Dear Helen, (Tesco Customer Service Executive)
I have been forwarded an email from a friend of mine on Tesco's position on biofuels giving your reply to questions raised on biofuel supply.
I am appalled by your response which blatantly distorts the truth of one of the most serious situations to ever face our planet and provides unjustified and naive assurances.
You claim that Tescos only use a "small amount of palm oil." Can you confirm exactly what is meant by a small amount. Is it one tonne or 1000 tonnes or more?
You say that sustainability has been assured by the "Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil." I have looked at the membership of this group and it is wholly comprised of producers and traders in palm oil, some of which have already been implicated in environmental damage. How do you possibly expect a group such as this to put the sustainability of the tropical rain forest above production of biofuel and how do you justify accepting their assurances. Have you checked to see on what scientific grounds they justify sustainablity?
You say that the majority of your biofuel is sourced from rape seed. What environmental assessments have Tescos made of this and could you be kind enough to send me a copy of your assessment report?
You say that your supplier "is in the process of building a manufacturing plant for bio diesel." Can you confirm where this is being built, as most are currently located near ports for easy import of palm oil and sugar beet. If the plant to is be supplied solely from UK grown rape seed, can you confirm what total agricultural land area will be used to maintain its supply, what food production it will displace and the environmental impacts of growing this food elsewhere, and how much set aside will be lost?
I enclose a copy of presentation that is currently on wide circulation. I look forward to you addressing the serious points that it raises.
A copy of this email will be posted on my blog, http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/
Regards,
Kevin
From: "XXXXX"
To: "'Tesco Customer Service'" customer.service@tesco.co.uk
CC: "KEVIN LISTER" kevin.lister@btopenworld.com
Subject: RE: TescoDate: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:17:12 -0000ReTES4658655X
Dear Helen
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me and I am reassured to hear that the production of the crops are 'sustainable.'
My concern is that the more land set aside for fuel oil substituteproduction the less land there is for human and animal food production. The production of biofuels also encourages more deforestation - and our planetis already quite ill through deforestation. It is clear from your response Tesco has no intention of pursuing a truly long term green agenda. There is no short term profit motive to do so.
Global warm regards!
XXXXX
-----Original Message-----From: Tesco Customer Service [mailto:customer.service@tesco.co.uk] Sent: 29 January 2008 17:13
To: XXXXXX
Subject: Tesco
Dear Ms XXXX
Thank you for your email. I can appreciate your concerns and I am pleased to offer you the following information.
Tesco are at the forefront in the UK of retailing unleaded and diesel fuelscontaining bio fuels made from sustainable resources. These fuels are nowavailable in around 180 forecourts in the South East and North West ofEngland, where they have replaced conventional fuels at no extra cost.
The majority of bio diesel we use to blend into our fuel is made fromrapeseed oil. Our supplier is in the process of building a manufacturingplant for bio diesel in the UK and this will be supplied with mostlyUK-grown rapeseed. A small amount of palm oil will be used. However, I can assure you that this has been sourced from suppliers who are members of theRoundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to explain our current positionregarding this matter. If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us at customer.service@tesco.co.uk quoting TES4658655X.
Kind Regards,
Helen Duke
Tesco Customer Service Executive
From: XXXXX[mailto:XXXXXXX]
Sent: 27 January 2008 21:11
To: Leahy, TerrySubject: Biofuels
Dear Mr Leahy,
I am writing to urge you and your organisation to stop the selling and development of biofuels.
Biofuels are not a 'green' alternative to oil. The production of biofuels is as destructive to the planet as oil is -if not more so as it requires even more destruction of rain forests. Our generation is responsible for the long term survival of this planet- choices based on short term profit do nothing but push the planet on a faster track towards destruction. It would be wonderful if Tesco could take the lead in sustainabledevelopment - your company certainly has the resources to do this.
Warm regards
XXXXX
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Email to Councillor Steve Jordan (lib dem)
Dear Steve,
I have read with utter dismay and incredulity at the recommendations of your committee on Gloucestershire Airport. See here.
It is difficult to believe that you were able to keep a straight face when preparing a document that is so full of blatant mistruths and inconsistencies.
Your report is contradictory and mendacious. You recommend the people of Gloucestershire, the majority of who will receive no benefit from the airport’s development plan, should both subsidise and be the main financial backers when the airport itself is unprepared to take the risk and unable to fund the development. You have proposed a funding mechanism that if not illegal under EU legislation, is certainly immoral in transferring risk to tax payers.
Your report pays cynical lip service to the council’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. By now, you should realise that climate change is the biggest threat mankind faces and the cynical approach to it that you advocate through your action is the kind of response that will ensure nothing will ever be done.
If the intent of the politicians who authored this document is to prevent a house development on the land, then they are putting the cart before the horse if they are not prepared to talk about the much more difficult issues of population control first. To try and manage these issues by back room manipulations rather than proper and open debate is a travesty of democratic principles.
My following comments below address just some of the mistruths and inconsistencies in your report.
Section 1.2.3
“Agreement by both Cabinets to recommend to their respective Councils that Cheltenham Borough Council and Gloucester City Council jointly and equally facilitate the borrowing required from the PWLB for onward lending to Gloucestershire Airport limited.”
This investment will only benefit a very small minority of Gloucestershire. As such, why should all the council taxpayers in the area underwrite this loan?
Section 1.2.3
“A firm commitment from the airport board to prepare a 'green policy' for all activities controlled by Gloucestershire Airport, which is approved by the cabinets of both Councils in early 2008 and reviewed and approved by both Councils on an annual basis. The green policy should include the details identified in para 8.12.”
The report does not give any details on the green policy and no targets are given. If the committee were serious about environmental aspects, it would have asked for evidence as to how the airport can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions before approving the plan.
Section 8.2
“In its business case for the project, the Airport Board stated its strong commitment to sustainable development and environmental management and to playing its part in meeting internationally agreed targets for greenhouse gas emissions.”
The committee members may have read in the news recently that no agreements were achieved on international greenhouse gas targets at the Bali conference, and they should also be aware that there are no aviation industry targets for greenhouse gases either. The committee should therefore clarify exactly what internationally agreed targets are being referred to in this section and what mechanism will be used to ensure that the airport cuts operations to ensure that these targets are achieved?
Section 8.2
“The working group requested more information about the existing carbon footprint of airport activities and how the RSP would increase or decrease emissions.”
Given that the airport management has publicly stated in the past that they would like to introduce new services, a rise in carbon emissions is unavoidable. The committee should explain why they think there is even a possibility that the emissions would decrease.
Section 8.3
“In responding to this, the Airport Board stressed that it considers it very difficult to document accurately the carbon footprint of aviation activities and that there is not a clear correlation between fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from the airport, as the runway improvements will enable aircraft to carry increased fuel loads, reducing the requirements for refuelling elsewhere and improving efficiency.”
A full load of fuel increases take off weight and therefore consumption. The committee should explain why the airport thinks that a plane will operate more efficiently when carrying a full load of fuel.
Section 8.4
“It is clear that such an increase is clearly contrary to the Government’s 60% reduction target by 2050 and Cheltenham Borough Council’s carbon neutral aspirations.”
The committee should confirm why it expects the council to abandon all hope of achieving cuts in CO2 emissions. The council must recognize that it will be difficult enough to achieve the cuts required and that approving a development such as this will send out the message that it is not even worth trying. Furthermore, the recent IPCC report has spelt out that the government’s target of a 60% is totally inadequate.
Section 8.5
“The Board clarified that they believed that the impact of eco-taxes would be more on operators and ticket sales rather than on the airport itself.”
If these taxes are successful in reducing the number of people on flights, the committee should explain why the board thinks that the airlines will be prepared to continue running empty planes and at a loss. Furthermore the committee should recognize that the whole purpose of these taxes is to reduce the number of people flying, so that greenhouse gases reduce. This can only be done if fewer planes fly.
Section 8.6
“The Board has offered to provide a written undertaking to reduce its carbon footprint wherever practicable and committed to working with tenants, operators and business users to follow suit.”
“Wherever practicable” is a blatant get out clause. The committee should recognize that the airport will be able to invoke this every time they introduce a new a service by saying that it is not possible to reduce emissions with a new service.
Section 8.7
“In their business case update the Airport Board stated that a detailed study of local air pollution concentrations has concluded that the project will not compromise local air quality standards.”
Every airport in the world has caused local air pollution problems. Gloucester and Cheltenham have suffered particularly bad pollution problems in past hot summers, which are amplified due to its geographic of the surrounding terrain. The committee clearly refuses to acknowledge these problems and will not recognize that the airport will severely aggravate these problems after the development.
Section 8.12
“The Green Policy should include an annual target for reducing carbon emissions from ground operations; establishing the carbon footprint of all existing and proposed flying activities (including any new scheduled services); identifying steps being taken already to reduce climate change impact and ensuring that climate change issues are addressed in future plans for the airport; developing a green travel plan for employee travel and using the green policy to work closely with tenants, operators and business users to reduce their carbon footprint.”
This statement is meaningless without confirming the following:
What will be the annual targets for reducing carbon emission from ground operations?
What is the fraction of the total emissions from the airport (including flights) of ground operations?
What steps have already been taken to reduce emissions and what quantifiable reductions in total emissions have been made?
What is the fraction of the total emissions from the airport (including flights) of employee travel?
How will the airport be able to reduce emissions with operators and business users without cutting flights?
Finally without being able to quantify emissions from flights, which the airport’s board have assured the committee that they can not do, it will be virtually impossible to measure any reduction in emissions.
Section 9.3
“The current 997m landing distance on the primary Runway 27 is already inadequate for a number of potential operations.”
What are the potential operations that are referred to here? If they are potential operations, that implies they are not current operations. The intent of this statement is that if the runway works proceed, then these potential operations will immediately be introduced. These will cause additional greenhouse gases and be in clear breach of the ideas that the committee has on a green policy.
Section 9.4
“Demand for business aircraft activity is increasing, however Mott MacDonald have concluded that a reduction in landing length would result in a reduction of approximately 1,350 movements annually.”
What is the airports expectation of additional private jet flights using the airport? The committee should confirm how these would be accommodated within the green policy. The committee should also recognize that a major proportion of the expanding “business jets” market is for private luxury travel. Amongst their most popular destinations are Nice, Majorca, and Monaco. “Business jets” are the most carbon intensive form of travel. In today’s world of Internet communications they are rarely essential for business.
Section 10.1
“The airport company propose to finance the revised cost of the business plan (£3,366,000) partly through the use of accumulated reserves (£1.566m) and partly through borrowing (£1.8m).”
In the 2006 abbreviated accounts, the total asset value is £2,064,070 and the cash at bank and in hand is £406,437. Given that the airport is investing a substantial part of its accumulated reserves into the project, which is allegedly only for safety and will be not cause additional greenhouse gases, what future liabilities does the airport anticipate and what are the projections for cash flow? The committee should have confirmed the stated accumulated reserves, as they appear to be high in relation to the total asset value of the company and the cash in hand.
Section 10.12
The table shows EBITDA rising to 10.94 in year 4
The committee should explain how this would be achieved in a way that is compatible with the green policy discussed elsewhere in the document and the purported attempts to limit greenhouse gases.
Section 10.15
“Mott McDonald have also undertaken net present value calculations based upon the business plan projections, using a discount rate of 3.5%, based upon a 15 years investment period.”
The committee should explain how Mott McDonald justifies a discount rate of 3.5%, when this is less than the current base rate. This is clearly at a preferential rate which breeches EU regulations. If funding is to be provided at 3.5%, then the loan is clearly being subsidized by the people of Gloucestershire.
Section 10.18
“However, although this was possible, the bank would want to use the company assets as security against the bank loan. The councils concluded that this was an unacceptable risk to both councils and that it would be better to use the PWLB facility available to the councils to facilitate the borrowing of funds on behalf of the airport and for on-lending.”
Transfer of risk to the taxpayer in the way described in this sentence is a flagrant breach of EU policy on state support. If the committee is not confident enough about the business case, why does it think that it is acceptable to pass the liabilities of default on to the council taxpayer?
Section 11.3.3
“A major restraint on scheduled flights is the limitation of the current infrastructure such as passenger terminal, transport access, car parking, etc. The Airport Board feel they could cope with up to 3 services similar to the recent Manx service before the airport reached capacity.”
The airports business case previously made reference to a future requirement for a new terminal building. There is no assurance that funding will not be sought for funding of a new terminal building at some stage in the future.
Section 12.5
“The proposed method of funding the work is unchanged from the previous proposal. It is put forward as the most efficient way of raising the money and reduces the risk of the councils losing control of the airport if there should be any default on the loan. The value of the loan is more than covered by the value of the company.”
As stated previously, why does the council think it is acceptable for the taxpayer to be liable for the loan in the case of default? The report makes no assessment of the value of the company in the event of default on the loan and how is the council confident that this will be greater than the value of the loan?
Section 12.7
“All aspects of the environmental impact were considered by the group and was agreed that the best way of tackling this issue was by targeting carbon emissions and getting the airport to adopt a ‘green policy’. To be meaningful, this will require an accurate measurement of CO2 emissions. As yet there does not seem to be a satisfactory way of assessing this nationally, let alone locally.”
The committee has not stated what there assessment of the environmental impact was. The committee should have explained why they think the airport will be successful in getting an accurate measurement of greenhouse gases when they have already said they cannot do so and there is no successful model in the country? Furthermore, this section is contradictory. If the airport cannot assess its own CO2 emissions, then “all aspects of the environmental impact” could not possibly have been assessed as claimed.
Section 12.8
“While the JASWG accepts that an increase in scheduled flights is not part of the business case for the RSP, they could be a consequence. It is therefore important that the desirability and implications of any increase is understood and should be included in the proposed ‘green policy’ for the airport.”
The airports management and the previous business plan have made it absolutely clear that they want to introduce additional services. Once £3 million has been invested, it will be absolutely desirable to introduce these services to ensure that there is some return on the investment.
The JASWG should explain what else is to be understood about the implications of introducing any new services; introduction of new scheduled flights or non-scheduled flights will result in additional emissions and thus will absolutely not be compatible with a green policy. The JASWG should also explain what measurements and controls they propose to put in place to ensure that additional services are not introduced.
I have read with utter dismay and incredulity at the recommendations of your committee on Gloucestershire Airport. See here.
It is difficult to believe that you were able to keep a straight face when preparing a document that is so full of blatant mistruths and inconsistencies.
Your report is contradictory and mendacious. You recommend the people of Gloucestershire, the majority of who will receive no benefit from the airport’s development plan, should both subsidise and be the main financial backers when the airport itself is unprepared to take the risk and unable to fund the development. You have proposed a funding mechanism that if not illegal under EU legislation, is certainly immoral in transferring risk to tax payers.
Your report pays cynical lip service to the council’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. By now, you should realise that climate change is the biggest threat mankind faces and the cynical approach to it that you advocate through your action is the kind of response that will ensure nothing will ever be done.
If the intent of the politicians who authored this document is to prevent a house development on the land, then they are putting the cart before the horse if they are not prepared to talk about the much more difficult issues of population control first. To try and manage these issues by back room manipulations rather than proper and open debate is a travesty of democratic principles.
My following comments below address just some of the mistruths and inconsistencies in your report.
Section 1.2.3
“Agreement by both Cabinets to recommend to their respective Councils that Cheltenham Borough Council and Gloucester City Council jointly and equally facilitate the borrowing required from the PWLB for onward lending to Gloucestershire Airport limited.”
This investment will only benefit a very small minority of Gloucestershire. As such, why should all the council taxpayers in the area underwrite this loan?
Section 1.2.3
“A firm commitment from the airport board to prepare a 'green policy' for all activities controlled by Gloucestershire Airport, which is approved by the cabinets of both Councils in early 2008 and reviewed and approved by both Councils on an annual basis. The green policy should include the details identified in para 8.12.”
The report does not give any details on the green policy and no targets are given. If the committee were serious about environmental aspects, it would have asked for evidence as to how the airport can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions before approving the plan.
Section 8.2
“In its business case for the project, the Airport Board stated its strong commitment to sustainable development and environmental management and to playing its part in meeting internationally agreed targets for greenhouse gas emissions.”
The committee members may have read in the news recently that no agreements were achieved on international greenhouse gas targets at the Bali conference, and they should also be aware that there are no aviation industry targets for greenhouse gases either. The committee should therefore clarify exactly what internationally agreed targets are being referred to in this section and what mechanism will be used to ensure that the airport cuts operations to ensure that these targets are achieved?
Section 8.2
“The working group requested more information about the existing carbon footprint of airport activities and how the RSP would increase or decrease emissions.”
Given that the airport management has publicly stated in the past that they would like to introduce new services, a rise in carbon emissions is unavoidable. The committee should explain why they think there is even a possibility that the emissions would decrease.
Section 8.3
“In responding to this, the Airport Board stressed that it considers it very difficult to document accurately the carbon footprint of aviation activities and that there is not a clear correlation between fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from the airport, as the runway improvements will enable aircraft to carry increased fuel loads, reducing the requirements for refuelling elsewhere and improving efficiency.”
A full load of fuel increases take off weight and therefore consumption. The committee should explain why the airport thinks that a plane will operate more efficiently when carrying a full load of fuel.
Section 8.4
“It is clear that such an increase is clearly contrary to the Government’s 60% reduction target by 2050 and Cheltenham Borough Council’s carbon neutral aspirations.”
The committee should confirm why it expects the council to abandon all hope of achieving cuts in CO2 emissions. The council must recognize that it will be difficult enough to achieve the cuts required and that approving a development such as this will send out the message that it is not even worth trying. Furthermore, the recent IPCC report has spelt out that the government’s target of a 60% is totally inadequate.
Section 8.5
“The Board clarified that they believed that the impact of eco-taxes would be more on operators and ticket sales rather than on the airport itself.”
If these taxes are successful in reducing the number of people on flights, the committee should explain why the board thinks that the airlines will be prepared to continue running empty planes and at a loss. Furthermore the committee should recognize that the whole purpose of these taxes is to reduce the number of people flying, so that greenhouse gases reduce. This can only be done if fewer planes fly.
Section 8.6
“The Board has offered to provide a written undertaking to reduce its carbon footprint wherever practicable and committed to working with tenants, operators and business users to follow suit.”
“Wherever practicable” is a blatant get out clause. The committee should recognize that the airport will be able to invoke this every time they introduce a new a service by saying that it is not possible to reduce emissions with a new service.
Section 8.7
“In their business case update the Airport Board stated that a detailed study of local air pollution concentrations has concluded that the project will not compromise local air quality standards.”
Every airport in the world has caused local air pollution problems. Gloucester and Cheltenham have suffered particularly bad pollution problems in past hot summers, which are amplified due to its geographic of the surrounding terrain. The committee clearly refuses to acknowledge these problems and will not recognize that the airport will severely aggravate these problems after the development.
Section 8.12
“The Green Policy should include an annual target for reducing carbon emissions from ground operations; establishing the carbon footprint of all existing and proposed flying activities (including any new scheduled services); identifying steps being taken already to reduce climate change impact and ensuring that climate change issues are addressed in future plans for the airport; developing a green travel plan for employee travel and using the green policy to work closely with tenants, operators and business users to reduce their carbon footprint.”
This statement is meaningless without confirming the following:
What will be the annual targets for reducing carbon emission from ground operations?
What is the fraction of the total emissions from the airport (including flights) of ground operations?
What steps have already been taken to reduce emissions and what quantifiable reductions in total emissions have been made?
What is the fraction of the total emissions from the airport (including flights) of employee travel?
How will the airport be able to reduce emissions with operators and business users without cutting flights?
Finally without being able to quantify emissions from flights, which the airport’s board have assured the committee that they can not do, it will be virtually impossible to measure any reduction in emissions.
Section 9.3
“The current 997m landing distance on the primary Runway 27 is already inadequate for a number of potential operations.”
What are the potential operations that are referred to here? If they are potential operations, that implies they are not current operations. The intent of this statement is that if the runway works proceed, then these potential operations will immediately be introduced. These will cause additional greenhouse gases and be in clear breach of the ideas that the committee has on a green policy.
Section 9.4
“Demand for business aircraft activity is increasing, however Mott MacDonald have concluded that a reduction in landing length would result in a reduction of approximately 1,350 movements annually.”
What is the airports expectation of additional private jet flights using the airport? The committee should confirm how these would be accommodated within the green policy. The committee should also recognize that a major proportion of the expanding “business jets” market is for private luxury travel. Amongst their most popular destinations are Nice, Majorca, and Monaco. “Business jets” are the most carbon intensive form of travel. In today’s world of Internet communications they are rarely essential for business.
Section 10.1
“The airport company propose to finance the revised cost of the business plan (£3,366,000) partly through the use of accumulated reserves (£1.566m) and partly through borrowing (£1.8m).”
In the 2006 abbreviated accounts, the total asset value is £2,064,070 and the cash at bank and in hand is £406,437. Given that the airport is investing a substantial part of its accumulated reserves into the project, which is allegedly only for safety and will be not cause additional greenhouse gases, what future liabilities does the airport anticipate and what are the projections for cash flow? The committee should have confirmed the stated accumulated reserves, as they appear to be high in relation to the total asset value of the company and the cash in hand.
Section 10.12
The table shows EBITDA rising to 10.94 in year 4
The committee should explain how this would be achieved in a way that is compatible with the green policy discussed elsewhere in the document and the purported attempts to limit greenhouse gases.
Section 10.15
“Mott McDonald have also undertaken net present value calculations based upon the business plan projections, using a discount rate of 3.5%, based upon a 15 years investment period.”
The committee should explain how Mott McDonald justifies a discount rate of 3.5%, when this is less than the current base rate. This is clearly at a preferential rate which breeches EU regulations. If funding is to be provided at 3.5%, then the loan is clearly being subsidized by the people of Gloucestershire.
Section 10.18
“However, although this was possible, the bank would want to use the company assets as security against the bank loan. The councils concluded that this was an unacceptable risk to both councils and that it would be better to use the PWLB facility available to the councils to facilitate the borrowing of funds on behalf of the airport and for on-lending.”
Transfer of risk to the taxpayer in the way described in this sentence is a flagrant breach of EU policy on state support. If the committee is not confident enough about the business case, why does it think that it is acceptable to pass the liabilities of default on to the council taxpayer?
Section 11.3.3
“A major restraint on scheduled flights is the limitation of the current infrastructure such as passenger terminal, transport access, car parking, etc. The Airport Board feel they could cope with up to 3 services similar to the recent Manx service before the airport reached capacity.”
The airports business case previously made reference to a future requirement for a new terminal building. There is no assurance that funding will not be sought for funding of a new terminal building at some stage in the future.
Section 12.5
“The proposed method of funding the work is unchanged from the previous proposal. It is put forward as the most efficient way of raising the money and reduces the risk of the councils losing control of the airport if there should be any default on the loan. The value of the loan is more than covered by the value of the company.”
As stated previously, why does the council think it is acceptable for the taxpayer to be liable for the loan in the case of default? The report makes no assessment of the value of the company in the event of default on the loan and how is the council confident that this will be greater than the value of the loan?
Section 12.7
“All aspects of the environmental impact were considered by the group and was agreed that the best way of tackling this issue was by targeting carbon emissions and getting the airport to adopt a ‘green policy’. To be meaningful, this will require an accurate measurement of CO2 emissions. As yet there does not seem to be a satisfactory way of assessing this nationally, let alone locally.”
The committee has not stated what there assessment of the environmental impact was. The committee should have explained why they think the airport will be successful in getting an accurate measurement of greenhouse gases when they have already said they cannot do so and there is no successful model in the country? Furthermore, this section is contradictory. If the airport cannot assess its own CO2 emissions, then “all aspects of the environmental impact” could not possibly have been assessed as claimed.
Section 12.8
“While the JASWG accepts that an increase in scheduled flights is not part of the business case for the RSP, they could be a consequence. It is therefore important that the desirability and implications of any increase is understood and should be included in the proposed ‘green policy’ for the airport.”
The airports management and the previous business plan have made it absolutely clear that they want to introduce additional services. Once £3 million has been invested, it will be absolutely desirable to introduce these services to ensure that there is some return on the investment.
The JASWG should explain what else is to be understood about the implications of introducing any new services; introduction of new scheduled flights or non-scheduled flights will result in additional emissions and thus will absolutely not be compatible with a green policy. The JASWG should also explain what measurements and controls they propose to put in place to ensure that additional services are not introduced.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Failure when acting on the easyJet Advert, prompts further email to the ASA
Dear Sirs,
In reference to my previous complaint against the easyJet Advert in the Sunday Times which called for a more intelligent approach to aviation, I attempted to do what was suggested in the advert, namely to "push airlines to buy the next generation of more fuel efficient airlines."
I checked the easyJet web site to find contact details. Alas, all I could find was the press office email address. I have emailed this address (see attached) to suggest that they buy Bombardier Q400s instead of Boeings, but I have received no reply. I have had similar problems contacting other airlines.
EasyJet most certainly have not acted on my pressure to buy the most fuel-efficient planes on the market. I therefore conclude that I will be entirely ineffective by pressing easyJet to buy the most fuel efficient planes as suggested by the advert. Thus, easyJet’s advert is clearly misleading by claiming that I can impact purchasing policy and also misleading by implying that easyJet operates the most efficient airplanes available.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Kevin Listerwrote:
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:06:56 +0000 (GMT)From: Kevin ListerSubject: Pressing for more efficient planesTo: press.office@easyjet.com
Sirs,
Your advert in the Sunday Times, 23rd December, demanding a more intelligent approach to aviation suggested that passengers should push airlines to fly the most fuel efficient planes.
As such, I am sending this email to press you to buy Bombardier Q400 planes. Being turbo props these are considerably more fuel efficient than the Boeing 737-700s that your advert portrayed.
Also, as these do not have the same range, their emissions will be even lower.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
In reference to my previous complaint against the easyJet Advert in the Sunday Times which called for a more intelligent approach to aviation, I attempted to do what was suggested in the advert, namely to "push airlines to buy the next generation of more fuel efficient airlines."
I checked the easyJet web site to find contact details. Alas, all I could find was the press office email address. I have emailed this address (see attached) to suggest that they buy Bombardier Q400s instead of Boeings, but I have received no reply. I have had similar problems contacting other airlines.
EasyJet most certainly have not acted on my pressure to buy the most fuel-efficient planes on the market. I therefore conclude that I will be entirely ineffective by pressing easyJet to buy the most fuel efficient planes as suggested by the advert. Thus, easyJet’s advert is clearly misleading by claiming that I can impact purchasing policy and also misleading by implying that easyJet operates the most efficient airplanes available.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Kevin Lister
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:06:56 +0000 (GMT)From: Kevin Lister
Sirs,
Your advert in the Sunday Times, 23rd December, demanding a more intelligent approach to aviation suggested that passengers should push airlines to fly the most fuel efficient planes.
As such, I am sending this email to press you to buy Bombardier Q400 planes. Being turbo props these are considerably more fuel efficient than the Boeing 737-700s that your advert portrayed.
Also, as these do not have the same range, their emissions will be even lower.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Monday, December 24, 2007
Easy Jet at it again - Complaint to Advertising Standard Agency
contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
and click here to make your own complaint to the advertising standards agency . The advert was placed in the Sunday Times, 23rd December, page 16.
SUMMARY OF OBJECTION:
The EasyJet advert purports that by flying with them one is being “environmentally intelligent.”
Given the statements from the latest IPCC report, flying can in no way be described as environmentally intelligent. The IPCC report states that “Early mitigation actions would avoid further locking in carbon intensive infrastructure.” Irrespective of how efficient planes become, their use will always constitute one of the most carbon intensive forms of travel possible. Thus any form of air travel will be in breach of the advice given the IPCC report.
Furthermore the IPCC report highlights that CO2 emissions must be reduced by over 100% to avoid runaway global warming; see figure SPM 11 of the summary for policy makers (ref 1). Thus the only truly intelligent attitude to air travel is to avoid it all together.
Emissions reductions due to efficiency gains in planes have not been sufficient to outweigh the overall increase due to the total number of flights increasing so rapidly. It is widely recognised that aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases. This further dispels the position of the EasyJet advert that one can demand a more intelligent way to fly.
SPECIFIC OBJECTION 1
The advert suggests that individuals can “Push airlines to buy the next generation of more fuel efficient aircraft.” Individuals have no influence over the purchasing activities of any airline. Airlines will always try and buy fuel efficient planes as these will be more profitable. However, no airline would choose to buy a plane that was economically unfeasible or operationally inappropriate irrespective of how much pressure individuals put on the airline. Easyjet could for example, have decided to buy Turbo prop planes such as the Bombardier Q400 (ref 2) instead of Boeings. These are more fuel efficient per passenger, but fly slower and can not take as many passengers. It would be pointless if I tried to push EasyJet towards buying Bombardier Q400 planes, irrespective of what the advert claims.
SPECIFIC OBJECTION 2
The advert suggests that individuals should “Choose airlines with ….fewer emissions.” However Easyjet’s total emissions have risen enormously and as an airline their total emissions are much higher than many of their smaller competitors. They now transport over 700% more passengers than they did in 2000, (ref 3). In addition, the 737-700 that is quoted in the advert is a long range version of Boeings 737, which potentially means that the airline will produce even more CO2 emissions per passenger. Choosing to fly EasyJet on the basis of emissions of the plane type does not demonstrate a more intelligent approach to aviation. The advert is therefore misleading in suggesting that I can have in impact on the choice of plane that an airline chooses.
SPECIFIC OBJECTION 3
The advert claims that passengers can “Choose airlines with higher passenger loads.” This is impossible. Passengers are not given information on the passenger loading when buying a ticket. Also if airlines have too high a passenger loading, they will simply put on additional flights encouraging more air travel. This does not represent a more intelligent approach to aviation.
SPECIFIC OBJECTION 4
The advert points out that “easyJet emits 22% less CO2” than a traditional airline flying the same aircraft type on the same route. This is an unreasonable comparison and EasyJet is simply attempting to make itself appear environmentally friendly by comparison with worst. A “traditional” airline would include planes with a proportion of first class passengers. These would include a significant number of business travellers flying first class who are unlikely to travel on EasyJet; likewise the majority of EasyJet passengers are unlikely to travel on “traditional” airlines. A more appropriate comparison would be to compare the carbon content of a typical holiday taken using EasyJet flights against a typical holiday taken without flying. The narrow comparison that the advert uses does not demonstrate or support an intelligent approach to aviation.
References:
(1) http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
(2) http://www.q400.com/q400/en/home.jsp
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyJet
and click here to make your own complaint to the advertising standards agency . The advert was placed in the Sunday Times, 23rd December, page 16.
SUMMARY OF OBJECTION:
The EasyJet advert purports that by flying with them one is being “environmentally intelligent.”
Given the statements from the latest IPCC report, flying can in no way be described as environmentally intelligent. The IPCC report states that “Early mitigation actions would avoid further locking in carbon intensive infrastructure.” Irrespective of how efficient planes become, their use will always constitute one of the most carbon intensive forms of travel possible. Thus any form of air travel will be in breach of the advice given the IPCC report.
Furthermore the IPCC report highlights that CO2 emissions must be reduced by over 100% to avoid runaway global warming; see figure SPM 11 of the summary for policy makers (ref 1). Thus the only truly intelligent attitude to air travel is to avoid it all together.
Emissions reductions due to efficiency gains in planes have not been sufficient to outweigh the overall increase due to the total number of flights increasing so rapidly. It is widely recognised that aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases. This further dispels the position of the EasyJet advert that one can demand a more intelligent way to fly.
SPECIFIC OBJECTION 1
The advert suggests that individuals can “Push airlines to buy the next generation of more fuel efficient aircraft.” Individuals have no influence over the purchasing activities of any airline. Airlines will always try and buy fuel efficient planes as these will be more profitable. However, no airline would choose to buy a plane that was economically unfeasible or operationally inappropriate irrespective of how much pressure individuals put on the airline. Easyjet could for example, have decided to buy Turbo prop planes such as the Bombardier Q400 (ref 2) instead of Boeings. These are more fuel efficient per passenger, but fly slower and can not take as many passengers. It would be pointless if I tried to push EasyJet towards buying Bombardier Q400 planes, irrespective of what the advert claims.
SPECIFIC OBJECTION 2
The advert suggests that individuals should “Choose airlines with ….fewer emissions.” However Easyjet’s total emissions have risen enormously and as an airline their total emissions are much higher than many of their smaller competitors. They now transport over 700% more passengers than they did in 2000, (ref 3). In addition, the 737-700 that is quoted in the advert is a long range version of Boeings 737, which potentially means that the airline will produce even more CO2 emissions per passenger. Choosing to fly EasyJet on the basis of emissions of the plane type does not demonstrate a more intelligent approach to aviation. The advert is therefore misleading in suggesting that I can have in impact on the choice of plane that an airline chooses.
SPECIFIC OBJECTION 3
The advert claims that passengers can “Choose airlines with higher passenger loads.” This is impossible. Passengers are not given information on the passenger loading when buying a ticket. Also if airlines have too high a passenger loading, they will simply put on additional flights encouraging more air travel. This does not represent a more intelligent approach to aviation.
SPECIFIC OBJECTION 4
The advert points out that “easyJet emits 22% less CO2” than a traditional airline flying the same aircraft type on the same route. This is an unreasonable comparison and EasyJet is simply attempting to make itself appear environmentally friendly by comparison with worst. A “traditional” airline would include planes with a proportion of first class passengers. These would include a significant number of business travellers flying first class who are unlikely to travel on EasyJet; likewise the majority of EasyJet passengers are unlikely to travel on “traditional” airlines. A more appropriate comparison would be to compare the carbon content of a typical holiday taken using EasyJet flights against a typical holiday taken without flying. The narrow comparison that the advert uses does not demonstrate or support an intelligent approach to aviation.
References:
(1) http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
(2) http://www.q400.com/q400/en/home.jsp
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyJet
Friday, December 21, 2007
Email to Senator Bill Nelson
Dear Senator Nelson,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my recent email.
You have clearly indicated the challenge of the problem that your country faces due to its dependency on foreign fuels and it is disappointing to learn that tax breaks for alternate energy production were dropped from the energy bill.
However, I am extremely upset to see that you voted for the CLEAN Energy Act in the Senate. An act mandating 36 billion gallons of fuels coming from bio fuel can in no way be described as clean. As I pointed out in my previous email to you, this will convert one of the worlds most productive bread baskets into a second rate gas pump.
The Seatle Times recently reported: “The land needs of the bio-fuel’s industry are gargantuan. In the U.S., nearly one-third of corn production will go to make ethanol by the end of the decade, replacing only 8 percent of gasoline use, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The department also projects that nearly a quarter of the nation's soybean crop will go to bio diesel, producing less than 2 percent of highway diesel consumed in the U.S.”
Given current figures for ethanol productivity per acre, by 2023 approximately 50% of total US crops will be needed to produce the mandated amount of bio-fuel. This will result in world wide food shortages and starvation on a mass scale.
All this disruption will not mitigate global warming at all. Almost as much fossil fuel is needed in the manufacture of bio fuels as is actually produced. Bio fuel production on the scale that is envisaged in your bill will result in huge amounts of NO2 emissions from the massive amounts of fertilisers necessary to achieve the production quotas. NO2 is 300 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. These factors will far outweigh any perceived enivoromental benefits. From a security perspective, Americal will simply trade its dependancy for foreign fuel for food dependancy on food, which will be a far worse situation.
Your email talks about increasing standard fuel economy of cars to 35 mpg. There is little merit in arguing that more efficient cars will significantly reduce CO2 emissions if the bill does nothing to curtail car use in any significant way. Experience shows more efficient cars simply encourage people to travel further if nothing is done to constrain demand and emissions do not fall. I have read through the bill and see nothing to suggest any significant measures that will curtail car use.
I remain sceptical and disappointed that the US senate has introduced such a narrow minded and limited bill when the world is currently desperately looking for leadership.
This email will be published on my blog http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/
Regards, Kevin Lister
Sources:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/biotech/2004026594_biotechcrops21.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110N6b6LP:e24227
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my recent email.
You have clearly indicated the challenge of the problem that your country faces due to its dependency on foreign fuels and it is disappointing to learn that tax breaks for alternate energy production were dropped from the energy bill.
However, I am extremely upset to see that you voted for the CLEAN Energy Act in the Senate. An act mandating 36 billion gallons of fuels coming from bio fuel can in no way be described as clean. As I pointed out in my previous email to you, this will convert one of the worlds most productive bread baskets into a second rate gas pump.
The Seatle Times recently reported: “The land needs of the bio-fuel’s industry are gargantuan. In the U.S., nearly one-third of corn production will go to make ethanol by the end of the decade, replacing only 8 percent of gasoline use, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The department also projects that nearly a quarter of the nation's soybean crop will go to bio diesel, producing less than 2 percent of highway diesel consumed in the U.S.”
Given current figures for ethanol productivity per acre, by 2023 approximately 50% of total US crops will be needed to produce the mandated amount of bio-fuel. This will result in world wide food shortages and starvation on a mass scale.
All this disruption will not mitigate global warming at all. Almost as much fossil fuel is needed in the manufacture of bio fuels as is actually produced. Bio fuel production on the scale that is envisaged in your bill will result in huge amounts of NO2 emissions from the massive amounts of fertilisers necessary to achieve the production quotas. NO2 is 300 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. These factors will far outweigh any perceived enivoromental benefits. From a security perspective, Americal will simply trade its dependancy for foreign fuel for food dependancy on food, which will be a far worse situation.
Your email talks about increasing standard fuel economy of cars to 35 mpg. There is little merit in arguing that more efficient cars will significantly reduce CO2 emissions if the bill does nothing to curtail car use in any significant way. Experience shows more efficient cars simply encourage people to travel further if nothing is done to constrain demand and emissions do not fall. I have read through the bill and see nothing to suggest any significant measures that will curtail car use.
I remain sceptical and disappointed that the US senate has introduced such a narrow minded and limited bill when the world is currently desperately looking for leadership.
This email will be published on my blog http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/
Regards, Kevin Lister
Sources:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/biotech/2004026594_biotechcrops21.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110N6b6LP:e24227
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Email from Senator Sherrod Brown
Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Dear Mr. Lister:
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the pressing issue of global climate change.
For too long our nation has opted to take a passive role on one of the 21st century's most pressing issues.
The United States, the largest energy consumer and wealthiest nation on the planet, has an obligation to be at the forefront of climate change policy and an opportunity to be a top innovator in developing new technologies and strategies to combat the problem.
The science is now clear: human activities are contributing to climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released a comprehensive assessment on climate change that synthesizes what the global scientific community has learned in the past five years about our changing climate and its impact on the world.
Global average surface temperatures have increased, snow cover and ice have decreased, and global average sea level is rising. As you know, there are significant long-term risks to the environment and our economy from temperature increases and climatic disruptions that are assumed to be the result of increased greenhouse gas emissions.To that end, I am strongly in favor of the continued development of alternative energy sources. Whether it is biomass, coal with carbon capture, wind, solar, or a resource still in development, we must explore sustainable energy sources that dramatically lessen our carbon emissions, are economically viable, and protect our national security.
I am a cosponsor of a resolution offered by Senators Biden and Lugar that calls for reengagement of the U.S. in the development of an international climate change framework.
As an active participant in the climate change debate, I am hopeful legislation that is both good for Ohio and the nation will come before the Senate later this year.
Again, thank you for contacting me on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
Dear Mr. Lister:
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the pressing issue of global climate change.
For too long our nation has opted to take a passive role on one of the 21st century's most pressing issues.
The United States, the largest energy consumer and wealthiest nation on the planet, has an obligation to be at the forefront of climate change policy and an opportunity to be a top innovator in developing new technologies and strategies to combat the problem.
The science is now clear: human activities are contributing to climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released a comprehensive assessment on climate change that synthesizes what the global scientific community has learned in the past five years about our changing climate and its impact on the world.
Global average surface temperatures have increased, snow cover and ice have decreased, and global average sea level is rising. As you know, there are significant long-term risks to the environment and our economy from temperature increases and climatic disruptions that are assumed to be the result of increased greenhouse gas emissions.To that end, I am strongly in favor of the continued development of alternative energy sources. Whether it is biomass, coal with carbon capture, wind, solar, or a resource still in development, we must explore sustainable energy sources that dramatically lessen our carbon emissions, are economically viable, and protect our national security.
I am a cosponsor of a resolution offered by Senators Biden and Lugar that calls for reengagement of the U.S. in the development of an international climate change framework.
As an active participant in the climate change debate, I am hopeful legislation that is both good for Ohio and the nation will come before the Senate later this year.
Again, thank you for contacting me on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
E mail from Senator Charles E. Schumer
contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Dear Mr. Lister:
Thank you for your letter regarding actions that Congress should be taking to curtail global climate change.
I share your concern for the health of our environment, especially the fragile balance of ecosystems that may be destroyed by the climatic changes that we are now experiencing. As Senator, I have pushed legislation that would address some of the causes of climate change, in particular by trying to reduce carbon emissions.
The recent passage in the Senate of H.R. 6, the Clean Energy Act of 2007, provided an important first step toward improving the ways our nation uses energy. This bill includes substantial increases in fuel economy standards for cars, including a 35mpg standard by 2020 and closing the SUV and flex-fuel-vehicle loopholes. The Senate's success in this area will reduce our consumption of foreign oil by 10.7 gallons annually by 2020. I believe that H.R. 6 makes important steps towards curbing climate change.
For the first time in decades, the Senate has produced a bill that does not give tax breaks to big oil, but instead gives incentives to companies to use renewable fuel sources, makes significant improvements in car's fuel economy, and requires improved energy efficiency in government actions. However, there is still more to be done.
I introduced four amendments to the energy bill which would improve energy efficiency in practical, cost-effective ways. The first would require power utilities to gradually reduce their fuel consumption by improving their efficiency to reach a final target of 10% less fuel use by 2020. The second amendment required states to make their building codes 30% more efficient. The third and fourth amendments would improve energy efficiency in appliances like washing machines, commercial boilers, and air conditioners. All told, these four amendments would have saved the same energy as would taking more than 150 million cars off the road. Unfortunately, none of these amendments were included in the final bill, but I will continue to push for these, and other, energy efficiency ideas.I also support several other bills aimed at helping to slow this crisis.
I am a co-sponsor of S. 590, Securing America's Energy Independence Act of 2007, which extends and improves tax credits for individuals and companies to invest in solar technology. I also co-sponsored the Clean Air Planning Act, S. 1177, a multi-pollutant bill that will require fossil-fuel-fired power plants to cut their emissions of four dangerous compounds, including carbon dioxide. This bill will halt the increase in CO2 emissions in 2012 and will implement a 57% cut from today's levels by 2050.
I was also an original co-sponsor of S. 339, the DRIVE Act, which will reduce our oil use through a range of actions from improving fuel economies to encouraging development along existing transit corridors, rather than into new areas. It was passed by the Senate as part H.R. 6.
Climate change matters to all of us and we need smart, pragmatic policies now if we are to address this crisis. We cannot afford to delay action in the hope that a "silver bullet" will save us: there will be no perfect new technology to produce infinite energy, no special sponge to take carbon out of the air, no global air-conditioning system. It takes lots of smart changes in the ways that we make and use energy to fix this problem, and we need to approach this complex problem from every angle possible.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this important topic. I always appreciate constituents input and hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with me in the future.
Sincerely,
Charles E. SchumerUnited States Senator
Dear Mr. Lister:
Thank you for your letter regarding actions that Congress should be taking to curtail global climate change.
I share your concern for the health of our environment, especially the fragile balance of ecosystems that may be destroyed by the climatic changes that we are now experiencing. As Senator, I have pushed legislation that would address some of the causes of climate change, in particular by trying to reduce carbon emissions.
The recent passage in the Senate of H.R. 6, the Clean Energy Act of 2007, provided an important first step toward improving the ways our nation uses energy. This bill includes substantial increases in fuel economy standards for cars, including a 35mpg standard by 2020 and closing the SUV and flex-fuel-vehicle loopholes. The Senate's success in this area will reduce our consumption of foreign oil by 10.7 gallons annually by 2020. I believe that H.R. 6 makes important steps towards curbing climate change.
For the first time in decades, the Senate has produced a bill that does not give tax breaks to big oil, but instead gives incentives to companies to use renewable fuel sources, makes significant improvements in car's fuel economy, and requires improved energy efficiency in government actions. However, there is still more to be done.
I introduced four amendments to the energy bill which would improve energy efficiency in practical, cost-effective ways. The first would require power utilities to gradually reduce their fuel consumption by improving their efficiency to reach a final target of 10% less fuel use by 2020. The second amendment required states to make their building codes 30% more efficient. The third and fourth amendments would improve energy efficiency in appliances like washing machines, commercial boilers, and air conditioners. All told, these four amendments would have saved the same energy as would taking more than 150 million cars off the road. Unfortunately, none of these amendments were included in the final bill, but I will continue to push for these, and other, energy efficiency ideas.I also support several other bills aimed at helping to slow this crisis.
I am a co-sponsor of S. 590, Securing America's Energy Independence Act of 2007, which extends and improves tax credits for individuals and companies to invest in solar technology. I also co-sponsored the Clean Air Planning Act, S. 1177, a multi-pollutant bill that will require fossil-fuel-fired power plants to cut their emissions of four dangerous compounds, including carbon dioxide. This bill will halt the increase in CO2 emissions in 2012 and will implement a 57% cut from today's levels by 2050.
I was also an original co-sponsor of S. 339, the DRIVE Act, which will reduce our oil use through a range of actions from improving fuel economies to encouraging development along existing transit corridors, rather than into new areas. It was passed by the Senate as part H.R. 6.
Climate change matters to all of us and we need smart, pragmatic policies now if we are to address this crisis. We cannot afford to delay action in the hope that a "silver bullet" will save us: there will be no perfect new technology to produce infinite energy, no special sponge to take carbon out of the air, no global air-conditioning system. It takes lots of smart changes in the ways that we make and use energy to fix this problem, and we need to approach this complex problem from every angle possible.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this important topic. I always appreciate constituents input and hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with me in the future.
Sincerely,
Charles E. SchumerUnited States Senator
E mail from US Senator Bill Nelson
Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Dear Mr. Lister:
Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding the energy issues facing our nation.
We must develop a long-term energy strategy that alleviates high energy prices and reduces our dependency on foreign oil while protecting our precious environment. The prices of home energy and gasoline has risen in recent months, leaving many struggling to afford driving to work and heating or cooling their homes. In the meantime, oil companies continue to see record-breaking profits.
I recently voted for the comprehensive CLEAN Energy Act in the Senate. The act will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil by requiring annual use of 36 billion gallons of alternative fuels like ethanol by 2022, mandating the Federal government adopt "green" building standards, and increasing fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks to 35 miles-per-gallon by the year 2020. The legislation will also protect consumers from gasoline price gouging and improve the efficiency of appliances.
I am also a cosponsor of the Dependence Reduction through Innovation in Vehicles and Energy (DRIVE) Act. The DRIVE Act would increase the availability of alternative transportation fuels, provide incentives for the purchase of hybrid and flexible-fuel vehicles, and spur development of next-generation fuels and hybrid cars. A larger market for gasoline made from corn, sugar, orange peels, switchgrass, or a variety of other products would help keep the price of gasoline down. Several provisions of this legislation were adopted in the CLEAN Energy Act.
I also supported measures in the CLEAN Energy bill that would encourage alternative energy development like wind and solar power by offering tax incentives to users, as well as a measure that would require utilities to produce a percentage of their electricity from renewable resources. These measures would help reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but unfortunately they were dropped from the final bill.
This bill is now being sent to the President for his signature. As we continue to discuss energy issues in the Senate, I will be sure to keep your views in mind. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Copy of Email sent to all US Senators re global warming and their county's loss of reputation
Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Dear Senator,
I am a UK citizen who has for many years respected the values that America stands for and argued in defence of your country when it was fashionable amongst my colleagues to criticise your nation.
However, I am now moved to write to you in protest at the recent events of your nation’s representatives and the sad demise of the reputation of a nation that was once known for proudly and bravely coming to the aid and rescue of others when in deep trouble. The war graves in Normandy are testimony of your nations proud past.
As you should be aware, your country's representatives have derailed negotiations on reaching a climate change agreement at Bali. We are now left with the unedifying spectacle of the worlds leaders congratulating themselves on achieving an agreement, when all that has been achieved is a commitment to more talks and no binding agreements on CO2 reductions have been reached. We do not have time for more talks. The more we talk, the less action we take and the greater the consequences. We have now engineered an environment for ourselves that does not absorb the greenhouse gases that we produce and the gap between absorption and production is widening. The longer we allow our energy profligate life styles to continue, the worse the problem. As the nation that has produced more CO2 than any other, the USA has a unique obligation to act and to show leadership in this time of global crisis.
.jpg)
The extract from the IPCC report above shows their conclusions and demonstrates why immediate action is so important. Even in the event that we reduce our emissions to zero and are somehow able to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (see CO2 trend on the left graph), we will still experience dangerous warming that will range between 1.8 deg C to 3.8 deg C (see graph on the left). Make no mistake; this is absolutely catastrophic. Failure to take immediate action will almost certainly mean that the current generation of children on the planet will be the last.
As well as selfish intransigence at Bali, the Senate have compounded the problem by signing into legislation the energy bill on Thursday. This bill calls for a renewable fuel obligation of 15 billion gallons of ethanol to be consumed annually by 2015 rising to 36 billion gallons to be consumed annually by 2022. If this is intended to be a part of some environmentally friendly initiative aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions by using biofuels, then again make no mistake in recognising that it is dangerous stupidity to believe this.
We are entering a dangerous and turbulent world were the population is soaring, and food production is collapsing due to the combined impacts of climate change, industrialisation and soil exhaustion. Tensions will grow as food prices rise. Inflation and interest rates will be forced up destroying economic growth. The current sub prime housing crash is a direct result of this changing world and a foretaste of worse to come.
In the face of this looming crisis, you have agreed to convert the world’s breadbasket into a second rate gas pump. The food that would have been grown will now have to be grown elsewhere, and this will be achieved by burning down more of the tropical rainforests, so reducing the carbon absorption of the biosphere. All this for an extremely inefficient way of producing a gas substitute to enable people to continue driving unnecessarily large cars unnecessarily long distances.
This is a desperate legacy to the world, and one that only the most self-interested nation of the world could contemplate.
Your nations inability to show clear leadership and make the sacrifices necessary to achieve cuts in greenhouse gases is in stark contrast to the sacrifices that your young men made for our freedoms in the Second World War.
The next time that I visit your war graves in France, I will pay special respect to those American soldiers who gave their lives and whose legacies are now being so hopelessly squandered.
This email has been copied to all senators and will appear on my blog
http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/
Yours faithfully,
Kevin Lister
Dear Senator,
I am a UK citizen who has for many years respected the values that America stands for and argued in defence of your country when it was fashionable amongst my colleagues to criticise your nation.
However, I am now moved to write to you in protest at the recent events of your nation’s representatives and the sad demise of the reputation of a nation that was once known for proudly and bravely coming to the aid and rescue of others when in deep trouble. The war graves in Normandy are testimony of your nations proud past.
As you should be aware, your country's representatives have derailed negotiations on reaching a climate change agreement at Bali. We are now left with the unedifying spectacle of the worlds leaders congratulating themselves on achieving an agreement, when all that has been achieved is a commitment to more talks and no binding agreements on CO2 reductions have been reached. We do not have time for more talks. The more we talk, the less action we take and the greater the consequences. We have now engineered an environment for ourselves that does not absorb the greenhouse gases that we produce and the gap between absorption and production is widening. The longer we allow our energy profligate life styles to continue, the worse the problem. As the nation that has produced more CO2 than any other, the USA has a unique obligation to act and to show leadership in this time of global crisis.
The extract from the IPCC report above shows their conclusions and demonstrates why immediate action is so important. Even in the event that we reduce our emissions to zero and are somehow able to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (see CO2 trend on the left graph), we will still experience dangerous warming that will range between 1.8 deg C to 3.8 deg C (see graph on the left). Make no mistake; this is absolutely catastrophic. Failure to take immediate action will almost certainly mean that the current generation of children on the planet will be the last.As well as selfish intransigence at Bali, the Senate have compounded the problem by signing into legislation the energy bill on Thursday. This bill calls for a renewable fuel obligation of 15 billion gallons of ethanol to be consumed annually by 2015 rising to 36 billion gallons to be consumed annually by 2022. If this is intended to be a part of some environmentally friendly initiative aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions by using biofuels, then again make no mistake in recognising that it is dangerous stupidity to believe this.
We are entering a dangerous and turbulent world were the population is soaring, and food production is collapsing due to the combined impacts of climate change, industrialisation and soil exhaustion. Tensions will grow as food prices rise. Inflation and interest rates will be forced up destroying economic growth. The current sub prime housing crash is a direct result of this changing world and a foretaste of worse to come.
In the face of this looming crisis, you have agreed to convert the world’s breadbasket into a second rate gas pump. The food that would have been grown will now have to be grown elsewhere, and this will be achieved by burning down more of the tropical rainforests, so reducing the carbon absorption of the biosphere. All this for an extremely inefficient way of producing a gas substitute to enable people to continue driving unnecessarily large cars unnecessarily long distances.
This is a desperate legacy to the world, and one that only the most self-interested nation of the world could contemplate.
Your nations inability to show clear leadership and make the sacrifices necessary to achieve cuts in greenhouse gases is in stark contrast to the sacrifices that your young men made for our freedoms in the Second World War.
The next time that I visit your war graves in France, I will pay special respect to those American soldiers who gave their lives and whose legacies are now being so hopelessly squandered.
This email has been copied to all senators and will appear on my blog
http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/
Yours faithfully,
Kevin Lister
Monday, December 10, 2007
Letter to Ruth Kelly re Heathrow Runway 3
contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Subject: Heathrow Runway 3 and Terminal 6
Dear Ms Kelly,
I have listened with absolute dismay at your statement that you intend to precede with Heathrow’s 3rd runway and 6th terminal. I have six specific points that I want you to address which follow below.
Point 1
I note that you have said carbon trading can offset the emissions from the extra flights at Heathrow. You must realise that this is a nonsense position. The IPCC report has effectively called for a cut in excess of 100% of current emissions, and even this does not guarantee avoidance of catastrophic warming. The graphs below are extracted from the report.
Dear Ms Kelly,
I have listened with absolute dismay at your statement that you intend to precede with Heathrow’s 3rd runway and 6th terminal. I have six specific points that I want you to address which follow below.
Point 1
I note that you have said carbon trading can offset the emissions from the extra flights at Heathrow. You must realise that this is a nonsense position. The IPCC report has effectively called for a cut in excess of 100% of current emissions, and even this does not guarantee avoidance of catastrophic warming. The graphs below are extracted from the report.
These two graphs need to be read together. The graph on the right hand side shows the expected stabilised temperature for various levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The best possible scenario presented is that the greenhouse gases stabilise in the 445-490 ppm range. This would result in a best possible temperature increase of between 1.8 dec C to 3.8 deg C. Mathematical modelling suggests that an average temperature rise above 2 deg C is likely to lead to runaway climate change, so we are already at extremely high risk of catastrophic change. To achieve this best possible but still awful scenario the necessary cuts in CO2 emissions are shown on the left hand side. This disturbingly shows that not only must we completely eliminate CO2 emissions, but also we must somehow think how to extract additional CO2 out of the atmosphere. Given that we need to get our emissions below zero, carbon trading is clear nonsense. Your belief that we can somehow carbon trade our way out of the global warming implications of a third runway suggests that you have not grasped the implication of this report at all.
The implications of the IPCC report are such that we should be considering shutting Heathrow, not allowing further expansion.
Point 2
Your position on runway 3 is clearly driven by the aviation industry and its immediate supporters. I am aware that the organisation Flying Matters, (see http://www.flyingmatters.co.uk/) has already started lobbying MPs to stop aviation being included within the governments climate change bill. The industry is instead arguing that an international agreement should be brought into place. However, they have been deliberately vague on explaining what the international agreements would be. Given the impossibility of putting an international agreement like this together in any meaningful way that would actually result in timely and necessary aviation cuts, it is hardly surprising that the aviation industry is campaigning for an international agreement.
Can you confirm if you believe that aviation should be in your government’s climate change bill and confirm exactly what your department’s position is on this?
Point 3
Recent Mori polls have shown that supporters of a freeze on airport expansion outnumber opponents by more than two to one (49% vs 20%). You are clearly backing the minority interests of the aviation industry and its immediate big business supporters over the interests of the wider public and scientific evidence. You are also doing this on the most contentious issue possible, were people are now scared for their future and their children’s future. You are ignoring the protesters that have so far been making their point peacefully in the streets of our cities and with events such as the Climate Camp at Heathrow last year.
If you proceed with this development, you must expect that the protests will turn increasingly bitter and violent. The police will clearly be bought in on the side of the airport and its supporters, thus compromising police neutrality at a time when the police will be coming under additional strain from the effects of climate change on the wider economy. The heavy handed policing at Heathrow during last year’s Climate Camp was seen by many as a warning of things to come.
Can you confirm what conversation and agreements have been made with the Secretary of State and what the Secretary of State’s view is on the police being effectively used as a private army in support of the aviation industry’s interests?
Point 4
The email sent in response to the petition on the 10 Downing Street web site against Heathrow claimed that the “UK now has the fastest growing railway in Europe.” Can you confirm how much CO2 emissions will be generated from this growth and where the power will come from for this expansion. It is worth considering that a Pendolino on the West Coast lines requires 5.1 Mega Watts of power. There are 53 Pendolino is the Virgin Fleet. Basic calculations show that just these trains requires approximately 600 wind turbines to provide adequate power. In addtion, there is the rest of the electrified Rail network.
Point 5
A collegue of mine is a pilot in BA and regularly flies from from Saudi Arabia to Heathrow. He tells me that the first class is often full of people coming over for shoping weekends. This is clealy a rediculous use of critical resources and a totally unnecessary contriubtion to global warming. It is strong argument that we need to reduce demand for travel.
Your statements so far on travel policies have all been concerned with providing enough supply to met demand. Can you confirm what you are doing to reduce demand.
Point 6
You have stated in your letters to MPs that a consultation period will be initated and you have a web site for consultation.
Can you confirm the point of this. You have already stated that you intend to proceed with the third runway and the policies of your departments are completely ignoring all the available science.
I look forward to your reply addressing specifically each of the points above.
Yours sincerely
Kevin Lister
c.c:
David Drew MP,
Flying Matters
The implications of the IPCC report are such that we should be considering shutting Heathrow, not allowing further expansion.
Point 2
Your position on runway 3 is clearly driven by the aviation industry and its immediate supporters. I am aware that the organisation Flying Matters, (see http://www.flyingmatters.co.uk/) has already started lobbying MPs to stop aviation being included within the governments climate change bill. The industry is instead arguing that an international agreement should be brought into place. However, they have been deliberately vague on explaining what the international agreements would be. Given the impossibility of putting an international agreement like this together in any meaningful way that would actually result in timely and necessary aviation cuts, it is hardly surprising that the aviation industry is campaigning for an international agreement.
Can you confirm if you believe that aviation should be in your government’s climate change bill and confirm exactly what your department’s position is on this?
Point 3
Recent Mori polls have shown that supporters of a freeze on airport expansion outnumber opponents by more than two to one (49% vs 20%). You are clearly backing the minority interests of the aviation industry and its immediate big business supporters over the interests of the wider public and scientific evidence. You are also doing this on the most contentious issue possible, were people are now scared for their future and their children’s future. You are ignoring the protesters that have so far been making their point peacefully in the streets of our cities and with events such as the Climate Camp at Heathrow last year.
If you proceed with this development, you must expect that the protests will turn increasingly bitter and violent. The police will clearly be bought in on the side of the airport and its supporters, thus compromising police neutrality at a time when the police will be coming under additional strain from the effects of climate change on the wider economy. The heavy handed policing at Heathrow during last year’s Climate Camp was seen by many as a warning of things to come.
Can you confirm what conversation and agreements have been made with the Secretary of State and what the Secretary of State’s view is on the police being effectively used as a private army in support of the aviation industry’s interests?
Point 4
The email sent in response to the petition on the 10 Downing Street web site against Heathrow claimed that the “UK now has the fastest growing railway in Europe.” Can you confirm how much CO2 emissions will be generated from this growth and where the power will come from for this expansion. It is worth considering that a Pendolino on the West Coast lines requires 5.1 Mega Watts of power. There are 53 Pendolino is the Virgin Fleet. Basic calculations show that just these trains requires approximately 600 wind turbines to provide adequate power. In addtion, there is the rest of the electrified Rail network.
Point 5
A collegue of mine is a pilot in BA and regularly flies from from Saudi Arabia to Heathrow. He tells me that the first class is often full of people coming over for shoping weekends. This is clealy a rediculous use of critical resources and a totally unnecessary contriubtion to global warming. It is strong argument that we need to reduce demand for travel.
Your statements so far on travel policies have all been concerned with providing enough supply to met demand. Can you confirm what you are doing to reduce demand.
Point 6
You have stated in your letters to MPs that a consultation period will be initated and you have a web site for consultation.
Can you confirm the point of this. You have already stated that you intend to proceed with the third runway and the policies of your departments are completely ignoring all the available science.
I look forward to your reply addressing specifically each of the points above.
Yours sincerely
Kevin Lister
c.c:
David Drew MP,
Flying Matters
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Email to Councillors on why Capt Martin is a fool and why IPCC report says 100% cut in emissions
Contact me at Kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Dear Councillors,
I refer you to the letter that Capt Martin wrote in the Gloucester Echo this week, click here and my response (not published) follows below. Capt Martin's self interested and ignorant attitude is a perfect example of why it is going to be so difficult to get people to change and accept the enormity of the problem we face.
To give you a measure of the absurdity of his position I enclose a copy of a graph from this months IPCC report which indicates the size of CO2 cuts that we need to make. This is probably the most disturbing statement of our future that it is possible to imagine. As you are aware, the IPCC report is the considered amongst the most definitive of statements on global warming. It's authors can not be dismissed as "tree hugging lefties."
The two graphs need to be read together. The graph on the right hand side shows the expected stabilised temperature for various levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The best possible scenario presented is that the greenhouse gases stabilise in the 445-490 ppm range. This would result in a temperature increase of between 1.8 dec C to 3.8 deg C, which is potentially catostrophic. Mathematical modelling suggests that an average temperature rise above 2 deg C is likely to lead to runaway climate change, so we are already at extremely high risk. To achieve this best possible scenario, the necessary cuts in CO2 emissions are shown on the left hand side. This disturbingly shows that not only must we completely eliminate CO2 emissions, but we must somehow, think how to extract additional CO2 out of the atmosphere, even to get to the best possible scenario.
This is not a good time to have children, let alone build an airport. In fact, there is barely any justification to keep the existing airport going, when the science now argues that we effectively need to get CO2 emissions below zero.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Letter to the Echo (not yet published):
-------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Editor
It is great when people such as Capt Martin come out with such claptrap. It shows how pathetic and self interested the argument in support of expanding Staverton actually is.
As a vociferous campaigner against Staverton who lives in Nailsworth, I cannot be accused of living too close to the airport and bringing any problems on myself. My personal concern is global warming, and if Capt Martin was a little bit brighter, he may actually take the time to acquaint himself with the science behind it, especially as the IPCC has brought out its most damning assessment yet of our future.
As regards, Kemble I do not live near that either, but I am continually harassed by the noise of planes dog fighting and practising aerobatics above me and find it galling that an airport is able to cause this level of irritation when it is does not even have proper planning consent. Kemble’s Managing Director in a response to one of my complaints said that the noise I was experiencing in my garden was no louder than a dishwasher. I am adamant that I do not want to be surrounded by the noise of dishwashers every weekend and against my wishes.
Capt Martin’s attitude to the environment and to the legitimate concerns of others is typical of the moral bankruptcy in the aviation industry’s approach to global warming. It puts him at the same level as the yobs that race their cars around our towns and villages on Friday nights for cheap kicks. The man is a clearly an uneducated fool who’s views should be ignored by anyone with any level of intelligence.
Dear Councillors,
I refer you to the letter that Capt Martin wrote in the Gloucester Echo this week, click here and my response (not published) follows below. Capt Martin's self interested and ignorant attitude is a perfect example of why it is going to be so difficult to get people to change and accept the enormity of the problem we face.
To give you a measure of the absurdity of his position I enclose a copy of a graph from this months IPCC report which indicates the size of CO2 cuts that we need to make. This is probably the most disturbing statement of our future that it is possible to imagine. As you are aware, the IPCC report is the considered amongst the most definitive of statements on global warming. It's authors can not be dismissed as "tree hugging lefties."
The two graphs need to be read together. The graph on the right hand side shows the expected stabilised temperature for various levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The best possible scenario presented is that the greenhouse gases stabilise in the 445-490 ppm range. This would result in a temperature increase of between 1.8 dec C to 3.8 deg C, which is potentially catostrophic. Mathematical modelling suggests that an average temperature rise above 2 deg C is likely to lead to runaway climate change, so we are already at extremely high risk. To achieve this best possible scenario, the necessary cuts in CO2 emissions are shown on the left hand side. This disturbingly shows that not only must we completely eliminate CO2 emissions, but we must somehow, think how to extract additional CO2 out of the atmosphere, even to get to the best possible scenario.
This is not a good time to have children, let alone build an airport. In fact, there is barely any justification to keep the existing airport going, when the science now argues that we effectively need to get CO2 emissions below zero.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Letter to the Echo (not yet published):
-------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Editor
It is great when people such as Capt Martin come out with such claptrap. It shows how pathetic and self interested the argument in support of expanding Staverton actually is.
As a vociferous campaigner against Staverton who lives in Nailsworth, I cannot be accused of living too close to the airport and bringing any problems on myself. My personal concern is global warming, and if Capt Martin was a little bit brighter, he may actually take the time to acquaint himself with the science behind it, especially as the IPCC has brought out its most damning assessment yet of our future.
As regards, Kemble I do not live near that either, but I am continually harassed by the noise of planes dog fighting and practising aerobatics above me and find it galling that an airport is able to cause this level of irritation when it is does not even have proper planning consent. Kemble’s Managing Director in a response to one of my complaints said that the noise I was experiencing in my garden was no louder than a dishwasher. I am adamant that I do not want to be surrounded by the noise of dishwashers every weekend and against my wishes.
Capt Martin’s attitude to the environment and to the legitimate concerns of others is typical of the moral bankruptcy in the aviation industry’s approach to global warming. It puts him at the same level as the yobs that race their cars around our towns and villages on Friday nights for cheap kicks. The man is a clearly an uneducated fool who’s views should be ignored by anyone with any level of intelligence.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Prince Charles being used again to support climate damage - he's lucky I point these things out to him
Dear Prince Charles,
Please pass on my thanks to your staff for replying to my last letter.
Following our previous correspondence when your staff said that you would not make comment on a planning application, I thought that it would be appropriate to advise you that Kemble airfield are using a photo of yourself and you wife for advertising on their web site (http://www.kembleairport.com/).
As you are probably aware, (based on having a residence in Tetbury), Kemble Airfield is currently the subject of a planning inquiry and is at present effectively operating illegally as it has not complied with necessary planning legislation. Cotswold District Council will be submitting an additional enforcement notice.
On Cotswold District Council’s web site they say, “The Council maintains its robust position that there is a case to answer in respect on uncontrolled general flying.”
The airport is currently a huge source of noise which blights many areas in the Cotswolds and the problem is increasing in intensity year on year. I am sure that that as a local resident of this area, you will appreciate the importance of preserving the quality of our environement which is now threatened in so many ways.
Ronan Harvey, the airport owner, said in the Cirencester Standard, “that a lot of future developments at the site were on hold pending the outcome of the inquiry.” Clearly, with statements such as this, he has aspirations to increase operations further with corresponding increases in noise and pollution. It highlights the importance of not supporting his aspirations, such as the introduction of private jets that are the most carbon intensive form of travel yet developed.
Given your well-known concerns on the environment and global warming, I can only imagine that you must be appalled that a company, which is operating illegally and in an environmentally irresponsible fashion, is using your photograph for their publicity.
Also, following my last request, I would appreciate a break down of the carbon budget in your annual report.
As usual, a copy of this will be posted on my blog.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Please pass on my thanks to your staff for replying to my last letter.
Following our previous correspondence when your staff said that you would not make comment on a planning application, I thought that it would be appropriate to advise you that Kemble airfield are using a photo of yourself and you wife for advertising on their web site (http://www.kembleairport.com/).
As you are probably aware, (based on having a residence in Tetbury), Kemble Airfield is currently the subject of a planning inquiry and is at present effectively operating illegally as it has not complied with necessary planning legislation. Cotswold District Council will be submitting an additional enforcement notice.
On Cotswold District Council’s web site they say, “The Council maintains its robust position that there is a case to answer in respect on uncontrolled general flying.”
The airport is currently a huge source of noise which blights many areas in the Cotswolds and the problem is increasing in intensity year on year. I am sure that that as a local resident of this area, you will appreciate the importance of preserving the quality of our environement which is now threatened in so many ways.
Ronan Harvey, the airport owner, said in the Cirencester Standard, “that a lot of future developments at the site were on hold pending the outcome of the inquiry.” Clearly, with statements such as this, he has aspirations to increase operations further with corresponding increases in noise and pollution. It highlights the importance of not supporting his aspirations, such as the introduction of private jets that are the most carbon intensive form of travel yet developed.
Given your well-known concerns on the environment and global warming, I can only imagine that you must be appalled that a company, which is operating illegally and in an environmentally irresponsible fashion, is using your photograph for their publicity.
Also, following my last request, I would appreciate a break down of the carbon budget in your annual report.
As usual, a copy of this will be posted on my blog.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Emails to Councillor Brfan Calway, re the role of the police in climate change
Brfan,
Thank you for your email and your comments (see attachments at the end of this message)
I am always willing to learn and be corrected!! I would be extremely interested in your thoughts on how our society will hold together under the future scenarios that are going to be played out as a result of climate change.
I believe that we are rapidly moving towards a situation which is so far removed from today’s society that all the normal assumptions which we base our systems upon will be invalidated.
To give you an analogy, the last time a spike in CO2 levels occurred similar to the one we are creating now was 250 million years ago, known as the Permian–Triassic event. This was essentially a runaway global warming event due to a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere from massive volcanic activity. It is estimated that 95% of all the species were wiped out. Those that survived owed their survival to random chance and luck. The ability which the species of the time had adapted to their environments had no bearing on their chance of survival, because the environment had changed so much. So I believe it will be with our society. Our society is currently based on economic growth and our laws and institutions are predicated on supporting this model. Economic growth is unlikely to be our future. We will experience the same type of discontinuity that the earth experienced 250 million years ago.
As a further matter of consideration, after the Permian–Triassic event it is estimated that it took 5 million years for the CO2 levels to return to previous levels and 50 million years for the planets eco system to return to the same level of bio diversity, which subsequently heralded the start of the dinosaurs. It is also important to remember that the sun was a lot cooler then than it is now. With the same spike in CO2 happening now, it is not certain that the planet would ever recover. And rather soberingly, the temperature increase at the time was in the order of 6 deg C, which is comfortably within the confidence limits of many of today’s computer simulations, and within the upper bounds published by the IPCC.
I believe that what we are experiencing today are the perturbations normally seen before a major shock or step change in system, in the same way minor earth tremors warn can warn of a massive volcanic eruption. We are currently see rapidly rising food prices as food production around the world decreases due to climate change and bio fuel demands. We are experiencing oil prices (now around $100 barrel) which would have been unimaginable only a year ago. We have seen a run on a bank in this country, which we did not even experience in the Second World War, the Cuban Missile crisis or the 1970's oil crisis. We are seeing waves of environmental migrants coming to this country. We are seeing a population becoming increasingly disenfranchised with the political leaders. It is all making for a very disturbing picture of the future when we are still only at the bottom of the temperature curve predicted by IPCC.
For those of us that have dared to challenge the assumptions that underpin our society and persuade people to change, it is a dispiriting and depressing exercise, because so little of where we are going as a society makes any sense. I have been branded an extremist and fanatic. I believe I am neither, I am simply a realist. I have tried and will keep trying to persuade people to be realists and take responsibility for their actions, however it is easy for a few people to decide to ignore the overwhelming evidence and pursue paths with the full legal backing of the state, which ultimately has the legitimate right to violence.
My experience at the Heathrow climate camp this year was an eye opener for me. On a protest that was a best token, (walking to the empty BAA offices on a Sunday afternoon having given the company 1 weeks notice of the event), 300 of us were surrounded by 1500 riot police and many around me were badly beaten. I was staggered to hear on the radio the police commander’s justification, see my email to him on my blog. Equally, I was staggered to hear within a couple of weeks of the demonstration, that Lord Stevens (the ex commander of the Metropolitan police) had accepted a position as a non-executive director on the board of BAA. And finally, in the face of all evidence and mounting public opinion Ruth Kelly announces that she is giving the go ahead for a third runway, and is simply bowing the interests of a few corporations at the clear expense of my children’s future. No doubt, in the coming battles at Heathrow, which will be far more intense than at the climate camp, the police will be used to up hold the law, so siding with BAA and their cohorts, against those that are fighting for the future for our children with no legal rights.
In these circumstances, the idea of a politically neutral police force is clearly an illusion when, the main political parties are offering little concrete action to tackle climate change and the right to protest is becoming increasingly restricted.
So what does this mean for up holding law and order at a local level? The police are in danger of being dragged into more and more confrontational situations and may loose the respect of the community at a time when the amount of policing that a community needs will increase. Philip Bobbitt in his highly acclaimed book "The Shield of Achilles," argued that in the future it will be countries that operate on similar systems to the US were individual citizens have the right to bear arms and defend themselves that will survive. An uncomfortable thought for this country.
Thankyou for reading this far.
Kevin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Lister,
I have read with interest your numerous commentaries on climate change. Your latest to Councillor Garnham was also of interest. As a retired police officer and a former member of the Police Authority I would suggest with the greatest respect that you are not totally aware of the function of the Police Service and its role within society.
Regards,
Brfan Calway
Thank you for your email and your comments (see attachments at the end of this message)
I am always willing to learn and be corrected!! I would be extremely interested in your thoughts on how our society will hold together under the future scenarios that are going to be played out as a result of climate change.
I believe that we are rapidly moving towards a situation which is so far removed from today’s society that all the normal assumptions which we base our systems upon will be invalidated.
To give you an analogy, the last time a spike in CO2 levels occurred similar to the one we are creating now was 250 million years ago, known as the Permian–Triassic event. This was essentially a runaway global warming event due to a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere from massive volcanic activity. It is estimated that 95% of all the species were wiped out. Those that survived owed their survival to random chance and luck. The ability which the species of the time had adapted to their environments had no bearing on their chance of survival, because the environment had changed so much. So I believe it will be with our society. Our society is currently based on economic growth and our laws and institutions are predicated on supporting this model. Economic growth is unlikely to be our future. We will experience the same type of discontinuity that the earth experienced 250 million years ago.
As a further matter of consideration, after the Permian–Triassic event it is estimated that it took 5 million years for the CO2 levels to return to previous levels and 50 million years for the planets eco system to return to the same level of bio diversity, which subsequently heralded the start of the dinosaurs. It is also important to remember that the sun was a lot cooler then than it is now. With the same spike in CO2 happening now, it is not certain that the planet would ever recover. And rather soberingly, the temperature increase at the time was in the order of 6 deg C, which is comfortably within the confidence limits of many of today’s computer simulations, and within the upper bounds published by the IPCC.
I believe that what we are experiencing today are the perturbations normally seen before a major shock or step change in system, in the same way minor earth tremors warn can warn of a massive volcanic eruption. We are currently see rapidly rising food prices as food production around the world decreases due to climate change and bio fuel demands. We are experiencing oil prices (now around $100 barrel) which would have been unimaginable only a year ago. We have seen a run on a bank in this country, which we did not even experience in the Second World War, the Cuban Missile crisis or the 1970's oil crisis. We are seeing waves of environmental migrants coming to this country. We are seeing a population becoming increasingly disenfranchised with the political leaders. It is all making for a very disturbing picture of the future when we are still only at the bottom of the temperature curve predicted by IPCC.
For those of us that have dared to challenge the assumptions that underpin our society and persuade people to change, it is a dispiriting and depressing exercise, because so little of where we are going as a society makes any sense. I have been branded an extremist and fanatic. I believe I am neither, I am simply a realist. I have tried and will keep trying to persuade people to be realists and take responsibility for their actions, however it is easy for a few people to decide to ignore the overwhelming evidence and pursue paths with the full legal backing of the state, which ultimately has the legitimate right to violence.
My experience at the Heathrow climate camp this year was an eye opener for me. On a protest that was a best token, (walking to the empty BAA offices on a Sunday afternoon having given the company 1 weeks notice of the event), 300 of us were surrounded by 1500 riot police and many around me were badly beaten. I was staggered to hear on the radio the police commander’s justification, see my email to him on my blog. Equally, I was staggered to hear within a couple of weeks of the demonstration, that Lord Stevens (the ex commander of the Metropolitan police) had accepted a position as a non-executive director on the board of BAA. And finally, in the face of all evidence and mounting public opinion Ruth Kelly announces that she is giving the go ahead for a third runway, and is simply bowing the interests of a few corporations at the clear expense of my children’s future. No doubt, in the coming battles at Heathrow, which will be far more intense than at the climate camp, the police will be used to up hold the law, so siding with BAA and their cohorts, against those that are fighting for the future for our children with no legal rights.
In these circumstances, the idea of a politically neutral police force is clearly an illusion when, the main political parties are offering little concrete action to tackle climate change and the right to protest is becoming increasingly restricted.
So what does this mean for up holding law and order at a local level? The police are in danger of being dragged into more and more confrontational situations and may loose the respect of the community at a time when the amount of policing that a community needs will increase. Philip Bobbitt in his highly acclaimed book "The Shield of Achilles," argued that in the future it will be countries that operate on similar systems to the US were individual citizens have the right to bear arms and defend themselves that will survive. An uncomfortable thought for this country.
Thankyou for reading this far.
Kevin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Lister,
I have read with interest your numerous commentaries on climate change. Your latest to Councillor Garnham was also of interest. As a retired police officer and a former member of the Police Authority I would suggest with the greatest respect that you are not totally aware of the function of the Police Service and its role within society.
Regards,
Brfan Calway
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Policing in the face of climate change - email to the Chairman of Gloucestershire Police Authority
see also email sent to chief constable of the met, after Climate Camp
Dear Mr. Garnham,
Following our recent exchange of emails which you unfortunately found offensive, I trust you have since familiarised yourself with the recent IPCC report and the UN Human Development report
Neither of these reports make pleasant reading. The IPCC report paints a picture of overwhelming environmental destruction that will be far beyond the capabilities of our society to cope with unless serious action is taken. The serious action that they recommend is a 90% cut in CO2 emissions. A cut of this magnitude will completely disrupt the smooth running of our society.
Likewise the UN Human development report (page 4) quotes “The drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were looking back at a human tragedy, the second world war, that had already happened. Climate change is different. It is a human tragedy in the making. Allowing that tragedy to evolve would be a political failure that merits the description of an ‘outrage to the conscience of mankind’”
As the Chairman of Gloucestershire Police Authority you have a special responsibility when it comes to these problems. To do nothing will result in a societal collapse that is likely to be sudden and violent as climate change accelerates out of control. Doing something requires the biggest curtailment of freedoms imaginable to enable the CO2 cuts to be made, which is also going to be overwhelmingly difficult. The flooding experiences of last summer highlighted how suddenly change can happen and how vulnerable we are.
It is clear that in the very near future the ideas for policing that our society has been based on will become redundant. It will simply not be possible to provide the protection that we expect with the existing forces or structures. In either of the circumstances above you are likely to be forced to rely on local protection as societies take on responsibility for their own policing.
I would be interested to know what consideration you have given to these inevitable circumstances.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Dear Mr. Garnham,
Following our recent exchange of emails which you unfortunately found offensive, I trust you have since familiarised yourself with the recent IPCC report and the UN Human Development report
Neither of these reports make pleasant reading. The IPCC report paints a picture of overwhelming environmental destruction that will be far beyond the capabilities of our society to cope with unless serious action is taken. The serious action that they recommend is a 90% cut in CO2 emissions. A cut of this magnitude will completely disrupt the smooth running of our society.
Likewise the UN Human development report (page 4) quotes “The drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were looking back at a human tragedy, the second world war, that had already happened. Climate change is different. It is a human tragedy in the making. Allowing that tragedy to evolve would be a political failure that merits the description of an ‘outrage to the conscience of mankind’”
As the Chairman of Gloucestershire Police Authority you have a special responsibility when it comes to these problems. To do nothing will result in a societal collapse that is likely to be sudden and violent as climate change accelerates out of control. Doing something requires the biggest curtailment of freedoms imaginable to enable the CO2 cuts to be made, which is also going to be overwhelmingly difficult. The flooding experiences of last summer highlighted how suddenly change can happen and how vulnerable we are.
It is clear that in the very near future the ideas for policing that our society has been based on will become redundant. It will simply not be possible to provide the protection that we expect with the existing forces or structures. In either of the circumstances above you are likely to be forced to rely on local protection as societies take on responsibility for their own policing.
I would be interested to know what consideration you have given to these inevitable circumstances.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
No chance to debate - in fact we were never even invited (email to Stavertons management)
Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Dear Mark/Darren
We were extremely disappointed that todays planned presentation on misconceptions at the airport was cancelled at such short notice.
I had arrived with several colleagues and councillors who had not recieved the late notice of cancellation. My colleagues and I were looking forward to challenging your latest justifications for ignoring all the warning signs on global warming and the accumulating evidence.
We were told that the meeting would be rescheduled in the spring. We look forward to this meeting and appreciate the benefit that this extra time will allow for our planning.
For you information, I enclose a copy of the flier that we intended to circulate at the meeting
Regards,
Kevin
Dear Mark/Darren
We were extremely disappointed that todays planned presentation on misconceptions at the airport was cancelled at such short notice.
I had arrived with several colleagues and councillors who had not recieved the late notice of cancellation. My colleagues and I were looking forward to challenging your latest justifications for ignoring all the warning signs on global warming and the accumulating evidence.
We were told that the meeting would be rescheduled in the spring. We look forward to this meeting and appreciate the benefit that this extra time will allow for our planning.
For you information, I enclose a copy of the flier that we intended to circulate at the meeting
Regards,
Kevin
I create noise and I don't care - Kemble Airfields response to my previous letter
Dear David Drew MP,
Thank you for sending Kevin Lister's letter which I understand was originally sent to Ultimate High and posted on his blogspot 'Kev's Climate Column'. For reference I have copied the present first paragraph of 'Kev's Climate Column', and the entry to Ultimate High on that web site at the end of this letter - in case you were unaware of it.
In relation to the specific allegations against Ultimate High. Every pilot, prior to conducting any aerobatic manoeuvre, is taught to complete various checks which include 'clear of controlled airspace and built up areas'. I have spoken with the owner of Ultimate High and to some of the Ultimate High pilot Instructors. They confirm that they are aware that tail chasing does create additional noise but they also tell me that in their Extra aircraft last week they were operating between 8,000 and 10,000 ft altitude, and they will always go to this height when they can. In the Bulldog aircraft their agreed self imposed minimum altitude is 3,000 ft, but the pilots say they are mostly at four to five thousand feet. At this sort of altitude it could well appear from the ground that the aircraft look like they are overhead when in fact they are directly over open land nearby. I am assured that instructors do try and vary the locations they fly and do not fly in the same place on the same day. They do complete standard HASELL checks as mentioned above. We are all aware that noise carries and that on still days in particular noise carries far more but you cannot organise a commercial business around that. What Ultimate High have done, I feel very responsibly, is that unlike the rest of the recreational flying industry they have decided never to fly on Sundays.
It is inevitable that an aerodrome will get noise complaints and we have established a simple to use system that enables the public to get a complaint to us quickly via the internet (www.kemble.com). With a specific time we can often tell whether the aircraft was from Kemble and we always investigate complaints and make statistical analysis which helps us to modify local procedures and minimise nuisance where possible. Noise abatement procedures and complaints are discussed every month at our Kemble Operators Group meetings. I enclose a comparative noise level table and quote the source. It is interesting that a propeller driven aircraft at 1,000ft registers 88db which is said to be the same noise as a dishwasher. A typical light aircraft will fly around about 120mph, and many much faster, so the noise is hardly around for long.
One problem at Kemble without doubt is that some visiting pilots seem to pay little attention to the noise abatement procedures. We are working to try and create better awareness of procedures here and at a national level to encourage greater environmental awareness in flying training and of the importance of checking local procedures before pilots fly to an aerodrome with which they are unfamiliar.
With respect to Mr. Lister being 'a bit of a killjoy', well, yes he is. And the Cotswolds is littered with airfields where brave men used to train to fly and dogfight above the Cotswold countryside before going off to fight for their country - so a bit of dogfighting in the Cotswold skies is nothing new. And, of course Mr. Lister should expect to hear aircraft in this area, Gloucestershire has a fine history of aviation. The jet engine was first tested at Brockworth, Gloucester Airport was opened in 1931 and Kemble in 1938. Nympsfield is just up the road, as are Aston Down, Leighterton and Chavenage. South Cerney, Oaksey Park and Badminton are a little further away but all of these aerodromes are within 15 miles of Nailsworth.
Mr. Lister's comments about executive egos and that they have little empathy for the environment is a bit rich! How does Mr. Lister know that the people from the city flying these aircraft do not cycle to work, go on holiday by train, recycle everything and generally concern themselves with the environment? The fact is we are all aware of environmental concerns and those of us in the aviation business are as concerned as any to reduce C02 emissions. The new generation of Light Small Aircraft that will gradually replace the existing training fleet over the coming years will cut fuel consumption of that group by around 40%. You might also be interested to know that my own Eurostar microlight aircraft will fly happily at 90mph burning just nine litres of fuel per hour which is more economical than my car! Unsurprisingly I fly to travel when I can to be more environmentally friendly.
Flying is no more a frivolous an activity than motor racing or riding horses or fishing. How much fuel is burned I wonder in those great big trucks taking little Judy and James to their pony club event? And, as fishing is so popular how much fuel is burned by a nation of anglers all driving to their favourite spots? You just cannot point fingers at individuals like this. The only sensible control measure on fuel consumption at the moment is by price. When the fateful day comes that we are really in trouble with fuel supply then rationing would be the only fair control.
To get back to the first point - Nailsworth. My home for the last eight years has been in Nailsworth and my friends and neighbours have never complained to me about noise from aircraft. My partner did complain recently about powered paramotors flying over the Town from a nearby field where a competition had been arranged. These pilots were breaking the law and the feedback to the owner of the field, together with a tragic fatality, has caused them to be banned from flying there ever again.
Powered aircraft that tow gliders into the air from nearby Nympsfield do fly regularly near the Town but that level of activity I do not believe has changed much in the twenty years I have been living in this area.
There may have been some increase in general aviation activity in the area in the last ten years but this no where near the level when Kemble was an active RAF base with phenomenally noisy jet aircraft operating.
There are more houses, more people, more shops, more cars and there are more foul mouthed youths walking past my home in Nailsworth - I find them offensive. Give me the sweet drone of an aircraft engine any day, someone up there having some fun.
David Young
Thank you for sending Kevin Lister's letter which I understand was originally sent to Ultimate High and posted on his blogspot 'Kev's Climate Column'. For reference I have copied the present first paragraph of 'Kev's Climate Column', and the entry to Ultimate High on that web site at the end of this letter - in case you were unaware of it.
In relation to the specific allegations against Ultimate High. Every pilot, prior to conducting any aerobatic manoeuvre, is taught to complete various checks which include 'clear of controlled airspace and built up areas'. I have spoken with the owner of Ultimate High and to some of the Ultimate High pilot Instructors. They confirm that they are aware that tail chasing does create additional noise but they also tell me that in their Extra aircraft last week they were operating between 8,000 and 10,000 ft altitude, and they will always go to this height when they can. In the Bulldog aircraft their agreed self imposed minimum altitude is 3,000 ft, but the pilots say they are mostly at four to five thousand feet. At this sort of altitude it could well appear from the ground that the aircraft look like they are overhead when in fact they are directly over open land nearby. I am assured that instructors do try and vary the locations they fly and do not fly in the same place on the same day. They do complete standard HASELL checks as mentioned above. We are all aware that noise carries and that on still days in particular noise carries far more but you cannot organise a commercial business around that. What Ultimate High have done, I feel very responsibly, is that unlike the rest of the recreational flying industry they have decided never to fly on Sundays.
It is inevitable that an aerodrome will get noise complaints and we have established a simple to use system that enables the public to get a complaint to us quickly via the internet (www.kemble.com). With a specific time we can often tell whether the aircraft was from Kemble and we always investigate complaints and make statistical analysis which helps us to modify local procedures and minimise nuisance where possible. Noise abatement procedures and complaints are discussed every month at our Kemble Operators Group meetings. I enclose a comparative noise level table and quote the source. It is interesting that a propeller driven aircraft at 1,000ft registers 88db which is said to be the same noise as a dishwasher. A typical light aircraft will fly around about 120mph, and many much faster, so the noise is hardly around for long.
One problem at Kemble without doubt is that some visiting pilots seem to pay little attention to the noise abatement procedures. We are working to try and create better awareness of procedures here and at a national level to encourage greater environmental awareness in flying training and of the importance of checking local procedures before pilots fly to an aerodrome with which they are unfamiliar.
With respect to Mr. Lister being 'a bit of a killjoy', well, yes he is. And the Cotswolds is littered with airfields where brave men used to train to fly and dogfight above the Cotswold countryside before going off to fight for their country - so a bit of dogfighting in the Cotswold skies is nothing new. And, of course Mr. Lister should expect to hear aircraft in this area, Gloucestershire has a fine history of aviation. The jet engine was first tested at Brockworth, Gloucester Airport was opened in 1931 and Kemble in 1938. Nympsfield is just up the road, as are Aston Down, Leighterton and Chavenage. South Cerney, Oaksey Park and Badminton are a little further away but all of these aerodromes are within 15 miles of Nailsworth.
Mr. Lister's comments about executive egos and that they have little empathy for the environment is a bit rich! How does Mr. Lister know that the people from the city flying these aircraft do not cycle to work, go on holiday by train, recycle everything and generally concern themselves with the environment? The fact is we are all aware of environmental concerns and those of us in the aviation business are as concerned as any to reduce C02 emissions. The new generation of Light Small Aircraft that will gradually replace the existing training fleet over the coming years will cut fuel consumption of that group by around 40%. You might also be interested to know that my own Eurostar microlight aircraft will fly happily at 90mph burning just nine litres of fuel per hour which is more economical than my car! Unsurprisingly I fly to travel when I can to be more environmentally friendly.
Flying is no more a frivolous an activity than motor racing or riding horses or fishing. How much fuel is burned I wonder in those great big trucks taking little Judy and James to their pony club event? And, as fishing is so popular how much fuel is burned by a nation of anglers all driving to their favourite spots? You just cannot point fingers at individuals like this. The only sensible control measure on fuel consumption at the moment is by price. When the fateful day comes that we are really in trouble with fuel supply then rationing would be the only fair control.
To get back to the first point - Nailsworth. My home for the last eight years has been in Nailsworth and my friends and neighbours have never complained to me about noise from aircraft. My partner did complain recently about powered paramotors flying over the Town from a nearby field where a competition had been arranged. These pilots were breaking the law and the feedback to the owner of the field, together with a tragic fatality, has caused them to be banned from flying there ever again.
Powered aircraft that tow gliders into the air from nearby Nympsfield do fly regularly near the Town but that level of activity I do not believe has changed much in the twenty years I have been living in this area.
There may have been some increase in general aviation activity in the area in the last ten years but this no where near the level when Kemble was an active RAF base with phenomenally noisy jet aircraft operating.
There are more houses, more people, more shops, more cars and there are more foul mouthed youths walking past my home in Nailsworth - I find them offensive. Give me the sweet drone of an aircraft engine any day, someone up there having some fun.
David Young
Saturday, November 17, 2007
How much more evidence to we need? See todays IPCC report
Contact me a kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
For those people who still believe that we should allow Staverton Airport to expand and still do not believe in global warming, I refer them to quotes from the IPCC update report that was issued today, (17th November) which is the peer reviewed analysis of 2,500 of the world's top climate scientists:
“Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).”
“Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379ppm) and methane (1774 ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.”
“Of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show significant change in many physical and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to warming.”
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic green house gas. Its annual emissions grew by about 80% between 1970 and 2004.”
“Continued green house gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century," (potentially up to an unimaginable 6 deg C increase)”
“Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if green house gas concentrations were to be stabilised.”
“Model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe.”
“Early mitigation actions would avoid further locking in carbon intensive infrastructure and reduce climate change and associated adaptation needs.”
How much more evidence is needed to convince people that we cannot expand Staverton or any other airport? In fact, we simply cannot allow flying and many other activities we take for granted today if we want the planet to have any future.
For those people who still believe that we should allow Staverton Airport to expand and still do not believe in global warming, I refer them to quotes from the IPCC update report that was issued today, (17th November) which is the peer reviewed analysis of 2,500 of the world's top climate scientists:
“Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).”
“Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379ppm) and methane (1774 ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.”
“Of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show significant change in many physical and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to warming.”
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic green house gas. Its annual emissions grew by about 80% between 1970 and 2004.”
“Continued green house gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century," (potentially up to an unimaginable 6 deg C increase)”
“Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if green house gas concentrations were to be stabilised.”
“Model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe.”
“Early mitigation actions would avoid further locking in carbon intensive infrastructure and reduce climate change and associated adaptation needs.”
How much more evidence is needed to convince people that we cannot expand Staverton or any other airport? In fact, we simply cannot allow flying and many other activities we take for granted today if we want the planet to have any future.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Email to Councillor Garnham - he is extremely offended by climate change
Contact me at Kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Dear Mr Garnham,
Thank you for your email (see at the end of this text). You may want to explain which part of the letter actually offends you. I can only speculate.
Is it because I refer to the conclusions of the IPCC report that forecasts with the business as usual scenario that we are pursuing, we could be facing a temperature increase of 6 deg C by the end of this century, which will lead to the extincition of virtually all life on this planet. I can understand you being offended at this, it makes us all feel guilty about the carbon emissions that the we produce and our complicity in the end of the world.
Is it because I compare the situation with the lead up to the second world war? Again I can understand you being offended by this, because it raises the famous question as to whether or not countries go to war because the populations are evil or because they are led by evil. Gloucestershire airport claims that the majority of people support them. If this is correct, it does not prove that there is a case for the airport, just in the same way as popular support for war in Germany before WW1 and WW2 did not prove war was correct. In our case, it merely proves that the majority of people are either unaware of climate change or so self interested as to not care. I can understand discussion of this being offensive to you.
Is it because I highlight the cancer risk associated with living near an airport? Heathrow has some of the highest incidents of respiratory illness, heart disease and cancers in the country. I can understand people who are keen on flying being offended by the thought of killing the people on the ground around them.
Is it because I highlight the absurdity of a company hoping to provide a helicopter taxi service in the face of cataclysmic climate change, and to be operating from an airport that once said on its web site that it was concerned about the global warming? Again, I can understand you being offended by the knowledge that a company which the Council owns, behaves in such an appalling manner.
There are probably many other things in my letter that could have led me to offend you. However, I suffer huge offence every time I switch on the TV and hear of the latest Airbus delivery, or the latest airport expansion, or the latest bio-fuel development that is destroying the rain forest, knowing full well that each one of these is another nail in the coffin for my children. I however, am not in elected office, you are, and while you have any say or influence in a decision that will affect my children I will continue to use my democratic right to raise my concern in every way I can. I will, therefore not be removing you from my mail list unless you make it absolutely and unequivocally clear that you will oppose the airport expansion and use your influence to persuade other councillors into doing the same.
I would also ask you to recognise the magnitude of the imminient crisis that we face. Your party recently backed away from any significant policies on climate change at the last conference, in common with recent moves from Labour. I will therefore not have any reasonable choice of policies on climate change in the next election. I find that deeply offensive, especially in a democracy.
Kevin Lister
"GARNHAM, Cllr Rob"wrote:
Mr Lister,
I find the tone of your letter to be extremely offensive and would ask that you remove me from your circulation list.
Cllr Rob Garnham.
Cllr Rob Garnham
Cheltenham Borough Councillor for Park Ward
County Councillor for Lansdown, Park and Warden Hill Wards.
Chairman of Gloucestershire Police Authority
tel 01242 673325
From: Kevin Lister [mailto:kevin.lister@btopenworld.com] Sent: 07 November 2007 16:57
To: Gloucester Echo
Subject: Fully consider the facts before supporting the airport- Letter to the Gloucester Echo.
As the organiser of Camp Hope at Staverton, I have watched the emerging debate in the letters page with great interest over the recent weeks since the camp. Whilst there have been a number of letters opposing the airport, it still amazes me that so many people refuse to connect their actions and desires with the desperately critical problem of climate change which faces us all.
It amazes me further that people are prepared to suffer noise and pollution, whilst simultaneously underwriting an investment that will provide little, if any, direct benefit to them as the airport claims it intends to attract primarily private jets and scheduled services to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dublin.
Only last week the airport announced that one of its operators intends to run a helicopter taxi service to the Cheltenham Gold Cup, which is aimed at those arriving at the airport in private jets. At a time when the government is urging us to reduce our emissions; this is absolutely ludicrous and insulting. It totally undermines the airports claims that private jets are somehow critical for business and that they are concerned about the environment.
During the camp one visitor from Staverton village complained that every second house in his street has a cancer victim and this highlights that the issue of local pollution is under debated. There has been much world wide research on cancer clusters around airports which are caused by fuel vapours, exhaust products and de-icing fluids. It maybe coincidental that one of the airport’s senior members is also suffering from cancer, but it does force the importance of proper debate on the cancer issue and we wish him a speedy recovery.
For those people who still support the airport, I would challenge them to become fully conversant with the facts before commenting further by reading the IPCC report, which is easily available on the web. This is the most authoritative statement on climate change and agreed by all the world’s governments. It demonstrates that our children face catastrophic climate change which will completely dwarf World War 2 in its impact unless urgent action is taken to reduce emissions. As World War 2 is the nearest crisis of in terms of size that we have faced, we must look to it for solutions and inspiration.
I would ask those who support the airport to consider how they would like to be remembered if they were a German citizen during the war. Would they want to be associated with those who watched silently as the Jews were taken to their deaths and asked no questions, or would they want to be remembered as the inspirational Oscar Schindler who risked his life and fortune to save as many as he could from certain death and highlighted the injustice of the system that he had to live under? To stand by and watch whilst doing nothing in the certain knowledge that many of today's children will face death from climate change, is equivalent to watching the jews being transported to the death camps and doing nothing.
It is worth remembering this airport issued a report denying and ridiculing the science of climate change in its attempt to expand its business. Wilful ignorance of a warning as critical and unequivocal as that given on global warming to support an environementally damaging development breaches the human rights of today's young people. Our solicitors are reviewing legislation such that we can bring a case against the councils and the airport in the event that the planning application is successful for a breach of human rights.
Kevin Lister
Nailsworth
Dear Mr Garnham,
Thank you for your email (see at the end of this text). You may want to explain which part of the letter actually offends you. I can only speculate.
Is it because I refer to the conclusions of the IPCC report that forecasts with the business as usual scenario that we are pursuing, we could be facing a temperature increase of 6 deg C by the end of this century, which will lead to the extincition of virtually all life on this planet. I can understand you being offended at this, it makes us all feel guilty about the carbon emissions that the we produce and our complicity in the end of the world.
Is it because I compare the situation with the lead up to the second world war? Again I can understand you being offended by this, because it raises the famous question as to whether or not countries go to war because the populations are evil or because they are led by evil. Gloucestershire airport claims that the majority of people support them. If this is correct, it does not prove that there is a case for the airport, just in the same way as popular support for war in Germany before WW1 and WW2 did not prove war was correct. In our case, it merely proves that the majority of people are either unaware of climate change or so self interested as to not care. I can understand discussion of this being offensive to you.
Is it because I highlight the cancer risk associated with living near an airport? Heathrow has some of the highest incidents of respiratory illness, heart disease and cancers in the country. I can understand people who are keen on flying being offended by the thought of killing the people on the ground around them.
Is it because I highlight the absurdity of a company hoping to provide a helicopter taxi service in the face of cataclysmic climate change, and to be operating from an airport that once said on its web site that it was concerned about the global warming? Again, I can understand you being offended by the knowledge that a company which the Council owns, behaves in such an appalling manner.
There are probably many other things in my letter that could have led me to offend you. However, I suffer huge offence every time I switch on the TV and hear of the latest Airbus delivery, or the latest airport expansion, or the latest bio-fuel development that is destroying the rain forest, knowing full well that each one of these is another nail in the coffin for my children. I however, am not in elected office, you are, and while you have any say or influence in a decision that will affect my children I will continue to use my democratic right to raise my concern in every way I can. I will, therefore not be removing you from my mail list unless you make it absolutely and unequivocally clear that you will oppose the airport expansion and use your influence to persuade other councillors into doing the same.
I would also ask you to recognise the magnitude of the imminient crisis that we face. Your party recently backed away from any significant policies on climate change at the last conference, in common with recent moves from Labour. I will therefore not have any reasonable choice of policies on climate change in the next election. I find that deeply offensive, especially in a democracy.
Kevin Lister
"GARNHAM, Cllr Rob"
Mr Lister,
I find the tone of your letter to be extremely offensive and would ask that you remove me from your circulation list.
Cllr Rob Garnham.
Cllr Rob Garnham
Cheltenham Borough Councillor for Park Ward
County Councillor for Lansdown, Park and Warden Hill Wards.
Chairman of Gloucestershire Police Authority
tel 01242 673325
From: Kevin Lister [mailto:kevin.lister@btopenworld.com] Sent: 07 November 2007 16:57
To: Gloucester Echo
Subject: Fully consider the facts before supporting the airport- Letter to the Gloucester Echo.
As the organiser of Camp Hope at Staverton, I have watched the emerging debate in the letters page with great interest over the recent weeks since the camp. Whilst there have been a number of letters opposing the airport, it still amazes me that so many people refuse to connect their actions and desires with the desperately critical problem of climate change which faces us all.
It amazes me further that people are prepared to suffer noise and pollution, whilst simultaneously underwriting an investment that will provide little, if any, direct benefit to them as the airport claims it intends to attract primarily private jets and scheduled services to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dublin.
Only last week the airport announced that one of its operators intends to run a helicopter taxi service to the Cheltenham Gold Cup, which is aimed at those arriving at the airport in private jets. At a time when the government is urging us to reduce our emissions; this is absolutely ludicrous and insulting. It totally undermines the airports claims that private jets are somehow critical for business and that they are concerned about the environment.
During the camp one visitor from Staverton village complained that every second house in his street has a cancer victim and this highlights that the issue of local pollution is under debated. There has been much world wide research on cancer clusters around airports which are caused by fuel vapours, exhaust products and de-icing fluids. It maybe coincidental that one of the airport’s senior members is also suffering from cancer, but it does force the importance of proper debate on the cancer issue and we wish him a speedy recovery.
For those people who still support the airport, I would challenge them to become fully conversant with the facts before commenting further by reading the IPCC report, which is easily available on the web. This is the most authoritative statement on climate change and agreed by all the world’s governments. It demonstrates that our children face catastrophic climate change which will completely dwarf World War 2 in its impact unless urgent action is taken to reduce emissions. As World War 2 is the nearest crisis of in terms of size that we have faced, we must look to it for solutions and inspiration.
I would ask those who support the airport to consider how they would like to be remembered if they were a German citizen during the war. Would they want to be associated with those who watched silently as the Jews were taken to their deaths and asked no questions, or would they want to be remembered as the inspirational Oscar Schindler who risked his life and fortune to save as many as he could from certain death and highlighted the injustice of the system that he had to live under? To stand by and watch whilst doing nothing in the certain knowledge that many of today's children will face death from climate change, is equivalent to watching the jews being transported to the death camps and doing nothing.
It is worth remembering this airport issued a report denying and ridiculing the science of climate change in its attempt to expand its business. Wilful ignorance of a warning as critical and unequivocal as that given on global warming to support an environementally damaging development breaches the human rights of today's young people. Our solicitors are reviewing legislation such that we can bring a case against the councils and the airport in the event that the planning application is successful for a breach of human rights.
Kevin Lister
Nailsworth
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Is Prince Charles' 3425 tonnes of CO2 justified?
Dear Prince Charles,
Please pass on my thanks to your staff for replying to my last letter.
I am delighted to receive the annual review of “The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall for 2007.” I have read it in detail, and Miss Buchanan is correct in her assumption that I would find it of interest. In particular, I find the statistics on page 9 of particular interest where the document quotes that the Households carbon emissions are 3,425 tonnes of CO2, but that these are not audited in any way.
This is clearly somewhat higher than my emissions, which I estimate to be around about 1 tonne.
Given the disparity between the Royal Households emissions and mine, I request a break down of the analysis that has been used to derive the quoted figure in your report. Also, can you confirm if these emissions include reductions associated with carbon offsetting.
A copy of this letter will be published on my blog, http://www.kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/, please note that you have my permission to put a copy of my letter your web site.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
---------Text of letter from Prince Charles Office------------
Dear Mr Lister
Thank you for your letter of the 14th October to The Prince of Wales. I do not think there is anything more that I can add to my letter of the 4th October, but I am enclosing a copy of His Royal Highness's Annual Review so that you can see more about his work, which I think might be of interest to you.
I will not be putting a copy of this letter on any public website, because it is personal and private to you -I would never consider doing otherwise and particularly not without your permission.
Please pass on my thanks to your staff for replying to my last letter.
I am delighted to receive the annual review of “The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall for 2007.” I have read it in detail, and Miss Buchanan is correct in her assumption that I would find it of interest. In particular, I find the statistics on page 9 of particular interest where the document quotes that the Households carbon emissions are 3,425 tonnes of CO2, but that these are not audited in any way.
This is clearly somewhat higher than my emissions, which I estimate to be around about 1 tonne.
Given the disparity between the Royal Households emissions and mine, I request a break down of the analysis that has been used to derive the quoted figure in your report. Also, can you confirm if these emissions include reductions associated with carbon offsetting.
A copy of this letter will be published on my blog, http://www.kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/, please note that you have my permission to put a copy of my letter your web site.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
---------Text of letter from Prince Charles Office------------
Dear Mr Lister
Thank you for your letter of the 14th October to The Prince of Wales. I do not think there is anything more that I can add to my letter of the 4th October, but I am enclosing a copy of His Royal Highness's Annual Review so that you can see more about his work, which I think might be of interest to you.
I will not be putting a copy of this letter on any public website, because it is personal and private to you -I would never consider doing otherwise and particularly not without your permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)