Letter to Serious Fraud Office demanding an internal review on Birmingham Airport

Dear Sirs/ Madame,

Thank you for your response (copied below) to my previous email .

I am glad that you have “carefully reviewed all of the information,” however you have not provided a copy of your review which is what we requested under the Freedom of Information Act. All you have provided below is a reaffirmation of your previous position which was to take no action.

We understand why you do not want to take action and we understand that you will probably consider this to be a stunt that is out-with your normal experience, however this is no reason not to treat it as serious fraud.

You have asked “which aspects of my reply concern you.” I will reiterate and expand on the previous false claims that the airport has made on their web site and I ask that you explain on each one why you do not consider it to be material for instigating fraud proceedings:

False Claim 1: “Carbon Footprints, Carbon Neutrality, Emissions Trading; all part of the new language of climate change”

• The implication of this statement is that aviation can be made Carbon Neutral. This is totally and utterly impossible. However it has been pushed forward so consistently by the aviation industry that many decision makers believe it to be true.
  
  
• There is no evidence that Emissions Trading is going to resolve the massive build up of atmospheric CO2. The major airlines that will by key customers to Birmingham Airport's financial success are actively fighting and campaigning to be excluded from any emission trading schemes.
  
  
• Put simply, large corporations are able to bully governments into having carbon credits granted. The aviation industry has already shown that it is willing to do likewise and if it fails, it will insist on pricing out of the market those people at the bottom of the income pile and forcing them into total poverty. This is the only outcome in the new zero sum economy that we are moving towards and this facility has been included in the European ETS scheme.

False Claim 2: “In fact, aviation contributes 3.4% of the world’s CO2 emissions and these emissions will grow at 0.7% per year; less than the 2% for power generation, 1.7% for transport on average, 1.6% for industry and 1% for the residential / commercial sector.”

These figures are fraudulent for the following reasons:

• There is no reference to the non-CO2 effects of aviation such as Nitrous Oxide and vapour trails. These have at least as much global warming impact as the CO2 emissions.

• The emission growth rate of aviation is incorrect. From EU documents, the growth rate can be calculated to be approximately 4.7% - far higher than claimed by Birmingham Airport. This leads to a doubling of CO2 emissions every 17 years – furthermore during each doubling period, the same total emissions will be produced as since the first plane flew.

• The figures quoted by Birmingham make no reference to the total CO2 in the atmosphere increasing by 3.4% per annum, leading to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 every 20 years. As such the figures that they quote are proportions of an unsustainably increasing overall quantity. Not to refer to this in their claim is a serious omission.

False claim 3: “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.”

• There is absolutely no evidence that new technology has lead to the slightest reduction in CO2 emissions, on the contrary aviation emissions have increased at an exponential rate since the first flight by the Wright Brothers irrespective of all the new technology developed since that date. All that happens with new technology is that more planes fly, they get larger, they fly further and they fly more frequently. No new technology in the future will reverse this trend of increasing emissions growth. In fact, Flying Matters which was the industry lobby group and whose essential remit was to peddle this single fraud has now been wound up; because its position was so untenable.

False claim 4: “Most noticeably, aircraft have become 70% more fuel-efficient than they were 40 years ago.”

• Today's planes are only now reaching the economy of slower piston planes such as the 1950s Lockheed Constellation. The comparison made with planes of 40 years ago is essentially a comparison against the first generation of jets such as the Boeing 707 and VC-10 which were sold and operated in comparatively small numbers in relation to today's current volume of planes. It is therefore a deliberately selective and intentionally misleading comparison.
  
  

False Claim 5: “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 is deliberately misleading as the the airport development is principally designed to attract the A380 and Boeing 747s, each of which emit thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases per flight. They have purposely not been referenced here.

• The statement that they are “home to green fleets” is also deliberately misleading. When faced with the urgent need to cut atmospheric greenhouse gases and to move to a zero carbon economy, there can be no such thing as a green fleet of planes. The only green plane would be one that sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere.
• The reference to lower emissions per seat is deliberately misleading as it does not reference total emissions which is the key issue. Emissions per seat only reduces about 10% from one generation of plane to the next – thus gains from new technology result in diminishing returns. By contrast the total number of planes is increasing considerably from one generation to the next and the emissions from this increase in total numbers eclipses any efficiency improvements. As a point of comparison, the new Boeing 787 is the most successful plane at launch ever, and is being closely followed by the A350x.
• The omission of key facts, in the way that has been done here is fraudulent as defined by the fraud act.

False Claim 6: “As a responsible business, it is important that we reduce the amount of CO2 that we produce. To achieve this, we review our energy use all the time to ensure we are being as efficient as possible. Last year, we managed to introduce electricity savings of 1.6 million kWh, enough to supply 320 homes for one year.”

• By proceeding with this development it is clear that Birmingham Airport have no intention of reducing their CO2 emissions. A single afternoon’s operation will wipe out their claimed savings. As a corporation, their primary objective is to maximise profits. If this means increasing CO2 emissions, then they must do it. They are being fraudulent pretending that CO2 emission reduction is a key objective to them.

We restate our case, that the above fraudulent claims and deliberate omissions are made to seek gain for others, (in this case the Airport's shareholders) and cause loss to others (in this case the general population and the environment). The particular gain being sought is planning application along with securing public funds to support the road diversion. It is inconceivable that these would have been granted had the Airport been fully truthfully about its environmental impact. Just because the aviation industry and other high carbon emitting industries have operated on the basis of environmental fraud for years does not mean that they have a right to continue doing so in the future. This is unequivocally a case for criminal investigation.

Finally, the situation on climate change is rapidly moving towards the worst possible nightmare and dystopian future. Our emissions build up is exceeding the worst case predictions of the IPCC reports; the Arctic Ice Cap is melting far faster than anticipated and is likely to be gone during the summer months within the next couple of years; once it melts our climate will step change into a new and entirely unpredictable state that is unlikely to be compatible with our survival. We are left with the smallest of time frames to take the toughest of action to drive deep cuts into our CO2 budget. In these circumstances it is absolutely reprehensible for powerful corporations be allowed to abuse the “fictional person” status that they have within our legal system and act to destroy our planet. Currently the fraud act, is the only legislation that can be used to effectively stop their actions and result in the prosecutions necessary.

It has never been more important that you take this case seriously and set the precedent for environmental responsibility and the rule of law before it is too late. The consequences of inaction on your behalf are too terrible to consider.

I therefore request that an internal review is carried out as you offer. I will be delighted to offer any support that you may need for this and provide evidence as necessary.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

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

Our Reference: 2011-34

Thank you for your request for information about Birmingham Airport. Your request was received on 8 May 2011 and I am dealing with it under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

Your requested was as follows:

Under the freedom of information act, we demand to see the legal justification you have taken in making your determination not to pursue this case.

This information does not exist as there was no legal justification required to make this decision. As previously advised the SFO carefully reviewed all of the information relating to your referral. However, we were not able to find material that lead us to suspect that the most serious or complex fraud had taken place. On this basis we were unable to take any further action in relation to this matter.

We are of the view that the matters you have raised in relation to Birmingham Airport are issues which seem better pursued through the Department of Environment & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). DEFRA is the UK government department responsible for policy and regulations on the environment, food and rural affairs. I attach a link to their website. http://www.defra.gov.uk/

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to quote reference number 2011-34 in any future communications

If you are not happy with my reply, you may ask for a review. You must do this by writing to me within two months of the date of this letter. It would help us with the review if you could tell us which aspects of my reply concern you and why you are dissatisfied.

If you are not content with the outcome of an internal review, you may apply direct to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner will not usually consider a case unless you have exhausted the internal review procedure. His address is The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Kay Squires

Freedom of Information Officer

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