Dear Councillors,
I am copying you in on a letter that I have sent to the Gloucester Echo. It concerns worrying attitudes and perceptions that are being evidenced in the letter pages of the Echo. Despite the overwhelming evidence of global warming and its immediate and devastating consequences on our door step, we are still faced with the incredible position where people still are not able or not willing to reconcile cause and effect. Floods and storms of the nature that we have seen are not a surprise. They have long been predicted as a consequence of global warming. Whilst one would have hoped that the flooding disaster would finally be a wake up call that would bring people out on the street to demand action on global warming, it has actually become an event that people are using to rationalise the continuation of damaging and self centred ways. As well as the comments below praising 4x4s and Staverton airport, we have also seen the ridiculous spectacle of 10 million people flying abroad for better weather.
I trust that in your position as councillors you will fulfil your responsibilities by heeding the warnings that we have received from the flooding and oppose the expansion of Staverton Airport.
Furthermore, I have deemed it necessary to copy this letter directly to yourselves as recent correspondence from myself and Philip Booth to the Gloucester Citizen was not published.
Regards,
Kevin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
The recent letters that you have published extolling the virtues of 4x4s and Staverton Airport’s basing of helicopters during the flooding indicate worrying attitudes towards the floods and global warming in general.
Ms. Currie writes that she hopes that 4x4 are not priced of the road, as we will need them more frequently due to the possibility of other extreme future extreme flooding events. Mr. West writes that those opposing the Staverton Airport extension are NIBY’s, effectively arguing because it was useful in the floods we should not be challenging its future development.
Let me say that I am glad these facilities were useful in alleviating personal problems in the floods. However, the positions of your letter writers need considerably more thought. Firstly, there is little doubt that the floods are a result of global warming. It has long been proven and acknowledged that warming the environment allows more moisture to be carried in the air, which will lead to extreme rain events and storms. In fact, the moisture in the air acts as a further green house gas, accelerating global warming even further and studies of this phenomena have concluded that there is in no safe increased level of CO2. It is beyond doubt that Staverton and 4x4s will cause considerable additional CO2 emissions into an environment that is already under intense pressure and is now effectively saturated with greenhouse gases. It is vital that 4x4s and Staverton Airport are opposed.
Secondly, the flooding disaster that we have experienced in recent weeks is but one of several disasters happening simultaneously around the world. In fact our disaster is benign when compared to the forest fires of the Mediterranean, the droughts of the American Midwest and Australia and the extreme flooding of South East Asia. An immediate consequence of the cumulative effect of these disasters is that food shortages are inevitable this winter, in both this country and many others around the world. All the 4x4s and helicopters in the world will not be able to help in any significant way with this emerging crisis.
All the evidence suggests that the flooding we have experienced is likely to be a minor foretaste of worse climatic disasters to come in future years. It is therefore highly concerning that despite a crisis of the magnitude of our floods, people are not still not yet demanding a more positive response to tackling global warming and in fact using it as an excuse to justify existing damaging lifestyles. We need to ask if we have become a society that is too selfish and self obsessed for our own good and future survival?
Kevin Lister,
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Further E-mail to Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tweksbury Councillors regarding Staverton Airport
Click here to read my sad story of kind, but misguided faries or click here for recent letters to MPs, Ministers town councillors and just about anyone else I can think of as well as other interesting reports
Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Cheltenam and Gloucester Council's scrutiny committee has given a written response to the question of CO2 emissions from the Staverton Airport extension. Bizarrely, most of this rested on evidence from the airport. This is hardly scrutiny. My response to them follows below, along with a further letter to the Gloucester Citizen:
Dear Councillors,
Following tonight’s written reply to scrutiny committee regarding the additional CO2 emissions from the Staverton Airport expansion, I write to challenge some of the points in the reply and to correct some of the factual inaccuracies within it. Also included at the end of this email is a copy of my letter to the Gloucester Citizen in response to their opinion poll which concludes the 67% of people do not want restrictions on aviation.
Firstly, the reply says that “2.1 million litres of fuel were used by aircraft using the airport in 2005.” This in its own right is a significant amount of fuel and will increase significantly as the airport is expanded. It is therefore misleading to argue about the future impact of the airport by only comparing with the current emissions. The reply also states that the current emissions are small compared to roads. This actually argues for not building the airport. We know the environmental damage that road transport is doing, yet we find it impossible to stop the traffic. The last thing need now is another infrastructure whose emissions will rise with time and which will also be impossible to stop.
Secondly, the reply says that the emissions “equate to less than 1% of the emissions for the whole of Cheltenham .” Given that the services from the airport are likely to increase after the development work, then it can be assumed that the percentage of the emissions total will also increase.
All the scientific evidence points to us needing to reduce our CO2 emissions by 90% to minimise the risk of dangerous climate change. If we were to achieve this target, the emissions from the airport would amount to 9.1% of Cheltenham ’s total. However, it would in actual fact be higher once the emissions from the additional growth that the airport is trying to achieve is factored in.
Thirdly, the reply says “Gloucester Airport has stressed that its proposals are to improve the runway rather than expand the airport.” Whilst this may be the public position, their initial business plan showed their objective was to develop new services and indeed even talked about a new terminal building. Even Mark Ryan, when interviewed by local press made no secret of his plans to develop new services. Furthermore, the new services introduced by Manx Air clearly demonstrate that the airports intention is to increase services.
Fourthly, the reply says “The airports strategic plans aim to attract small high-tech business craft, which are more environmentally friendly.” This is absolute nonsense. The small high-tech airplanes are business jets which are the most carbon intensive mode of travel, no matter how efficient they are. Madonna is a well known user of these and recent reports in the Independent after the Live Earth concert calculated that her carbon footprint was greater than 1000 tonnes. This is galling to people like me and many others who are trying in all ways to reduce our individual carbon foots prints. You are failing in your duty to your constituents if you intend to try to attract business or people to this area who want to operate in environmentally damaging and unsustainable ways.
Fifthly, the reply says that “The airport expects the level of pollution caused to fall over the next few years.” The airport has produced no evidence to support this claim.
Sixthly, the reply says “Gloucestershire Airport is committed to playing its part in meeting internationally agreed targets for greenhouse gas emissions.” This is nonsense. There are no internationally agreed targets for greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. In fact, emissions emitted on international flights (which would include most of the proposed business jets) are not even recorded or allocated to any country and the debate on including aviation into any form of carbon trading has stalled.
Finally, the reply states “Provision of fuel data will help build a more accurate picture of emissions from this sector and enable monitoring over time.” Clearly we do not have to expand the airport to improve fuel data and it would be interesting to understand what monitoring is actually planned. Would we for example monitor the melting of the ice caps, or the rising of the oceans, or the number of people starving?
Copy of letter to the Gloucester Citizen in response to today's report, click here to report
Dear Editor
It is extremely worrying that only 67% of your readers believe that no action should be taken to limit air travel. It goes to show the effectiveness of the campaigns run by the aviation companies, against the efforts and evidence that the scientific community have amassed on this issue.
Just this week, it has been reported that food prices around the world are rising rapidly. This will mean starvation for many of the world’s poorer people. The reason for this is the bizarre combination around the world of droughts and floods, all of which stem from global warming. We are rapidly running out of time to act.
As for the point that one of your readers has made in the feedback on this article about the Stern report claiming that aviation only accounts for 2% of emissions, this needs some careful consideration. Firstly the Stern report calculates the 2% based on all emissions, including burning down the rain forests. It is simply because this is such a large contribution to the overall total, that aviation is small. We should be campaigning against forest clearances as well, rather than ignoring aviation because it is small in comparison. Also the aviation figures in Stern are based on data from 2000 and do not reflect the growth that the industry has experienced since then or the anticipated future increase of their emissions. Finally the figures in Stern relate only to the CO2 emissions, whereas aviation also causes the release of NOx gases into the upper atmosphere which have global warming effects hundreds of times higher that CO2 alone. The radiative forcing effects of aviation indicate that the actual impact is 4 to 6 times higher that just for CO2 alone. These factors have made it virtually impossible for aviation to be incorporated into European Carbon Trading Mechanism, so great is its impact.
The facts speak for themselves. Staverton Airport is currently under review regarding expansion and there is no case for it. We need to hope that we have councillors who are brave enough to show leadership and do the right thing based on the evidence by rejecting the proposals, rather that to default to follower-ship and allow policies to be dictated by popularist opinion polls.
Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Cheltenam and Gloucester Council's scrutiny committee has given a written response to the question of CO2 emissions from the Staverton Airport extension. Bizarrely, most of this rested on evidence from the airport. This is hardly scrutiny. My response to them follows below, along with a further letter to the Gloucester Citizen:
Dear Councillors,
Following tonight’s written reply to scrutiny committee regarding the additional CO2 emissions from the Staverton Airport expansion, I write to challenge some of the points in the reply and to correct some of the factual inaccuracies within it. Also included at the end of this email is a copy of my letter to the Gloucester Citizen in response to their opinion poll which concludes the 67% of people do not want restrictions on aviation.
Firstly, the reply says that “2.1 million litres of fuel were used by aircraft using the airport in 2005.” This in its own right is a significant amount of fuel and will increase significantly as the airport is expanded. It is therefore misleading to argue about the future impact of the airport by only comparing with the current emissions. The reply also states that the current emissions are small compared to roads. This actually argues for not building the airport. We know the environmental damage that road transport is doing, yet we find it impossible to stop the traffic. The last thing need now is another infrastructure whose emissions will rise with time and which will also be impossible to stop.
Secondly, the reply says that the emissions “equate to less than 1% of the emissions for the whole of Cheltenham .” Given that the services from the airport are likely to increase after the development work, then it can be assumed that the percentage of the emissions total will also increase.
All the scientific evidence points to us needing to reduce our CO2 emissions by 90% to minimise the risk of dangerous climate change. If we were to achieve this target, the emissions from the airport would amount to 9.1% of Cheltenham ’s total. However, it would in actual fact be higher once the emissions from the additional growth that the airport is trying to achieve is factored in.
Thirdly, the reply says “Gloucester Airport has stressed that its proposals are to improve the runway rather than expand the airport.” Whilst this may be the public position, their initial business plan showed their objective was to develop new services and indeed even talked about a new terminal building. Even Mark Ryan, when interviewed by local press made no secret of his plans to develop new services. Furthermore, the new services introduced by Manx Air clearly demonstrate that the airports intention is to increase services.
Fourthly, the reply says “The airports strategic plans aim to attract small high-tech business craft, which are more environmentally friendly.” This is absolute nonsense. The small high-tech airplanes are business jets which are the most carbon intensive mode of travel, no matter how efficient they are. Madonna is a well known user of these and recent reports in the Independent after the Live Earth concert calculated that her carbon footprint was greater than 1000 tonnes. This is galling to people like me and many others who are trying in all ways to reduce our individual carbon foots prints. You are failing in your duty to your constituents if you intend to try to attract business or people to this area who want to operate in environmentally damaging and unsustainable ways.
Fifthly, the reply says that “The airport expects the level of pollution caused to fall over the next few years.” The airport has produced no evidence to support this claim.
Sixthly, the reply says “Gloucestershire Airport is committed to playing its part in meeting internationally agreed targets for greenhouse gas emissions.” This is nonsense. There are no internationally agreed targets for greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. In fact, emissions emitted on international flights (which would include most of the proposed business jets) are not even recorded or allocated to any country and the debate on including aviation into any form of carbon trading has stalled.
Finally, the reply states “Provision of fuel data will help build a more accurate picture of emissions from this sector and enable monitoring over time.” Clearly we do not have to expand the airport to improve fuel data and it would be interesting to understand what monitoring is actually planned. Would we for example monitor the melting of the ice caps, or the rising of the oceans, or the number of people starving?
Copy of letter to the Gloucester Citizen in response to today's report, click here to report
Dear Editor
It is extremely worrying that only 67% of your readers believe that no action should be taken to limit air travel. It goes to show the effectiveness of the campaigns run by the aviation companies, against the efforts and evidence that the scientific community have amassed on this issue.
Just this week, it has been reported that food prices around the world are rising rapidly. This will mean starvation for many of the world’s poorer people. The reason for this is the bizarre combination around the world of droughts and floods, all of which stem from global warming. We are rapidly running out of time to act.
As for the point that one of your readers has made in the feedback on this article about the Stern report claiming that aviation only accounts for 2% of emissions, this needs some careful consideration. Firstly the Stern report calculates the 2% based on all emissions, including burning down the rain forests. It is simply because this is such a large contribution to the overall total, that aviation is small. We should be campaigning against forest clearances as well, rather than ignoring aviation because it is small in comparison. Also the aviation figures in Stern are based on data from 2000 and do not reflect the growth that the industry has experienced since then or the anticipated future increase of their emissions. Finally the figures in Stern relate only to the CO2 emissions, whereas aviation also causes the release of NOx gases into the upper atmosphere which have global warming effects hundreds of times higher that CO2 alone. The radiative forcing effects of aviation indicate that the actual impact is 4 to 6 times higher that just for CO2 alone. These factors have made it virtually impossible for aviation to be incorporated into European Carbon Trading Mechanism, so great is its impact.
The facts speak for themselves. Staverton Airport is currently under review regarding expansion and there is no case for it. We need to hope that we have councillors who are brave enough to show leadership and do the right thing based on the evidence by rejecting the proposals, rather that to default to follower-ship and allow policies to be dictated by popularist opinion polls.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
E-mail to Ultimate High complaining about Noise Nusance
Click here to see Ultimate High Web site
Dear Sirs,
I am a resident of Nailsworth who used to enjoy sitting in my garden and listening to the birds or generally relaxing with friends over a quiet drink.
Unfortunately, this simple pleasure is now firmly consigned to the past. I am now subjected to the intolerable drone of your aircraft engaged in mock dogfights that go on for extended periods of time over my house. The perpetual noise of your planes now forces me indoors for peace and quiet. This is not what I expect when living in an area such as this. I receive no benefit from your business and thus feel severely aggrieved at being inconvenienced by it.
I notice from the client testimonials on your web site that you service the egos of large city institutions. Maybe I am being a bit of a killjoy here, but I see no reason why the peace and quiet of the Cotswold countryside should be destroyed by highly paid city executives from companies such as Shoosmiths Solicitors or Holmans Lloyds Insurance Brokers who clearly have little empathy for the environement that they are destroying. I will be writing to each of your clients to complain about the distrubance that they are causing to our environement.
Further to this, in a time of increaing concern over global warming and when we are all being urged to cut back on our CO2 emissions, it seems that what you are offering is a frivalous activity that should be consigned to the past and which can only result in your clients emitting a disproportionate contribution of emissions.
Yours truly
Kevin Lister
see also http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cotswoldairnoise/
Dear Sirs,
I am a resident of Nailsworth who used to enjoy sitting in my garden and listening to the birds or generally relaxing with friends over a quiet drink.
Unfortunately, this simple pleasure is now firmly consigned to the past. I am now subjected to the intolerable drone of your aircraft engaged in mock dogfights that go on for extended periods of time over my house. The perpetual noise of your planes now forces me indoors for peace and quiet. This is not what I expect when living in an area such as this. I receive no benefit from your business and thus feel severely aggrieved at being inconvenienced by it.
I notice from the client testimonials on your web site that you service the egos of large city institutions. Maybe I am being a bit of a killjoy here, but I see no reason why the peace and quiet of the Cotswold countryside should be destroyed by highly paid city executives from companies such as Shoosmiths Solicitors or Holmans Lloyds Insurance Brokers who clearly have little empathy for the environement that they are destroying. I will be writing to each of your clients to complain about the distrubance that they are causing to our environement.
Further to this, in a time of increaing concern over global warming and when we are all being urged to cut back on our CO2 emissions, it seems that what you are offering is a frivalous activity that should be consigned to the past and which can only result in your clients emitting a disproportionate contribution of emissions.
Yours truly
Kevin Lister
see also http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cotswoldairnoise/
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Latest email to Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tweksbury Councillors to protest against Staverton Airport Expansion
Click here to read my sad story of kind, but misguided faries or click here for recent letters to MPs, Ministers town councillors and just about anyone else I can think of as well as other interesting reports
Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Dear Councillors,
Following the article in todays Echo extolling the virtues of the new services being introduced from Gloucester Airport to the Isle of Man and Jersey I have written to the Echo to ensure that the the environmental impact of this development receives coverage to provide a more balanced view. My letter follows below in blue, with further comment at the end:
"The announcement in the Gloucester Echo today of new services to the Isle and Man highlights the dangers of allowing Staverton Airport to expand its infrastructure. Despite the claims that the airport wants to carry out the modifications to improve safety, one would have to be extremely stupid not to recognise that the true intent is to increase profits by the introduction of new higher value services, such as new passenger schedules and business jets.
Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Dear Councillors,
Following the article in todays Echo extolling the virtues of the new services being introduced from Gloucester Airport to the Isle of Man and Jersey I have written to the Echo to ensure that the the environmental impact of this development receives coverage to provide a more balanced view. My letter follows below in blue, with further comment at the end:
"The announcement in the Gloucester Echo today of new services to the Isle and Man highlights the dangers of allowing Staverton Airport to expand its infrastructure. Despite the claims that the airport wants to carry out the modifications to improve safety, one would have to be extremely stupid not to recognise that the true intent is to increase profits by the introduction of new higher value services, such as new passenger schedules and business jets.
Past experience has shown that it is a lot easier to stop a stupid thing from starting, than to stop a stupid thing from continuing. For example, we now find it impossible to stop motorways, despite the knowledge that we have amassed on the environmental damage that they are doing. Had we not allowed their construction in the first place, or at least constrained their initial construction, we may not be facing the environmental catastrophe of today.
Whilst, the new service from Staverton may “only” be a small plane, it is still a small plane too many. The scientific evidence is clear that we need to be reducing CO2 emissions, not trying to justify further increases by saying “it is only small” or “it is a fuel efficient plane” This new service represents the start of aspirations for growth, which if left unchallenged will pick up a momentum of its own and result in large and unnecessary CO2 emissions.
The report quotes John Oates, former non-executive director for the airport as saying "Its going to be a positive thing, there are people who travel further afield for flights to the Isle of Man." It would be useful if he took a look at the M25. Demand always expands to fill supply. This service will simply develop new demand which will be used to justify further expansion. It is an ill thought out argument to claim this it will in some way reduce CO2 emissions."
To help you come to a conclusion in your debates and discussions on the issue of the airport expansion, I have enclosed links to an article in todays Telegraph. As you will see, the increasing shortage of world oil will lead to significant price rises and an economic down turn. We thus face the scenario of an airport emptied of business once it has added many tonnes of CO2 into the environment. Click here to see the link.
If you have ever managed an organisation or a project that is in difficulty, you will know that you can normally over come one problem and recover. However, when you have two concurrent problems, the chance of survival becomes significantly less. We are clearly facing two enormous and unprecedented concurrent problems, peak oil combined with climate change. It is clearly madness to pursue developing an airport against this background.
Just in case you are getting fed up of me, or you feel that you will be acting in isolation by abandoning your plans, you may also want to read todays editorial in the Independent.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Further email correspondance with Steve Jordan (Lib Dem Councillor) on the expansion of Staverton Airport
Dear Steve,
Thankyou for your reply to my emails and clarification of your position. Perhaps we have misunderstood the minutes of the scrutiny committee meetings which show you supporting the airports development. We are also concerned that there appears to be no mechanism within the scrutiny committees evaluation to consider the environmental impacts of this development.
We note that Mott MacDonald are to be engaged to carry out an assessment. However, analysis of environmental impacts, and especially contributions to climate change, are not in Mott's areas of expertise and there has been no publication of their remit. It therefore appears that this will be a rubber stamping exercise.
On the particular point that you raise about safety, this has clearly been a smoke screen to enable the airport to expand whilst avoiding the necessary scrutiny. Even the airport management have said in their 5 year business plan that it was their intent to develop additional services. In the business plan they initially published they were absolutely explicit about their ambitions to develop additional services. If safety is a genuine concern to airport management, then it would suggest that they are trying to encourage services that are inappropriate to their infrastructure.
I would challenge your interpretation of the Echo's reports as being lurid, especially because these reflect services numbers quoted from Mark Ryan. Mark Ryan has said that the existing plane movements would be replaced by the those associated with the new services. As this will result in light general aviation planes being replaced with longer range scheduled passenger planes and business jets, then the CO2 emissions from the airport will increase dramatically. So whilst the absolute number of services may not increase, the total CO2 emissions will. Furthermore, a part of the development proposals is to introduce instrument landing. This will enable services to land and take off in the dark, thus allowing a further increase in available capacity at the airport.
I appreciate you sharing the wider argument regarding the use of the airport for housing, but there has not been any suggestion that the airport is not viable in its current mode of operation. However, the debate on housing is a complex issue which needs to be evaluated on its own merits. We should not be trying to resolve this by expanding an airport.
I enclose a link to todays report in the Telegraph on seagull die offs of the Eastern Seaboard of the USA. Sea bird die offs are becoming a frequent occurrence and "dead zones" have been observed in both the North Sea and Western Pacific. You may wish to forward this link to any councillors who you believe still support the airport expansion and consider climate change to be an irrelevant issue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/04/eadead104.xml
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Steve Jordan
Thanks Kevin,
I hope I can help clarify a few issues for you.
Whether we like it or not, the council position on the latest airport business plan will be decided by the cabinet and the cabinet is entirely made up of Conservatives. Their decision is currently expected in November. As you may know, the airport is jointly owned by Cheltenham and Gloucester councils and a process for the 2 councils to look at the business plan is just getting underway. There will be a chance for the relevant scrutiny committee to express an opinion but so far there is only a list of questions to put to the airport board.
As for Lib Dem policy on airports, it is something I support, which I guess is no surprise as I don't own a car let alone a private jet. For me the main issue at the airport is about safety, as it only operates with a dispensation to allow a shorter runway than should normally be the case. This needs to be sorted out for the airport to continue the current level of operation. The Echo's lurid headlines about expansion plans give a distorted picture, but the article also mentioned that the current usage is 90000 movements per year and in future this is expected to be 90000 movements per year. Not much of an expansion there. The idea that Gloucestershire airport will become some sort of regional hub is frankly ridiculous and not something the Lib Dems would support.
The biggest issue with the current activity at the airport is that it prevents houses being built in the green belt. The first objective for those who want to do this is to make sure the airport closes so that the land can be released (see Gloucester City input to Regional Spatial Strategy). So while there is interest in the future of the airport in some ways it is a red herring. The wider debate is between those who 'oppose the airport' as a means of building in the greenbelt and those who 'support the airport' to prevent it. Our view over the years is that we don't support building in the green belt.
Regards, Steve.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Response to Aviation Parlimentary questions from Gillian Merron (Minister for Aviation)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=section%3Awrans&pid=10177&pop=1&p=2
Dear David,
I would like to thank you again for the immense effort that you gone to on my behalf in tackling the government’s aviation strategy and raising the parliamentary questions. However, I am disappointed with the responses that you have received from Gillian Merron, as I am sure you must be. I can only conclude from these that the government are not seriously considering the impact of aviation on the environment.
Your first question “To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is the Government's policy to support the inclusion of EU aviation within the Emissions Trading Scheme,” has received the reply from Gillan Merron “The UK has taken the lead in securing aviation's inclusion into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. This is in line with the Government's plans to tackle aviation's climate change impacts as set out in "The Future of Air Transport" White Paper.” However the Future of Air Transport White paper gives no details on the mechanism by which EU aviation would be incorporated into the scheme. It is important that we have visibility of these details and an understanding of the timescale by which aviation would be included and the reduction in CO2 emissions would be brought about by this. Without this, it starts to appear that the idea of achieving meaningful carbon reductions through carbon trading is mere talk. The transport secretary has publicly stated that the aviation industry is not taking carbon trading seriously.
Your second question “To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the aviation industry's progress towards its aim of improving fuel efficiency by 50 per cent. from 2000 to 2020,” has received the reply from Gillan Merron, “The aviation industry's sustainable aviation progress report 2006 available at www.sustainableaviation.co.uk includes information on progress towards this goal set by the Advisory Council on Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE).” However, I have been through this report and it does not give any meaningful update on the progress of fuel efficiency at all. It merely gives industry projections. We have no way of gauging the effectiveness of these claims or if they are simply wishful thinking. The only data this report shows is the fuel efficiency in litres per revenue tonne which is unrelated to the measurement quoted in the aviation bill. This only shows a 2.5% improvement, which is far below the governments targets suggested in the white paper.
Your third question, “To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what change there was in the aviation industry's fuel efficiency per seat between 2000 and 2005; and what assessment he has made of the implications of this trend for the possibility of meeting future targets,” has received the reply from Gillian Merron “The Government do not collect this information. The aviation industry's "Sustainable Aviation Progress Report 2006" available at www.sustainableaviation.co.uk includes a graph setting out aggregated airline fuel efficiency in litres per revenue tonne kilometre between 2000 and 2005.” It is extremely concerning that government does not capture this fundemental data especially as the industy sees its growth in carbon intensive long haul flights. As pointed out above, the fuel efficiency in litres per revene tonne only shows a 2.5% improvement and does not provide information on CO2 per passenger. Futher more, without data of this nature it is difficult to imagine how meaningful debates can ever be held over carbon trading.
Given that the minister of aviation is not able to provide even the most basic analysis of carbon emissions from the existing aviation industry, let alone be able to project future emissions after the proposed expansions and given the increased severity and risk to the planet of global warming, can you ask the further parliamentary question to the ministers for aviation and transport, “Given that the governement has no meaningful data on aviation emissions and given the conclusions of the IPCC and Stern reports why does the government not adopt a precautionary principle on airport expansion and proceed with further airport expansion only if there is unequivocal evidence that the carbon emissions will reduce and that the proposed developments do not further increase the risk of runaway global warming.”
Kindest regards,
Kevin Lister
Dear David,
I would like to thank you again for the immense effort that you gone to on my behalf in tackling the government’s aviation strategy and raising the parliamentary questions. However, I am disappointed with the responses that you have received from Gillian Merron, as I am sure you must be. I can only conclude from these that the government are not seriously considering the impact of aviation on the environment.
Your first question “To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is the Government's policy to support the inclusion of EU aviation within the Emissions Trading Scheme,” has received the reply from Gillan Merron “The UK has taken the lead in securing aviation's inclusion into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. This is in line with the Government's plans to tackle aviation's climate change impacts as set out in "The Future of Air Transport" White Paper.” However the Future of Air Transport White paper gives no details on the mechanism by which EU aviation would be incorporated into the scheme. It is important that we have visibility of these details and an understanding of the timescale by which aviation would be included and the reduction in CO2 emissions would be brought about by this. Without this, it starts to appear that the idea of achieving meaningful carbon reductions through carbon trading is mere talk. The transport secretary has publicly stated that the aviation industry is not taking carbon trading seriously.
Your second question “To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the aviation industry's progress towards its aim of improving fuel efficiency by 50 per cent. from 2000 to 2020,” has received the reply from Gillan Merron, “The aviation industry's sustainable aviation progress report 2006 available at www.sustainableaviation.co.uk includes information on progress towards this goal set by the Advisory Council on Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE).” However, I have been through this report and it does not give any meaningful update on the progress of fuel efficiency at all. It merely gives industry projections. We have no way of gauging the effectiveness of these claims or if they are simply wishful thinking. The only data this report shows is the fuel efficiency in litres per revenue tonne which is unrelated to the measurement quoted in the aviation bill. This only shows a 2.5% improvement, which is far below the governments targets suggested in the white paper.
Your third question, “To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what change there was in the aviation industry's fuel efficiency per seat between 2000 and 2005; and what assessment he has made of the implications of this trend for the possibility of meeting future targets,” has received the reply from Gillian Merron “The Government do not collect this information. The aviation industry's "Sustainable Aviation Progress Report 2006" available at www.sustainableaviation.co.uk includes a graph setting out aggregated airline fuel efficiency in litres per revenue tonne kilometre between 2000 and 2005.” It is extremely concerning that government does not capture this fundemental data especially as the industy sees its growth in carbon intensive long haul flights. As pointed out above, the fuel efficiency in litres per revene tonne only shows a 2.5% improvement and does not provide information on CO2 per passenger. Futher more, without data of this nature it is difficult to imagine how meaningful debates can ever be held over carbon trading.
Given that the minister of aviation is not able to provide even the most basic analysis of carbon emissions from the existing aviation industry, let alone be able to project future emissions after the proposed expansions and given the increased severity and risk to the planet of global warming, can you ask the further parliamentary question to the ministers for aviation and transport, “Given that the governement has no meaningful data on aviation emissions and given the conclusions of the IPCC and Stern reports why does the government not adopt a precautionary principle on airport expansion and proceed with further airport expansion only if there is unequivocal evidence that the carbon emissions will reduce and that the proposed developments do not further increase the risk of runaway global warming.”
Kindest regards,
Kevin Lister
Response from Councillor Duncan Smith on Staverton Airport
The response to my E-mail to Councillor Steve Jordan (Lib Dem) from Councillor Duncan Smith (Conservative) follows below. It is truely excellent to see an elected representitive being prepared to show leadership on difficult issues and being prepared to plan for long term interests, rather than short term political gains.
Kevin
Just to put the record straight, Cllr Jordan is only assuming the mantle of leader of the liberal democrat group and as such is leader of the opposition.
I remain in post as leader of the council.
I too would welcome a clarity in Liberal Democrat thinking on the airport and aviation matters as there seems to be a great deal of conflict and confusion between their local and national policy pronouncements and the support they give locally to the airport.
I have been trying to raise the future of the airport as one that needs a good public airing and sensible debate. So your points are both well made and timely and I hope that they go some way to promoting a positive and constructive debate.
Kind regards
Duncan
Also see my letter to Glouceser Echo in response to Roger Daniels article.
Kevin
Just to put the record straight, Cllr Jordan is only assuming the mantle of leader of the liberal democrat group and as such is leader of the opposition.
I remain in post as leader of the council.
I too would welcome a clarity in Liberal Democrat thinking on the airport and aviation matters as there seems to be a great deal of conflict and confusion between their local and national policy pronouncements and the support they give locally to the airport.
I have been trying to raise the future of the airport as one that needs a good public airing and sensible debate. So your points are both well made and timely and I hope that they go some way to promoting a positive and constructive debate.
Kind regards
Duncan
Also see my letter to Glouceser Echo in response to Roger Daniels article.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Email to Steve Jordan - New Leader of Cheltenham Council
Dear Steve,
I read with interest the article in this week’s Gloucester Echo which reported that you are now to take over as the leader of the Cheltenham Council.
I trust that you will now use your position to live up to the promises of the Lib Dems on opposing airport expansion by withdrawing your support for the developments at Staverton Airport and showing the strength of leadership that will befit a position such as yours.
Just in case you have been too busy to keep in touch with the latest thinking of your party on airport expansion, I enclose a link to a statement from the Lib Deb Shadow Transport Secretary where he says "In the light of the Stern Review, the Government must urgently revise its plans for aviation expansion" and goes onto say "The previous White Paper's 'predict and provide' strategy for air transport was fundamentally flawed. A new approach is needed to help reduce emissions from aviation."
http://www.libdems.org.uk/transport/story.html?id=11550
In case you are still in any doubt about the result of allowing this expansion to proceed, the Gloucester Echo also carried a report that Skytime has ordered 6 additional Lear Jets. These will be able to use the runway once it is extended.
As I have previously pointed out, flying Business Jets is the most carbon intensive mode of travel and Skytime's claims that it is carbon neutral by offsetting simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of the science behind the damage that they are doing. The emissions from this one development will negate the efforts that many thousands of people have made to reduce their CO2 emissions.
In case you have not noticed, much of Gloucestershire has been flooded this week whilst at the same time much of Southern Europe is baking in crippling heat. Climate Change is accelerating and the problems of today are mere foretastes of what is to come.
As your MP (Martin Horwood) has pointed out in his position as the Lib Dem Environment Spokesman, we need to be aiming at 90% cuts in CO2 emissions to provide any sort of future for our children.
I trust that you will use your new position to pursue the policies that your party has publicly committed to.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
I read with interest the article in this week’s Gloucester Echo which reported that you are now to take over as the leader of the Cheltenham Council.
I trust that you will now use your position to live up to the promises of the Lib Dems on opposing airport expansion by withdrawing your support for the developments at Staverton Airport and showing the strength of leadership that will befit a position such as yours.
Just in case you have been too busy to keep in touch with the latest thinking of your party on airport expansion, I enclose a link to a statement from the Lib Deb Shadow Transport Secretary where he says "In the light of the Stern Review, the Government must urgently revise its plans for aviation expansion" and goes onto say "The previous White Paper's 'predict and provide' strategy for air transport was fundamentally flawed. A new approach is needed to help reduce emissions from aviation."
http://www.libdems.org.uk/transport/story.html?id=11550
In case you are still in any doubt about the result of allowing this expansion to proceed, the Gloucester Echo also carried a report that Skytime has ordered 6 additional Lear Jets. These will be able to use the runway once it is extended.
As I have previously pointed out, flying Business Jets is the most carbon intensive mode of travel and Skytime's claims that it is carbon neutral by offsetting simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of the science behind the damage that they are doing. The emissions from this one development will negate the efforts that many thousands of people have made to reduce their CO2 emissions.
In case you have not noticed, much of Gloucestershire has been flooded this week whilst at the same time much of Southern Europe is baking in crippling heat. Climate Change is accelerating and the problems of today are mere foretastes of what is to come.
As your MP (Martin Horwood) has pointed out in his position as the Lib Dem Environment Spokesman, we need to be aiming at 90% cuts in CO2 emissions to provide any sort of future for our children.
I trust that you will use your new position to pursue the policies that your party has publicly committed to.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Letter to Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (MP for Cotswolds) on Fairford Airshow and Climatic impact
Click here to read my sad story of kind, but misguided faries or click here for recent letters to MPs, Ministers town councillors and just about anyone else I can think of as well as other interesting reports
Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Dear Geoffey,
I would like to express my delight that your party is taking global warming seriously and considering its position on contentious issues such as airport expansion.
The extreme weather over the past couple of days in this country and elsewhere such as Pakistan, India, South East Asia and the Americas serves to indicate how seriously global warming is adversely affecting weather patterns. At present, countries around the world are being either flooded or baked. Very few countries are able to enjoy the predictability of their climates only 10 years ago. Already serious warning bells are being sounded as climate change has contributed to the world food reserves falling to their lowest ever level.
Given the evidence before our eyes and predictions of the IPCC report which indicate that we need to make 90% cuts in our CO2 emissions to avoid serious climate change, we must urgently move beyond discussions and take action. This means making fundamental changes to our lives and expectations.
As you are no doubt aware, the Fairford Air Tattoo is coming up within the next couple of weeks. In the current circumstances this frivolous event is an anachronistic throw back to the past when people were not aware of the imminent danger to the environment. The Fairford Air Tattoo will result in many thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions from the planes, plus a significant contribution from all the unnecessary road traffic that an event of this size generates. This single event will cancel out the valiant attempts that many tens of thousands of people have made across the country to reduce their emissions. Furthermore, by allowing an event such as this to proceed unchallenged implicitly sends the message that tackling global warming is not our main priority.
Whilst there will no doubt be a vociferous group who will argue that the Fairford Airshow is essential and beneficial, there will be an equally large group who will be directly inconvenienced by the noise and congestion that the event generates.
As actions speak louder than words, I am sure that you will see the benefit of opposing further repeats of this most environmentally damaging event. I would urge you to use your position to protest against this event. If you are unprepared to challenge its future, then could you explain how you justify the environmental damage of an event such as this within your constituency?
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Response from Nailswoth Town Clerk on switching off street lights
Dear Kevin Lister
Thank you for your email. Gloucestershire County Council is responsible for street lighting and you may be aware that it is already piloting a change in street light operation involving the turning off of some lights during the early hours of the morning. Some pilot schemes were launched a month ago and GCC has established that the technology being used is effective and switch off between 12.00pm and 5.30pm is being achieved. GCC has just written to NTC to initiate discussion about the possibility of introducing a street lighting reduction scheme in Nailsworth. This proposal will be discussed by the Environment Committee on Monday 2 July ( Council Chamber Town Hall 7.30pm). GCC has drawn up general guidelines for reducing street lighting which include criteria which have been developed to identify streetlights where all night operation should not be changed including issues such as not compromising road safety on busier roads and retaining lighting for footpath users etc. So you will be pleased to learn I am sure that the issue of reducing street lighting is an important and current issue.
Yours sincerely
Linda Meletiou
Town Clerk
Thank you for your email. Gloucestershire County Council is responsible for street lighting and you may be aware that it is already piloting a change in street light operation involving the turning off of some lights during the early hours of the morning. Some pilot schemes were launched a month ago and GCC has established that the technology being used is effective and switch off between 12.00pm and 5.30pm is being achieved. GCC has just written to NTC to initiate discussion about the possibility of introducing a street lighting reduction scheme in Nailsworth. This proposal will be discussed by the Environment Committee on Monday 2 July ( Council Chamber Town Hall 7.30pm). GCC has drawn up general guidelines for reducing street lighting which include criteria which have been developed to identify streetlights where all night operation should not be changed including issues such as not compromising road safety on busier roads and retaining lighting for footpath users etc. So you will be pleased to learn I am sure that the issue of reducing street lighting is an important and current issue.
Yours sincerely
Linda Meletiou
Town Clerk
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Draft of Parlimentary Question to Gillian Merron, submitted through David Drew MP
David,
Further to our meeting this week, as requested I enclose the parliamentary question for Gillian Merron in response to her letter:-
In the government’s The Future of Air Transport Progress Report, published December 2006, it states that the aviation industry is adopting “a target to improve fuel efficiency by 50 per cent per seat kilometre in new aircraft in 2020 compared to 2000.” This target comes from Sustainable Aviation Report. However, this same report also shows that actual improvements between 2000 and 2005 were only 2.5% when based on litres/revenue tonne km. This is clearly far below the targets that the aviation strategy is based upon.
This poor performance is being aggravated by changes in the market. Both Boeing and Airbus are gearing up their production lines to build long range aircraft to cope with the expected surge in international aviation. This is reflected in the major orders that both manufactures have announced within recent weeks for long range aircraft. There is also the introduction of new transatlantic business class services which are extremely carbon intensive per passenger.
Given these market changes, the fuel use per passenger will increase which will inflate further the overall emissions and offset any efficiency improvements.
The government’s progress report also states, “We continue to pursue the inclusion of aviation emissions in the European Union (EU) emissions trading scheme (ETS) as soon as practicable, and to do so for all flights departing from EU airports, whatever their destination.”
Can the minister for aviation provide data to show the actual trend in fuel use per passenger? Can the minister for aviation also update on what progress has actually been achieved in including aviation into the ETS and details of how much carbon emission reduction will actually be delivered? Given that the Queens speech of 2006 underlines the government’s determination to tackle climate change, will the conclusions of the aviation bill and the progress report be reconsidered if the fuel use per passenger does not indicate that adequate improvements can be made and ETS does not offer adequate opportunities to offset the increased emissions?
Extract from the Sustainable Aviation report
Further to our meeting this week, as requested I enclose the parliamentary question for Gillian Merron in response to her letter:-
In the government’s The Future of Air Transport Progress Report, published December 2006, it states that the aviation industry is adopting “a target to improve fuel efficiency by 50 per cent per seat kilometre in new aircraft in 2020 compared to 2000.” This target comes from Sustainable Aviation Report. However, this same report also shows that actual improvements between 2000 and 2005 were only 2.5% when based on litres/revenue tonne km. This is clearly far below the targets that the aviation strategy is based upon.
This poor performance is being aggravated by changes in the market. Both Boeing and Airbus are gearing up their production lines to build long range aircraft to cope with the expected surge in international aviation. This is reflected in the major orders that both manufactures have announced within recent weeks for long range aircraft. There is also the introduction of new transatlantic business class services which are extremely carbon intensive per passenger.
Given these market changes, the fuel use per passenger will increase which will inflate further the overall emissions and offset any efficiency improvements.
The government’s progress report also states, “We continue to pursue the inclusion of aviation emissions in the European Union (EU) emissions trading scheme (ETS) as soon as practicable, and to do so for all flights departing from EU airports, whatever their destination.”
Can the minister for aviation provide data to show the actual trend in fuel use per passenger? Can the minister for aviation also update on what progress has actually been achieved in including aviation into the ETS and details of how much carbon emission reduction will actually be delivered? Given that the Queens speech of 2006 underlines the government’s determination to tackle climate change, will the conclusions of the aviation bill and the progress report be reconsidered if the fuel use per passenger does not indicate that adequate improvements can be made and ETS does not offer adequate opportunities to offset the increased emissions?
Extract from the Sustainable Aviation report
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Letter from Gillian Merron MP (minister for Aviation) and response on airport expansion
Copy of letter sent to David Drew MP following his letter to Douglas Alexander and the response back from Gillian Merron on airport expansion
Dear David,
Thank you for obtaining a response from Gillian Merron MP on my letters to the department of transport which sought clarification on the contradictions to the government’s position on airport expansion and the critically urgent requirement to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 60%.
Ms Merron states of the Government’s policy on aviation that “We believe this strikes a balance between economic, environmental and social impacts of aviation.”
However, the governments own figures from the Environmental Audit Committee (ref HC-981-l) shown below conclude that Aviation is the fastest growing source of emissions. This is before the introduction of the proposed additional airport capacity.
Dear David,
Thank you for obtaining a response from Gillian Merron MP on my letters to the department of transport which sought clarification on the contradictions to the government’s position on airport expansion and the critically urgent requirement to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 60%.
Ms Merron states of the Government’s policy on aviation that “We believe this strikes a balance between economic, environmental and social impacts of aviation.”
However, the governments own figures from the Environmental Audit Committee (ref HC-981-l) shown below conclude that Aviation is the fastest growing source of emissions. This is before the introduction of the proposed additional airport capacity.
Further to this Douglas Alexander when questioned by the same committee on the aviation industry’s approach to emissions control and carbon trading said,
“In terms of where we are in those negotiations, the evidence from the public statements of Lufthansa, even in the last 48 hours, evidences that the argument is not yet won within the aviation community. It is also no secret that some of our international partners are less than convinced of the merits even of a European scheme, never mind a wider scheme given the global nature of air travel"
Even in the government’s draft climate change bill the only meaningful reference to the impact of aviation is in a footnote at the bottom of page 28 which explains that if aviation is to be incorporated into the EU carbon trading scheme, it will done so by amending the targets, rather than making any meaningful attempt to actually reduce emissions.
These facts contrast with the conclusions of the Stern report and the IPCC report, which argue that 90% cuts in CO2 emissions are necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.
It is therefore clear that Gillian Merron’s statement that the policy “strikes a balance with the environmental impact of aviation” is wishful thinking that cannot be supported by any of the government’s published evidence.
In my earlier email to the DoT, I asked for clarification as to how the government justified their statement of “adopting a target to improve fuel efficiency by 50 per cent per seat kilometer in new aircraft in 2020 compared to 2000,” and what progress has actually been made against this. Ms Merron referred me to a copy of the Sustainable Aviation Report (No. 6). This is an aviation industry prepared document and thus not subject to any external scrutiny. The document states aspirations for efficiency achievements for certain new engines types and airframes. It seems that the government and industry has colluded to use this data as a measure of efficiency improvements actually being achieved for the entire current airline fleet. This is a grossly misleading distortion of the facts. The only information within Sustainable Aviation report showing past data that gives a measure of progress to the government’s and aviation industry’s aspirations in the white papers is the aggregated fuel efficiency, shown below. This graph shows an efficiency improvement of only 2.5% since 2000. A change as small as this is as likely to be noise as it is evidence of any sustainable improvement.
Thus it can be seen that even by the industry’s own figures, the improvement in fuel efficiency is far below that used as the basis for the government’s aviation policy.
If the target efficiency improvements in the government’s white paper were to be believed, the graph above would be showing an 18% improvement over the time period shown.
It should come a little surprise that the aviation figures have shown so little improvement. Recent reports in the press of empty planes flying from Heathrow to preserve slots and the introduction of new business jet services all undermine the image of an industry that claims to be concerned with the environment.
Gillian Merron also has stated in her letter that “The government is committed to a comprehensive approach, using economic instruments as an integral part of that approach to ensure that growing industries are catered for within a reducing total.” I have been trying hard to find any detailed analysis that the government has carried out to ensure that economic instruments could accommodate aviation emissions in a way that will allow the required CO2 targets to be met and what cuts other industries would be able to make to accommodate aviation. I have so far been unsuccessful. Could Ms. Merron explain what cuts she believes other industries will make to allow aviation’s expansion in accordance with government policies and what dialogue has actually been held with other industries on this? Given the facts above which show the aviation industries poor performance and the lack a response to this question from Ms Merron in my previous correspondence, am I correct to assume that there has actually been no dialogue and analysis? Does Ms Merron disagree with the Transport Secretary's statement to Environmental Audit Committee on the weakness of the concept of carbon trading for aviation?
On Gillan Merron’s last point in her letter to me “The report (14 Dec 2006) reaffirmed the government’s commitment to the strategy set out in the (Aviation) White paper,” can I assume that despite the lack of any published analysis carried out on offsetting aviation emissions, the lack of any measurable improvements and the publication of the IPCC report since the progress review that the government will continue to ignore all the warnings and proceed regardless of the environmental risks? Could Ms. Merron also explain how I should present these contradictions to my children?
Yours sincerely
Kevin Lister
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Drew MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA
Dear David
Thank you for your letter of 25 April to Douglas Alexander enclosing correspondence from Mr Kevin Lister about aviation and the environment. I have been asked to reply as Minister for Aviation.
As Mr Lister is aware, the Government's policy on aviation is set out in The Future of Air Transport White Paper. We believe this strikes a balance between the economic, environmental and social impacts of aviation.
The source of the 50% fuel saving per seat km for new aircraft entering service by 2020 compared to 2000 is work published by a European Commission funded organisation called ACARE, the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe. This has been widely used in the UK by an industry based group called the 'Sustainable Aviation Council'. Members include experts from airframe and engine manufacturers, aircraft operators, airport operators and the air traffic control community.
Late last year they produced a progress report, using the ACARE work, with pages 16-17 presenting some details of how the 50% target will be achieved. The airframe will contribute 20-25%, the engines 15-20% and improved air traffic management 5-10%. New aircraft entering service today already benefit from improved fuel efficiency over their predecessors. But the different stakeholders are working to make further progress which should contribute to further improvements even for later variants of today's new aircraft. The progress report is available at:
http://www.sustainableaviation.co.uk/doc/report06final.pdf
Air Passenger Duty (APD), as with all taxation matters, is for the Treasury. However, we believe that the estimate of savings due to the rise in APD was derived from the assumed impact on demand. We recognise that APD plays one part in a suite of measures to tackle aviation's environmental impact and as such will contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. However APD does achieve other things too: it better ensures that the sector meets the external costs it imposes on society, and it delivers resources for the Government's spending priorities including public transport and the environment.
Mr Lister is correct in that the Government believe the best way of tackling aviation's impact is through an emissions trading scheme. As explained earlier, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is a major policy measure that aims to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide at least cost to industry. Participants are allocated tradeable emissions "allowances" (similar to quotas) that they can trade to help them in meeting their emissions reductions targets. This allows the aviation sector to cover its environmental costs through a combination of delivering emissions reductions within the sector itself and by purchasing reductions that can be produced more cheaply by other sectors.
There are a variety of ways in which greenhouse gas emissions might be reduced across the economy. More information can be found about the sectors already included in the EU ETS on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk. The Government is committed to a comprehensive approach, using economic instruments as an integral part of that approach to ensure that growing industries are catered for within a reducing total.
Finally, Mr Lister asked if the Government was reconsidering its aviation policy. A report on the progress on the White Paper was published on 14 December 2006, in which we set out our progress on implementing our policy commitments, including on environmental measures. This report reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the strategy set out in the White paper.
GILLIAN MERRON
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
E mail to David Drew MP on Carbon Rationing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear David,
I watched the adjournment debate on climate change with interest last night. May I congratulate you on the question you raised during Martin Horwood's speech on the introduction of individual carbon rationing. Martin's speech gave an excellent synopsis as to why we need to be making cuts of the order of 90% in our carbon emissions to have any reasonable chance of saving the planet and thus your question was highly pertinent.
Unfortunately you never got much of an answer and this is probably because it has not been given much thought by other parties. I have to say that I had always been sceptical of the concept as well. However, given further consideration, I believe that your idea has very strong merits.
Firstly, from a technological point of view its introduction should be relatively easy. A ration card could be handled in exactly the same was that a Tesco points card is used. The only difference is that it would be illegal for a company to buy and sell selected products, such as petrol or air travel to somebody without the card, and you could only buy the products if your carbon ration had not been exceeded.
There is also the opportunity of incorporating the ration cards with the proposed personal identification cards that the government is planning to introduce.
Secondly, the benefit of the personal rationing system that you outlined is that it would penalise those people who have excessive carbon emissions, either through things such as driving large cars excessive distances or frequent flyers. The rationing system would force cuts before biting into the living standards of those who do not cause significant emissions. This is likely to result in a quick and significant carbon emissions drop because the distribution of carbon emissions is heavily skewed. This skew in the data is because nobody emits less than zero emissions, but a small number of people will produce emissions very much larger than the average. These extreme consumers of carbon have the effect of distorting and inflating the overall average. Also despite the publicity, many of these extreme consumers are not yet changing their lifestyles and are still showing little incentive to do so. Therefore these few people can negate the benefit of many others who try to cut back.
Thirdly, the personal rationing can be extended to products and services that are provided from oversees suppliers. This prevents energy intensive manufacturing processes from simply being relocated into countries that are not part of a currently proposed carbon trading schemes, e.g car manufacturing is an energy intensive business and several manufactures are now looking at relocation to developing countries that are not bound by the Kyoto targets.
Fourthly, the government's draft climate change bill discusses at great length the idea of the climate change committee. If individual carbon rationing was introduced, then a prime role of the climate change committee would be to determine the amount carbon allocation for various products and services and oversee the phasing in of the rationing concept.
Fifth, carrots could be introduced into the system, such as subsidised public travel or grants for solar heating and insulation of houses on submission of the card.
On the down side, introduction of the concept may be politically difficult as this will cause carbon cuts, unlike the current Kyoto targets which do not really result in any signficant carbon cuts. However, this can be mitigated by incorporating incentives into the processes such as identified in point 5 above. Also a growing proportion of the country wants to see action being taken, and as the climate starts changing for the worse they will become more cynical of the delays that international agreements such as Kyoto are causing.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Dear David,
I watched the adjournment debate on climate change with interest last night. May I congratulate you on the question you raised during Martin Horwood's speech on the introduction of individual carbon rationing. Martin's speech gave an excellent synopsis as to why we need to be making cuts of the order of 90% in our carbon emissions to have any reasonable chance of saving the planet and thus your question was highly pertinent.
Unfortunately you never got much of an answer and this is probably because it has not been given much thought by other parties. I have to say that I had always been sceptical of the concept as well. However, given further consideration, I believe that your idea has very strong merits.
Firstly, from a technological point of view its introduction should be relatively easy. A ration card could be handled in exactly the same was that a Tesco points card is used. The only difference is that it would be illegal for a company to buy and sell selected products, such as petrol or air travel to somebody without the card, and you could only buy the products if your carbon ration had not been exceeded.
There is also the opportunity of incorporating the ration cards with the proposed personal identification cards that the government is planning to introduce.
Secondly, the benefit of the personal rationing system that you outlined is that it would penalise those people who have excessive carbon emissions, either through things such as driving large cars excessive distances or frequent flyers. The rationing system would force cuts before biting into the living standards of those who do not cause significant emissions. This is likely to result in a quick and significant carbon emissions drop because the distribution of carbon emissions is heavily skewed. This skew in the data is because nobody emits less than zero emissions, but a small number of people will produce emissions very much larger than the average. These extreme consumers of carbon have the effect of distorting and inflating the overall average. Also despite the publicity, many of these extreme consumers are not yet changing their lifestyles and are still showing little incentive to do so. Therefore these few people can negate the benefit of many others who try to cut back.
Thirdly, the personal rationing can be extended to products and services that are provided from oversees suppliers. This prevents energy intensive manufacturing processes from simply being relocated into countries that are not part of a currently proposed carbon trading schemes, e.g car manufacturing is an energy intensive business and several manufactures are now looking at relocation to developing countries that are not bound by the Kyoto targets.
Fourthly, the government's draft climate change bill discusses at great length the idea of the climate change committee. If individual carbon rationing was introduced, then a prime role of the climate change committee would be to determine the amount carbon allocation for various products and services and oversee the phasing in of the rationing concept.
Fifth, carrots could be introduced into the system, such as subsidised public travel or grants for solar heating and insulation of houses on submission of the card.
On the down side, introduction of the concept may be politically difficult as this will cause carbon cuts, unlike the current Kyoto targets which do not really result in any signficant carbon cuts. However, this can be mitigated by incorporating incentives into the processes such as identified in point 5 above. Also a growing proportion of the country wants to see action being taken, and as the climate starts changing for the worse they will become more cynical of the delays that international agreements such as Kyoto are causing.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
E-mail to Martin Horwood MP re speech in the commons on climate change bill
Martin,
Congratulations on your speech in tonights adjournment debate and the analysis of the CO2 targets that you outlined. You have made the point eloquently as to why we need to be pursuing target cuts in the region of 90% and why with an issue such as the future of civilisation we should be employing the precautionary principle.
Further to my previous email on Staverton airport; given that you recognise the need to achieve CO2 cuts in the order of 90%, can I now assume that you will taking the opportunity to show leadership and to use your influence to object to this carbon intensive development within your constituency.
Kevin Lister
Congratulations on your speech in tonights adjournment debate and the analysis of the CO2 targets that you outlined. You have made the point eloquently as to why we need to be pursuing target cuts in the region of 90% and why with an issue such as the future of civilisation we should be employing the precautionary principle.
Further to my previous email on Staverton airport; given that you recognise the need to achieve CO2 cuts in the order of 90%, can I now assume that you will taking the opportunity to show leadership and to use your influence to object to this carbon intensive development within your constituency.
Kevin Lister
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Staverton Airport and Martin Horwood's (MP for Cheltenham and Lib Dem Environment spokesman) opportunity for to put words into action
Martin,
First of all congratulations on your excellent speech at the Climate Change meeting on Thursday. I am pleased that you recognise the importance of putting environmental survival before economic growth and your clarification that the Lib Dems are against all airport expansions.
You may remember that I caught you briefly at the end of the meeting in the foyer and asked for your opinion on the proposed expansion of Staverton Airport. You said that you understood from the management that the expansion was safety related, and said that you did not want to call them liars.
However, let me clarify:
The management has now clearly stated that their intent for this development is to expand the airport's operations with the aim of establishing scheduled routes from the Airport to other cities in this country and Northern Europe.
The management have stated that they wish to attract business jets to the airport. As you are probably aware, a large number of these "business jets" will be unnecessary pleasure flights of the ultra rich. Even if this were not the case, we should be encouraging businesses in this region to operate with the minimum carbon foot print and not try to attract them by the offer of dedicated runway facilities which will encourage the most carbon intensive mode of operation.
The airport has published their business plan and given outlines of the additional services which are expected to run. I have used this information to estimate the number of trees that are needed to offset the carbon that this will produce. It works out at approximately, 1.5 million trees.
The airport has used false arguments such as safety to justify their proposed expansion. However, it is only unsafe in its present configuration if they choose to operate larger planes from it. If it remains as a low carbon operation flying with only light private planes then there will be no elevated safety risk.
The argument made by the airport and will no doubt be made by the supporters of the expansion that because it is small, its impact on global warming will be negligible. This is nonsense and is equivalent to saying it is okay to rob the corner shop because it is small compared to the great train robbery. As was clear at the meeting, we need to find every way possible to reduce carbon emisssions and not allow any unncessary increases. In fact, because this airport is small, its economic benefit to the community will also be small and therefore it should be easy to manage with out it.
Copies of correspondence that I have sent to the airport management and the councillors of Tweksbury, Cheltenham and Gloucester are available on my blog, see;
http://letterinthebattleagainstclimatechange.blogspot.com/
I implore you to live up to your commitments and declaration on airport expansion and oppose this one on your doorstep.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
First of all congratulations on your excellent speech at the Climate Change meeting on Thursday. I am pleased that you recognise the importance of putting environmental survival before economic growth and your clarification that the Lib Dems are against all airport expansions.
You may remember that I caught you briefly at the end of the meeting in the foyer and asked for your opinion on the proposed expansion of Staverton Airport. You said that you understood from the management that the expansion was safety related, and said that you did not want to call them liars.
However, let me clarify:
The management has now clearly stated that their intent for this development is to expand the airport's operations with the aim of establishing scheduled routes from the Airport to other cities in this country and Northern Europe.
The management have stated that they wish to attract business jets to the airport. As you are probably aware, a large number of these "business jets" will be unnecessary pleasure flights of the ultra rich. Even if this were not the case, we should be encouraging businesses in this region to operate with the minimum carbon foot print and not try to attract them by the offer of dedicated runway facilities which will encourage the most carbon intensive mode of operation.
The airport has published their business plan and given outlines of the additional services which are expected to run. I have used this information to estimate the number of trees that are needed to offset the carbon that this will produce. It works out at approximately, 1.5 million trees.
The airport has used false arguments such as safety to justify their proposed expansion. However, it is only unsafe in its present configuration if they choose to operate larger planes from it. If it remains as a low carbon operation flying with only light private planes then there will be no elevated safety risk.
The argument made by the airport and will no doubt be made by the supporters of the expansion that because it is small, its impact on global warming will be negligible. This is nonsense and is equivalent to saying it is okay to rob the corner shop because it is small compared to the great train robbery. As was clear at the meeting, we need to find every way possible to reduce carbon emisssions and not allow any unncessary increases. In fact, because this airport is small, its economic benefit to the community will also be small and therefore it should be easy to manage with out it.
Copies of correspondence that I have sent to the airport management and the councillors of Tweksbury, Cheltenham and Gloucester are available on my blog, see;
http://letterinthebattleagainstclimatechange.blogspot.com/
I implore you to live up to your commitments and declaration on airport expansion and oppose this one on your doorstep.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
Switch off the street lights at night
Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 16:21:41 +0100 (BST)From: Kevin Lister
Subject: Street lights
To: clerk@nailsworthtown.co.uk
Sirs,
In response to articles that I have written in the Nailsworth News under the title "Kevs Climate Column" a letter was sent in recently suggesting that we could reduce our CO2 emissions by switching off street lighting say after 11:00 pm.
I personally think that this is a great idea and would also allow us to appreciate the pleasures again of looking at the night sky with out the current levels of light pollution.
As you may have picked up in the press recently, the seriousness of global warming is increasing virtually by the day. The government's draft climate change bill which is currently out for public consultation is a grossly inadequate response to the magnitude of the problem that faces us. The fundamental reality is that we must all cut back on consumption as aggressively as possible. It is therefore imperative that we act in all ways that we can.
Additionally, actions always speak louder than words, and switching off the street lights is a very public way of saying that as a community we care.
Thank you for considering this proposal,
Kevin Lister
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 16:21:41 +0100 (BST)From: Kevin Lister
Subject: Street lights
To: clerk@nailsworthtown.co.uk
Sirs,
In response to articles that I have written in the Nailsworth News under the title "Kevs Climate Column" a letter was sent in recently suggesting that we could reduce our CO2 emissions by switching off street lighting say after 11:00 pm.
I personally think that this is a great idea and would also allow us to appreciate the pleasures again of looking at the night sky with out the current levels of light pollution.
As you may have picked up in the press recently, the seriousness of global warming is increasing virtually by the day. The government's draft climate change bill which is currently out for public consultation is a grossly inadequate response to the magnitude of the problem that faces us. The fundamental reality is that we must all cut back on consumption as aggressively as possible. It is therefore imperative that we act in all ways that we can.
Additionally, actions always speak louder than words, and switching off the street lights is a very public way of saying that as a community we care.
Thank you for considering this proposal,
Kevin Lister
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Staverton Airport finally comes clean
Staverton airports managing director has finally come clean and admitted that the "safety improvement" that they are trying to instigate is actually about introducing new services.
As with most pleasurable things that you do at someone else's expense, you can always justify it to yourself. Mark Ryan's explanation of his proposed expansion is no different.
Amongst other things, Mark Ryan argues that because Staverton airport is small it has no effect on global warming. In my letter to him, I have explained that this is like using the argument that it is okay to rob the corner shop because it is small in relation to the great train robbery.
Strangely in their web site, they say that they are concerned about global warming and that action is needed at local, national and international levels. On this, I agree. And a good local action is to oppose the expansion of this airport. It is easier by far to stop a bad thing from starting, than to stop a bad thing from continuing.
As with most pleasurable things that you do at someone else's expense, you can always justify it to yourself. Mark Ryan's explanation of his proposed expansion is no different.
Amongst other things, Mark Ryan argues that because Staverton airport is small it has no effect on global warming. In my letter to him, I have explained that this is like using the argument that it is okay to rob the corner shop because it is small in relation to the great train robbery.
Strangely in their web site, they say that they are concerned about global warming and that action is needed at local, national and international levels. On this, I agree. And a good local action is to oppose the expansion of this airport. It is easier by far to stop a bad thing from starting, than to stop a bad thing from continuing.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Feeback on the Anne Snelgrove meeting
Cirencester College were privalleged to have Anne Snelgrove MP (for Swindon South) come to present her position and the governments on the environement and climate change. Over 50 students attended the presentation, which is a measure of the level of concern that they have on this issue. Anne commented aferwards on how well considered the students questions were.
Contact me at kevclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Contact me at kevclimatecolumn@btinternet.com
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Governments Climate Change Bill out for consultation
The governments draft climate change bill has been issued for consultation. The thrust of the bill is largely based on the assumption that carbon emissions can be painlessly reduced by carbon trading. All the evidence now emerging is that this is a total falicy at all levels.
Please click here to see my comments on the report. Please review the draft report yourself and and if you have any comments or disagree with mine, please email me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com to let me know. It is particulary important to have students and young people commenting on this report. The governments has published its list of consultees - this is dominated by large organisations and does not solicite the feedback of younger people who will live with the consquences of this disaster.
The governments climate change bill can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/climatechange-bill/consultation.pdf
Please click here to see my comments on the report. Please review the draft report yourself and and if you have any comments or disagree with mine, please email me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com to let me know. It is particulary important to have students and young people commenting on this report. The governments has published its list of consultees - this is dominated by large organisations and does not solicite the feedback of younger people who will live with the consquences of this disaster.
The governments climate change bill can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/climatechange-bill/consultation.pdf
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Response from David Drew MP on global warming
see letter from David Drew at: http://resultsfromdaviddrew.blogspot.com/
Dear David,
Many thanks for taking the time to respond so positively to my points and for the careful consideration that you have obviously given them.
I am delighted that you have expressed your opposition to the opening of the fifth terminal and the construction of third runway at Heathrow to John McDonnell MP and your opposition to the developments at Staverton Airport. It would also add alot of weight to the argument against the Staverton Airport development if you could also support this by writing to the Tweksbury Borough Councillors.
I am equally delighted that you have taken forward my proposals for incorporation of environmental health warnings on the airline adverts. I will rely on your expertise of parliamentary procedures and committees to determine the best method to manage this and get this implemented.
You have said in your letter that "The Government is currently accepting submissions for a consultation on its Climate Change Bill White Paper. This is the route through which I plan to advance your proposition for the labelling of airplane tickets. I would encourage you to participate in, and advanced your concerns through this process as well." I would appreciate if you could let me know the process for linking into the development of this paper.
I would also like to thank you for raising the question of iron seeding of the ocean. I note that Ian Pearson has said "The Department’s key priority remains finding ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to a level that will prevent dangerous climate change." Given the stark conclusions of the IPCC report, the only safe level of CO2 that can now be considered to prevent dangerous climate change is zero. Further, given the government's announcement that CO2 emissions have risen by 1.2% over the last year, the chance of relying on any worthwhile emission cuts in the near future is increasing unlikely. I accept the point that we do not own the ocean, but this is conveniently overlooked when it comes to polluting it. Our actions are causing acidification of the oceans globally on an increasingly accelerating rate and this threatens to instigate one of the biggest triggers in causing a runaway global warming effect. The costs of doing something now will be insignificant against the cost of doing nothing. I accept that there is more research to do in this area and would appreciate any further pressure you can bring to instigating research on this topic.
You have said in your letter "Coming on the back of our year-long study of Climate Change: the Citizens’ Agenda, I feel that debate on this bill will accord stakeholders an unparallelled opportunity to influence the government’s position on and response to global warming. I look forward look forward to collaborating with interested parties in the Stroud area on a response to the Government’s propositions and would be happy to keep you updated on committee debates as they develop." and " DEFRA is currently holding a consultation on its Marine Bill White Paper. As it is far easier to amend legislative proposals before they become law, I would recommend that you make your views known through a submission to this consultation and I am happy to help you do this." As well as getting the opportunity to input into these debates, I would also like to get the students of Cirencester College involved and will raise this with Nigel Robbins. I would there appreciate if you could give information and timetables for getting involved, as well as with the Climate Change White Paper Bill.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/
"DREW, David"wrote:
Dear Kevin
I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the 9 points. However as you can see from the accompanying attachment it is very much work in progress. Please keep in touch and let me have anything you want included as part of the Defra Select Committee enquiry into the Draft
Climate Change Bill.
Yours sincerely
David Drew
Dear David,
Many thanks for taking the time to respond so positively to my points and for the careful consideration that you have obviously given them.
I am delighted that you have expressed your opposition to the opening of the fifth terminal and the construction of third runway at Heathrow to John McDonnell MP and your opposition to the developments at Staverton Airport. It would also add alot of weight to the argument against the Staverton Airport development if you could also support this by writing to the Tweksbury Borough Councillors.
I am equally delighted that you have taken forward my proposals for incorporation of environmental health warnings on the airline adverts. I will rely on your expertise of parliamentary procedures and committees to determine the best method to manage this and get this implemented.
You have said in your letter that "The Government is currently accepting submissions for a consultation on its Climate Change Bill White Paper. This is the route through which I plan to advance your proposition for the labelling of airplane tickets. I would encourage you to participate in, and advanced your concerns through this process as well." I would appreciate if you could let me know the process for linking into the development of this paper.
I would also like to thank you for raising the question of iron seeding of the ocean. I note that Ian Pearson has said "The Department’s key priority remains finding ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to a level that will prevent dangerous climate change." Given the stark conclusions of the IPCC report, the only safe level of CO2 that can now be considered to prevent dangerous climate change is zero. Further, given the government's announcement that CO2 emissions have risen by 1.2% over the last year, the chance of relying on any worthwhile emission cuts in the near future is increasing unlikely. I accept the point that we do not own the ocean, but this is conveniently overlooked when it comes to polluting it. Our actions are causing acidification of the oceans globally on an increasingly accelerating rate and this threatens to instigate one of the biggest triggers in causing a runaway global warming effect. The costs of doing something now will be insignificant against the cost of doing nothing. I accept that there is more research to do in this area and would appreciate any further pressure you can bring to instigating research on this topic.
You have said in your letter "Coming on the back of our year-long study of Climate Change: the Citizens’ Agenda, I feel that debate on this bill will accord stakeholders an unparallelled opportunity to influence the government’s position on and response to global warming. I look forward look forward to collaborating with interested parties in the Stroud area on a response to the Government’s propositions and would be happy to keep you updated on committee debates as they develop." and " DEFRA is currently holding a consultation on its Marine Bill White Paper. As it is far easier to amend legislative proposals before they become law, I would recommend that you make your views known through a submission to this consultation and I am happy to help you do this." As well as getting the opportunity to input into these debates, I would also like to get the students of Cirencester College involved and will raise this with Nigel Robbins. I would there appreciate if you could give information and timetables for getting involved, as well as with the Climate Change White Paper Bill.
Regards,
Kevin Lister
http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/
"DREW, David"
Dear Kevin
I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you on the 9 points. However as you can see from the accompanying attachment it is very much work in progress. Please keep in touch and let me have anything you want included as part of the Defra Select Committee enquiry into the Draft
Climate Change Bill.
Yours sincerely
David Drew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)