Your invite to "Camp Hope"

Contact me at Kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com


Following the statements made by the Staverton Airport in their misconceptions document were they said there was no such thing as global warming, and went on to say “we all know, it is only a small minority that are opposed to the development," those of us that are concerned about the development have agreed to show that we are not a small minority. We have now started organising a mini weekend climate camp near the airport during October to coincide with the planning reviews that Tewksbury County Council will be undertaking.

We have located land for this near the airport. We will advise our proposed date shortly and later we will advise the location shortly before the camp.

In common with the Heathrow climate camp we will have workshops and discussions on the Saturday with peaceful protests against the Airport on Sunday.

Climate change is the most overwhelming crisis that will affect our planet. It is vital that we act at all levels and challenge those people and organisations who are prepared to dismiss and ridicule the science. It has never been more important to maintain hope; hence we are naming our camp, “Camp Hope.”

We invite you to come to our camp, to join the debates and we would appreciate your contribution.

Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com

Further E-mails with Lib Dem Councillors on thier position on airport expansions

Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com

Dear Mr Taylor,

I would like to thank you again for so promptly replying to my previous email. I am delighted that you are equally unimpressed by the opening paragraphs of the airports report and that you accept global warming is a serious issue.

I would however like to challenge your position on wanting to "see sensible discussion and rational decision making." It is clear from your response that you are aware of the magnitude of the problem of global warming and you must recognise that we are not faced with a minor and manageable temperature increase, but a cataclysmic step change in average temperatures that our already environmentally stressed society will be totally unable to cope with. The science community has already spent over 20 years having sensible and rational discussions which are backed up by computer simulation and extensive peer review. The consensus opinion of the science community is that we need 90% cuts in CO2 if we are to avoid runaway global warming. So, unfortunately the 20% target that Gloucester is trying to achieve is far too small and merely guarantees runaway global warming. Arguing for a policy of “sensible discussion and rational decision making” whilst not opposing airport expansions is simply procrastination and avoidance of decision making.

More worryingly, no country or city has achieved significant and sustainable overall reductions in CO2 emissions. I would suggest that an element of naivety is creeping in if you believe that Gloucester will somehow buck the trend, especially as its population and economy is continuing to grow, and still be able to make sufficient reductions to enable the offsetting of extra emissions from the airport. Without a draconian plan of carbon rationing or some other similar approach, it is impossible to envisage how the city could reliably make the CO2 cuts necessary to achieve the current targets whilst simultaneously accommodating the additional emissions from the airport.

It is also worth considering that the emissions from Staverton Airport will be emitted at high altitude where their global warming impact is increased by a factor between 4 and 6. This implies that Gloucester would need to make even larger cuts in its CO2 to accommodate Staverton.

You have said in your response that “However, I don't wish to join in the game of claim and counter-claim.” Not wanting to “join the game of claim and counter-claim” is equivalent to sitting on the fence and not having the courage to decide either way. During the rise of fascism in Germany before the war, people did not want to challenge what was being done to the Jews and they were silent whilst terrible crimes were allowed to build up into what became the biggest catastrophe that mankind experienced. The situation today is the same, but far more serious. Airport expansions are a crime against the next geration who have no voice, in the same way as crimes were committed against the Jews who had no voice. You cannot afford to avoid “joining the game.” You are part of the game.

It is finally worth pointing out that the Lib Dems have had a public policy of opposing airport expansion. However, they have almost consistently failed to have the courage to support this policy every time it has been put to the test, such as at Exeter, Glasgow, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool . This duplicity is what makes the public cynical about the politicians at a time when we can least afford this.

I would urge you to fully consider the science and your responsibility to your voters’ long term interests and unequivocally oppose this expansion in line with your parties policies.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/Phillip Taylor wrote:
Dear Mr Lister,

I don't believe that it is to anybody's credit to doubt that the climate is changing partially as a result of increasing and massive consumption of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution began over 200 years ago. I happen to believe the weight of scientific evidence, not because I am any sort of expert in the subject but rather more because of the application of common sense. Never in this planet's history has so much heat and pollution been created unnaturally ie by human beings rather than natural forces. So, I find myself unconvinced by the opening comments in the report. However, I don't wish to join in the game of claim and counter-claim. Nor do I wish to insinuate that others are barking mad. What I would like to see is sensible discussion and rational decision-making. I am not sure if Cheltenham Borough Council has signed up to the Nottingham Declaration - I hope it has - but I do know that Gloucestershire County Council has done so. This obliges the County Council, inter alia, to contribute at local level to the delivery of the UK Climate Change Programme. Gloucester City Council has a Climate Change Strategy that lists as one of its objectives in its action plan the following: "To reduce greenhouse gas emissions across Gloucester by 20% by 2010." You can find this document on the Gloucester City Council web site. The County Council has a similar document and aims (rather more modest) that can be viewed on its web site.

I won't go on at length, just suffice it to say that I would expect the various councils involved to accept that a decision that might lead to increased pollution eg increased air traffic, must be counter-balanced by decisions and actions that lead to a net reduction in fossil fuel consumption and consequent pollution. I can understand why you might want to target the possible expansion of the airport. However, if councils meet their targets, with or without airport expansion, they will have done what is necessary to provide a lead for others to follow and to play their part in reducing fossil fuel consumption. I'm not sure, in that case, what more could reasonably be expected. I do accept, however, that you and others have every right to expect the relevant councils to meet their targets.



Yours sincerely,

Phil Taylor

Liberal Democrat
Gloucester City Councillor

Cheltenham Mayor Condems Airport Reports that tries to deny global warming

Contact me a kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com

Dear Gloucester Councillors,

You have probably seen some of ongoing debates regarding the environmental impact of Staverton Airport.

As you are probably also aware, we face a crisis of unprecedented and unimaginable consequence from global warming. The maths and science is brutally stark. We must reduce our CO2 emissions by 90% to have any reasonable chance of our civilisation surviving. In this context there is no rational or moral basis for expanding airports.

Some may say that I am naive because Staverton is only small in the grand scale of things. However, this is a lot less naive than simply relying on America, China and India to reach a deal that will somehow not place any obligations on us to reduce our emissions. Action is needed at all levels to achieve the cuts needed. How can we expect China and India to take global warming seriously and act on our behalf when we are not prepared to stop the development of even a small airport?

Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence behind global warming, Staverton Airport have recently issued a report to try to persuade MPs and local Councillors that the science is nonsense and that the airport will have no adverse effect on the local community. This scurrilous behaviour is not worthy of any credible company in this country. It is grossly irresponsible to play with facts as serious these when it is already difficult to get much of the population to take global warming seriously. I have also produced a counter report. Both documents are attached to this email for your consideration.

Cheltenham Mayor, John Rawson, on seeing the report said, “I am utterly shocked that the Airport should be promoting the idea that climate change is a hoax and that the world's scientists and governments are systematically pulling the wool over people's eyes. This is lunatic stuff, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. The fact is that the world's most eminent scientists are overwhelmingly convinced that human behaviour is contributing to climate change. It won't do the Airport any good to associate itself with mad conspiracy theories.”

We welcome John Rawson's forthright and clear condemnation of the report. We also would welcome your thoughts on the Airport's behavior and your perception of the business case.

Regards,
Kevin

E-mails with a Gloucester Councillor on Staverton, following the 5 things you need to know about global warming email to the Mayor of Gloucester

Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com

Dear Mr. Taylor,

Thank you for your reply and the time that you have put in to making your argument, however I would suggest that it is worth more fully reconsidering some of the points that you have made, and I trust that you will bear with me whilst I try and answer them. I apologise in advance for the length of the reply.

You have said that that the information I have provided is well known to you. I therefore trust that you also appreciate the ultimate and over riding urgency of taking action. No matter how optimistically we hope, global warming will not go away and it is absolutely certain to become an overwhelming problem in the very near future. The problem is so immense that it will not be resolved by simply putting up a few windmills and hoping for the best.

The government, and even Staverton Airport, have said we need to take action at local, national and international levels. First consider each of these levels. Effective action at an international level that results in CO2 and other greenhouse gas reductions has been none existent. As you have pointed out China, India and the USA have not signed the Kyoto Protocol and have little intention of doing so. In fact China’s position is that they are concerned about global warming, but do not intend to reduce emissions. Even those countries that have signed the Kyoto agreement have signed targets that are either easy to achieve or require no actual cuts in CO2 emissions to be made. At a national level, little progress is being made. Alternative solutions for energy supply such as wind power are consistently being proven to be ineffective in terms of consistently meeting the energy demands of a energy hungry country with 60 million people, and other ideas such as bio fuels are actually far worse for the environment than burning fossil fuels. That leaves us with no option but to take robust action at the local level, and this means taking action in all areas. It ultimately means completely changing our expectations and life style. Whilst persuading people to cut down on car journies and reduce heating will help, it will be far too small to be effective, and will do nothing more than provide false hope.

It is precisely because action in all other areas is failing that makes the necessity for taking local action imperative. Solving global warming will not come about by us all determining that we should have an equal slice of CO2 emissions as there is not enough time to reach such a complicated agreement. Global warming will only be resolved by the masses recognising that the earth is saturated with CO2 and nearing the point of catastrophic climate change and then taking urgent action to reduce our emissions and avoid creating any new emissions in all areas.

I accept your point that vehicle emissions and power emissions are large, but at least their rate of increase is relatively steady. Aviation by contrast is the most rapidly growing source of emissions. It makes absolutely no sense that we allow something as dangerous to the environment as this to expand when we actually need everything else to contract. By allowing Staverton Airport to expand, it sends out the loud and clear message that the environment is actually not important. If you allow the airport to expand, you will certainly face the car owners arguing that there is no point in them cutting back their journeys if you do not have the courage to oppose a relatively small airport expansion.

It is also worth taking a lesson from road transport. We now know the environmental damage from road traffic is enormous and potentially catastrophic, yet we are virtually powerless to do anything to stop it, so addicted have we become as a society to it. It is clear from the experience of the road, that it is easier to stop a bad thing from starting than to stop a bad thing from continuing. Staverton Airport is no different. Once new services start, it would be virtually impossible to stop them as various vested interests would argue that their businesses or life styles had become dependent on the new services, or contractual obligations prevents them from being stopped.

Further more, the total green house effect from aircraft is considerably more that the CO2 emissions alone. The exhaust from planes is a cocktail of gases; in particular there are large amounts of NO2. As well as this being a dangerous gas at ground level that causes asthma and respiratory ailments around airports, it is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas which is in the region of 300 times more potent that CO2 alone. The high altitude that this is emitted at further increases the global warming impact. The result is that the additional radiative forcing increases the global warming impact of aviation by a factor of 4 to 6 over the actual CO2 emissions alone.

When evaluating total CO2 emissions from planes, you also need to consider that international travel is not counted, despite this being the largest source of emissions. With international emissions counted, aviation accounts for 6% of the UK’s total emissions. With the radiative forcing, this suggests that aviation is potentially contributing about 20% of our total global warming impact. This is not insignificant.

I further believe that your point about Britain’s contribution to the world CO2 emissions being negligible also needs further consideration. Firstly, Britain is the 7th biggest contributor of CO2 emissions in the world. One of the reasons why our emissions have been able to stay stable recently is that we have simply exported much heavy industry abroad to countries such as China. Even still, on a per capita basis, China’s emissions are still only 30% of ours and India’s are 10%. It therefore completely destroys our position in trying to persuade these countries to make cuts in their emissions when we are not prepared to stop even a relatively small airport.

Bring the debate fully home to Staverton. We have calculated that approximately 1.5 million trees would be required to absorb the CO2 from the new services outlined in their business plan. For Staverton to make their investment viable, they would need many more services than publicly admitted, thus many more trees would be required than my estimate. So whilst Staverton, may be small in relation to Heathrow, it is only small because the other airports are so large. Trying to argue that it is acceptable to expand Staverton because it is smaller is akin to arguing that it is okay to rob the corner shop because it is smaller than the Great Train Robbery.

Given your initial point of your deep interest in environmental matters, and hence I would suppose your recognition of the risk that we face, you must appreciate that the idea of supporting an airport expansion is not logical. You must recognise that if we were to actually build the airport it is likely to become a white elephant very soon as the economic impacts of climate change will bite and reduce any utility for an airport. From your interest in environemental matters you must be aware that we face the risk of world temperatures rises being in excess of 4 deg C. At this point, the few survivors on the planet would not be interested in flying off for holiday weekends. The recent falls in the stock market are the first global warming economic impacts, as poor weather around the world and demand for bio fuels has pushed basic food prices up, with corresponding impacts in inflation and interest rates. This is a situation that it only going to become much worse, and potentially very quickly. Gloucester tax payers will simply be left trying to support a financial liability at the time when they are least able to do so.

I note with interest that you are in the Liberal Democrats. I had been highly impressed with their public position on opposing all airport expansions. Ultimately stopping airport’s and other instruments of ecomomic development are painful decisions, but often the correct decisions are the most difficult to make and not making them will be far worse in the long run.

You must finally recognise that many of the flights from the airport will be made for ultimately frivolous reasons, such as holidays and weekend’s away. As you may be aware, Staverton see business jets as being one of their main growth areas following the expansion. However, European Air Traffic data shows that amongst the top 20 destinations for business jets are Cannes, Nice and Mallorca. For those of us who are concerned parents with children who are trying to make reductions in our emissions we find it galling that a few elitist people are prepared to completely ignore the science and negate any reductions in CO2 that thousands of us will make.

Staverton airport’s publicly owned status offers a unique position where the council, as the representatives of the people, can take a real lead on this issue and put the environement above short term profit motives. You have the opportunity to stop this development and potentially form a coalition of other willing organisations that would be prepared to make cut backs in their output to safe guard the future. I would offer this as a vision of what you can achieve rather than contributing to the biggest disaster that mankind will see. The alternative is that your hope "that the major international polluters act in unison before the debate becomes irrelevant" will simply remain an unfulfilled hope unless people at the local level are prepared to take leadership positions where they can.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Phillip Taylor wrote:
Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for sending me a copy of your e-mail. The information that you provided is well known to me, as I have a deep interest in environmental matters. My personal wish would be to see a reduction in air travel and, in that sense, I support your position. However, I would like to introduce a little balance into this debate. You are doubtless well aware that a complete cessation of fossil fuel consumption today by the entire United Kingdom would do little or nothing to diminish global warming. The UK's consumption of fossil fuels simply is not big enough for us alone to bring about significant change. What is required is a massive global shift away from fossil fuel consumption. The signs are not too promising that China, India and the USA are on the verge of making such a shift. It's also clear that the EU is a long way from making the necessary progress in this vitally important issue. I read today that e.on are hoping to win approval to build a coal-fired power station in the UK, something that would represent a major backward step in our own country's approach to this issue if granted by the Govt. I could go on, but trust that I have demonstrated how utterly insignificant an expansion of Staverton Airport would be as far as global warming is concerned.

I believe that we must all continue to press major polluting nations to make necessary, massive and rapid reductions in their fossil fuel consumption. We as individuals must also take a responsible approach. The Council, too, has a duty of care to protect our hard-pressed environment in whatever small way it can. However, let's keep an open mind about all of this and evaluate the benefits and disadvantages of the expansion proposals fairly and dispassionately. The major polluters are domestic heating, vehicle usage and industry. Persuading people en masse to turn their heating down a little and/or drive their cars less would be far more effective in reducing the production of greenhouse gases in Gloucester than limiting flights in and out of Staverton. My recommendation would be that we all devote our attention to the areas that will bring the best return.

It is probably worth noting that I am a LibDem City Councillor for Barnwood Ward and am not a member of the City Council's Cabinet.

I'm sure that this debate has some way to go. I just hope that the major international polluters act in unison before the debate becomes irrelevant.

Yours sincerely,

Phil Taylor

Letter to the Mayor of Gloucester following his support of Staverton Airport

Five things to know about global warming before supporting the extension at Staverton Airport.


Dear Councillor Gill,

1. The IPCC report published in Feb 2007 predicts temperatures increases for various scenarios (graph below). The best case is that we reduce our emissions to zero today. The worst case is that nothing changes and we develop the economy as we are doing today. The worst case scenario is the most likely scenario. There is no stopping the temperatures rise in this circumstance. The IPCC report is considered the most "concentual" agreement of the worlds scientists on global warming.




2. Over the 5 billion years that life has existed on the plant, the temperature has not changed by more that more the +/- 4 deg C, this covers the time from the first formations of single cell organisims to now. The predictions from the IPCC report indicate that we will see more than 4 deg C by the end of this centrury. It is unlikely that our civilisation will survive a sustained average temperatures increase of 1 deg C. By the time the temperature increases to 2 deg C, a feedback process will be set in place that will cause runaway temperature increases. Most life on the planet will become extinct with a temperture increase of 4 deg C, potentially to be followed by extinction of all life on earth.

3. It is now considered that there is a high likelihood that the IPCC predictions have underestimated the risk. From the polictical context, the conclusions had to be consentual, which required agreement from countries such as Saudi Arabia, China and the US, whose scientists did everything within their power to discredit the conclusions. Since the initial analysis, alarming new discoveries have concluded that the planets main CO2 sinks are in much more crisis than initally thought. Specifically, it has been discovered that the Southern Ocean is now fully saturated with CO2 and the tropical rainforests hold much more carbon than initally thought. The tropical rainforests are currently being felled at a rapid rate to support the rush for bio fuels, which simultaneously releases huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and removes the planets ability to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

4, As global warming accelerates, usable land will be at a premium. That is land that is not on river flood plains and reasonably above sea level. This land will be needed for crops and housing. Given the certainty of the science, quality land should not be taken into unnecessary industrial use, such as airports. A key problem with the world economy today, is that most industrial and urban development takes place on prime land. This is contributing to the fall in world wide food production, just as it is needed the most. China's development is a prime example of this. Many of the previously self sufficent villages that had existed for thousands of years have been developed into industrial areas and they are now having to importing food from elsewhere in the world.

5. For us to survive we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by over 90%. This is achivable only by major life style changes. In this context, expanding airports is madness.

It is becoming clear that the likelihood of anyone under the age of 20 today living out their natural life is increasingly remote. Despite the overwhelming evidence of global warming, organisations with vested interests still shamefully try and discredit the science to support short term profit goals. Staverton Airport is one of these, it recently published a report trying to discredit the entire science of global warming in its attempt to stiffle legitemate protest and concern about its development. It is vitally important that you and those in Gloucester Council become familiar with these facts before supporting the airports development.

Kevin Lister,

Letter to Gloucester Echo in response to new business services from Staverton and copied to Councillors

Dear Editor,

Your article on "New Air Services" from Staverton confirms the worst fears about the airport expansion, and totally discredits the airports claims that the expansion is simply safety related which will have no environemental impact.

If the airport's claim that the runway extension is simply safety related is true, then it would imply that the airport has introduced a service that is dangerous to operate as the service is being introduced before the runway has been extended. In this case, the management should be reconsidering their position for putting their customer’s lives in danger. Clearly, no rational manager would knowingly put himself in this position. Their argument about safety being the issue only works because the management want to run additional larger planes that cannot be safely operated from the existing runway. Running additional larger planes from the airport is service expansion, what ever way you look at it. No sane and rational person could come to any other conclusion.

Despite the bad news from an environmental perspective, the article does at least confirm that a significant increase in plane movements from the airport is the true intention of the runway extension works and it eliminates any doubt that it is simply safety related. It further demonstrates the complete contempt that the airport and its backers have to the environmental impacts that their proposals will cause.

The airport's consultant Tony Norman says, "The new services will succeed and will mark the transformation of Gloucestershire Airport ." This is an unequivocal statement of the airports intent to expand. It is rather bizarre when the airport has continually tried to claim that the runway extension is simply safety related.

Tony Norman's position is further confirmed by Mr Filleul from Manx2.com who says that "the services will compete with Bristol and Birmingham airports." This again is an unbelievable statement as it is completely counter to airport's claims on its own web site where they say "We will never be competing with the major, 24-hour Airports like Bristol and Birmingham," when they were assuaging local concern on the environmental impact.

It is extremely worrying that even the Major of Gloucester (Councillor Harjit Gill) has allowed himself to be convinced by the airports argument when he says, "taxi drivers will get more jobs and the economy will benefit. I think it is wonderful." It has clearly not occurred to him that virtually all the roads in the area are already at grid lock for most of the time. It would also appear that he has not fully gotten to grips with the issues of global warming, even after the flooding of his city.

Given aspirations for service growth that the article outlines, then it is a reasonable assumption that at least 100,000 additional customers could be using this airport. The impact on the local environment would be catastrophic. The combined effect of additional traffic and aircraft pollution would force the NO2 far beyond safety limits. The airport would then follow the pattern of other airports in the country by becoming an asthma and respiratory problem hot spot. Unlike the airport’s recent claims that house prices in the area would rise, it is more likely that they would collapse as the quality of the local environment is systematically destroyed. It would be interesting if either the airport or its backers could point to a single case in the country where an airport had not adversely affected the local environment.

As well as the additional stress on the local economy and environment, the proposals for the airport’s expansion are madness in an environment where global warming is becoming an increasing risk to the very survival of today’s children. The science on global warming is clear and those that lead the decision making processes have an absolute obligation to ensure that they understand it. Supporting reckless proposals like this are an abrogation of responsibility.

Kevin Lister

Email to the commander of the Met Police (Jon Kay), thanking him for bringing his riot police to the Climate Camp. They made us feel so important.

Dear Commander Jonathan,

After listening to your interview on Radio 4’s PM, I would like to thank you for the excellent policing that I experienced at the Climate Change Camp from the men under your charge. Your policemen were truly wonderful and a true model for the type of policing that I would like to see in my street. In fact I think many areas of London and the other inner city areas elsewhere in the country would be delighted to see just a small percentage of the level of policing that you kindly provided during the week, and in particular on the day of protest.

If we had the level of policing that you provided we would never have to worry about burglaries, petty vandalism or anything else. I can only imagine the pleasing scenario, of my daughter going to the local shops and every time being escorted by at least three police officers fully equipped in riot gear. She would feel so safe. However, I have to say that strangely when your excellent chaps provided me with the same sort of protection on Sunday, I did not feel quite so safe. I work on the basis of three riot equipped police to escort my daughter to the shops, because that is about the ratio of riot police that seem to be surrounding me and the other climate change protesters.

I am delighted in the interview on Radio 4s PM that you explained that your officers had come under sustained missile attack. I now understand why your delightful men surrounded me. It was silly of me to miss the missiles that were obviously being thrown from the empty fields behind me and I must have missed the sound of the missiles landing on their helmets. I appreciate that this is an easy mistake that anyone can make in the heat of the moment.

It must have been one of these missiles that caused about nine of your officers to arrest a climate change protester just in font of me. I am so sorry if I misinterpreted your proportionate policing, because it did seem a bit brutal to me. Again we all make mistakes and I understand that in the heat of the moment your officers were scared and under the impression that we were going to attack them. That is me, an 86-year-old pensioner that I was helping, and two other protesters. If you do the maths you will realise that this is four.

When I asked the sergeant in charge what he was doing, he shouted in a somewhat threatening way for us to move back and one of his men shoved me with a riot shield. I asked if he was perhaps over reacting a bit. He said he was surrounded. I explained that there were four of us and about nine of his officers. We could try and surround him if he wanted, but it would be difficult. Fortunately, he was able to count and he seemed then to calm down. He also seemed to calm down even more when I took his photograph for my holiday snaps, which follows below. Perhaps he is just camera shy.



A few minutes later, another chap standing next to me got truncheoned over his head by one of your officers. Your officer was a strange sort of chap. He seemed rather aggressive, almost as if he enjoyed hitting things, perhaps that is one of the things that qualifies him for the job. The strangest thing of all is that he did not have number on his lapel, or on his helmet and he had a balaclava pulled right up to the bridge of his nose. So, as you can appreciate it is a bit difficult for me to describe him to you. All I can say is that he was standing next to another officer with the number 3678. Perhaps it is just a coincidence, that one of the most aggressive officers on your line had no number, or maybe I am drawing silly conclusions again. It did go through my mind that if I went into a petrol station like this I would not be served, it also stuck me as being a little strange when your web site you said “Some demonstrators were seen to cover their face.” Again, I may be have got this wrong, but it seemed to me that most of the covered faces were police faces.

I would also like to thank you for providing so much protection for the BAA offices. I realise that these offices were empty, like most offices are on a Sunday afternoon and that the protest was largely a token effort. But as you said in your interview, “You have got to believe a crime would be committed.” I would have been appalled if the BAA offices were blown up and I am quite sure that the risk of a protester carrying out a suicide attack on these empty offices would have been extremely high. After all, if you wanted to carry out a suicide attack, you would definitely choose the empty BAA offices rather than Terminal 1, where someone might get hurt.

You were also right to assume that protestors were armed and dangerous. Because you had stopped and searched just about everybody at the camp at least once, and found next to nothing, it was obvious that all the weapons were cunningly hidden and that your officers were in mortal danger. Also, you would have had no idea what the plans were because the protestors were so good at hiding from all the cameras that you had around the site, and they probably said very little to the undercover police who I am sure you must have had in the camp planning meetings. Certainly, given the rest of the policing I would be amazed if you did not have any undercover officers infiltrating the camp.

I am also delighted that you have allowed your organisation to be turned into a private army for BAA. They do after all have the right to make whatever profit they can manage irrespective of the environmental damage, and clearly a bunch of protestors who have noticed this need to be treated as dangerous terrorists. It does however seem a bit strange to me that a foreign owned company gets more protection from the police in this country than do the tax paying residents of this country. But, that is probably me being a cynical fool.


Perhaps you are just practicing for the future. The climate will get hotter in the coming years, the climate change protests will grow, the confrontations with short-term profit focused companies and the concerned population will intensify. Your position of out right and blatant support for those companies committing environment degradation will become morally untenable. To hear you acting as an apologist on the radio for your blatant over policing and the evident abuse of powers, with no media challenge, is the most damming threat to our democratic institutions and free speech that I have ever experienced, especially when virtaully all other means of democratic protest on the governements proposals have been removed and their current policies are so ill founded.

Yours Kevin Lister

Letter to the Planning Office regarding Kemble airfield developments

Dear Richard,

I understand that you are currently the planning officer responsible for reviewing the planning appeal for Kemble aerodrome.

I would like add my input to any debate that you are having on this.

I currently live in Nailsworth which is approximately 10 miles from the airport. Though I am not in the immediate vicinity of the airport I am severely affected by the noise and I know of many others in my area who are likewise affected.

We have seen an exponential increase in noise nuisance over the last 18 months due to general aviation. Both myself and my wife regularly work from home. The noise irritation that we experience as planes circle overhead is best likened to the noise of a large blue bottle buzzing in the same room as you. It is often virtually impossible to concentrate on work, both inside and outside the house.

One of the worst culprits is the Ultimate High Company, which specialises in providing ego trip experiences such as airplane dog fighting for highly paid city executives, who clearly have no regard for the environment that they are damaging.

In desperation, I wrote to Ultimate High approximately two months ago and the companies on their client testimonial to complain about the noise. To date, I have had no response from any of them.

I have also complained to my MP (David Drew) about the increasing noise inconvenience. Mr. Drew has also written to the airport, as far as I am aware he is also still to receive a reply.

Despite these correspondences the noise continues to be a problem, and just this last weekend we had a prolonged dog fight taking place immediately above our house. As well as the noise nuisance, I believe it is irresponsible from a safety perspective to be dog fighting over residential areas and I am becoming increasingly concerned for the safety of my children.

I have also been made aware that if Staverton Airport at Gloucester is not given the go ahead to extend its runway, then the business jets that were proposing to base themselves there would now relocate to Kemble. In a period of intense concern about global warming this is absolutely unacceptable, especially when we are being urged to make cuts in our own CO2 emissions. It is also worth noting that the European air traffic data shows recreational destinations such as Nice, Cannes and Mallorca to be among the top destinations for "business aviation.”

The aviation industry has a consistent track record of distorting facts regarding their impact on the environment and has done everything possible to circumvent environmental and planning controls. Kemble aerodrome is following in this same pattern. They have been allowed a change of use of the airfield without any of the normal environmental impact assessments and should now be stopped before their business and operations become too entrenched to be curtailed in any way.

I trust that you will oppose planning consent for the aerodrome before it becomes an environmental disaster on our door step.

I am copying this email to both my MP (David Drew), and Geoffrey Clifton Brown, who is the MP for the Cotswolds whose constituency the aerodrome lies.

Yours sincerely,
Kevin Lister

Letter the the Gloucester Echo on why we need debate on climate change

Dear Editor,

I am writing to express my concern to you about the bias that your paper seems to be displaying towards the proposed expansion at Gloucestershire Airport.

As you are aware you have published various articles and letters in support of the airports expansion. Most recently, you published the letter from Darren Lewington (Operations Director of the Airport) and a follow up supporting letter from Peter Jacques. I have sent a letter to rebut Darren Lewington’s points and used your on line facilities to comment on Peter Jacques letter. Neither of these has been published. This is not the first time that my comments have not been published and I am aware that other people who oppose the airports expansion have also not had their letters and comments published.

The aviation industry regularly claims to be concerned about global warming and wants to enter into debate about it. It is therefore important that papers such as yours engage with this most important debate in a fair and rational position. It is especially important for local papers to engage in the debate because if action is to be taken to tackle climate change, it must start at the local grass roots level. This government has peddled the idea that there can be a painless solution found in grandiose schemes such as carbon trading and Kyoto protocols, this however has failed from all angles of analysis.Our only solution is grass roots change.

Gloucestershire Airport claims to be serious about global warming and the wider industry regularly says it want to debate the issue with climate campaigners. Please have the courage to use your privileged position so Gloucestershire Airport can in fact demonstate in public how serious they are about global warming by allowing debate and do not allow yoursevels to become simply a mouth piece of big business and vested interests.

If however, you are genuinely in favour of the airport, then again you should be clear on your case and say so, rather than trying an underhand campaign of selective publication. You should also explain in this argument how you would justify supporting the airport in the light of the evidence on climate change.

In case my on-line comments to Peter Jacques letter are not simply not being published due to some technical issue, and I am simply misinterpreting events then I enclose a copy below.

Yours sincerely,
Kevin Lister

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

Peter's letter is an extremely poor interpretation of events.

Gloucestershire Airports own business plan shows that the business case is virtually none existent. At present rates of interest it will take 25 years to break even. If the interest rates increases further, this will extend to 45 years. Expansion of the airport therefore represents an extremely poor investment for the council tax payers of Gloucester and Cheltenham, especially in a time of economic uncertainty.

If flood response is the issue, the £2.5 million pounds to be invested in this scheme could be much better spent directly on flood prevention and appropriate emergency equipment.

Furthermore, the statement "Of course aircraft pollute, but so do most things in modern-day life," is not an argument to build the airport, in fact it is the strongest argument of all not to build the airport. We now inhabit a planet which is saturated with excess CO2 because so many things are polluting. The position is clear; we can not put any more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Peter should also realise that a key business sector for the airport’s expansion is “business jets.” He should also realise that European air traffic data shows recreational destinations such as Nice, Cannes and Mallorca to be among the top 20 destinations for "business aviation.” Thus business jets would be more appropriately named “recreational jets.” Thus, the most elite people of society are sticking two fingers up to climate change which is galling to those of us making sacrifices to cut our emissions. However, it might be that Peter already owns a “business jet.” He may wish to confirm this or if he has any other vested interests in the airport.

No Business case for Staverton Airport - copy of letter to the Gloucester Echo

Dear Editor,

Following Darren Lewington’s letter regarding the airports support during the flooding crisis, I would also like to congratulate his organisation for supporting the crisis. However, such support does not constitute a business case for the airport’s expansion which Darren Lewington's letter goes onto make (Citizen letters 9/08/07).

As I have pointed out in previous letters we face a critical danger from global warming and the recent flooding should be taken as a wake up call. The Nature magazine recently published research concluding that the flooding which has been experienced world wide is unequivocally linked to global warming.

We now face a period where food production across the world is falling due to the combined effects from global warming of droughts and floods and the desire to shift production to bio-fuels. This is coinciding with worldwide falls in oil production causing further prices rises. The total effect of these two major issues is that inflation is rising worldwide, causing corresponding increases in interest rates. All the indications are that the economic long term fundamentals are now in decline, and what we are seeing is not a simple market correction. As a result, this weekend the banks are standing on the precipice of a global liquidity crisis, and interest rates will stay painfully high for the long term.

This has a profound impact on the business case for Staverton Airport . Taking an optimistic estimate that the cost of borrowing will be 7%, and tax will be paid at 20%, then based on the airport’s business plan, it will take over 25 years to pay back the initial investment. If the cost of borrowing rises to only 8%, it will take approximately 45 years to pay back the investment, so bad is the business case. Thus the airport expansion is an extremely bad deal for the council tax payers of Gloucester and Cheltenham .

There can only two outcomes for the council tax payers of Gloucester and Cheltenham . They will either have to bail out the investment if the business fails, or they will suffer far more noise and pollution from the airport than it has claimed as it tries to ramp up the number of aircraft far beyond the current public predictions of service growth to obtain a reasonable return on investment.

As well as upholding the obligation on climate change and protecting the local environment, it is also vital that the elected councillors ensure that their constituents are not faced with unnecessary financial risk and that their taxes are effectively spent. If an important aspect of the business case for the airport's expansion will be the provision of support in the case of future flooding caused by global warming, then the council should first of all ask if the money it plans to spend on the expansion of the airport could not be better spent on investment in the appropriate emergency equipment instead; or on flood protection in the Bath Road area.

Correspondence with the new Minister for Aviation, Jim Fitzpatrick

The correspondence below is Jim Firtpatrick's reply to the previous letter that was sent to Gillian Merrron (his predecessor) and my subsequent reply. The basic synopsis is that the Ministry for aviation still has no evidence to quantify the environmental damage that their proposed airport expansion is likely to inflict. It reinforces the view that they appear intent on pushing forward the developments against all the mounting environmental evidence of dangerous climate change and are not able to provide event the slightest credible argument as to how the environmental damage can be reduced.

Further to this, the uncertainty of such a weak argument is damaging to the share holders of BAA who have been unable to refinance their debt. see the article in today's Telegraph.

Again, I must thank my MP, David Drew, for his persistence and efforts in helping to clarify the government's position and test the strength of their arguments.

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

My reply to Jim Fitzpatrick's Letter.

David Drew MP
House of Commons,
London,
SW1A 0AA


2 August 2007

Dear David,

Thank you for pursuing my latest letter to the minister of Aviation and please do thank Mr. Fitzpatrick for his reply.

I do however take issue with his comments and it would appear from his response that he has not thought through the implications of some of the facts and figures that he is quoting.

Mr Fitzpatrick has stated that the industry seeks to improve fuel efficiency by 50% on new planes. The Sustainable Development Initiative does not quote 50% for new aircraft, as 5-10% of the 50% improvement is based on improved air traffic management. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the industry only expects new aircraft to achieve a 40% improvement in efficiency.

More concerning is the statement in the 2003 report “The Future of Air Transport” (ref Chapter 3 on the Environmental Impact of Aviation) where it states “Research targets agreed by the Advisory Council for Aeronautical Research in Europe suggest that a 50 per cent reduction in CO2 production by 2020 can be achieved.” This document formed the basis of the airport expansion strategy’s position on climate change. There is no reference what so ever about the 50% relating only to new aircraft. The reference to new aircraft was changed in the progress report of 2006 where it states “a target to improve fuel efficiency by 50 per cent per seat kilometre in new aircraft in 2020 compared to 2000.” This is a very much less demanding criterion than was initially stated in the original paper. There is no evidence that this reduction in aspiration was challenged or that the environmental impact been reassessed in light of this fundamental change.

Furthermore the government’s central and best-case scenarios assume that the 50% target efficiencies are achieved. However, the Aviation and Global Warming report, to which Mr. Fitzpatrick refers, states in no uncertain terms how difficult it will be to achieve these targets. The report states, “Full achievement of the targets will require the employment of novel concepts and breakthrough technologies into commercial service.” Given this, one would assume that there is a high risk that the targeted efficiency improvements will not materialise due to unforeseen technical issues. For example, serious questions are being asked about lightening protection with the new Boeing 787. Also, the report highlights that efficiency in engines is now at a virtual optimum and that making CO2 emissions improvements will be a the expense of higher NOx emissions, which is an extremely aggressive greenhouse gas. Thus the words “best-case scenario” could equally be replaced with “least likely scenario.”

Furthermore Mr. Fitzpatrick confirms that the 50 per cent efficiency target is an industry target and not a government target. This implies that if the industry does not achieve the publicised targets, then the government will take no action. Could Mr. Fitzpatrick confirm that this is in fact the case?

Critically, as established with Mr Fitzpatrick’s predecessor, the industry does not capture total CO2 emissions per passenger. So whilst the new generation of planes will be more efficient, the reduction in CO2 emissions per km is being wiped out by the longer haul nature of the journeys. This lack of critical data also suggests that it is difficult to have any meaningful discussion on future CO2 emissions from aviation. It is also violates the commitments made in the Future of Aviation document and the subsequent progress report which both committed to improving the data on aviation emissions.

Mr Fitzpartick states that domestic flights only account for 0.4% of UK emissions. This does not relate to the figures from the Environmental Audit Committee and clearly does not take account of additional radiative forcing, or future growth. Furthermore, international travel contributes by far the most emissions and the airport expansion in this country is targeted at supporting international travel.

I have repeatedly asked what progress has been made in getting the aviation industry incorporated into a Carbon Trading mechanism and what timetables we can expect as this is the lynch pin of the government’s policy. I note that Mr. Fitzpatrick says “The Future of Air Transport document highlights that emissions can be managed through a well-designed, international emissions trading scheme and that the International Civil Aviation Organisation has been leading this, but progress is slow.” Slow progress is hardly a surprise. The world does not have any well-designed, international trading schemes for any carbon emissions. It would be helpful if Mr. Fitzpatrick could articulate exactly what he means by a well-designed, international emissions trading scheme. As existing carbon trading schemes have been so contentious, it is no surprise that something as difficult as civil aviation is finding it hard to come up with one. Furthermore, if this is being lead by the Civil Aviation Organisation, then slow progress can only be expected due to the inherently vested interests of an organisation such as this.

Mr. Fitzpatrick goes on to say “Under the arrangements currently proposed by the European Commission, any increases in carbon emissions from flights departing from or arriving at EU airports would need to be offset by emission reductions made elsewhere in the economy.” This clearly depends on suitably robust CO2 emissions targets that force cuts elsewhere in the economy. Could Mr. Fitzpatrick confirm that any current targets or aspiration for targets will not simply be increased to accommodate the full global warming impact of aviation and avoid the necessary cuts having to be made elsewhere in the economy? The footnote on page 28 of the Draft Climate Change bill suggests that if aviation were incorporated into a carbon-trading scheme the CO2 emissions targets would be increase to accommodate it? Furthermore, could Mr. Fitzpatrick confirm that if cuts cannot be made elsewhere in the economy, would the government curtail additional growth in the aviation industry?

Mr. Fitpatrick also says “emissions trading allows the market to determine where the most effective emissions reductions can be made.” It is rather worrying that Mr. Firtpatrick seems only intent on articulating the end goal rather than thinking through how it would be achieved, how feasible it is to expect the market to deliver the cuts, and what timetable of carbon reductions would subsequently follow. Could Mr Fitzpatrick explain if any analysis has actually been carried out on the markets ability to accommodate the full impact of aviation’s contribution to global warming and what risks are foreseen? I would also appreciate a copy of any analysis that has been completed under the freedom of information act.

If there is no evidence to satisfactorily answers these questions, does Mr. Fitzpatrick agree that in light of the extreme risks of run away global warming, that we should be adopting a precautionary principle and not allowing any further development of the aviation industry until we understand exactly what total emissions improvements will be achieved from operational aircraft and what levels of carbon can be offset through the proposed trading mechanisms.


Yours truly



Kevin Lister, Bsc(eng) hons, MBA


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


Jim Fitpatricks Letter (to David Drew MP)






Thank you for your letter of 18 June to my predecessor enclosing further correspondence from your constituent Mr Kevin Lister of Brooklyn, Park Road Crescent, Nailsworth, Stroud, regarding aviation and the environment. This letter set out a number of points which I have attempted to address in turn below.

The target to improve fuel efficiency by 50% by 2020 referred to in previous correspondence is a target that has been adopted by the aviation industry's Sustainable Development Initiative and is not a Government target. It is a target that measures improvements in fuel efficiency in new aircraft entering the fleet and not aggregate fuel efficiency to which the graph in your letter refers.

In our published CO2 forecasts, we presented three scenarios - central, best and worst case - reflecting different assumptions on aspects such as economic instruments and fuel efficiency. Both our central and best case scenarios assume that the target mentioned above for new aircraft has filtered through such that the whole fleet has improved its fuel efficiency by 50% by 2050 (i.e. it is assumed that in that longer time frame, fleet turnover will have made the whole fleet more efficient). Further information can be found in the DfT publication Aviation and Global Warming: http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/air/docs/aviationandglobal warmingreport.

Emissions from international aviation and shipping are not included in the targets of the Climate Change Bill as there is currently no agreement on how to allocate these international emissions to national inventories.

The Bill does however cover CO2 emissions from domestic flights which currently account for 0.4% of UK CO2 emissions.

The UK Government is not discounting or ignoring these international emissions, and in fact we do report on international aviation emissions in our national inventory as a memo item, along with emissions from international shipping. The fact that emissions from international aviation and shipping are not included in the draft Climate Change Bill does not mean that we are not taking action to tackle the climate change impacts of aviation.

On the contrary, the Future of Air Transport White Paper sets out our commitment to ensuring that aviation reflects the full costs of its climate change emissions and highlights that the most efficient way of doing this is through a well-designed, international emissions trading scheme. As a result, the UK has been and continues to press for the development and implementation of such a regime through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). However, progress to date at this level has been slow so in the meantime we have worked towards the extension of the EU emissions trading scheme to include aviation. In December 2006, the Commission published its draft proposal and since then the UK has been actively participating in negotiations to ensure that aviation is incorporated into the scheme as soon as possible.

Under the arrangements currently proposed by the European Commission, any increases in carbon emissions from flights departing from or arriving at EU airports would need to be offset by emission reductions made elsewhere in the economy. The Commission's impact assessment estimates that this proposed scheme could reduce aviation emissions by up to 183MtC annually by 2020.

Mr Lister asks about how a reduction in aviation emissions will take place and what impact this will have on other sectors bound by emissions reductions targets. We believe that by establishing a market price for carbon, emissions trading encourages efficient behaviours which reflects the demand for carbon across the whole economy. So rather than making industry-specific carbon targets, which would be arbitrary and inflexible, emissions trading allows the market to determine where the most effective emissions reductions can be made, allowing those companies who innovate to benefit and those who find it more difficult to contribute by funding reductions made elsewhere. This approach was endorsed by Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change, which strongly supports carbon pricing as a means of ensuring that economic decisions fully reflect social and environmental costs.

The Government has been very active in engaging with industry throughout the development of both the Future of Air Transport white paper and the draft Directive on including aviation the emissions trading scheme. In fact, the joint DfT and Defra consultation on emissions trading recently closed and involved extensive discussions with airlines, wider industry, NGOs and other interested parties. The views and information provided through the consultation will feed into the policy development in the coming months to ensure that aviation is included in the EU emissions trading scheme in the most environmentally effective way.

hope you find this information useful.



JIM FITZPATRICK

What does it take to make people change? Further correspodence in response to letters in the Gloucester Echo

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,

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.

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/

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.

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.

It is interesting that Mark Ryan says “Manx's corporate ethic works very well with our own core values.” In the light of campaigning for further expansions of aircraft services against the overwhelming evidence on climate change, I would be interested in understanding exactly what Mark Ryan sees as his company's core values.

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

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 wrote:

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.

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