Letter to the Serious Fraud Office

Dear Sirs,


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your sincerely,

Kevin Lister

See facebook group: Get Birmingham Airport Prosecuted for Environmental Fraud

We must not glorify excess consumption

Email to MP regarding Birmingham Airport Environmental Fraud

Dear Neil,


Many thanks for taking the time to read my previous correspondence (I am assuming that you have read them because you do say so often how effective as an MP you are), and I certainly would not take your repeated failure to reply to anything I send you as evidence that you deliberately ignore my emails.

I am writing this time to complain about the massive expansion in capacity that Birmingham Airport has announced that it is going to go ahead with. They are cynically exploiting the cancellation of new runways at Heathrow and Stanstead. As you are aware,  these were cancelled because of the overwhelming evidence of the adverse climate change impact they would cause. It is therefore reprehensible that Birmingham Airport should post on its web site that they will Demonstrate a corporate commitment to reducing CO2.  

As a member of the government that claims it will be greenest ever, I am sure that you must as appalled by this and that you also recognize that this is fraud. It is inconceivable that the airport would be given the go ahead if it was truthful about it climate change impact. 

I therefore expect that you will be delighted to support us by joining the mass movement to get the Serious Fraud Office to instigate criminal prosecutions against the directors of the Airport for fraud, and that you will make a representation of your own.

You will also be appalled to learn that this extension is supported with millions of pounds of public funds, especially when you have been so outspoken about the need to spend public funds wisely and why we all need to accept cuts in public services. The recent report from the IEA  that world oil production will fall from 68 million barrels per day to as little as 16 million barrels per day in 2035, makes any airport expansion non viable and the diversion of public funds based on deliberately false assumptions even more criminal.

I look forward to your positive engagement on this important matter and being able to post your supportive emails on-line. 

Please do join our facebook group: Get Birmingham Airport Prosecuted for Environmental Fraud

Kevin Lister

Birmingham Airport reported to SFO

We wish to report John Hudson (Chairman) and Paul Kehoe (Chief Executive) of Birmingham of Airport for Serious Fraud.

They have announced that they are to proceed with a multi million pound extension of the runway at Birmingham Airport with the primary aim or allowing long range jets to use the airport to access markets on the West Coast of America and China.

This  development will create huge additional CO2 emissions, which will cause a loss to others from climate change that is so great as to be unquantifiable. It is hard to think of a more serious crime than this.
We note the false claims on the Birmingham Airport Web Site with reference to the their position on the environment and on aviation's contribution in general. We further note that if a correct and truthful statement on the environmental impact was made then it is inconceivable that this development would be allowed to proceed. The aviation industry are in possession of the full facts on climate change, so the statements they have made are knowingly incorrect. We also note that Birmingham Airport will also seek to cause further loss to others by securing public funding for the development.

Specific false claims made on their web site follow:

“We aim to reduce our energy use and carbon footprint”  - This is totally incompatible with their aim of developing their business through increasing service provision to long range destinations.  The opening statement on this web page is a blatant attempt to falsely portray a benign and caring position on their environmental impact, which can be nothing short of destructive.

“Demonstrate a corporate commitment to reducing CO2 levels “  - they offer no measurable targets and continue to falsely portray their position. Likewise to pretend that they have a corporate committment to reduceing CO2 levels while simultaneously expanding the runway is a deliberate fraud.

“Identify and introduce new technology” There is no evidence that the introduction new technology reduces total emissions. It should be noted that the claim using new technology has been made repeatedly by the aviation industry as the main thrust of its approach to tackling climate change. Delivering this message was the primary remit of Flying Matters, which was the industry lobby group. However they proved totaly unable to justify their claims and so flawed was their argument that they have recently been wound up.  It this reprehensible that Birmingham Airport are still pursuing this same deliberately false argument.

“Aviation contributes 3.4% of the world’s CO2 emissions and these emissions will grow at 0.7% per year “ This is deliberately misleading as it does not account for the environmental cost of sourcing the fuel, such as emissions from tar sands oil production, CO2 emissions from deforestation for biofuels, etc. It also does not include non-CO2 warming impacts which are at least as great as the CO2 alone. Also the argument that aviation emissions will grow at 0.7% a year is plain wrong. Emission growth in the EU has been 4.2% per year since 1990 leading to a doubling of aviation emissions every 17 years and similar growth is expected in the emerging markets that Birmingham Airport wants to serve.

Even if the 0.7% was correct, it is still exponential growth at a time when it is vital that we reduce CO2 emissions to get the current level of atmospheric CO2 down from the critically dangerous level of 390 ppm to 350 ppm. They have therefore been fraudulent in omitting the critically important fact that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced. Instead they have tried to imply that this situation is currently acceptable because their claimed 0.7% growth rate seems to imply a small and acceptable increase.

L:ikewise, they have also been fraudulent in igoring the fact that during 17 year doubling time, the same amount of emissions will be added to the atmosphere as the total aviation emissions since the Wright Brothers flew the first plane upto the start of the doubling period, e.g the total emissions from 2000 to 2017 are the same as the total emissions from 1903 to 2000.


“Nevertheless, there can be no room for complacency and the industry continues to commit money and resources to find new technological and operational solutions that will reduce air travel’s contribution to the global problem. Most noticeably, aircraft have become 70% more fuel-efficient than they were 40 years ago. Birmingham is proud to be home to many green fleets including Flybe’s Q400 and Embraer 195 aircraft, and Ryanair’s 737-800 aircraft, all of which move people for less fuel burn and lower emissions per seat than the smaller and older types.”

This whole paragraph is deliberately fraudulent. The new extension will not use “fuel-efficient” planes such as the ones listed here, instead it will specifically aim to serve much more polluting planes such as the A-380 which produces huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions every flight. It is also fraudulent to claim that planes have become 70% more fuel efficient than 40 years ago, when the current generation of planes are only now reaching the same levels of efficiency as the piston engined planes of the 1950s.  As regards the claim about “green fleets,” there is no such thing as a green plane.

We also note the Airport's directors are abusing the "fictional person" status that the airport enjoys in law. As there is no legislation to make increasing the pollution generated from the airport illegal, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change, then the management should be excercising  extra care to ensure that such loop holes in the law are not exploited to the detriment of everyone else.
We therefore believe that the management, as controllers of a powerful corporation,  "occupy a position in which they are expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person" and are thus clearly abusing this position.


It is unavoidable that this development will cause millions of tonnes of additional greenhouse emissions per years. The emissions are being allowed as a result of the deliberately misleading claims that the Airport is making about its environmental impact. Making false claims and deliberately ommitting information with the intent to make gain is fraud under the definition of the Fraud Act 2006. Specifically Section 2 (dishonestly makes a false representation), Section 3 (dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose), Section 4 (Fraud by abuse of position).


Thousands of innocent victims will suffer as a consequence of this development. There is no way out of this nightmare scenario, other than treating false claims as the fraudulent crimes that they are. It is therefore incumbent on the SFO to fully investigate these claims and prosecute the main perpetrators, thereby demonstrating the law will provide real people the with same protection corporations enjoy through their “fictional person” status.

Congratulations to Flying Matters Michelle on losing her job

Dear Michelle, 

Following our correspondence, I am delighted to read in Executive Review of Travel that Flying Matters is to be wound up. I am sure you are having a hard time coming to terms with several wasted years of your career. 

As you are hopefully aware we did report you to the Serious Fraud Office for the deliberately misleading claims that you made on your web site about the aviation industry being committed to reducing their CO2 emissions, when the opposite is clearly true. Hopefully you can look on the bright side of things and be thankful that you are only losing your job and reputation, rather than going to jail.

The winding up of Flying Matters, and with it your loss of job, will of course give you the opportunity to make amends and go public about how misleading the aviation claims are on climate change.  I hope that you will take up this wonderful opportunity before it is too late.

Best wishes in your search for a more positive career move.

Kevin Lister

P.S. - after your previously unsuccessful attempt to join Airport Watch, you could now always try again, this time without using funny aliases.

Police Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

Note 1

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

Note 2

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

Note 3

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

Note 4

Correspondence with Flying Matters

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

Email to Neil Carmichael MP following support to Airbus

Dear Neil,

Enclosed is a copy of the  report I referred to this morning regarding CO2 emissions growth. 

The report is dry and mathematically dense - if you need a hand getting to grips with the mathematics,please let me know.

The general gist is that at present CO2 emissions are increasing faster than exponential. To put this in perspective, if CO2 emissions were increasing at "just" an exponential growth rate which current data suggests is 3.4% per annum, within the next 20 years we will add as much CO2 to the atmosphere as has been added since the start of industrial revolution leading to the total destruction of our civilization.

However, the conclusion of this report is that the situation is even worse, with the exponential growth rate being coupled to the actual growth rate. In essence, this means that the more the CO2 increases, the more the rate of growth increases. The report's analysis does not even take into account the compound failure across the planet of the various carbon sinks such as CO2 saturation of the ocean, Amazonian die back, and methane release from the Arctic.

At present our greenhouse gas emissions projections will exceed the worst case A1F1 scenario of the IPCC report, and some predictions are such that by the end of this century atmospheric CO2 levels will be equal to levels last seen on the planet 250 million years ago at the end of the Permian Triassic extinction event where the average  temperate was 16 deg C higher  than today and 95% of  all life on the planet died out.

This issue is of overwhelming importance and transcends all other policy decisions. It is therefore vital that you:

• Ensure that you understand fully the impact and seriousness of this report.

• Ensure that you disseminate the information to other MPs within your party and other parities. 

• Cease your  support for  high carbon/high polluting industries and companies such as Airbus. Be aware that aviation emissions  have been increasing approximately 4% per annum, leading to a doubling in emissions every 17 years.

• Be aware that the aviation industry has led a highly successful propaganda campaign to convince policy makers and the public that they will be able to reduce emissions through the introduction of new technology whilst maintaining industry growth. Their claims are fraudulent and they are unable to produce any supporting evidence of their claims. All legitimate means have been tried to have these claims withdrawn such as pressing fraud charges, raising the issue with the Advertising Standards Agency, etc, and all to no avail. It is therefore vital that you raise this issue in parliament with the aim of seeking legislative changes to prevent false environmental claims being made either by companies or lobbying bodies who have millions of pounds at their disposal to subvert the vitally important messages and science on climate change.

References and sample false claims:

• Airbus "eco-efficient" claims makes no reference to the increasing total of CO2 emissions, or how world wide  growth will exceed any efficiency gains, or how difficult it will be to make any significant future efficiency gains.  

• Flying Matters, which is the industry lobby group claim on their web site the aviation industry is committed  to improving fuel efficiency of new planes by 50% by 2020 and is committed to get emissions down to 2000 levels by 2050 despite a trebling of passenger numbers.

• The Engineer magazine recognizing that technology will not be able to provide the emission reductions necessary.http://www.neilcarmichael.co.uk/blog/2010/10/neil-flies-into-airbus/

Another claim to the ASA

Another complaint to the ASA now they can investigate adverts - if you would like to submit a copy, please click here.

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

This complaint is made with respect to the claims on the Flying Matters web site.

Flying Matters is an aviation industry lobby group whose remit is to press for pro-aviation government policy and to improve the image of aviation in the public's eye. This essentially means subverting the evidence on climate change as it is impossible for aviation to continue to grow and meet the CO2 reduction targets that have been determined by the best science.

Flying Matters has been extremely successful in achieving their objectives: tax breaks have been given to the aviation industry to the tune of billions per year, government secured loans have been given to Airbus, airport expansion plans are still being developed around the country and the European Trading Scheme proposals were massively watered down.

A major component of the aviation industry's strategy is to claim that technological advancement will allow aviation to become fuel efficient and  "green" in the future. These claims are accepted unquestioningly by many of the airlines passengers and government officials. They are however totally without foundation, deliberately misleading and dangerous given the context of the current situation with climate change.

Hence, the specific claims that we are raising for ASA investigation relate to claims made on the Flying Matters web site, as stated below:

False Claim 1

The aviation industry is “Committed to improve fuel efficiency of new planes by 50% by 2020” as stated on http://www.flyingmatters.org.uk/about/

False Claim 2

Quotation from news interview and posted on the web site as a claim “As I said on the Today programme, the good news is that the aviation industry has already committed itself to reducing its emissions to 2000 levels by 2050 against a threefold increase in passenger numbers. That is a major challenge but one which we are confident the industry can meet through a combination of technology, use of sustainable biofuels and operational improvements. The inclusion of aviation within a global deal on emissions is also a crucial part of this mix.” as stated on their web site.

We have been in correspondence with Flying Matters to seek justification of these claims and they are unable to provide any back up evidence or a road map. In fact, this is not surprising, as to achieve these claims would require the laws of physics and the second law of thermodynamics, in particular,  to be breached.

With respect to the first claim, planes are not even on the drawing board that can achieve a 50% improvement in fuel efficiency by 2020. In fact, to achieve this claim would necessitate scrapping all the new planes today’s such as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the Airbus A380 and the new Airbus A 350 as none of these would be able to come remotely close to achieving these targets.

With respect to the second claim, we have done calculations based on the CO2 emission growth provided by the EU since 2000 and then allowed for the trebling of passengers growth as Flying Matters claim. To achieve their targets, all planes will have to be producing just 22.5% of today's average planes. This is impossible and to achieve this it would require the second law of thermodynamics to be broken. This law states that there is an effective maximum level of thermal efficiency that can be achieved which is about 40%, and this is where today’s engines are currently operating. Any future changes will be incremental and will become diminishing small, and certainly not able to achieve the enormous savings that are being suggested here. Likewise, the air frame efficiency of today’s planes is near optimum and any further improvements are likely to be small and will take many years of development. Since the industry expects today's new planes, which are nowhere near the targets given, to still be viable products in 40 years then it makes the claims even more ludicrous.

It is vital that the ASA tackle this abuse – Flying Matters have been delighted to point out that as a result of their lobbying and public onslaught, they have been able to achieve successes such as getting the Conservative party to drop its commitment to the quality of life agenda and carbon taxes.

See http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/2010/11/dear-michelle-regards-statements-on.html for correspondence with Flying Matters. 

Letter to US Ambassador regarding Fairford Air Tattoo

Attention of Louis B. Susman

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

Dear Mr Ambassador,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister