Quantifying the carbon budget of Trident

If the government will not quantify the carbon budget of Trident, we will.

We can not cooperate on climate change when we are locked into competitive engagement  

Today is just another day of destruction - nothing special

Article from Indymedia - posted 28th Feb

Today is just another day, nothing special and nothing unexpected happened. The Occupy camp was smashed in London, the shelling continued its slaughter in Syria, the drum beat for nuclear war against Iran beats another decibel louder, the world’s nuclear armed competitors meet in Moscow to see how they can co-operate to protect their aviation industries from ineffective European legislation for carbon trading, orders continue to be placed for long lead items for Trident and Russia announces its biggest ever military build up. It is just another day of routine destruction, suppression, violence and stupidity in our collective march towards armageddon. 

It could however have been a different day because today is the 28th February. This is the day that the world’s governments agreed at the Durban climate change talks as the deadline for submitting proposals to increase the level of co-operation on climate change. 

You may remember the Durban Climate Change Conference. This was the great event that was billed as an outstanding success because a couple of women toiled through two consecutive nights to produce the Durban Platform agreement. Everyone went home happy. Delegates patted each other on their backs as they got in their private jets. The world’s press did as it always does. It toed the party line and reported the world was saved. They said we did not need to worry because everyone had agreed on a legally binding agreement on climate change to come into force in 2020. 

If you had that sneaking suspicion that something was wrong and you were being fooled, then you were right. Today was the first test and the world had failed totally and utterly. Because today not a single credible proposal for co-operation on climate change has been submitted from anywhere. There has not been a single report in any mainstream media outlet about this failure. Everyone, including the environmental movement has either ignored it or is so defeated by the fight that they could not summon the energy to read the Durban Platform. 

Maybe co-operation on climate change is just too difficult a thing to talk about. Faced with a collapsing ecosystem and energy shortages, co-operation means agreeing mutual sacrifices. This is a concept incompatible with a market-based economy that must keep on growing for its very survival. It is a concept that is incompatible with the massive military build-ups across the planet that collapsing nations need to secure the last available resources. It is a concept that is incompatible with beating other nation states through economic competition. These are all the things that we love. 

So bizarrely we have a paradox. The media will report on the coming horrors of climate change. The media will report and on the horrors of war in Syria. But there is not a single piece of mainstream media that will advocate the alternatives needed to allow co-operation to take place and prevent these unfolding horrors. 

Our government tells us how we must all do our little bit on climate change and it shelters behind glossy reports such as the Low Carbon Transition plan. None of their documents cover the CO2 budget for our military and the military that we build for our oil-producing allies. It certainly does not cover the carbon budget for Trident. Could these have been omitted from the reports by some strange accident? 

So while you are told to cycle to work and survive on the carrots that you can grow, the military industrial complex will go and build the biggest and most destructive weapon systems possible such as Trident and force our competitor nations to do the same. 

All this needs taxes and taxes are only generated by continued consumption and pollution. The resulting military and economic competition makes it impossible to agree to carbon reductions. So, it is absolutely no surprise we cannot co-operate on climate change. 

If we are serious about co-operating on climate change, then the first thing that we must do is force our government to publish the carbon budget for our nuclear deterrence and force our competitor nations to do the same. It is only by demonstrating the ecological disaster these weapons are forcing upon the planet and eliminating these that we can create the space to properly co-operate on climate change. The events of today show these systems that are supposed to provide our defence are actually locking us into a downward spiral of climate change devastation. 

Freedom of information request to find what is planned in our name

Dear Mr Lacy,

Thank you for your last email.

As you must appreciate this exchange of correspondence has followed a strange path. Firstly you were unable to provide any proposals to increase the level of ambition on international climate change co-operation. Then in the last email you say that something will be provided but that you cannot say anything about it. I am sure that you will understand that I should be rightly sceptical.

As this is an issue of major public interest, I would request that you make the proposals available under the Freedom of Information act.

I have also read the document that you have referred to in the last correspondence that was the basis of your position.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tackling-climate-change/carbon-plan/3702-the-carbon-plan-delivering-our-low-carbon-future.pdf

The following suggests the strategy for achieving the targeted CO2 cuts is highly unlikely to be achieved:

• The document has a heavy reliance on carbon capture and storage. Unsurprisingly this is proving to be a commercial failure. The basic laws of thermodynamics make the idea of carbon capture and storage a non-starter. It takes so much energy to extract the carbon, compress it and then mine and transport the additional coal needed to run the process it barely passes the basic test of viability. Its fundamental flaws are made especially acute in a world that has already run increasingly short of fossil fuel. Put simply, carbon capture and storage will speed us along the path towards peak oil and peak energy. 

• Likewise, your document bets heavily on nuclear. This is despite the ongoing and developing disaster in Fukishima where large parts of Japan are being abandoned forever.  I also note that there is nothing in the document about the carbon budget associated with the massive decommissioning programme that will eventually be needed  and how this will be catered for once our fossil fuel reserves have been exhausted.

• The other significant omission is the carbon budget for the military and the construction and operation of our nuclear deterrence. Please explain how this will be incorporated into the UK Low Carbon Plan and how taxes will be raised to fund it in the economic environment that the document presupposes. 

Your own figures show UK CO2 emissions are now rising. The emissions from the nations that we are compete with are also rising. This makes it more important than ever that we propose true co-operation on climate change.  I therefore find it hard to understand why as a minimum we cannot commit to quantifying the CO2 emissions associated with the Trident System replacement as part of the Durban Platform.

Regards,

Kevin Lister

Don't worry about climate change - the government has a secret and cunning plan

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your email of 8 February, in reply to my previous letter to you (TO2012/01993/BL) of 5 February.

The UNFCC document indicates our current thinking ahead of 28 February. As mentioned in my previous correspondence, the UK remains committed to tackling global emissions and will submit as part of the EU its views on increasing the level of international mitigation ambition. I am afraid that I cannot say anymore at this stage.

We are committed, in an ambitious way, to reducing global emissions. We have legislated to accept the independent Committee on Climate Change’s (CCC) advice on the level of the Fourth Carbon Budget. This is the most ambitious legally binding limit on carbon emissions set by any government in the world to date. This represents a 50% reduction of GHG emissions in the Fourth Carbon Budget period (2023-2027) as recommended by the CCC. Internationally, the achievements at Durban, which we have outlined before, were significant and places us on a roadmap which will lead to a new global legally binding agreement with emissions reduction commitments for all but the poorest and most vulnerable countries, as you know.

I referred you to the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009) in answer to your point about how we are plotting to cut emissions by 2020, rather than your question about carbon budgets.

Departmental carbon budgets were announced in the Low Carbon Transition Plan on a pilot basis. However, the latest on how we are now managing our carbon budgets is set out in the Carbon Plan (published on 1 December 2011) on page 118:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tackling-climate-change/carbon-plan/3702-the-carbon-plan-delivering-our-low-carbon-future.pdf

The Carbon Plan also sets out the Government’s plans to meet the fourth carbon budget and showing how doing so sets us on a plausible pathway to 2050. For further information, visit:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tackling-climate-change/carbon-plan/3702-the-carbon-plan-delivering-our-low-carbon-future.pdf.

I do apologise for the lack of clarity on this point.

Yours sincerely,
Bill Lacy
DECC Correspondence Unit

UK Low Carbon Transition plan says make carbon budget for Trident

Dear Mr Lacy,

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

I have read the document that you referenced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likewise, Page 36 says, “To stay on track, the Government is moving to a radical new approach. Every major decision now needs to take account of the impact on the carbon budget.” It is therefore not acceptable that for you to say that there has been no carbon budget impact assessment of pursuing Trident.

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

DECC climate change strategy is based on out dated documents

7 February 2012

Dear Mr Lister,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,
Bill Lacy
DECC Correspondence Unit

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

Dear Mr. Lacy,

Thank you for your reply on 3^rd February.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

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

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

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your email response of 29 January.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,
Bill Lacy
DECC Correspondence Unit

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

Dear Lacy, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr Lister,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope you find this response helpful.

Yours sincerely,
Bill LacyPreview
DECC Correspondence Unit

Protesting the Olympics and Met Police Support

Dear Theresa May,

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Response to DECC - urgent proposals needed for Durban Platform

Dear Hadiza

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

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

To address your points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Response from DECC about the linkage between Trident and Climate Change

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


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

Department of Energy & Climate Change

3 Whitehall Place

London 

SW1A 2AW

www.decc.gov.uk

Our ref: TO2011/23141

     
9 January 2012

Dear Mr Lister, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Hadiza Kasimu

DECC Correspondence Unit

How to stop climate change and how to fight future war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are no easy solutions to difficult problems.