessing complaints about press ads, our concern is with how they will be taken by those who see them. We can and do take action where we feel that and ad is likely to cause harm or misleading consumers to their detriment.

On this occasion we didn’t think that the ad was likely to have that effect. I note that you object to the advertisers’ claim to be reducing its environmental impact by lowering fuel consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While such claims would require substantiations, we have studied the ad and note that the advertisers are in fact more circumspect. The claim in the press ad doesn’t state that they have lowered fuel consumption and reduced noise and greenhouse gas emissions by a specific amount, simply that that is the goal that they are working towards. While I take your point that the aviation industry carries, by its nature, a significant environmental detriment, we think that most consumers are likely to understand their claim to be working towards reducing that detriment is relative to the industry within which they operate.

You are correct in saying that first generation biofuels do contribute to the loss of biodiversity by competing for arable land, contributing towards deforestation and putting pressure on freshwater resources. However, these types of biofuels are unsuitable for use in the aviation industry who use only second or next generation biofuels. Second generation biofuels are non-food plants that don’t take up arable land and can be grown in most locations worldwide, including desert and salt-water areas.

We are therefore satisfied that consumers are likely to understand that, despite the increase in air traffic, the advertisers are actively seeking ways in which to reduce their environmental impact. On this basis we don’t think that this ad is in breach of our Code or likely to misleading consumers to their detriment.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us. I am sorry that we are unable to help you further on this occasion but I hope that you will find this information helpful.

Yours sincerely,
Julia Dean
Complaints ExecutiveEmail: juliad@asa.org.uk

BAA Job Application - Environmental Assessment Manager

I am applying for your position, Environmental Assessment Manager, (part of the Runway 3 programme of works).

I am extremely keen on both aviation and business, and have spent considerable time over the last 5 years in intense negotiations with the management of various airports, local councils, MPs, airport supporters and the police on the environmental impacts of airport developments. This has included debates on noise, local air pollution, and climate change impact.

Your advert requests that, “An appreciation of the environmental and sustainable development issues affecting airports would be an advantage.” I am a member of mathematical groups such as “Daisy world and beyond” and have lectured extensively on the impact of climate chance and potential solutions to the problem. In addition I am fully conversant with latest the IPCC reports and other climate change reports. These demonstrate the need to cut CO2 between 80% (based on the IPCC reports) or 120% (based on the Hansen’s papers).

As such I, have a full appreciation of the environmental issues affecting airports. I fully appreciate that runaway climate change has now started. I fully appreciate the significance of the massive methane releases that have started in the high Arctic regions. I fully appreciate that the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing the acidification of our oceans, for which we have no solution. I fully appreciate that not only is the CO2 level currently at a critical level, but that the rate of increase of CO2 is increasing, thus not only are things bad, they are getting worse more quickly. I fully appreciate the bio-fuel solution the aviation industry is pushing for environmentally friendly international travel will result in the destruction of our rainforests and the loss of our food supply. I also appreciate that biofuels will lead to the introduction of catastrophic GM crops into our biosphere despite the mounting evidence of their catastrophic impacts. I fully appreciate that there is no way an airport can contribute to reducing its CO2 impact when it expands, and that contraction must be the only way forward.

I fully appreciate that BAA must expand to ensure that its shareholders receive a compounded rate of return on their investments, and that they will dump stock if this cannot be guaranteed, leading the bankruptcy of the company. I fully appreciate that that this can only be done if BAA lie about the environmental impact that they cause. I fully appreciate that this lying must be done at all levels, thus governmental reports must be corrupted, local environmental impacts must be fudged, climate change impacts must be lied about, and local residents must be fobbed of or bullied out of the way.

As such I have the necessary experience to take your position of Environmental Assessment Manager.

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