other web address for the Fairford Airshow organisers

The following email was also left on the RIAT web site for the organisers of the airshow:-

To the RIAT director:

Some other web sites you may want to comment on:-

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/403310.html

and

http://www.planestupid.com/

Further email to the organisers of Fairford

The following note, was handed into the director of the Fairford Airshow (self proclaimed as the worlds biggest military tattoo), click on the picture to see a full size version or click here

The following email was left on the RIAT web site, just in case the director did not get the hard copy.


Copy of email sent to the organisers of the world biggest tattoo:

In case the director of the RIAT does not get the note I left for him today, he can see it on my blog, see http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/. Please make sure that this important message is passed to him

Also, I see that you have removed the poster that we marked up with CO2 warning signs yesterday. Don't worry, we have done others in the area as well so people get the message. We will leave it as a challenge for you to find them.

We note the signs are not recycleable.

Kevin

----------
P.S. I am delighted to say that the organisers have spotted out protest, see http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/688607

Email to organisers of the Fairford Airshow

For the attention of the Airshow Director:

• Within the past month , James Hanson (NASA's chief climate change scientist) has warned that "unless we can cut our CO2 emissions in the atmosphere to 350 ppm within the next couple of years we are toast." To put it in context, we are currently at 450 ppm CO2 equivalent.
  
  
• Within the last month it has been reported there is a 50% chance of being able to sail to the North Pole this summer. If this happens we will hit one of our key climatic tipping points.
  
  
• Within the past month an amendment has been tabled to increase the CO2 cut from 60% to 80% in the climate change bill. If passed, it will result in an unprecedented change to our society.
  
  
• The United Nations Human Development report has said ignoring climate change is a crime against humanity, and on a par with the atrocities of the Second World War.
  
  
• The CIA has said climate change is our biggest threat.
  

So, our reaction to this is to stamp the largest possible carbon foot print on the ground by having an airshow which will fly planes in from all over the world to make the business of dropping bombs appear more family friendly than the business of climate change.

We offer a challenge. We will paint out as many of your signs as we can before the weekend to raise awareness of the environmental damage you will be causing. You try and stop us.

Fairford

Dear All Readers,

It is 7 days to the Fairford Airshow.

Drop me an email to let me know if you are coming.

Kevin

Thanks to David Drew for Organising a public debate on the climate change bill

David,

Thank you for organising tonights debate. Click here for the presentation.

Without these kinds of open discussion full public understanding and engagement in the implications of the climate change bill will not happen and it will be dead in the water. What you have done is testimony to your commitment to tackle climate change.

Already some people who were there and not in your constituency have already said that they are going to contact their MPs to start the same processes going.

This email will appear on my blog!!

Kevin

Use of supermarket cooking oil for biofuel - opinion please from Tesco

Dear Andrew,

In your last email, to me you said that if I had any scientific evidence, I should send it to you. Though not scientific in the true sense of the word, I had an interesting and upsetting experience in my local supermarket (not Tesco) shortly after I sent my last email. I thought you would like you to know about it and that you may wish to investigate for it happening in your own stores.

As I went to the shelf to buy some cooking oil, the gentleman in front of me was filling his shopping trolley with virtually the entire complement of the shops stock of cooking oil. His full shopping trolley had nothing else other than cooking oil, I estimated that he had about 40 bottles. I asked him what he was doing. He told me he was using the cooking oil to make diesel and was somewhat proud of the fact. I told him in no uncertain terms that this was for cooking. He argued back saying that he had left some on the shelf. In fact he had left three bottles on the shelf. One of which I bought. As it was still early evening, it was clearly going to be tough luck for anyone else coming into the store.

The supermarket in question clearly had no policy on preventing single customers bulk buying and the cashier took his money without question.

I do not believe that I have witnessed the only incident of this kind in the country, and suspect that it is frequently happening elsewhere in the country.

Given your organisation's inability to define a remit for a sustainablity study, I would be interested in your position on customers buying large quantities of cooking oil for subsequent home conversion into biofuel and depriving the other customers (like me) of essential ingredients and wonder if this could be incorporated into any study that you ultimately commission.

Yours,
Kevin Lister

Response to Andrew Slight - we will help in the biofuel sustainablity study

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for replying on behalf of Sir Terry and attempting to clarify Tesco's position. However, I am still not clear on your position, and request further clarification.

Firstly, I am clearly pleased that Gary Anderson's position reflects Tesco's biofuels policy. To be clear Gary Anderson stated that "To help us and others understand the true impact of biofuels we have asked the independent Sustainable Consumption Institute (SCI) based at Manchester University to investigate." After Gary's email, I asked for a copy of the remit that the SCI would be working to and the timescale of deliverables. He provided neither and advised that he considered the matter closed.

I have since contacted the SCI directly (email 2nd July). They have confirmed that they have not started work as a remit cannot be agreed with your organisation and they have absolutely no timetable of deliverables. See my blog for a copy of the correspondence. As per my previous request to Gary, please confirm when the remit will be completed and provide a copy of this. As the SCI report is to be made publically available, I am sure that you will have no problem releasing a copy of the remit.

Your statement "It is suppliers of biofuels rather than retailers that will be required to produce a sustainability report under the terms of the RSPO," implies that your organisation is washing its hands of its moral responsibility to ensure sustainability of its products. Again, I would request that you provide copies of the suitability reports that your main suppliers are obliged to produce under the RTFO legislation. I find it hard to believe that your organisation would be so negligent as to not request copies of these documents during contract negotiations. As you are probably aware from reviewing correspondence, Gary had previously confirmed that progress against sustainability commitments could be monitored and audited at any time. As you are probably aware, I have not received any. To finally settle this matter, can you confirm if any audit reports are actually available.

Furthermore, Tesco is a 25% stake holder in Greenergy. It defies belief that you did not do an environmental audit of their products at the time of the acquisition.

If you still have no sustainability documents, could you provide me contact details within your supplier organisations, so that I can contact them on your behalf. I will of course keep you copied in on any communications.

You say that when you made the commitment to biofuels, "many NGOs, and experts believed that biofuels could make a positive contribution to tackling climate change." You should also have been aware, that many NGOs and experts were also saying that biofuels would not provide an answer. They argued that it would displace food production and reduce the planets capacity to absorb CO2. It is therefore important that you engage the correct NGOs during your review to ensure that you do not repeat the mistakes of the past. Can you confirm if you are going to contact organisations such as Biofuels Watch that has specific and detailed expertise on the impact of biofuels and Oxfam that has been highlighting the human rights violations as a consequence of biofuels.

In response to your request for me to send further information on the impacts of biofuels that would help you decide, I would be delighted to oblige. However, you should first try any of the main institutions of the world, such as the United Nations, the World Food Programme, etc. You can also do a Google search on the subject. If this still fails, my colleges and I, who are planning to visit your headquarters, would be delighted to meet with yourselves to press our case and present the compelling scientific evidence that you request. Unlike the £25m SCI study, we will do this at no charge to yourselves, thereby guaranteeing independence.

Kevin Lister

Email from Manchester Uni SCI - no Tesco Remit agreed for biofuel sustainablity investigation

Kevin-

Thank you for getting in touch with the SCI. I'm sorry I did not get back to you sooner but I needed to check on the status of the research first and the academic investigator leading on biofuels is out of the country.

I have now heard back and I am informed that the research has not yet started and the remit for the project is still under discussion. I hope this helps for the moment. Do check back in the future if you wish.

Best regards,
Richard Seeley SCI


Kevin Lister
30/06/2008 14:57
To
richard.seeley@manchester.ac.uk
cc
Subject
Tesco's biofuel and sustainablity project

Dear Richard,

Tescos claim on their web site (http://www.tescocorporate.com/page.aspx?pointerid=A3EE32094AE5421F996145DAF961BDDD) that they have engaged yourselves to look at the true impact of biofuels and that all your research will be made public.

I have previously asked Tesco for a copy of the remit under which this work has been commissioned and timescales for the study, but they provided neither of these. I would be grateful if you could advise me where the study has got to, and the timetable for the release of public material.

Your report would be particulary helpful for me (and others) to understand biofuel impacts, as Tesco has said that sustainablity of the biofuel that they sell is an issue for their suppliers and not for them, and consequently they do not have sustainablity reports that I can review.

Yours,
Kevin Lister

Biofuel damage is not Tesco's fault, it is their suppliers!!

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your e-mails of 7 June and 26 June to Sir Terry Leahy about our policies on biofuels. I have been asked to reply on Sir Terry's behalf.

Having reviewed the previous correspondence between yourself and our Customer Services department, please let me assure you that the comprehensive replies set out by Gary Anderson reflect our biofuels policy and not the subsequent correspondence with Ryan Fitzpatrick and Scott Mackay. Please accept my apologies for this misunderstanding.

As Gary explained, we originally committed to biofuels because we believed, as did many other experts including Governments and NGOs, that biofuels could make a positive contribution to tackling climate change, and also help other challenges associated with petrol and diesel that you have mentioned on your blog such as peak oil and fuel security. The debate has become more complex and we are fully engaged in it.

In response to your specific request, it is suppliers of biofuels rather than retailers that will be required to produce a sustainability report under the terms of the RSPO. Our commitment to biofuels is based on a belief that they can play a positive role to tackle the environmental challenges posed by current transport fuels if they are sourced sustainably. For example, palm oil derived from deforested areas would clearly have a detrimental impact on the environment so the challenge that our main supplier is addressing is how we can avoid palm oil from these areas.

As with all our policies, we review regularly in the light of sound science, customer demand and our commitments to tackling environmental issues and climate change in particular. We are also engaging with environmental NGOs to improve our understanding. We welcome any new research that clarifies the impacts of biofuels and particularly welcome the Government’s review of the indirect impacts, which I understand is due to be released very soon.

In the meantime we will continue to use our own knowledge, based on the latest scientific research and our experience as a food retailer to try and ensure that in our supply chain, the ingredients in the biofuels are sourced sustainably. I believe that trying to meet this challenge is a more responsible approach than turning our backs so that we can make good decisions on the basis of sound science.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify our policy so that it can be properly represented. I would also like to emphasise that we have always viewed biofuels as one of many ways to help customers and our distribution fleet manage their environmental impact. As someone who cares deeply about the environment and climate change in particular, I hope you will recognise the other work we are doing on climate change, which is detailed in our latest Corporate Responsibility report at :

http://www.tescoreports.com/crreview08/climate-env/climate-position.html.

If you have further scientific research specifically on biofuels and their sourcing that you believe will help our understanding, please send it to me.

Kind regards
Andrew Slight

Biofuel movie for Sir Terry

Dear Sir Terry,

To remind you, I still have not recieved a copy of a sustainablity report for your biofuels and will be pursuing this under the freedom of information act, especially as this is supposed to be a publically available document.

In case your organisation is having trouble writing such a document, I hope that you will take the time to watch the movie available at this address:

http://www.engagemedia.org/Members/sam/videos/in_the_name_of_oil_palm.mp4/view

I hope that we will be able to discuss it when we come down to your offices in the near future.

Kevin Lister

Freedom of Information request for Tesco Biofuel Sustainability Report

Dear Matthew,

Further to the statement in the letter you sent which stated the Department of Transport's requires biofuels suppliers to "report on greenhouse gas savings and wider sustainability," I am formally requesting that your department provides copies of the available reports on greenhouse gas savings and wider sustainability associated with biofuels from transport fuel suppliers under the freedom of information act.

As Tesco have claimed to be the biggest supplier of biofuels and with aspirations to double the amount sold, (see extracts from their environmental statement or here), I would at first like you to provide copies of the Tesco biofuel sustainability reports. I have previously asked for copies of the sustainability reports which Tesco has said can be audited at any time to be provided, but received nothing from them.

This email will be forwarded to Tesco, my local MP, a hard copy will be sent to the Deptartment of Transport, and it will appear on my blog.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Can we see a biofuel sustainablity report??

Dear Sir Terry,

As you are hopefully aware, your Scott MacKay sent an email saying that Tescos were washing their hands of moral culpability in the provision of biofuel as it was now government policy and he apologised for any inconvenience that Tesco was causing. In response to this I sent a further letter to the Ruth Kelly to ask her position on the sustainability of biofuels.

Ruth Kelly's office has replied. In their response they stated "All transport fuel suppliers will be required to report on the greenhouse gas savings and wider sustainability." I therefore would be grateful if you could send me a copy of your sustainability report that the government obliges you to prepare. If you not prepared to do this, I will seek a copy of this under the Freedom of Information Act . Furthermore if you have no report, I and a number of my colleagues will come to your offices to speak directly with yourself on the subject.

As regards the wider sustainability aspect of your report, I would also be grateful if you can ensure that it addresses how biofuels will enable reversal of the increasing rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, when the fundemental proposition is to burn the planet's lungs. See the graph below which is sourced from data on the
NOAA web site.

As usual, a copy of this email will appear on my blog.

I look forward to your reply,

Kevin Lister

Response from Ruth Kelly Office

Matthew Griffin
Aviation Environmental Division 1
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
Zone 1/22
London SW1P4DR
direct line: 020 7944 4874
minicom: 011517
fax: 020 7944 2192
GTN NO: 3533 4874

Email: Matthew.Griffin@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Web Site: www.dft.gov.uk Our Ref: APE 12/5/2 23 May 2008

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your further letter of 17 April to the Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, about aviation and environmental issues. Your letter has been passed to me and I have been asked to reply.

Firstly, with regard to biofuels. The demand for biofuels is only one factor affecting food prices. The smaller harvests of 2006 and higher production costs due to increased fertiliser costs have also contributed. The Government will ask the Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA) to monitor how markets are affected by growing biofuel demand and we expect that the RFA will include an assessment of these effects in its annual report to Parliament. The UK Government will continue to gather evidence on the impacts of biofuel use to help ensure that targets are set at appropriate levels.

In the longer term, second generation biofuel technologies have the potential to reduce pressure on land because they can use a wider range of feedstocks, including waste.

On 21 February the Government announced a review, led by the RFA, of the emerging evidence on the indirect impacts of biofuel production, and what these mean for future biofuel policies and targets. The review will look at the wider environmental and economic impacts and will also take into account evidence concerning food security issues. An initial analysis will be provided to Ministers as soon as possible, with a full report to follow in late June. The review should help to ensure that we have the right evidence base to support decisions on the future of the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) scheme and longer-term targets.

In the absence of agreed international standards on the sustainability of biofuels, the Government has incorporated sustainability safeguards into the RTFO. All transport fuel suppliers will be required to report on the greenhouse gas savings and wider sustainability impacts associated with their biofuels in order to claim any credit for them under the RTFO.

We have also made clear that our agreement to future EU biofuel targets is conditional on our being satisfied that they can be met sustainably. We will be negotiating hard over the months ahead to ensure that the relevant EU legislation requires all biofuels to meet robust, mandatory sustainability standards. We have set stretching targets to demonstrate the level of performance that we expect from transport fuel suppliers in this area.

We will be asking the RFA to report regularly on the impacts of the policy, and on the performance of different transport fuel suppliers against the targets. We want this process to be as open and transparent as possible, and further information can be obtained via the RFA's website at http://www.dft.gov.uk/rfa/.

With regard to the other points you raise, I will respond as you set them out in your letter.

Point 1 - We have not ignored the IPCC report. The UK has acknowledged that climate change is the biggest single issue that we face and we are taking action. However, we must acknowledge that the UK can not act alone in tackling climate change which is why we are taking the lead both in proposing our Climate Change Bill which will enshrine domestic emissions reductions in UK law, and in leading for tough targets in the post-Kyoto process. That is not to say we shouldn't take action now and in fact we are doing so.

With particular reference to aviation, the UK has a comprehensive strategy which is in line with the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and promotes the use of economic instruments, alongside investment in research and development and removal of barriers to behavioural change.

As set out in the previous letter, the UK supports a truly global solution for an international industry such as aviation. However progress on a global scale has been slow and therefore the UK supports the inclusion of aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme as the key priority.
In terms of investment in research and development both governments and industry have a role to play, and work on this has been in place for several years for example the UK Government has been involved in the EU-led QUANTIFY project and the establishment of the OMEGA knowledge transfer network. More recently the Commission launched the joint Clean Sky Technology Initiative worth €1.6bn over seven years. This investment has been alongside improvements which have made the operations of both airports and airlines more efficient, for example where possible aircraft, use the Continuous Descent Approach when landing which can save about 1% of total fuel per aircraft.

Point 2 - As explained before, emissions from international aviation are not included in the targets of the Climate Change Bill as there is currently no agreement on how to allocate these international emissions to national inventories. The Bill does, however, cover CO2 emissions from domestic flights.

The Climate Change Bill includes provisions which would enable Ministers to include international aviation emissions in UK totals in the event of developments in international carbon reporting practices for the sector. The UK Government is not discounting or ignoring these international emissions. The fact that emissions from international aviation are not included in the draft Climate Change Bill does not mean that we are not taking action to tackle the climate change impacts of aviation. As stated above, such a truly international industry like aviation requires a global solution and we are pressing internationally through both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for this. We will also ask the new independent Committee on Climate Change to look at the implications of including international aviation in the UK's targets, as part of its overall report on the UK's 2050 target.

The Future of Air Transport White Paper sets out our commitment to ensuring that aviation reflects the full costs of its climate change emissions and highlights that the most efficient way of doing this is through a well-designed, international emissions trading scheme.

Point 3 - This would be a matter for the Home Office. For further information on policing, you may wish to contact them directly.

Point 4 - The additional 1,300 carriages announced in last year's rail white paper for the period 2009 - 2014 are estimated to result in a direct increase in annual rail CO2 emissions of 117,000 tonnes. This is only partially offset by a fall of 15,000 tonnes in car CO2 emissions from travellers switching to rail.

The Committee on Climate Change has been tasked with advising the Government on future 5 year carbon budgets. Their advice is expected by the end of 2008. To help inform the Government's response to these recommendations, this department is currently analysing how the carbon emissions of different transport modes including rail are likely to change in the period up to 2022. Part of this process involves considering the implications for diesel and electricity consumption (including how the power generating mix is expected to change over time, for example through an increased use of renewables). As this work is still underway, we are unable to provide any detailed figures at present.

Point 5 - It is not Government policy to reduce demand. The White Paper recognises that while simply building more and more capacity to meet demand would not be a sustainable way forward, there is a need for some additional airport capacity so that the economic and social benefits of air travel to the UK can be realised.

As you are aware, Government policy on aviation is set out in the Future of Air Transport White Paper. The Government has set out a sustainable way forward taking into account the social, environmental and economic factors.

Point 6 - In 2003 the Government outlined its support for a third runway at Heathrow. This was contained in the 'Future of Air Transport'White Paper. The White Paper made clear that this support is conditional on meeting strict local noise and air quality limits. It also said that scope for making greater use of the two existing runways should be explored, subject to the same environmental conditions. The consultation presents the outcome of our assessment of these options and invites views. We want our final policy decisions to be based on the full range of evidence including that from those most directly affected.

We are now analysing all the responses received during the consultation period. Following this work, advice will be prepared for ministers so that decisions can be taken on each of the consultation issues later this year. Ministers will take account of all the evidence, including responses to the consultation, in reaching final policy decisions, which are expected later in 2008.

I hope you find this helpful.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Griffin

Copy of presentation given on Carbon Rationing

Click here to see copy of presentation on carbon rationing. Download and save to your disk to see notes on the slides

Government Minister does not care about Tesco's abuse of the environement

Dear David,

Many thanks for raising my question in parliament on biofuels. The answer you got from Jim Fitzpatrick was the predictable rubbish that allows companies like Tesco to continue to take shelter under ill conceived legislation. Jim Fitzpatrick has not answered the fundamental question that you asked which is "what steps will be taken against against those producers, wholesalers and retailers which do not meet these requirements."

I would appreciate if you could press the matter further with the DoT to clarify their position. It is of interest that the even the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil cannot agree on what constitutes sustainable Palm Oil. Their web site proudly shows a huge Palm Oil Plantation, on land that would once have been a biodiverse tropical rainforest, suggesting that sustainability and biofuels do not go together.

Tesco had previously stated in correspondence with me that their biofuel supplies are auditable and these can be provided on request. However, they have not issued these. I would appreciate that you ask the DoT what audit documentation they have requested from major suppliers of biofuels to ensure that biofuels being sold are actually coming from sustainable sources and not leading to further deforestation or destruction of local environments.

A copy of this letter will also be sent to Terry Leahy

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Letter to David Drew MP - to ask for parlimentary question on biofuels

Dear David,

An article in the Energy Business Review reports that Tesco's biofuels are made entirely of Palm Oil and Soya.

This flatly contradicts the assertions that I received over a series of email communications with Tesco. Initially Tesco claimed their biofuels were sustainable, and then they said their biofuels contained a small part of palm oil. Clearly, they are lying.

During the correspondence I had with them, they stated that biofuels helped their customers reduce their CO2 footprint. After further correspondence they admitted that the science was not clear and they would commission further research which would be made publicly available. However, they gave no dates when this research would be completed and no copy of the remit. Eventually, we were told that as government policy now mandated biofuel they would not change their current policy.

It is also clear in the correspondence that they have done no environmental impact assessment and are behaving a reckless manner by ignoring all the current scientific opinion. My correspondence with Tesco is available on my blog.

I would therefore like you to ask the following question in parliament to Ruth Kelly, "Given the report in Energy Business Review which demonstrates that Tesco use significant quantities of Palm Oil and their demonstrable lack of environmental impact assessment, does the transport secretary now recognise that the 2.5% target in the RTFO simply encourages companies such as Tesco to place compliance with policy ahead of taking the correct environmental decisions and thereby gives them a mandate to pillage our food supplies and destroy the tropics."

This letter has been copied to Terry Leahy.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

A letter to Ruth Kelly

Dear Ms. Kelly,

Thank you for your eventual reply to my letter of November last year when I wrote to you about the expansion proposals at Heathrow.

However, I am absolutely appalled by the letter from your department, which I am reading at the same time as statements in support of biofuels that also emanates from your department. It is impossible to find decisions from any government in any country at any past time that is more morally bankrupt than these two. I do hope that you have read the UN Development report (page 4) that compares wilfully ignoring climate change to the atrocities of the Nazis in the Second World War.

Your policies on mandating 2.5% of fuel to be biofuel has now given companies like Tesco a complete mandate to pillage our food supplies and destroy the tropics. In recent correspondence with Tesco, which is on my blog, it is clear they have done no due diligence or made any environmental impact assessment of their attempts to become the UK’s leading suppliers of biofuel. They are not even able to quantify the amount of palm oil that they use and by their own admission have no defined standards on sustainability.

What does it take for people like you to change policy? Do we need to come to your house and burn it down in the same way that your policies on biofuel are leading to the forcible relocation of indigenous people from their homelands? Do we need to deprive you and your family of food, in the same way that your policies on biofuel are contributing to almost 1 billion people facing starvation worldwide? Do we need to bulldoze your neighbourhood in the same way that your policies will result in the destruction of Sipson near Heathrow? Do we need to destroy the local environment for your children, in the same way that your policies are destroying the global environment for the world’s children? I often wonder how people like you can sleep at night. Perhaps you could be as kind as to explain how you do it, and how you reconcile your actions that the UN Development report considers to be a systematic violation of the human rights of the world’s poor and future generations with your religious convictions.

In the midst of your unwavering support for the Heathrow, you should be aware that Gloucestershire Council’s Scrutiny committee has recently overwhelmingly rejected proposals to expand our local airport. It concluded that the business case was not robust and the impacts on climate change were not considered. I hope that you will follow the leadership that they have shown and come to similar conclusions about the other airport developments elsewhere in the country.

In my previous letter I asked 6 specific points. With the exception of the last point, you have not answered any of them. I would again appreciate a clear answer to my questions. To remind you, the points are:

Point 1

You have claimed that carbon trading can offset emissions, despite the IPCC warning that even a cut of 100% in emissions will potentially not be enough to prevent to catastrophic warming. In your response to me, you still totally ignore the IPCC report. You are still peddling the completely unfounded argument that the “increase in CO2 emissions from aviation is matched by reductions elsewhere.”

Can you at least confirm that you are prepared to totally ignore the recommendations of the IPCC report, which in the last edition states, “Early mitigation actions would avoid further locking in carbon intensive infrastructure and reduce climate change and associated adaptation needs.”

Point 2

I asked if you “Can 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?”

You have said that aviation will go in to the climate change bill subject to international agreements being made in the first place. This is tantamount to saying that you will not accept it in the bill as no international agreements are even close to reaching an agreement that will result in the cuts in aviation that are needed to tackle climate change. On the contrary, the open-air agreement that the EU has recently passed is massively increasing the number of transatlantic flights. You are demonstrably siding with the position of the aviation industry.

Point 3

I pointed out that you are totally ignoring the recent peaceful protests and all the evidence on climate change as you side with the interests of the aviation industry over and above the concerns of a growing proportion of the country. I asked if you could confirm what conversation and agreements have been made with the Secretary of State and what the Secretary of State’s position is on using the police force as private army in support of the aviation industry’s interests?

It is vitally important that you realise the situation that you are creating is highly perilous and grossly irresponsible. In past, the greats of peaceful protest such as Gandi and Martin Luther King were able to achieve their objectives peacefully because it was in the long-term interests of their opponents to reach agreement. Such that Britain’s long-term interest was best served by relinquishing control of India and it was in the long-term interest of the whites in the Southern States of USA to give the blacks equal rights. The situation we face today is totally different. There is no common ground to be found between the aviation industry and the concerns of the environment. The evidence from the IPCC report is that we need to be actively decommissioning airports, not expanding them. However, the aviation industry needs to continue growing to service its debts and provide returns to its shareholders. The only outcome from your unwavering support for the aviation industry will be conflict and massive civil unrest, or massive environmental damage.

Lord Stevens’s appointment to the BAA board looks like an uncomfortable first step in the future battles that will be fought.

Point 4

In defence of runway 3, the government previous said the “UK now has the fastest growing railway in Europe.” I asked if you could confirm how much CO2 emissions will be generated from this growth and where the power will come from for this expansion.

You have not provided any answer to this point.

Point 5

All your statements so far on travel policies have all been concerned with providing enough supply to met any demand. I asked if you could confirm what you are doing to reduce demand.

Your response merely gives an ill-considered and pathetic comment saying that if we do not go ahead with the additional runway. “It may make us feel purer, but it will make us poorer too.” It seems that you are intent on totally ignoring all the evidence and will attempt to satisfy any emerging demand irrespective of the damage that will be inflicted on the planet. Have you considered how poor we will feel in the midst of failing crops and rising sea levels that will be brought on by climate change.

Point 6

I asked if you confirm the point of the consultation period.

I am pleased that you have made it clear that there was no point in the consultation period and that the objective is to simply to “present the evidence on which the Government now believes, that those conditions (for expansion) can be met.”

A copy of this letter will appear on my blog http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com.

Yours sincerely,



Kevin Lister

c.c: David Drew MP,
Sir Terry Leahy, Tesco

Tesco still continues to ignore the suffering caused by Biofuels

Dear Scott,

Thank you for your email and thank you for continuing to reply, despite Gary Anderson's previous comment that he would not send any more emails.

I am clearly dissapointed that Tesco seems to have moved so far back from the position that Gary previously presented; he said that "To help us and others understand the true impact of biofuels we have asked the independent Sustainable Consumption Institute (SCI) based at Manchester University to investigate" and went on to say "All of the research by the SCI will be made public and we would be happy to send you the findings on biofuels." To hear now that my legitimate prostests and those of others are simply going to be logged in the policy deperatment, when Ryan Fitzpatrick has already said there will be no policy change is an insult.

You may at least want to explain why your fuel is sold with a 5% blend of ethanol when the RTFO only mandates 2.5%.

This email will be published on my blog, http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Tesco Customer Service wrote:

Thank you for your email.

I'm sorry that you are still unhappy with our stance on Bio Fuels.

The information given to you by Ryan Fitzpatrick is up to date and correct. I would like to reassure you that I have logged your additional comments. They will be passed to our Policy department.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to share you further comments with us.

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us at customer.service@tesco.co.uk quoting TES4850407X.

Kind Regards
Scott MacKay
Tesco Customer Service

Tesco back tracks on bio fuels

Dear Gary,

Since your previous commitments to review the sustainability of bio fuels, I have had the following email forwarded onto me by Ryan Fitzpatrick which totally contradicts the claims that you made to me.

It now appears that your organisation is not prepared to do anything to reduce its dependence on biofuels irrespective of the results from the sustainability study that you claim you will be instigating.

As you may be aware Jean Ziegler from the United Nations has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity. This concern is backed up the the IMF and the last Environemental Select Committee report which concludes that biofuels are generally an expensive and ineffective way to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Given the contradictory emails and the growing evidence against their use, it is now time to confirm exactly what the position of your executive board is on this subject.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tesco Customer Service Subject: TES4842214X

Re: Thank you for your email. In terms of LPG and "greeness", the UK Government has taken the stancethat Bio fuels are the way forward in terms of reducing green house gasemissions and as such have made it mandatory for all suppliers to sell fuel containing biofuels starting in 2008 (as opposed to LPG).

Therefore, we have no intention of abandoning biofuel.

Please accept my sincere apologies for any disappointment this answermay cause.

Thank you for taking the time to ask us about this.

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us at ustomer.service@tesco.co.uk quoting TES4842214X.

Kind RegardsRyan Fitzpatrick

Tesco Customer Service----- Original Message -----

From: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: 07 March 2008Subject:

Hi,

I would like to start shopping again at Tesco.

Before I do, in view of the very extensive information, about the threat to world food supplies that the rush to biofuels is causing, could youplease confirm that you will now abandon you biofuel policy.

YoursXXXXXXXX

Tesco's final comment on biofuels - but not ours

Dear Gary,

Thankyou for your reply, however the dismissive tone of your response causes me real concern and forces me to question when ever or not you are taking the critical issues that we have highlighted seriously and if the review that you are highlighting has the full support of Tesco's board.

I have asked for nothing difficult from you and have only asked for things that you effectively claimed that you have.

You said that scientific evidence supported growing crops in the tropics. I asked for copies of the evidence. You provided none.

You said that Greenergy asks suppliers, who are all members of the RSPO, to sign a sustainability commitment as part of their contract which can be audited at any time. I asked for copies of the audit. You provided none.

You have now stated that there are some small amounts of Palm Oil in your biofuels. I asked you to quantify what this amount was. You provided nothing.

As you can see, your organisation has not won the trust of the sceptics. I have now simply asked that you confirm Terry Leahy supports the review that you have referred to and to give us timescales for when the review is to be carried out and what its remit will be. This is not a difficult question. You still have provided us with nothing.

You may consider your last email to be your final response on this matter. I can assure you we do not. Our food prices are rocketing and the tropics are being destroyed. We will not passively sit by and watch this situation develop. Protests have already been held at Tesco stores around the country. If you consider that your email is genuinely the last word on the matter, we will be left with no opportunity other than to exercise our rights and step up the protests.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Tesco Customer Service wrote:

Dear Mr Lister

Thank you for your further email.

Once again, I do thank you for your comments on the use of biofuels.

In my previous replies I have fully outlined our position on this issue, and have also assured you that your further comments have been noted and will be taken into account when our policies are reviewed.

As such, I regret that I have nothing further to add and consider this our final response.

Kind Regards

Gary Anderson

Customer Service Executive