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

No fraud investigation against aviation fraud

Dear Mr. John,

I am shocked that you are not prepared to investigate this matter further, which must rank as one of the largest frauds ever.

It is clear who the victims are – they are the tax payers of this country, our youngsters and the next generation.

Flying Matters lobbies on behalf of the aviation industry and they are paid for by the aviation industry. It is their job to remove impediments in way of the aviation industry. There is no political restriction to stop their behaviour as all three main parties support expansion of the aviation industry. Now your actions demonstrate that they will also suffer no legal consequences either.

You have demonstrated that “might is right” by your inaction.

The facts are clear; Flying Matters have made deliberate false claims about future technical progress expected from the aviation industry and these claims form the backbone of their arguments, by their own admission they have achieved gain for their sponsors by getting the Conservatives to drop their quality of life agenda and green taxes, (see section Key Projects 2007-9). If you have done any investigation, you will also have discovered that the false claims of technical progress where crucial in getting the aviation industry of the hook in the ETS. If this is not serious fraud, it is hard to imagine what is.

You may have seen in the news today that the students are rioting - hardly surprising. They are being simultaneously told that they are going to be the ones that will pick up the problems of global warming, energy shortages and the government deficit, while simultaneously being crippled with student debt. At the same time, they watch helplessly as organisations such as the aviation industry subvert the democratic process to avoid paying fair taxes that reflect the extreme damage that they do the environment.

Our society is held together by a common belief that it is in everyone’s interest to obey the law. When it becomes clear that the law will not be upheld or applied selectively to support the interests of a powerful minority against the interests of the majority, then the perfect environment for societal breakdown is created.

I trust that you will reconsider your position and initiate the investigation that is warranted, and I look forward to hearing from you with an updated position.

Kevin Lister


--- On Tue, 7/12/10, +EIU wrote:


From: +EIU

Subject: RE: Fraudulent Lobbying of by Flying Matters.

To: "'Kevin Lister'"

Date: Tuesday, 7 December, 2010, 11:21





Dear Mr Lister

Thank you for contacting the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and for informing us that you suspect you a fraud has taken place.

After consideration of the information you have provided to us, we have concluded that this is not a matter which is appropriate for investigation by the SFO. Accordingly, no further action will be taken by us and I hope the following will help explain why this is so.

The SFO is a relatively small, highly specialised government department that is permitted by law to investigate only those cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious or complex fraud. For this reason, we take on only a small number of new cases each year and almost all of these are referred to us by the police or other law enforcement agencies.

That is not to say that the matter you have reported is any less important. It is essential that suspected offences are investigated expeditiously and our intention in informing you that this is not a matter for the SFO is to reduce the delay in it being brought to the attention of the appropriate organisation.

If you believe you are the victim of have information of anything other than the most serious or complex fraud, you should normally pursue the matter through your local police force. The police have primary responsibility within the UK for investigating all types of criminality including fraud and other offences of dishonesty.

In certain situations the information you have provided may be retained on our intelligence database for future reference. Information which includes any personal data (such as your contact details) will only be processed, retained or disclosed in accordance with the principles laid down in the Data Protection Act 1998. Please be assured that all information you have provided will be handled professionally and with the utmost sensitivity.

Once again, thank you for contacting the SFO and for bringing your concerns to our attention.

Yours sincerely,

Nigel John

Intelligence Officer

Flying Matters, SFO and Freedom of Information

Dear Neil Carmichael MP

It was nice to meet you this morning at the Nailsworth Market.

As discussed, I have been writing about aviation and climate change. The material dispels the idea that the aviation industry can be let off the climate change hook by using outdated figures to claim they only contribute 2% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Following this research, I wrote to Flying Matters which is the lobby group for the aviation industry to challenge the claims that they made on their web site, namely:

• The industry is committed to improving fuel efficiency of new planes by 50% by 2020.

• The industry is committed to getting emission down to 2000 levels by 2050 despite a trebling of air passengers.

I have asked Flying Matters to support these claims, but they told me they came from Sustainable Aviation, who in turn claimed that they came from the IATA. In other words, it is a shameless example of buck passing in the face of a total absence of quantified evidence to support their claims, see correspondance.
This is hardly surprising as to meet the first claim all new plane designs such as the A380 and B787 must be abandoned and replaced with some other undesigned plane. To meet the second claim simple maths shows emissions from all planes must reduce to just 22% from today’s levels. To achieve both of these will require the laws of thermodynamics to be violated.

Making fraudulent claims such as this is extremely serious, not least because they have been successful in developing the idea that technology will ameliorate their climate change impacts. They have stated that as a result of their work they have been successful in persuading the Conservative Party to drop green taxes and contributed to the party moving away from the quality of life proposals.

Crude analysis shows that if aviation paid a similar tax burden to other forms of transport, up to 20% of the public spending cuts could be avoided by raising an extra £10billion of taxes.

In addition to avoiding taxes, the aviation industry has also been successful in delaying the introduction of a cap on aviation emission in the European Carbon Trading Scheme (ETS) to 2020 on the basis of fraudulent claims about the capabilities of technical progress. It will be the general public that will be forced to make much more punitive cuts in their carbon allowances in the future to compensate for aviation emissions today.

It is therefore hard to think of a more serious fraud, and as a result I have submitted the evidence to the Serious Fraud Office.

The SFO have advised “We cannot provide you with feedback on how we have used the information you have provided.” I am therefore concerned that the SFO will not pursue this investigation as they may feel it is simply too difficult as task for them to take on.

I therefore would request the following from you:

• To raise in parliament and within the Conservative Party the question to what extent your party’s policies on aviation and taxation have been shaped by unsubstantiated technical claims from Flying Matters.

• To support a Freedom of Information request on the SFO with regard to the investigative work and conclusions they come to on Flying Matters’ fraudulent claims.


Regards,
Kevin Lister

How well does media cover climate change

Contribution to the Morning Star Round Table debate on Media and Climate Change:  

Climate change is the defining issue of our civilisation. Adapting our growth orientated and energy dependent society to the limitations it imposes requires the biggest reassessment of values and philosophies since the stone-age. CO2 emissions are currently increasing 50% faster than the worst case scenario in the IPCC reports which will lead to global heating in excess of 6degC by this century’s end.


The focus of our society must be on making urgent cuts to emissions. The quickest and most equitable way to do this is cutting unnecessary consumption. Crudely, 27% of our emissions come from the top 5% of our society. But, the debate on how we do this has not even started – as stopping unnecessary consumption challenges the market economy, which the most powerful in our society have every interest in defending.

Instead, our media echo our politician’s claims that we must grow our economies and do not even consider how we make a fair transition to the zero growth society we need. Nor do our media make any critical assessment of the fraudulent claims of big business, such as aviation’s claim that new technologies will solve all our problems. Rather, they host seductive adverts for carbon intensive lifestyles that push the rational debate we urgently need off the pages making the necessary changes an even more distant prospect.

Email to Willie Walsh - Chief Exec of BA

Dear Mr Walsh,

An exchange of emails between ourselves and Flying Matters has demonstrated that key environmental and climate change claims made on their web site are completely without foundation and totally false. Their principle claims amongst others, are

• The industry is committed to improving fuel efficiency of new planes by 50% by 2020.
• The industry is committed to getting emissions down to 2000 levels by 2050 despite a trebling of air passengers.

As an airline executive you will immediately recognize that both of these claims are false. To meet the first the claim, Airbus and Boeing would have to replace production of the B787 and A380 with some as yet undesigned plane. To meet the second claim, aviation emissions on all planes would have to be a mere 22% of current planes and this could only be achieved by breaking the laws of physics.

Your organization funds Flying Matters to lobby on your behalf, and as you are aware they have been extremely successful in getting pro-aviation policies to be passed at local and national government level as well as at EU level. Your organization has therefore gained as a result of these false claims.

This is an extremely serious matter, especially in light of the following facts:

• Aviation emissions are doubling every 17 years
• Global Emissions are doubling every 21 years
• Atmospheric CO2 is increasing more rapidly than the worst case scenario of the IPCC report.

We are sure that you will recognize that it is not in your company’s interest to be associated with Flying Matters in these circumstances or with their false claims. We therefore demand that you either formally renounce these claims or specify how BA can meet them.

We have asked for similar from Flying Matters. If we fail to get an appropriate response we will report them to the Serious Fraud Office along with other companies that have profiteered from their false claims.

We expect your repsone by 9:00am Thursday 18th November, at which point we will report the matter to the Serious Fraud Office.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Demand for the resignation of the directors of Flying Matters

Dear Michelle,

 As regards the statements on your web site, namely:

• The commitment to improve fuel efficiency of new planes by 50% by 2020
• The commitment to get emissions down to 2000 levels by 2050 despite a trebling of passenger numbers

There is no evidence on the web sites that you have provided to support these claims. There no “road map” to which you refer, nor can you supply one. There is not even a basic analysis anywhere which quantifies these claims and the impact they have on the industry.

It is a fundamental breach your responsibility as the main industry lobbyists and the organization publishing these. You are clearly not prepared to take any responsibility for these figures and instead point the finger to Sustainable Aviation who also can not justify them.
It is absolutely not enough to say that you are “very comfortable” with these figures when you have not even enquired where they come from or done even the most basic checks.

As a result of your lobbying, many important decisions have been made in support of the expansion of the aviation industry on the erroneous belief that their emissions will significantly reduce due to new technological innovation. These decisions include airport expansions and the delay of the cap on emission in the ETS to 2020. These have devastating effects on local communities and the global environment.

It is difficult to think of a more serous or reprehensible fraud to have committed when the science on climate change is now so serious and so many other people in the world are either making sacrifices to cut their emissions, or having their lives ruined as a consequence of climate change.

As a result, we demand by 9:00am Thursday 18th November either of the following:

• Definitive plans to show how your targets will be met.

or

• A full retraction of your claims with a public apology.

If you fail to provide this, then we expect you and Brian Wilson to resign.

If the above is not complied with, we will refer the matter to the Serious Fraud Office and the Government’s Climate Change Committee.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister



--- On Wed, 10/11/10, Kevin Lister wrote:

From: Kevin Lister
Subject: Re: Aviation improvements to meet climate change, attn Rt Hon Brian Wilson

To: "Michelle Di Leo"

Cc: "somervillehugh" , michelle.dileo@flyingmatters.co.uk

Date: Wednesday, 10 November, 2010, 10:58

Dear Michelle,

Thankyou for you prompt response and directions to the ACRE web site,

I have read through all the ACRE documents and unfortunately still can not find anything that supports Brian's claim on your web site about committing to improving fuel efficiency of new planes by 50% by 2020. I am sure that I am missing something, because I can not believe that a professional organisation would publish such a claim without proper verification and as you say, you are comfortable with reference to that programme.

As regards the second claim, I have read through the sustainable aviation papers and still can not find anything that supports the idea that aviation emissions for all planes can be reduced to 22% of current levels by 2050. Like you, I am absolutely confident that the 22% figure is correct, as it is very basic mathematics (GCSE level and AS level). However, I can find no reference to this in any of the documents nor a road map for how this is to be achieved.

I appreciate that many months of work has gone into producing these targets, so there must be some clear road map somewhere. If you could send it too me, it would be excellent as I was hoping to set the excercise to my classes of optimising the various proposals to maximise aviation efficiency before unrecoverable climate change starts which is due around 2030. The work of this group would be a good template and without your road map, my students might get worried that climate change could be really bad.

Kevin Lister



--- On Wed, 10/11/10, Michelle Di Leo wrote:



From: Michelle Di Leo

Subject: Re: Aviation improvements to meet climate change, attn Rt Hon Brian Wilson

To: "Kevin Lister"

Cc: "somervillehugh" , michelle.dileo@flyingmatters.co.uk

Date: Wednesday, 10 November, 2010, 6:27

Dear Kevin

The statement about the commitment to improving fuel efficiency of new aircraft by 2020 is a European commitment made by ACARE (http://www.acare4europe.com/html/introduction.asp) several years ago. You are very welcome to contact them with any queries relating to how that has been set out and why they believe that is achievable. I am very comfortable with our reference to that programme.

The second statement refers to the figures set out in the Sustainable Aviation roadmap to which Hugh has already directed you. The figures show the relative contributions of the various ways (airframe, engines, biofuels etc) of reducing carbon emissions of aircraft which are projected to 2050 against a business as usual scenario. This scenario has as a baseline the current predicted growth in passenger numbers by 2050 (which is a trebling of current figures). The roadmap was produced after months of work and all members of Sustainable Aviation are signed up to it, including Rolls-Royce and Airbus. Again, I am very comfortable with our reference to that work.

Kind regards

Michelle

Michelle Di Leo
Director
FlyingMatters
20 Garrick Street
London

WC2E 9BT

Tel: 020 3170 8294 Mobile 07734 101086

www.flyingmatters.org.uk

www.twitter.com/flyingmatters

On 9 November 2010 23:28, Kevin Lister wrote:

Dear Hugh,

Thank you for picking up on this conversation so proactively and directing me to your site. I have read through all the documents. Unfortunately I can not find any that support the claims on the Flying Matters web site and which I could confidently put forward to my students. The claims on the Flying Matters web site that I want to discuss are:

• The commitment to improve fuel efficiency of new planes by 50% by 2020
• The committment to get emissions down to 2000 levels by 2050 despite a trebling of passenger numbers

Is it possible that Brian Wilson made a mistake and the justification is actually not there? As regards your reference to the SA being focused on UK aviation, does that imply that Brian Wilson's claims are for the UK emissions only or for international emissions as well.

Many thanks for your help and I look forward to your reply.

Kevin

--- On Tue, 9/11/10, somervillehugh wrote:
From: somervillehugh

Subject: Re: Aviation improvements to meet climate change, attn Rt Hon Brian Wilson

To: "Kevin Lister"

Cc: michelle.dileo@flyingmatters.co.uk

Date: Tuesday, 9 November, 2010, 18:23

Kevin,

Forgive me for picking up on this. For Sustainable Aviation try www.sustainableaviation.co.uk and then key documents and you should find the documents, and more, that Michelle has referred you to. One key point is that at SA we work primarily on UK aviation which covers all flights departing from UK airports. For a more global view you should refer to IATA, which reflects the majority of the world airlines' views and ICAO, which is the relevant UN organisation for global aviation environmental issues.

Please note that the Sustainable Aviation web-site is in process of being updated. SA is a coalition of airports, airlines, aerospace manufacturers and NATS, in the UK.

I hope this helps.

Hugh Somerville

Programme Director
Sustainable Aviation


In a message dated 09/11/2010 GMT Standard Time, kevin.lister@btopenworld.com writes:

Dear Michelle,

Thank you for your prompt reply and the link to the sustainable aviation web site.

I have spent the entire afternoon looking through their web site and I can not find the "road map" that you refer to, am I still missing something?

Also to add to my confusion, I notice that on your web site, you say "committed to improve fuel efficiency of new aircraft by 50% by 2020." This is far too small to met the target that Brian quoted as fuel consumption has to reduce by 77.5% for all planes, not just new ones. Even more confusingly, your headline ignores the total fuel consumption of the industry which as you know has continued to rise ever since the Wright Brothers flew their first plane.

It would also be nice to know how likely you consider it that all new aircraft will have see a 50% efficiency improvement by 2020.

As my students are really concerned about climate change and still looking for a balanced debate can you clarify which of the above I statements I should be passing on to them?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Kevin


--- On Tue, 9/11/10, Michelle Di Leo wrote:



From: Michelle Di Leo

Subject: Re: Aviation improvements to meet climate change, attn Rt Hon Brian Wilson

To: "Kevin Lister"

Cc: "Hugh Somerville"

Date: Tuesday, 9 November, 2010, 13:10

Dear Mr Lister

Many thanks for your email. The comments on our website represent the commitments made by the Sustainable Aviation initiative and are contained within the road map which they have published on their website (www.sustainableaviation.co.uk).

If you have any further queries please direct them to Sustainable Aviation via Hugh Somerville (who I have copied into this email).
Kind regards

Michelle

Michelle Di Leo
Director
FlyingMatters
20 Garrick Street
London
WC2E 9BT

Tel: 020 3170 8294 Mobile 07734 101086

www.flyingmatters.org.uk
www.twitter.com/flyingmatters

Letter to Flying Matters - just pointing out a slight flaw.

Dear Brian,

I was absolutely delighted to read the comment on your web site, where you say “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 an aeronautical engineer and now a maths teacher, your comment has a particular resonance with me so I set my students the mathematical challenge of working out how much you would have to reduce plane emission to achieve this.

My class took an EU press release which reported "Aviation emissions are increasing fast – European aviation emissions increased 87% since between 1990 and 2006." My class has worked out that this equates to a growth rate of 3.989% per annum. They have also worked out that from 2000 to the time you made your statement, aviation emissions would have grown 47.8%, and the doubling time is 17.72 years.

To cope with the trebling of passengers that you advertise, the emissions would have to be reduced by a third, so in total aviation emission per plane would have to reduce to 22.5% of today’s levels, (calculated by 1/3 divided by 1.47). So you need to improve efficiency by a factor of 4.54 for all planes flying.

As an aeronautical engineer, I find it just a bit difficult to believe that this is possible. Could you explain to me how this will be achieved, as I must have missed something important when I did my degree.

My class have read about climate change and are very worried about its implications and the need for a balanced debate so they are really keen to hear your response.

Regards,

Kevin Lister