Letter to Neil Carmichael MP (Stroud Conservative)

Dear Neil,

I would like your clarification, action and support on the following issues; 

1. Depleted Uranium Munitions.

As you are probably aware the UK government has stood with the US government by opposing any move towards a worldwide ban on depleted uranium munitions by the UN.

These barbaric weapons have left poisoned landscapes in places like Southern Iraq, where birth deformities are so bad and so frequent that women are advised not to have children or offered abortions in the event of pregnancy.

The half-life of depleted uranium is measured in billions of years, so as long as there is civilisation on this planet, those areas that have been subjected to depleted uranium attack will remain uninhabitable.

Depleted uranium attacks result in fine airborne powders that contaminates water supplies and the wider environment. The residue is easily ingested and destroys by emitting deadly alpha radiation. 

It is sad that we were so concerned about Sadam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons, but had no compulsion about the use of our own poison weapons which are equally dangerous, or their continued sale elsewhere around the world.

I would like clarification on what your parties position is on depleted uranium, your guarantee that you will use your position in parliament to support a ban on these weapons in line with our obligations to the Geneva convention, that you will press for full disclosure on the extent of depleted uranium weapons use by the UK in Iraq, a commitment that you will support clean up operations and a commitment to support any UN ban on DU munitions.

See http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/docs/131.pdf

2. Fairford Air Tattoo

As you are aware the Fairford Air Tattoo is due in the next week. As a keen environmentalist, I am sure that you will have no hesitation in condemning this event. I am sure that I do not need to spell out the inconsistencies with this event. However, you should consider:-

At schools and colleges, sustainability must be incorporated into lessons and this is an Ofstead inspection criteria. To simultaneously have an air-show in our locality where B52 bombers are flown across the Atlantic, along with hundred of other planes makes a mockery of teaching sustainability in our schools.  To portray such a confusing and contradictory message to our young people is cruel and we should not be surprised that so many of them are currently suffering from depression and alienation from society.

The CO2 emissions from this single show negate the efforts of many thousands of people who are making sacrifices to cut their own emissions. This is divisive. It will eventually lead either to complete scepticism within society about the merits of minimising CO2 emissions, or worse lead to conflict and anger between those who are trying to cut emissions and those that are not bothered.

The situation on climate change is deadly serious and time to take action has all but run out. With business as usual, by 2030 we will enter a total and unrecoverable runaway climate change scenario; we have already massively breached the safe limit of 350 ppm of atmospheric CO2 and our survival depends on moving as close to a zero carbon economy as we can and doing it as fast as possible. Thus, the overwhelming priority is to make immediate cuts in CO2 emissions in all possible circumstances.  Cancelling events such as the Fairford Air Tattoo sends a powerful message to the people of this country and the governments elsewhere in the world that we are prepared to act and change our society and expectations to reflect the science and evidence before us.

Cancelling frivolous events such as the Fairford Air Show result in immediate cuts to emissions without any hardship to society. To rely on making cuts in CO2 emissions by introduction on new technologies alone will take more time than we have, if it is ever even successful. The longer we delay in making cuts, the more dramatic the cuts need to be, even if today’s targeted 80% cuts in CO2 emissions are not already dramatic enough.

I have tried for several years to get the local press and the BBC to report on the environmental impacts of this show and to consider the wider message that this show delivers which is that we can carry on with business as usual and CO2 cuts will be someone else’s business. However, no news media outlet has ever questioned the logic of the show, despite many people raising with me the question of its merit and relevance in today’s world. This one sided reporting is a straight forward result of the massive marketing budget that the airshow has every year for wining and dining reporters and providing advertising to many small paper to keep them going.


This year, I uploaded a spoof site to highlight these inconsistencies and received a letter from Airshow’s lawyers for my efforts along with a demand for its removal along with a further demand that I do not even comment on their Facebook site. This amounts to state censorship and is in breach of Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. These events demonstrate the power large carbon based industries, such as the aviation industry, have over the press and how they will use their power to maintain the current status quo.

I therefore trust that you will publicly support calls to cancel future Air shows and back the strong line that Martin Horewood MP (Lib Dem, Cheltenham) recently took when discussing the challenges faced by Messers Dowty when he warned that the aviation industry had no choice but to look at contraction in the face of climate change challenges.

As you are also aware, the airshow claims to support the RAF Charities. Yet according to their own accouts only 2% of the Air Tattoo sales goes to charities. It is clear that this show is more of an arms fair and an advert of the aviation industry than a charity. I finally trust that you will also support any complaint I make to the charities commission about the continuing status of the airshow.

I look forward to your response.

Regards,

Kevin Lister

Brooklyn, Park Road Crescent, Nailsworth, Stround, GL6 0HZ

Chain mail letter to the Constituents of The Cotswolds.

Dear Cotswold Voter,

I want to share with you my experiences of campaigning over the last couple of weeks to help you decide which way to vote as we move into the final days of the campaign. I share these experiences with you as honestly as I can.

I have been around much of this large constituency either on bike or on bus – I believe in practising what is preached and have not spilt a single drop of fossil fuel during my campaign. I have met hundreds of people and listened as carefully as I can to their concerns.

It has been a heart warming and exciting experience, and in a Conservative strong hold I would never have expected the level of support that people have given me.

    

This support stems from more than mere dissatisfaction with Geoffrey Clifton-Brown’s abuse of the expense system and his inability to apologise, significant though this is.  It stems from the deep seated concern all thinking and caring people have which is that the main parties will not tackle the implications of climate change. This is vital; the safe level of atmospheric CO₂ to avoid runaway climate change is 350ppm. Our CO₂ levels are currently at 455ppm equivalent (when all the additional green house gases are factored in). Not only have we breached CO₂ safety limits but the rate of increase is increasing.  These are truly terrifying numbers and facts for us to contemplate while we live in the brief interlude between cause and effect.

Thus the urgency of taking decisive action can not be overestimated. In the period of the next parliament, we will have to take the most difficult decisions since the start of our democracy in the 14^th century. These decisions will have to be taken at all levels of our society, starting at the individual level, progressing through community and national levels and going right up to international level.  Collective failure at any one of these levels will be failure at all levels, and the consequences of failure are too difficult to imagine.

The only road maps that the main parties offer us though this crisis is Greenwash. Each main party is guilty. Labour has told us to take action on our emissions, yet pursues airport expansion, the disastrous Palm Oil based biofuels and subsidies to high carbon industries.  The Conservative Party has only 10% of its prospective MPs believing that they should even bother tackling climate change. Their manifesto is committed to opening oil exploration in the hostile waters to the West of the Shetland Islands, raising the risk of exactly the same sort of crisis that is destroying the Gulf of Mexico today. The Lib Dems continue to bend which ever way the wind blows. They say in their manifesto they want a zero carbon Britain, yet Mike Collins (The Cotswolds Lib Dem Candidate) approved the expansion of Gloucestershire Airport which was aimed principally at private jet use; this Lib Dem duplicity has been repeated everywhere across our country and they see nothing wrong with this behaviour. 

Each party continues the claim that they are committed to reducing CO2 emissions and moving to renewables. However, this alone will not tackle our growing emissions, and they know it. Simply introducing renewables without imposing limits on consumption merely results in the fossil fuel savings being used elsewhere; put simply, if I cycle around this constituency then someone else will use the fuel that I save in their car. It is therefore vital that we think through our ideas on consumption, and start serious consideration of proposals such as carbon rationing and the implications that this will have on our society.

Any party that is not prepared to take onboard and support these kinds of debates are lying when they say that tackling climate change is the big concern for them. Furthermore, these debates must centre on policies that ensure the fair distribution of remaining resource. The principles of the current free market model where winner can take all must be challenged. The brutal and fundamental reality is that in a world were resource usage is increasingly constrained people can only become richer by depriving others of their entitlement to those same resources. We can not allow this to happen.

The overwhelming majority of people that I have met during this campaign recognise these issues. They understand the main parties are too wedded to existing policy and philosophies to tackle climate change and they equally understand they will not address the fundamental issue of resource distribution in our society.  This is why about 80% of the people that I have met are still undecided on which way they will vote. The superficiality of the leadership debates has simply confirmed to them that they are only capable of arranging the deck chairs while the Titanic sinks.  

The extraordinary thing is that the only people I meet who have definitely decided which way they will vote are those that have chosen Green, and they are no longer in a small minority. This truly is time for change. If you vote Green, you will therefore be in the company of many others and in no way will it be a wasted vote.

I do not ask you to vote Green because I want to be an MP, I ask that you vote Green because I believe that it is the right thing for you to do.

I leave with the thoughts of Martin Luther King, who said, “We either live together as brothers, or die together as fools.” This is our challenge, and it has never been so vital to rise up to the ideals of this great man.   

And finally, I ask for one favour from you. Irrespective of the decision you make with your vote, I ask that you forward this onto as many people as you know within The Cotswolds constituency.

With kindest regards,

Kevin Lister

Green Party PPC

The Cotwolds.

Question on climate change for a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate

Hi Adam,

Thank you for your email and for expressing your concerns on climate change.

Firstly, I would like to assure you that I am absolutely committed to tackling climate change. The fact is that our response to climate change is the defining issue of our time. Most importantly, we need to accept that there are no easy solutions ahead of us. Our greenhouse gas levels by far exceeded danger levels, and worse not only are they continuing to increase, but the rate of increase is increasing. Already, it is anticipated that it will take our planet over 100,000 years to recover from the damage that we have inflicted upon it over the past 200 years since the start of the industrial revolution. See David Archers book, “The Long Thaw, How Humans Are Changing The Next 100,000 Year Of The Earths Climate.”

This situation is made worse by government policies that are either naïve or deliberately disingenuous. For example, we are seeing the total destruction of the Indonesian rainforest for Palm Oil to supply the biofuel industry which is only sustained by government subsidies and legislation, we are being told that by carbon trading we will be able to continue with business as usual as cuts can be made elsewhere, we have seen this government provide untold billions in subsidies to high carbon industries at a time of peak oil, we are seeing this government pursuing a third runway at Heathrow and the Conservatives supporting regional airport development everywhere else in the country.  Worse, we are seeing the cornerstone strategies of the main parties to be a resumption of economic growth with no questioning of this in the press.  The economic growth that they are selling us will mean that in the next 25 years we will require as much resources as we have consumed since the start of industrial revolution and produce the same amount of pollution.

As we move towards resource depletion in virtually every one of our supply chains, this will mean more resource wars as we scramble to grab hold of what is left. Not content with a resource war in Iraq, we are now readying our armed forces for renewed combat in the Falklands over the rights to drill for oil there. We should also be cautious of being involved in those wars that we do not notice, for example the appalling land grabs that are currently going on in Africa, South America and Indonesia where over 100 million indigenous people have been displaced from their land to make way for cash crops for the West, with a further 1 billion facing food shortages. We generally do not recognise this as war, as we win by subcontracting our battles to the militias and corrupt governments of these countries - but it is war none the less, just an undeclared one.

Whilst I recognise your target of being able to achieve 15% of our power from renewables, I would in actual fact challenge this and say that it is far too modest and that it is also the wrong measurement tool. Simply saying that we want 15% of our energy to be produced by renewables does not in itself stop an increase in fossil fuel burning. At the moment worldwide energy derived by fossil fuel energy is increasing rapidly and still outstripping the increases in renewable energy sources. What is far better, and more onerous, is to have a target that actually reduces our fossil fuel consumption by 15% per annum. 

This alternate approach forces the debate on moving to renewables and simultaneously tackles the issue of excess consumption.

Whilst I fully support the move towards renewables and believe we should introduce all financial incentives, it is clear that this will never provide the amount of energy that we need to run our economy with a population that is expanding to 70 million, see for example David Mackay’s excellent online book, Without Hot Air, http://www.withouthotair.com/.

It is therefore clear that we must introduce personal carbon rationing, and there are very well developed ideas about this, such as Tradable Energy Quotas, http://www.teqs.net/. Fundamentally moving towards a carbon rationing economy is the only way that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Relying on efficiency improvements and renewables alone will simply not do the job. All that happens is that someone else will use the fuel saved. This is already happening today – BP has recognised that market growth is not going to happen in Europe, and so are focusing their business on the Far East where environmental concerns do not feature.

I do not underestimate the challenges of moving towards a carbon rationing economy. It will be the biggest change ever since the signing of the Magna Carta. It will seal the end of unlimited economic growth, but will herald the start of a society that values the environment, which recognises fairness, which appreciates limits and the challenges of living within limits.

These are the difficult challenges we must rise to, the consequences of failure is a global temperature rise well in excess of 6 deg C which is too awful to contemplate. Unlike the other parties, I do not hold out the false hope of continued economic growth - I do however offer the chance to start the debate that we need to build the future we want to see.

Regards,

Kevin

--- On Wed, 7/4/10, XXXXX  wrote:

From: XXXXX
Subject: What are you promising on climate change?
To: kevin.lister@btopenworld.com
Date: Wednesday, 7 April, 2010, 19:47

From:
Adam Druett

Dear PPC,

Climate change will be one of the most important issues for whichever party forms the next government. Most observers recognise that greenhouse gas emissions must peak and begin to drop within the next five years – the maximum length of the next parliament.

The next government will have to take tough decisions and make big commitments, but the potential rewards are enormous. Investing in green technology and industry will create jobs, diversify our economy and cut inefficiency – as well as reducing the scourge of fuel poverty, where some of the most vulnerable in our society cannot afford to heat their homes. All parties must be aware of the advantages of action, as well as the danger of inaction.

We therefore need committed and enthusiastic MPs who will put environmental issues at the top of their agendas. That’s why I want to know your opinion on a number of key policy areas, which I believe can make a real difference to preventing climate change.

The UK’s meat and dairy production is reliant on the cultivation of soy in the developing world. Greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation are the result of our dependence on these crops. Peter Ainsworth MP, backed by a cross party group of MPs, has proposed a new law which will require the UK to end its dependence on imported soy and increase domestic production of animal feed – is this something that you would support if elected?

Would you back an international deal on cutting emissions – where those responsible make the deepest cuts first, and developing countries are supported to grow in a low carbon way? To do this, we need to work hard to cut our own emissions. Our current targets for cutting greenhouse gases aren’t high enough; we need to be aiming at a 42% cut by 2020, with sufficient investment to achieve it. Is this something you support?

Lastly, we need to make sure that councils do their fair share of cutting our emissions – would you back Local Carbon Budgets for every council area? They would make sure each area played its part in meeting the UK’s climate targets and create local jobs, boost the economy, and slash people’s fuel bills. Communities would benefit from better-heated homes and more sustainable transport systems.

Time is running out for us to deal with the environmental challenges the world faces. These measures are not the whole answer to the problems, but they are key steps towards ensuring that we build the low-carbon economy we need.

Please show your support for these policies by signing the Friends of the Earth Election pledge:

http://election.foe.co.uk/sign-our-pledge

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Response from Tesco on Biofuel - doesn't look like they have an audit trail.

Dear Kevin,


Thank you for your emails regarding palm oil and biofuel. I apologise for the delay to this response, but I wanted to be able to reply as fully as possible.

Let me start by updating you on our palm oil policy. Since your last correspondence with Andrew Slight we have publicly committed to ensure that all the palm oil used in our products is fully certified and sustainable by 2015. This is a long-term project as our products use palm oil derivatives and, at present, the traceability and certification of the derivatives of palm oil are still in their infancy.

To achieve our target we are working closely with our supply base and in July we issued a new Code of Practice to all our suppliers. This code of practice sets out the way sustainable palm oil should come into the business. We have also held training courses for all Tesco’s Technical Managers, in conjunction with AAK and Greenpalm, to ensure they can support our suppliers.

Our suppliers are already making good progress. All the oil used in our products can be traced back to an RSPO member, although not all their plantations are fully certified yet and there is not a segregated supply chain for all the palm oil derivatives used. Uptake by our suppliers of sustainable oil through all four systems recognised by the RSPO is being monitored on a monthly basis through our central specification database. Our suppliers are already using Green palm certificates across the product range and are in negotiation for purchasing segregated oil where it is available for the type of derivatives used in our products.

You expressed a concern that we do not label the type of vegetable oil we use in our products. We use palm oil as part of a blend of vegetable oils that can be changed on a regular basis to ensure we meet the quality and price expectations of our customers. We know what the mix of vegetable oils is for every batch of product produced and can trace the palm oil back to an RSPO producer.

With regard to biofuels, we are aware that the impacts of biofuels are complex and the environmental impacts depend upon how they are made. All our fuel suppliers are members of the RSPO. Greenergy, who supply almost 50% of our fuel requirements, have been praised for their work in developing biofuel sustainability criteria and audit programmes. They seek to minimise the use of palm and publish usage figures on their website http://www.greenergy.com/.

We recognise that there is work to do, especially on the traceability and sustainability of biofuel raw materials and we have asked the Sustainable Consumption institute at Manchester University to help us understand the long-term impacts of biofuels. EU rules about the sustainability of biofuels will also speed up the uptake of sustainable palm in the biofuels industry.
I hope you find this information helpful.


Kind regards,



Hannah

Palm Oil Direct Action Protest

Dear Hannah,

It has now been two weeks since I emailed requesting a copy of the audit trails for your Palm Oil products; whilst I appreciate your organisation telling me that my query will be answered, you have so far failed to provide any time scale and I am now concerned that you will not provide anything to satisfy concerns that your Palm Oil based products are sustainably sourced.

I remind you that it was over 18 months ago since I had the first exchange of correspondence regarding biofuels. Since then your organisation has also claimed in the Independent that, "it already ensures full traceability back to crude palm oil." If this is true, it should therefore be a trivial job to provide the audit trail that I am asking.

We take your lack of response as acknowledgement that you are unable or unwilling to demonstrate your Palm Oil products are sustainably sourced. Please take this email as notification that a direct action campaign will start to highlight your continued sale of Palm Oil products and the environmental devastation this causes.

In the meantime, some sites that you may wish to visit so you are in no doubt of the seriousness of the issue:-

Anti Dove products

http://www.born-to-be-wild.org/html/palm_oil.html

PALM OIL VICTIM

"When we saw the big male approaching our camp we were afraid. So we quickly ran over to him and doused him with petrol and set him on fire.” Fermin, Bulldozer driver in clearance camp

Audit trail for Palm Oil

Dear Paul, 

Thank you for your update and we look forward to Hannah's response. Hannah could perhaps be as kind as to give us a time frame for providing the traceability paths back to your crude Palm Oil.

To help you with this we have already started our audit of products on your shelves. However, rather regrettably, we note Tesco's own brand products that use vegetable oil, do not specify what type of vegetable oil is being used.

As your products do not even state what type of vegetable oil is being used, I am worried that you will not be able to provide the traceability that your quote in the Independent suggests. I trust that you can reassure me by providing an initial listing of what items contain Palm Oil, and in particular the percentage of Palm Oil that is being added to your biofuel sales.

I further trust that you will extend this investigate into other brands that you sell. For example, Jordan acknowledges palm oil in their ingredients.

We look forwards to your prompt reply.

Regards,

Kevin Lister

--- On Mon, 18/1/10, Tesco Customer Service  wrote:

From: Tesco Customer Service
Subject: Tesco
To: kevin.lister@btopenworld.com
Date: Monday, 18 January, 2010, 16:34

Dear Mr Lister

Thank you for your email addressed to Sir Terry Leahy, our Chief Executive, to which I have been asked to reply.

I appreciate you taking the time to contact us with further questions regarding the use of palm oil in biofuels. Please be advised that Hannah Clare, our Corporate Responsibility Manager, is currently looking into your email, and will be replying to you directly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

Kind Regards


Paul Milligan
Customer Service Executive

Police unprepared to act on environemental fraud

Dear Inspector Chester ,


Thank you for your reply, however your arguments and final conclusions do not recognise the reality of the situation.

Your point 1 says that there has to be an "Acteus Reus," and you conclude that the deed has not yet been done. However, the deed has clearly been done and the evidence is unequivocal. Planning permission has been sought and granted by Tewkesbury Council on the basis of the claim that the CO2 limits will not exceed 4000 tonnes per annum. Yet, Cheltenham and Gloucester Councils approved a business plan that makes no reference to the 4,000 tonnes CO2 limit and they have now provided millions of pounds of taxpayer backed loans to the airport. They have backed this loan on the basis that the Councils will make a significant return on their investment. It is impossible for them to make this return whilst staying within the 4000 tonnes CO2 limit. The airport directors, including Councillor Les Godwin, are fully aware of this and it is for this reason they deliberately omitted reference to the 4000 tonnes in the business plan. Under the Fraud Act 2006, section 3, "failing to disclose the information — to make a gain for himself or another," is fraud.

As further evidence that the deed has been done, the airport is currently pursuing purchases of land at the end of the runway and a status report to the councils of Gloucester and Cheltenham stated that these negotiation are underway.

Your point 2 claims that the flights are only "assumed." You have taken this word out of context. The word is used to make an estimate of the number of working weeks per year, it does not make a judgement of the actual number of flights. The actual number of additional flights was referenced in section 10.9.1 of the business plan that was submitted to the councils, and is attached with this email. The business plan states "One additional landing per day is a modest assumption for Year 4, two landings per day for Year 5."


In both cases, the word “assumed” refers to a lower limit. Even this lower limit results in the CO2 levels massively exceeding the 4000 tonnes.

Your point also misses the evidence presented by the airport in their business case that they intended to increase dividend payments by a factor of 32. This will clearly be impossible if the CO2 emissions are to increase by no more than 6%.

Your Point 3 does not recognise the realities of the challenges that we face in making carbon cuts. The science is unequivocal in its position that we cannot carry on with a business as usual approach and that it is totally false to assume that an increase in emissions in one area can be managed out as part of a nationwide CO2 budgeting programme. It was for precisely this reason that that a CO2 ceiling was imposed on the airport as a condition for planning through the Green Management Plan.


Your point does not alter the fundamental fact that the main condition of planning has been cynically disregarded in the granting of millions of pounds of tax payer backed loans.

Your point 4 says that "In future, planes will have to become more efficient. Therefore my report is based on an assumption." However, efficiency gains are limited by the basics of physics and thermodynamics, and planes are now fully optimised with only very small improvements possible in the future. These improvements will in no way achieve the 80% cuts in CO2 emissions that we need, especially in the face of airport expansion. I therefore put it to you that it is you who is making the false assumption that a massive increase in the efficiency of planes will happen within the next few years.


You conclude by saying "A criminal prosecution would be a waste of public money." This is absolutely wrong. Climate change is the defining issue of our time, yet action to minimise CO2 emissions is undermined by those organisations who have disproportionate power and vested interests in preventing change. Those organisations lie and subvert normal process, as evidenced by the actions of the directors of Gloucestershire Airport . These acts represent “false representation to make gain” in the purest sense and as such are fraudulent as defined by the Fraud Act 2006.
In this case the Directors of the Airport have sought gain (Planning permission and council tax payer backed loans) by both withholding information and submitting false representations.


It is therefore absolutely in the public interest for this fraud case to be pursued. Many members of the public have tried argument; writing to elected representatives and got nowhere. They have then been forced to take direct action through peaceful protest and have suffered arrest, often under tenuous circumstances and through misapplication of the law. Yet those same people now have to watch the police and CPS standing by when a fraudulent act is clearly being committed.


A failure not to proceed with prosecution demonstrates a judicial and policing system that is biased towards protection of large carbon emitting businesses, rather than upholding the law and providing the protection that society needs to ensure the environment is not further sacrificed. It is after all, the quality of the environment that is the most critical factor to our society. Failure to act sets a dangerous precedent as we move into far deeper and more serious issues as a consequence of runaway climate change.

Regards,


Kevin Lister



--- On Fri, 15/1/10, Chester, Stephen wrote:

From: Chester, Stephen

Subject: FW: Fraud at Gloucestershire Airport

To: "'kevin.lister@btopenworld.com'"

Date: Friday, 15 January, 2010, 15:30


Dear Mr Lister,


As promised, I have looked into the possibility of prosecuting executives at Gloucestershire Airport, based on the evidence contained in the report you have written. I have consulted the Force Solicitor and the Detective Chief Inspector. I am afraid that Police will not be investigating this matter for the following reasons:-


1- For the offence of Fraud to occur there has to be an 'Acteus Reus', i.e. the deed has to have been done. It clearly has not (yet). Therefore no act=no fraud.


2- Page 2 of the report has the word 'assume' towards the number of flights. Clearly one cannot base an offence on a future unknown.


3 -As Government has to make 'Carbon Emission Savings', any increase in emissions from Gloucestershire Airport will form part of our National output and will have to be offset elsewhere.


4 - In future, aeroplanes, as motorcars will have to become more efficent. Therefore, your report is again based on assumption.


The report will be better addressed to Planning and Environmental Officers, as the burden of proof required under civil law is "balance of probabilities" and not, as with criminal law, "beyond all reasonable doubt". There is no prospect of a successful criminal prosecution in this case, and I believe a Police investigation would be fruitless, and a waste of public money.


I am sorry I cannot be of more help.


Regards,



Steve Chester
Inspector


Cheltenham Road East Police Station (CRE)

Gloucestershire Constabulary


+ Churchdown, Gloucester, GL3 1HX


( 0845 090 1234, ext 5282, or 01452 714256
http://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/

Tescos use of Palm Oil

Dear Sir Terry,

I am writing to you following the previous correspondence that I had regarding your continued sale of biofuels.

The conclusion of the previous debate that I had with your organisation was that you were going to continue with Greenergy and continue selling biofuels, despite the overwhelming evidence of environmental degradation and human rights abuses that follows in the wake of these developments. Your Andrew Slight stated on 3rd Dec 2008 “Our aim [is to] ensure that our biofuels are responsibly sourced.”

I would also remind you that in the previous correspondence you admitted to using Palm Oil in your biofuels. As you should be aware, this is associated with large scale deforestation and human rights abuses in Indonesia . You previously said that “Greenergy asks suppliers to sign a sustainability commitment as part of their contract. This is monitored and can be audited at any time."However, despite my requests this was never forthcoming.

Given the time that has now passed since the last correspondence, I trust that you are now able to demonstrate your biofuel is responsibility sourced and that you can now provide an appropriately robust audit trail.

I also note that in an Independent report on Palm Oil they quoted your position on palm oil in Tesco’s own brand products, “As members of the RSPO we are committed to the growth and use of sustainable palm oil and already ensure full traceability back to crude palm oil from RSPO members - we are also committed to certified oil and are creating systems to deliver this for the derivatives in our products.”

Given the RSPO is made up of companies dedicated to the expansion of palm oil production and its credibility as an overseer of sustainable practises is zero, your statement does not give any cause for reassurance. However, I would request that you provide full details of the path back to the crude palm oil that you have referenced.

So that you are in no doubt of the seriousness of this issue, I refer you to the recent documentary that the Community Channel showed, Lost in Palm Oil.

To help you in developing your audit trail, over the next couple of weeks we will be documenting all the products on your shelves that contain Palm Oil products.

Regards,

Kevin Lister

Full text of letter sent to the Times

click here for published letter

Dear Editor,

 

Your selection of Greenergy for second place in "Britain's green rich list" (Sunday Times, 27th Dec 2009) flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence that large scale biofuel production is a solution to either climate change or peak oil and merely supports the successful greenwash campaign of the biofuel industry.

 

It has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that the energy and CO2 emissions associated with growing, harvesting, transporting and land clearance for biofuel far exceed any benefits. The Gallagher report also made absolutely clear that even if biofuel production did not directly lead to environmental destruction through activities such as tropical rainforest clearance, then the indirect effects due to displacement of food production were just as bad.

 

Greenergy is part owned by Tesco and also a major supplier of biofuel to Tesco. Shortly after Tesco's acquisition of Greenergy they claimed, "Tesco are already the UK's largest supplier of biofuel and aim to double the amount sold."  I organised an email protest against the catastrophic environmental destruction this would inevitably cause through my blog, http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/ and we challenged Tesco to demonstrate that their biofuels, and hence Greenergy's, were environmentally sustainable.

 

Tesco totally failed. They attempted to commission a £5million study with the Sustainable Consumption Institute at Manchester University to validate their's and Greenergy's position, but so flawed is the arguement that biofuel can be sustainable they could not even agree a remit.

 

The end result was that Tesco withdrew the claims on its web site with a statement that they recognised their initial enthusiasm for biofuel was misplaced. However as a result of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO), which the biofuel industry so successfully lobbied for, they continue to sell unsustainable biofuel and profiteer from their continued shareholding of Greenergy. 

Kevin

 

email to inspector chester - justify why you will no pursue fraud over airport lies to justify expansion

Dear Inspector Chester,


I refer you to your letter of the 26th Oct 2009, which was in response to my request to have charges of fraud brought against Gloucestershire Airport’s directors under the Fraud Act 2006.

As you are no doubt aware, the charge of fraud is serious, but the evidence of fraud, as defined by Fraud Act 2006, against the airport is overwhelming. It is clear that this development will result in severe environmental damage due to increased greenhouse gas emissions despite the airport claiming this will not happen. The alternative is that the airport sticks to its greenhouse gas commitments and there will be no return on investment. This will result in the taxpayers of Gloucestershire being forced to pay the £2.3 million pounds loan. Either way the taxpayers are being defrauded.


This absurd position comes about because the council’s of Gloucester and Cheltenham being owners of the airport have a conflict of interest. This forces them to maximise the profits of the airport rather than represent the views and long term interests of their constituents.


Further to the initial dossier I submitted to PC Dill in September, I have also prepared a report at the request of the Gloucestershire Echo to quantify the CO2 emissions. This has been circulated around all of Cheltenham’s councillors.

A copy of the report is attached to this email. It adds further evidence to the case that the airport’s directors and their supporters within Gloucester and Cheltenham falsely represented the case for the airport and did so knowingly.


The report categorically demonstrates the Green Management plan cannot be complied with whilst simultaneously meeting the flight programme necessary to make an appropriate return on investment. The Green Management plan stated that the current CO2 emissions from the airport are 3,700 tonnes per annum and will be capped at 4,000 tonnes, thus allowing for a maximum increase in CO2 emissions of 300 tonnes per year.

The simple analysis in the report shows 8,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions are likely to be produced to meet the flight programme necessary for the predicted return on investment. This far exceeds the permissible 300 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions that are allowed under the green management plan.

It is also important to note that Councillor Les Godwin omitted to include the CO2 targets in the business plan that he submitted to Cheltenham and Gloucester councils, yet he included the other less onerous commitments in the Green Management plan. This selective quoting of the Green Management Plan points to a deliberate attempt to mislead the councillors into supporting the proposals for the airport. It is in violation of section 3.a of the Fraud Act, which states “A person is in breach of this section if he — dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose.” As the planning application was granted on agreement that the Green Management plan would be implemented, then there was a legal duty to fully disclose the full implications of the CO2 targets.

Following this latest manoeuvring of the airport and its supporters, the case for a fraud investigation is mounting. If this mounting evidence of fraud is still not adequate for you to start proceeding, then you need to justify to us why you are not prepared to instigate proceedings.

We look forward to your reply.


Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about Express

This complaint relates to the front-page report of the Daily Express that headlined “CLIMATE NUT BROWN WILL RUIN BRITAIN.”


The complaint is being made under Article 1 of the editors code of the practise – “The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.”

The article claims that the Gordon Brown’s proposed cut of CO2 emissions “was made despite a continuing debate about whether mankind is to blame for climate change.”

This is incorrect. There is no debate about whether mankind is to blame for climate change. It is a fact that since the industrial revolution, CO2 emissions have increased by 40% from 280 parts per million to 390 parts per millions and given the current trajectory they will soon rise to well beyond 450 parts per millions. It is a fact that basic science shows a CO2 rich atmosphere warms more quickly. It is a fact that all temperature trends over any statistically significant period show warming has happened and is continuing to happen.

No scientist has yet been able to provide any suitable alternative hypothesis to explain the observed warming trends. No peer-reviewed work has been produced to disprove mankind’s influence in climate change.

The only debate about whether mankind is to blame is fuelled on by those with either no scientific understanding or with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

The article goes on to quote the taxpayers alliance claiming that the cuts would “require the economy to be slashed by 30 per cent from expected levels.” However there is no counter balancing view to argue that if we do not make deep and urgent cuts in our CO2 emissions the consequences of climate change will result in a far more serious societal collapse.

The article closes with the statistic that, “Daily Express readers showed their distrust of Mr Brown’s sweeping plans this week, with an overwhelming 98 per cent of those taking part in a phone vote agreeing that the nation was being conned over global warming.”

This quote is aimed at demonstrating that the public does not believe in climate change, and therefore by implication that climate change either does not exist or is not a serious issue. Without knowing exactly what questions were asked or who the questions were asked to, this is a misleading and inaccurate reflection of public opinion. As a group, Express readers are more likely than most others to be dismissive of climate change. Finally, there is no reference to the size of the sample taken.

It is clear that this article does not provide any accurate and factual report of the debate on the climate change. It merely perpetuates the arguments of the climate change deniers using half-truths and biased arguments.

As such the article is inaccurate, misleading and presents distorted information.