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

Dear David,

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

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

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

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

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

This letter has been copied to Terry Leahy.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

A letter to Ruth Kelly

Dear Ms. Kelly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point 1

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

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

Point 2

I asked if you “Can confirm if you believe that aviation should be in your government’s climate change bill and confirm exactly what your department’s position is on this?”

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

Point 3

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

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

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

Point 4

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

You have not provided any answer to this point.

Point 5

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

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

Point 6

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,



Kevin Lister

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

Tesco still continues to ignore the suffering caused by Biofuels

Dear Scott,

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Tesco Customer Service wrote:

Thank you for your email.

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

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

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

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

Kind Regards
Scott MacKay
Tesco Customer Service

Tesco back tracks on bio fuels

Dear Gary,

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Kevin Lister

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

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

Therefore, we have no intention of abandoning biofuel.

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

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

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

Kind RegardsRyan Fitzpatrick

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

From: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: 07 March 2008Subject:

Hi,

I would like to start shopping again at Tesco.

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

YoursXXXXXXXX

Tesco's final comment on biofuels - but not ours

Dear Gary,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Tesco Customer Service wrote:

Dear Mr Lister

Thank you for your further email.

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

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

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

Kind Regards

Gary Anderson

Customer Service Executive

Tesco timescale for biofuel analysis??

Dear Gary,

Thank you for you reply. I am delighted that you find my feedback incredibly valuable and that my comments have been noted.

However, as you are probably aware by now, you have given me reason to be sceptical on many of your positions. You have said that you are going to commission Manchester University to look at biofuels and that you will make the findings of this publicly available.

Unfortunately you have given no timescale for this study and we would request that you also provide a copy of the remit for this study. It is clearly concerning that your organisation is paying £25million towards this group as this will compromise its independence.

As you are probably aware, many people have been following our debate on my blog. I have been contacted by several people to confirm exactly what your position is in Tesco's hierarchy and to confirm that your change of position does have the endorsement of your executive board.

Regards,
Kevin Lister


Tesco Customer Service wrote:

Dear Mr Lister

Thank you for your further comments regarding the use of biofuels.

We fully appreciate feedback from our customers on any issue and find this feedback incredibly valuable. Please rest assured that your comments and thoughts have been noted, and that we are working hard to ensure that the right decisions are made for both the environment and our customers.

Thank you for your continuing interest in this matter.
Kind Regards
Gary Anderson
Customer Service Executive

A possible change of tack from Tesco??

Dear Mr. Anderson,

I have been forwarded your response on Tesco's use of biofuels from another concerned person who clearly has similar concerns to myself and many others.

Whilst I welcome the more realistic position that you are adopting in this email over your previous correspondence, your comments below indicate that Tesco is still along way from making the changes needed to protect what natural resources we have left on our planet.

You say that "As both a food and petrol retailer we are working very hard to avoid soy and palm oil from deforested areas by working in multistakeholder groups such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil." As I have pointed out in previous emails, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, is wholly comprised of suppliers and retailers of biofuels and palm oil products. It is completely unrealistic and naive to expect that this group will suddenly become a trusted and reliable custodian of our remaining rainforests as it seeks to self certify its own operations. As an organisation, you would do far better to sever any involvement with this group and make the corporate decision not to sell palm oil based biofuels.

You say "Greenergy, our biggest supplier of biofuels, has pioneered an approach to count the carbon savings of biofuels through a scientific methodology." I have read their document that you refer to. It stretches the imagination to breaking point to call this a pioneering scientific methodology, when it is merely proposes to add various abstract CO2 contributions with no guideline on how the data is to be captured. Page 9 of the document does refer to the "emissions associated with manufacture and use of biopetrol sold in reporting," (see variables CO2BP and CO2BD for petrol and diesel respectively). Given that there is no other reference, I would assume that it is under these two variables that the CO2 emissions for burning down the rainforest and the subsequent long term loss of atmospheric CO2 absorption are accounted for. I would therefore be grateful if you could provide the analysis that Greenergy had done to quantify these variables. I trust that you would also be pleased to make public any audit you have done of this analysis.

It is encouraging that you say "To help us and others understand the true impact of biofuels we have asked the independent Sustainable Consumption Institute (SCI) based at Manchester University to investigate." I trust that you have read their web site, where they say "If we continue to consume at the current rate, we will do irreparable damage to our ecosystems. Issues include the destruction of virgin rain forests, over-fishing, peak oil and palm oil." Hopefully, they should be able to use thier existing knowledge to quickly convince you that biofuel is the most ridiculous solution to our global warming problem before your organisation inflicts more unnecessary and irreparable damage to our remaining ecosystems, thereby avoiding paralysis by analysis.

Todays reports of world food shortages have highlighted the danger that the world is moving towards and make clear the need for an urgent change in policy. We can no longer afford, nor tolerate, endless greenwashing from our multinationals.

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

Regards,
Kevin Lister,

email from Gary Anderson, Tesco Customer Service Executive

Dear Ms Perkins

Thank you for your further email. Please accept my apologies for the delay in my response.

We understand your concerns about the environmental impacts of biofuels and there has been a great deal written on the subject. When we decided to make biofuels available to customers in 2005, we did so in the belief that they could help customers to reduce their carbon impacts and reduce our dependency on oil as a source for petrol.

Since then it has become clear that the impacts of biofuels are more complex and the environmental benefits are dependent on how the biofuels are made. In particular, soy from countries in South America and palm oil from Indonesia and Malaysia, two ingredients in many biofuels, have become synonymous with deforestation and the many associated impacts on sustainability, climate change and the rights of indigenous people in those areas. As both a food and petrol retailer we are working very hard to avoid soy and palm oil from deforested areas by working in mutistakeholder groups such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. > > We also recognise that the science is not 100% clear on whether biofuels enables us to tackle climate change and other problems associated with fossil fuels. We continue to review the existing science and we are engaging with NGOs to understand their concerns. For example, the Royal Society recently produced a detailed report on the future of biofuels, which can be accessed at: http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=28914. Our aim is to do the right thing for the environment based on clear and accurate information, which can be difficult when there are conflicting views on issues such as biofuels.

This is particularly important as from April we, along with other petrol retailers, will be obliged by the Government through the Road Transport Fuel Obligation to provide 2.5% biofuels in our petrol. We want to make sure that this well meaning initiative helps customers to reduce their impact on climate change by ensuring that our biofuels are sourced sustainably. Greenergy, our biggest supplier of biofuels, has pioneered an approach to count the carbon savings of biofuels through a scientific methodology. This can be found at: http://www.greenergy.com/carbon_counting/Carbon_Declaration_Methodology.pdf

To help us and others understand the true impact of biofuels we have asked the independent Sustainable Consumption Institute (SCI) based at Manchester University to investigate. The SCI was set up earlier this year thanks to a £25m commitment from Tesco over 5 years to provide world class academic research and solutions for practical issues that need to be addressed to help us and our customers tackle climate change. All of the research by the SCI will be made public and we would be happy to send you the findings on biofuels as and when they become available if you would find this useful.

You may also be interested in the broader work we are doing to tackle climate change, from reducing CO2 emissions in our stores and our distribution fleets by 50% to halving the price of energy saving light bulbs to seeking a universal carbon label for all our products. More information can be found at www.tesco.com/greenerliving

Thank you for your interest in this issue.

Kind regards,
Gary Anderson,
Customer Service Executive

Latest correspondence with Tesco, and a challenge

Dear Mr. Anderson,

Further to your email reply below, where you said that you would look into the points raised, I still have had no further response.

I am a college lecturer and many of my students are concerned about the deforestation that they read about in the press. If you are genuinely convinced that your biofuel is so environmentally beneficial, perhaps you would like to come to our college and present your case to our students in an open debate.

Our college has a record that we are proud of in engaging our students on critical issues such as global warming and a debate of this nature would fit well with our ethos.

Kevin

Kevin Lister wrote:
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 21:54:26 +0000 (GMT)From: Kevin Lister Subject:

Re: Tesco, re biofuel - attn: Gary Anderson To: Tesco Customer Service customer.service@tesco.co.uk

Dear Mr. Anderson,

Thank you for the update, we look forward to your reply and any interim updates that you have in the process.

Kevin

Tesco Customer Service wrote:

Dear Mr Lister

Thank you for your further email.

I am currently looking into the points you have raised, and as soon as I have investigated this matter fully I will contact you again.

Thank you for your patience in awaiting my response.

Kind Regards
Gary Anderson
Customer Service Executive

Please Tesco, give me a proper answer and not greenwash

You can join the debate by emailing customer.service@tesco.co.uk and forwarding the presentation to all your concerned friends in your address book.


Dear Gary,

Further to my emails I still have not received any response from yourself or anyone else in Tescos.

In your first email to me your said:

"Scientific analysis has shown that both palm oil and soy from hot climates can lead to much greater CO2 reductions" - Please provide reference to the appropriate analysis so I can validate your claim.

"Greenergy asks suppliers to sign a sustainability commitment as part of their contract. This is monitored and can be audited at any time." Please provide us with copies of these sustainability commitments and the organisations that have audited against these criteria.

I also asked for your comment on the reports from Oxfam and others on the human rights abuses associated with the race for biofuels.

In the previous email to Helen Duke, I asked for a copy of the environmental impact assessment that Tescos would have made on the use of rape seed for biofuel, and quantity of biofuel sold at your pumps. Again I have had no further correspondence.

This weekend I protested outside my local Tesco in Stroud. Many of the people that we spoke to are already concerned and sickened by what is happening to our rain forests in the pursuit of biofuel. So, the bulk of your own customers do not swallow your position of biofuels being a carbon friendly solution to our problems. By continuing your public position, I would argue that you are patronising and alienating your clientele.

So you understand why this is such an issue, I enclose a copy of a NASA photo taken in September 2007 of the fires in the Amazon. So severe where the fires, and so bad have the droughts become due to deforestation, the Amazon now stands on the point of total collapse, and we came to within a hairs breadth last year this predicted total collapse.





I look forward to your reply,

A copy of this email will be posted on by blog http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/

Kevin Lister

More Tesco Greenwash - from another Tesco Customer Service Executive

Dear Mr. Anderson,

Thank-you for taking the time to reply to my previous email. You have however totally failed to address any of the points I asked and the points that the presentation raises. This is highly concerning on an issue which is of such importance to the future of the planet and quality of our environment.

You say, "Tesco supports biofuels as a way of helping customers to reduce their impact on climate change." You must be aware, or at least should be, that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that using biofuels provides any global warming benefit. Firstly, huge amounts of energy is needed in their harvest, production and transport and this is all supplied by conventional fossil fuels. Secondly, the massive amount of fertilisation needed to sustain the crops releases huge amounts of NO2 into the atmosphere which is up to 300 times more potent as a green house gas than CO2, as well as it being energy intensive to produce in the first place. Finally and most importantly, our planet is currently unable to absorb our existing CO2 and we desperately need as much functioning forests and fauna to lock up CO2. Simply burning it, which is the end result of biofuel in what ever form it takes, prevents any future hope of reducing current pollution levels to a survivable level.

You say "Greenergy asks suppliers, who are all members of the RSPO, to sign a sustainability commitment as part of their contract. This is monitored and can be audited at any time." I am sure that you would be prepared to make such an important document as this publicly available and provide copy of your internal audit results and also allow other independent groups the opportunity to audit against it. I look forward to a copy of your relevant documents. Secondly, I asked in my previous email how you determine sustainability. You still have not done so. If you are unable to provide a robust statement of sustainability, then the contractual commitments you are placing on your suppliers are worthless.

You say "scientific analysis has shown that both palm oil and soy from hot climates can lead to much greater CO2 reductions than rape produced in the UK and US," I would appreciate if you could give me a reference or copy to this analysis so I can see how it handles the huge CO2 emissions coming from Indonesia and Brazil through deforestation, and which has propelled these two countries to the world's top CO2 emitters, and threatens to push the world into a runaway global warming situation.

You say "Our approach therefore is to ensure as far as possible that these ingredients come from sustainable sources." Can you explain exactly what your approach is to ensure that your products come from sustainable sources? Given that you have failed to answer my previous questions on how you determine sustainability, your comment does not fill me with any confidence; especially when you go on to say that the RSPO and RTRS are merely "developing agreed criteria to ensure that signatories can source palm and soy sustainably without the need for large scale clearance of the tropics by forest fires or any other methods," clearly indicating that at the present time they do not have any agreed criteria of sustainability.

You say, "However, our experience as a food retailer is that while some prices are rising others are steady or even falling." My experience as a consumer is that my shopping bill is going up and up, and this is backed by UN reports and market statistics showing the price of staples such as wheat futures going up and up. While this causes me minor financial problems, in poorer countries such as Afghanistan, it is leading to crisis situations where millions of people are being pushed into starvation.

You say that "The reasons for this are many and complex and include extreme weather conditions leading to failed harvests and poor yields." I would like to think that your experience of failed harvests and poor yields would serve as a wake up call for you to start taking a much more responsible attitude to global warming and not simply rely on greenwashing your way through the problem to enhance your short term profits. You should also consider that given the tightening of food supply due to environmental factors, that we should be building additional resilience into our food supply, not further tightening it.

I look forward to you properly addressing the points that I have made. I also look forward to you addressing the issues that the scientific community have raised in a robust environmental assessment of your decision to pursue biofuels. Finally I expect you to answer the concerns of organisations such as Oxfam and others who have warned of ongoing human rights abuses which are justified by numerous reports from all continents producing biofuel.

A copy of this correspondence will be published on my blog http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/ and copied to my MP, David Drew.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Tesco Customer Service wrote:

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your e-mail and presentation addressed to Sir Terry Leahy, our Chief Executive, about the sale of biofuels at Tesco and our green credentials to which I have been asked to reply.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in my response. As you point out in your presentation, Tesco supports biofuels as a way of helping customers to reduce their impact on climate change.

Over 200 of our petrol forecourts therefore contain a blend of up to 5% biofuels in the petrol and diesel on sale. This will enable us to meet the Government requirements on biofuels set out in the Road Transport Fuel Obligations (RTFO) which comes into force in April.

There have been many reports on biofuels and their potential environmental impacts. We agree with the Royal Society, who point out that: "It is not possible to make simple generalisations about biofuels being good or bad. Each biofuel option needs to be assessed individually on its own merits." For example, scientific analysis has shown that both palm oil and soy from hot climates can lead to much greater CO2 reductions than rape produced in the UK and US. However, if they are not sourced responsibly we agree that they can lead to the kind of impacts described in your slides.

Our approach therefore is to ensure as far as possible that these ingredients come from sustainable sources. Greenergy, our biggest supplier, is a member of both the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and the RTRS (Round Table on Sustainable Soy). Both these groups are developing agreed criteria to ensure that signatories can source palm and soy sustainably without the need for large scale clearance of the tropics by forest fires or any other methods.

Until these criteria are up and running, Greenergy asks suppliers, who are all members of the RSPO, to sign a sustainability commitment as part of their contract. This is monitored and can be audited at any time. We believe these steps, which are industry-leading, will help biofuels to make a positive difference on climate change and can help to reduce the dependence on oil for transport. We have never claimed that biofuels are or could be carbon neutral.

We appreciate the concerns about biofuels and high food prices. However, our experience as a food retailer is that while some prices are rising others are steady or even falling. The reasons for this are many and complex and include extreme weather conditions leading to failed harvests and poor yields.

Offering biofuels to customers is just one aspect of our commitment to reducing energy use and tackling climate change. We are helping customers to go green, leading by example in our own business and helping to develop a low carbon economy by sharing information and resourced with others so that they can develop energy saving solutions too.

I hope the above shows that we are very much aware of the concerns that you raise and are acting on them.

Thank you again for your email.
Kind RegardsGary Anderson
Customer Service Executive

Email Correspondence with Tesco "Customer Service Exec" on Biofuels

Dear Helen, (Tesco Customer Service Executive)

I have been forwarded an email from a friend of mine on Tesco's position on biofuels giving your reply to questions raised on biofuel supply.

I am appalled by your response which blatantly distorts the truth of one of the most serious situations to ever face our planet and provides unjustified and naive assurances.

You claim that Tescos only use a "small amount of palm oil." Can you confirm exactly what is meant by a small amount. Is it one tonne or 1000 tonnes or more?

You say that sustainability has been assured by the "Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil." I have looked at the membership of this group and it is wholly comprised of producers and traders in palm oil, some of which have already been implicated in environmental damage. How do you possibly expect a group such as this to put the sustainability of the tropical rain forest above production of biofuel and how do you justify accepting their assurances. Have you checked to see on what scientific grounds they justify sustainablity?

You say that the majority of your biofuel is sourced from rape seed. What environmental assessments have Tescos made of this and could you be kind enough to send me a copy of your assessment report?

You say that your supplier "is in the process of building a manufacturing plant for bio diesel." Can you confirm where this is being built, as most are currently located near ports for easy import of palm oil and sugar beet. If the plant to is be supplied solely from UK grown rape seed, can you confirm what total agricultural land area will be used to maintain its supply, what food production it will displace and the environmental impacts of growing this food elsewhere, and how much set aside will be lost?

I enclose a copy of presentation that is currently on wide circulation. I look forward to you addressing the serious points that it raises.

A copy of this email will be posted on my blog, http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/

Regards,
Kevin

From: "XXXXX"

To: "'Tesco Customer Service'" customer.service@tesco.co.uk

CC: "KEVIN LISTER" kevin.lister@btopenworld.com

Subject: RE: TescoDate: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:17:12 -0000ReTES4658655X

Dear Helen

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me and I am reassured to hear that the production of the crops are 'sustainable.'

My concern is that the more land set aside for fuel oil substituteproduction the less land there is for human and animal food production. The production of biofuels also encourages more deforestation - and our planetis already quite ill through deforestation. It is clear from your response Tesco has no intention of pursuing a truly long term green agenda. There is no short term profit motive to do so.

Global warm regards!

XXXXX

-----Original Message-----From: Tesco Customer Service [mailto:customer.service@tesco.co.uk] Sent: 29 January 2008 17:13
To: XXXXXX
Subject: Tesco

Dear Ms XXXX

Thank you for your email. I can appreciate your concerns and I am pleased to offer you the following information.

Tesco are at the forefront in the UK of retailing unleaded and diesel fuelscontaining bio fuels made from sustainable resources. These fuels are nowavailable in around 180 forecourts in the South East and North West ofEngland, where they have replaced conventional fuels at no extra cost.

The majority of bio diesel we use to blend into our fuel is made fromrapeseed oil. Our supplier is in the process of building a manufacturingplant for bio diesel in the UK and this will be supplied with mostlyUK-grown rapeseed. A small amount of palm oil will be used. However, I can assure you that this has been sourced from suppliers who are members of theRoundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to explain our current positionregarding this matter. If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us at customer.service@tesco.co.uk quoting TES4658655X.

Kind Regards,
Helen Duke
Tesco Customer Service Executive

From: XXXXX[mailto:XXXXXXX]
Sent: 27 January 2008 21:11
To: Leahy, TerrySubject: Biofuels

Dear Mr Leahy,

I am writing to urge you and your organisation to stop the selling and development of biofuels.

Biofuels are not a 'green' alternative to oil. The production of biofuels is as destructive to the planet as oil is -if not more so as it requires even more destruction of rain forests. Our generation is responsible for the long term survival of this planet- choices based on short term profit do nothing but push the planet on a faster track towards destruction. It would be wonderful if Tesco could take the lead in sustainabledevelopment - your company certainly has the resources to do this.

Warm regards
XXXXX

Email to Councillor Steve Jordan (lib dem)

Dear Steve,

I have read with utter dismay and incredulity at the recommendations of your committee on Gloucestershire Airport. See here.

It is difficult to believe that you were able to keep a straight face when preparing a document that is so full of blatant mistruths and inconsistencies.

Your report is contradictory and mendacious. You recommend the people of Gloucestershire, the majority of who will receive no benefit from the airport’s development plan, should both subsidise and be the main financial backers when the airport itself is unprepared to take the risk and unable to fund the development. You have proposed a funding mechanism that if not illegal under EU legislation, is certainly immoral in transferring risk to tax payers.

Your report pays cynical lip service to the council’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. By now, you should realise that climate change is the biggest threat mankind faces and the cynical approach to it that you advocate through your action is the kind of response that will ensure nothing will ever be done.

If the intent of the politicians who authored this document is to prevent a house development on the land, then they are putting the cart before the horse if they are not prepared to talk about the much more difficult issues of population control first. To try and manage these issues by back room manipulations rather than proper and open debate is a travesty of democratic principles.

My following comments below address just some of the mistruths and inconsistencies in your report.


Section 1.2.3

“Agreement by both Cabinets to recommend to their respective Councils that Cheltenham Borough Council and Gloucester City Council jointly and equally facilitate the borrowing required from the PWLB for onward lending to Gloucestershire Airport limited.”

This investment will only benefit a very small minority of Gloucestershire. As such, why should all the council taxpayers in the area underwrite this loan?

Section 1.2.3

“A firm commitment from the airport board to prepare a 'green policy' for all activities controlled by Gloucestershire Airport, which is approved by the cabinets of both Councils in early 2008 and reviewed and approved by both Councils on an annual basis. The green policy should include the details identified in para 8.12.”

The report does not give any details on the green policy and no targets are given. If the committee were serious about environmental aspects, it would have asked for evidence as to how the airport can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions before approving the plan.

Section 8.2

“In its business case for the project, the Airport Board stated its strong commitment to sustainable development and environmental management and to playing its part in meeting internationally agreed targets for greenhouse gas emissions.”

The committee members may have read in the news recently that no agreements were achieved on international greenhouse gas targets at the Bali conference, and they should also be aware that there are no aviation industry targets for greenhouse gases either. The committee should therefore clarify exactly what internationally agreed targets are being referred to in this section and what mechanism will be used to ensure that the airport cuts operations to ensure that these targets are achieved?

Section 8.2

“The working group requested more information about the existing carbon footprint of airport activities and how the RSP would increase or decrease emissions.”

Given that the airport management has publicly stated in the past that they would like to introduce new services, a rise in carbon emissions is unavoidable. The committee should explain why they think there is even a possibility that the emissions would decrease.

Section 8.3

“In responding to this, the Airport Board stressed that it considers it very difficult to document accurately the carbon footprint of aviation activities and that there is not a clear correlation between fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from the airport, as the runway improvements will enable aircraft to carry increased fuel loads, reducing the requirements for refuelling elsewhere and improving efficiency.”

A full load of fuel increases take off weight and therefore consumption. The committee should explain why the airport thinks that a plane will operate more efficiently when carrying a full load of fuel.

Section 8.4

“It is clear that such an increase is clearly contrary to the Government’s 60% reduction target by 2050 and Cheltenham Borough Council’s carbon neutral aspirations.”

The committee should confirm why it expects the council to abandon all hope of achieving cuts in CO2 emissions. The council must recognize that it will be difficult enough to achieve the cuts required and that approving a development such as this will send out the message that it is not even worth trying. Furthermore, the recent IPCC report has spelt out that the government’s target of a 60% is totally inadequate.

Section 8.5

“The Board clarified that they believed that the impact of eco-taxes would be more on operators and ticket sales rather than on the airport itself.”

If these taxes are successful in reducing the number of people on flights, the committee should explain why the board thinks that the airlines will be prepared to continue running empty planes and at a loss. Furthermore the committee should recognize that the whole purpose of these taxes is to reduce the number of people flying, so that greenhouse gases reduce. This can only be done if fewer planes fly.

Section 8.6

“The Board has offered to provide a written undertaking to reduce its carbon footprint wherever practicable and committed to working with tenants, operators and business users to follow suit.”

“Wherever practicable” is a blatant get out clause. The committee should recognize that the airport will be able to invoke this every time they introduce a new a service by saying that it is not possible to reduce emissions with a new service.

Section 8.7

“In their business case update the Airport Board stated that a detailed study of local air pollution concentrations has concluded that the project will not compromise local air quality standards.”

Every airport in the world has caused local air pollution problems. Gloucester and Cheltenham have suffered particularly bad pollution problems in past hot summers, which are amplified due to its geographic of the surrounding terrain. The committee clearly refuses to acknowledge these problems and will not recognize that the airport will severely aggravate these problems after the development.

Section 8.12

“The Green Policy should include an annual target for reducing carbon emissions from ground operations; establishing the carbon footprint of all existing and proposed flying activities (including any new scheduled services); identifying steps being taken already to reduce climate change impact and ensuring that climate change issues are addressed in future plans for the airport; developing a green travel plan for employee travel and using the green policy to work closely with tenants, operators and business users to reduce their carbon footprint.”

This statement is meaningless without confirming the following:

What will be the annual targets for reducing carbon emission from ground operations?

What is the fraction of the total emissions from the airport (including flights) of ground operations?

What steps have already been taken to reduce emissions and what quantifiable reductions in total emissions have been made?

What is the fraction of the total emissions from the airport (including flights) of employee travel?

How will the airport be able to reduce emissions with operators and business users without cutting flights?

Finally without being able to quantify emissions from flights, which the airport’s board have assured the committee that they can not do, it will be virtually impossible to measure any reduction in emissions.

Section 9.3

“The current 997m landing distance on the primary Runway 27 is already inadequate for a number of potential operations.”

What are the potential operations that are referred to here? If they are potential operations, that implies they are not current operations. The intent of this statement is that if the runway works proceed, then these potential operations will immediately be introduced. These will cause additional greenhouse gases and be in clear breach of the ideas that the committee has on a green policy.

Section 9.4

“Demand for business aircraft activity is increasing, however Mott MacDonald have concluded that a reduction in landing length would result in a reduction of approximately 1,350 movements annually.”

What is the airports expectation of additional private jet flights using the airport? The committee should confirm how these would be accommodated within the green policy. The committee should also recognize that a major proportion of the expanding “business jets” market is for private luxury travel. Amongst their most popular destinations are Nice, Majorca, and Monaco. “Business jets” are the most carbon intensive form of travel. In today’s world of Internet communications they are rarely essential for business.

Section 10.1

“The airport company propose to finance the revised cost of the business plan (£3,366,000) partly through the use of accumulated reserves (£1.566m) and partly through borrowing (£1.8m).”

In the 2006 abbreviated accounts, the total asset value is £2,064,070 and the cash at bank and in hand is £406,437. Given that the airport is investing a substantial part of its accumulated reserves into the project, which is allegedly only for safety and will be not cause additional greenhouse gases, what future liabilities does the airport anticipate and what are the projections for cash flow? The committee should have confirmed the stated accumulated reserves, as they appear to be high in relation to the total asset value of the company and the cash in hand.

Section 10.12

The table shows EBITDA rising to 10.94 in year 4

The committee should explain how this would be achieved in a way that is compatible with the green policy discussed elsewhere in the document and the purported attempts to limit greenhouse gases.

Section 10.15

“Mott McDonald have also undertaken net present value calculations based upon the business plan projections, using a discount rate of 3.5%, based upon a 15 years investment period.”

The committee should explain how Mott McDonald justifies a discount rate of 3.5%, when this is less than the current base rate. This is clearly at a preferential rate which breeches EU regulations. If funding is to be provided at 3.5%, then the loan is clearly being subsidized by the people of Gloucestershire.

Section 10.18

“However, although this was possible, the bank would want to use the company assets as security against the bank loan. The councils concluded that this was an unacceptable risk to both councils and that it would be better to use the PWLB facility available to the councils to facilitate the borrowing of funds on behalf of the airport and for on-lending.”

Transfer of risk to the taxpayer in the way described in this sentence is a flagrant breach of EU policy on state support. If the committee is not confident enough about the business case, why does it think that it is acceptable to pass the liabilities of default on to the council taxpayer?

Section 11.3.3

“A major restraint on scheduled flights is the limitation of the current infrastructure such as passenger terminal, transport access, car parking, etc. The Airport Board feel they could cope with up to 3 services similar to the recent Manx service before the airport reached capacity.”

The airports business case previously made reference to a future requirement for a new terminal building. There is no assurance that funding will not be sought for funding of a new terminal building at some stage in the future.

Section 12.5

“The proposed method of funding the work is unchanged from the previous proposal. It is put forward as the most efficient way of raising the money and reduces the risk of the councils losing control of the airport if there should be any default on the loan. The value of the loan is more than covered by the value of the company.”

As stated previously, why does the council think it is acceptable for the taxpayer to be liable for the loan in the case of default? The report makes no assessment of the value of the company in the event of default on the loan and how is the council confident that this will be greater than the value of the loan?

Section 12.7

“All aspects of the environmental impact were considered by the group and was agreed that the best way of tackling this issue was by targeting carbon emissions and getting the airport to adopt a ‘green policy’. To be meaningful, this will require an accurate measurement of CO2 emissions. As yet there does not seem to be a satisfactory way of assessing this nationally, let alone locally.”

The committee has not stated what there assessment of the environmental impact was. The committee should have explained why they think the airport will be successful in getting an accurate measurement of greenhouse gases when they have already said they cannot do so and there is no successful model in the country? Furthermore, this section is contradictory. If the airport cannot assess its own CO2 emissions, then “all aspects of the environmental impact” could not possibly have been assessed as claimed.

Section 12.8

“While the JASWG accepts that an increase in scheduled flights is not part of the business case for the RSP, they could be a consequence. It is therefore important that the desirability and implications of any increase is understood and should be included in the proposed ‘green policy’ for the airport.”

The airports management and the previous business plan have made it absolutely clear that they want to introduce additional services. Once £3 million has been invested, it will be absolutely desirable to introduce these services to ensure that there is some return on the investment.

The JASWG should explain what else is to be understood about the implications of introducing any new services; introduction of new scheduled flights or non-scheduled flights will result in additional emissions and thus will absolutely not be compatible with a green policy. The JASWG should also explain what measurements and controls they propose to put in place to ensure that additional services are not introduced.

Failure when acting on the easyJet Advert, prompts further email to the ASA

Dear Sirs,

In reference to my previous complaint against the easyJet Advert in the Sunday Times which called for a more intelligent approach to aviation, I attempted to do what was suggested in the advert, namely to "push airlines to buy the next generation of more fuel efficient airlines."

I checked the easyJet web site to find contact details. Alas, all I could find was the press office email address. I have emailed this address (see attached) to suggest that they buy Bombardier Q400s instead of Boeings, but I have received no reply. I have had similar problems contacting other airlines.

EasyJet most certainly have not acted on my pressure to buy the most fuel-efficient planes on the market. I therefore conclude that I will be entirely ineffective by pressing easyJet to buy the most fuel efficient planes as suggested by the advert. Thus, easyJet’s advert is clearly misleading by claiming that I can impact purchasing policy and also misleading by implying that easyJet operates the most efficient airplanes available.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Kevin Lister wrote:
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:06:56 +0000 (GMT)From: Kevin Lister Subject: Pressing for more efficient planesTo: press.office@easyjet.com

Sirs,

Your advert in the Sunday Times, 23rd December, demanding a more intelligent approach to aviation suggested that passengers should push airlines to fly the most fuel efficient planes.

As such, I am sending this email to press you to buy Bombardier Q400 planes. Being turbo props these are considerably more fuel efficient than the Boeing 737-700s that your advert portrayed.

Also, as these do not have the same range, their emissions will be even lower.

Regards,
Kevin Lister

Easy Jet at it again - Complaint to Advertising Standard Agency

contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com

and click here to make your own complaint to the advertising standards agency . The advert was placed in the Sunday Times, 23rd December, page 16.





SUMMARY OF OBJECTION:

The EasyJet advert purports that by flying with them one is being “environmentally intelligent.”

Given the statements from the latest IPCC report, flying can in no way be described as environmentally intelligent. The IPCC report states that “Early mitigation actions would avoid further locking in carbon intensive infrastructure.” Irrespective of how efficient planes become, their use will always constitute one of the most carbon intensive forms of travel possible. Thus any form of air travel will be in breach of the advice given the IPCC report.

Furthermore the IPCC report highlights that CO2 emissions must be reduced by over 100% to avoid runaway global warming; see figure SPM 11 of the summary for policy makers (ref 1). Thus the only truly intelligent attitude to air travel is to avoid it all together.

Emissions reductions due to efficiency gains in planes have not been sufficient to outweigh the overall increase due to the total number of flights increasing so rapidly. It is widely recognised that aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases. This further dispels the position of the EasyJet advert that one can demand a more intelligent way to fly.

SPECIFIC OBJECTION 1

The advert suggests that individuals can “Push airlines to buy the next generation of more fuel efficient aircraft.” Individuals have no influence over the purchasing activities of any airline. Airlines will always try and buy fuel efficient planes as these will be more profitable. However, no airline would choose to buy a plane that was economically unfeasible or operationally inappropriate irrespective of how much pressure individuals put on the airline. Easyjet could for example, have decided to buy Turbo prop planes such as the Bombardier Q400 (ref 2) instead of Boeings. These are more fuel efficient per passenger, but fly slower and can not take as many passengers. It would be pointless if I tried to push EasyJet towards buying Bombardier Q400 planes, irrespective of what the advert claims.

SPECIFIC OBJECTION 2

The advert suggests that individuals should “Choose airlines with ….fewer emissions.” However Easyjet’s total emissions have risen enormously and as an airline their total emissions are much higher than many of their smaller competitors. They now transport over 700% more passengers than they did in 2000, (ref 3). In addition, the 737-700 that is quoted in the advert is a long range version of Boeings 737, which potentially means that the airline will produce even more CO2 emissions per passenger. Choosing to fly EasyJet on the basis of emissions of the plane type does not demonstrate a more intelligent approach to aviation. The advert is therefore misleading in suggesting that I can have in impact on the choice of plane that an airline chooses.

SPECIFIC OBJECTION 3

The advert claims that passengers can “Choose airlines with higher passenger loads.” This is impossible. Passengers are not given information on the passenger loading when buying a ticket. Also if airlines have too high a passenger loading, they will simply put on additional flights encouraging more air travel. This does not represent a more intelligent approach to aviation.

SPECIFIC OBJECTION 4

The advert points out that “easyJet emits 22% less CO2” than a traditional airline flying the same aircraft type on the same route. This is an unreasonable comparison and EasyJet is simply attempting to make itself appear environmentally friendly by comparison with worst. A “traditional” airline would include planes with a proportion of first class passengers. These would include a significant number of business travellers flying first class who are unlikely to travel on EasyJet; likewise the majority of EasyJet passengers are unlikely to travel on “traditional” airlines. A more appropriate comparison would be to compare the carbon content of a typical holiday taken using EasyJet flights against a typical holiday taken without flying. The narrow comparison that the advert uses does not demonstrate or support an intelligent approach to aviation.

References:

(1) http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

(2) http://www.q400.com/q400/en/home.jsp

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyJet

Email to Senator Bill Nelson

Dear Senator Nelson,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my recent email.

You have clearly indicated the challenge of the problem that your country faces due to its dependency on foreign fuels and it is disappointing to learn that tax breaks for alternate energy production were dropped from the energy bill.

However, I am extremely upset to see that you voted for the CLEAN Energy Act in the Senate. An act mandating 36 billion gallons of fuels coming from bio fuel can in no way be described as clean. As I pointed out in my previous email to you, this will convert one of the worlds most productive bread baskets into a second rate gas pump.

The Seatle Times recently reported: “The land needs of the bio-fuel’s industry are gargantuan. In the U.S., nearly one-third of corn production will go to make ethanol by the end of the decade, replacing only 8 percent of gasoline use, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The department also projects that nearly a quarter of the nation's soybean crop will go to bio diesel, producing less than 2 percent of highway diesel consumed in the U.S.”

Given current figures for ethanol productivity per acre, by 2023 approximately 50% of total US crops will be needed to produce the mandated amount of bio-fuel. This will result in world wide food shortages and starvation on a mass scale.

All this disruption will not mitigate global warming at all. Almost as much fossil fuel is needed in the manufacture of bio fuels as is actually produced. Bio fuel production on the scale that is envisaged in your bill will result in huge amounts of NO2 emissions from the massive amounts of fertilisers necessary to achieve the production quotas. NO2 is 300 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. These factors will far outweigh any perceived enivoromental benefits. From a security perspective, Americal will simply trade its dependancy for foreign fuel for food dependancy on food, which will be a far worse situation.

Your email talks about increasing standard fuel economy of cars to 35 mpg. There is little merit in arguing that more efficient cars will significantly reduce CO2 emissions if the bill does nothing to curtail car use in any significant way. Experience shows more efficient cars simply encourage people to travel further if nothing is done to constrain demand and emissions do not fall. I have read through the bill and see nothing to suggest any significant measures that will curtail car use.

I remain sceptical and disappointed that the US senate has introduced such a narrow minded and limited bill when the world is currently desperately looking for leadership.

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

Regards, Kevin Lister

Sources:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/biotech/2004026594_biotechcrops21.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110N6b6LP:e24227

Email from Senator Sherrod Brown

Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com


Dear Mr. Lister:

Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the pressing issue of global climate change.

For too long our nation has opted to take a passive role on one of the 21st century's most pressing issues.

The United States, the largest energy consumer and wealthiest nation on the planet, has an obligation to be at the forefront of climate change policy and an opportunity to be a top innovator in developing new technologies and strategies to combat the problem.

The science is now clear: human activities are contributing to climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released a comprehensive assessment on climate change that synthesizes what the global scientific community has learned in the past five years about our changing climate and its impact on the world.

Global average surface temperatures have increased, snow cover and ice have decreased, and global average sea level is rising. As you know, there are significant long-term risks to the environment and our economy from temperature increases and climatic disruptions that are assumed to be the result of increased greenhouse gas emissions.To that end, I am strongly in favor of the continued development of alternative energy sources. Whether it is biomass, coal with carbon capture, wind, solar, or a resource still in development, we must explore sustainable energy sources that dramatically lessen our carbon emissions, are economically viable, and protect our national security.

I am a cosponsor of a resolution offered by Senators Biden and Lugar that calls for reengagement of the U.S. in the development of an international climate change framework.

As an active participant in the climate change debate, I am hopeful legislation that is both good for Ohio and the nation will come before the Senate later this year.

Again, thank you for contacting me on this important matter.

Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown

E mail from Senator Charles E. Schumer

contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com


Dear Mr. Lister:

Thank you for your letter regarding actions that Congress should be taking to curtail global climate change.

I share your concern for the health of our environment, especially the fragile balance of ecosystems that may be destroyed by the climatic changes that we are now experiencing. As Senator, I have pushed legislation that would address some of the causes of climate change, in particular by trying to reduce carbon emissions.

The recent passage in the Senate of H.R. 6, the Clean Energy Act of 2007, provided an important first step toward improving the ways our nation uses energy. This bill includes substantial increases in fuel economy standards for cars, including a 35mpg standard by 2020 and closing the SUV and flex-fuel-vehicle loopholes. The Senate's success in this area will reduce our consumption of foreign oil by 10.7 gallons annually by 2020. I believe that H.R. 6 makes important steps towards curbing climate change.

For the first time in decades, the Senate has produced a bill that does not give tax breaks to big oil, but instead gives incentives to companies to use renewable fuel sources, makes significant improvements in car's fuel economy, and requires improved energy efficiency in government actions. However, there is still more to be done.

I introduced four amendments to the energy bill which would improve energy efficiency in practical, cost-effective ways. The first would require power utilities to gradually reduce their fuel consumption by improving their efficiency to reach a final target of 10% less fuel use by 2020. The second amendment required states to make their building codes 30% more efficient. The third and fourth amendments would improve energy efficiency in appliances like washing machines, commercial boilers, and air conditioners. All told, these four amendments would have saved the same energy as would taking more than 150 million cars off the road. Unfortunately, none of these amendments were included in the final bill, but I will continue to push for these, and other, energy efficiency ideas.I also support several other bills aimed at helping to slow this crisis.

I am a co-sponsor of S. 590, Securing America's Energy Independence Act of 2007, which extends and improves tax credits for individuals and companies to invest in solar technology. I also co-sponsored the Clean Air Planning Act, S. 1177, a multi-pollutant bill that will require fossil-fuel-fired power plants to cut their emissions of four dangerous compounds, including carbon dioxide. This bill will halt the increase in CO2 emissions in 2012 and will implement a 57% cut from today's levels by 2050.

I was also an original co-sponsor of S. 339, the DRIVE Act, which will reduce our oil use through a range of actions from improving fuel economies to encouraging development along existing transit corridors, rather than into new areas. It was passed by the Senate as part H.R. 6.

Climate change matters to all of us and we need smart, pragmatic policies now if we are to address this crisis. We cannot afford to delay action in the hope that a "silver bullet" will save us: there will be no perfect new technology to produce infinite energy, no special sponge to take carbon out of the air, no global air-conditioning system. It takes lots of smart changes in the ways that we make and use energy to fix this problem, and we need to approach this complex problem from every angle possible.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this important topic. I always appreciate constituents input and hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with me in the future.

Sincerely,
Charles E. SchumerUnited States Senator

E mail from US Senator Bill Nelson

Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com

Dear Mr. Lister:

Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding the energy issues facing our nation.

We must develop a long-term energy strategy that alleviates high energy prices and reduces our dependency on foreign oil while protecting our precious environment. The prices of home energy and gasoline has risen in recent months, leaving many struggling to afford driving to work and heating or cooling their homes. In the meantime, oil companies continue to see record-breaking profits.

I recently voted for the comprehensive CLEAN Energy Act in the Senate. The act will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil by requiring annual use of 36 billion gallons of alternative fuels like ethanol by 2022, mandating the Federal government adopt "green" building standards, and increasing fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks to 35 miles-per-gallon by the year 2020. The legislation will also protect consumers from gasoline price gouging and improve the efficiency of appliances.

I am also a cosponsor of the Dependence Reduction through Innovation in Vehicles and Energy (DRIVE) Act. The DRIVE Act would increase the availability of alternative transportation fuels, provide incentives for the purchase of hybrid and flexible-fuel vehicles, and spur development of next-generation fuels and hybrid cars. A larger market for gasoline made from corn, sugar, orange peels, switchgrass, or a variety of other products would help keep the price of gasoline down. Several provisions of this legislation were adopted in the CLEAN Energy Act.

I also supported measures in the CLEAN Energy bill that would encourage alternative energy development like wind and solar power by offering tax incentives to users, as well as a measure that would require utilities to produce a percentage of their electricity from renewable resources. These measures would help reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but unfortunately they were dropped from the final bill.

This bill is now being sent to the President for his signature. As we continue to discuss energy issues in the Senate, I will be sure to keep your views in mind. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Copy of Email sent to all US Senators re global warming and their county's loss of reputation

Contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com

Dear Senator,

I am a UK citizen who has for many years respected the values that America stands for and argued in defence of your country when it was fashionable amongst my colleagues to criticise your nation.

However, I am now moved to write to you in protest at the recent events of your nation’s representatives and the sad demise of the reputation of a nation that was once known for proudly and bravely coming to the aid and rescue of others when in deep trouble. The war graves in Normandy are testimony of your nations proud past.

As you should be aware, your country's representatives have derailed negotiations on reaching a climate change agreement at Bali. We are now left with the unedifying spectacle of the worlds leaders congratulating themselves on achieving an agreement, when all that has been achieved is a commitment to more talks and no binding agreements on CO2 reductions have been reached. We do not have time for more talks. The more we talk, the less action we take and the greater the consequences. We have now engineered an environment for ourselves that does not absorb the greenhouse gases that we produce and the gap between absorption and production is widening. The longer we allow our energy profligate life styles to continue, the worse the problem. As the nation that has produced more CO2 than any other, the USA has a unique obligation to act and to show leadership in this time of global crisis.

The extract from the IPCC report above shows their conclusions and demonstrates why immediate action is so important. Even in the event that we reduce our emissions to zero and are somehow able to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (see CO2 trend on the left graph), we will still experience dangerous warming that will range between 1.8 deg C to 3.8 deg C (see graph on the left). Make no mistake; this is absolutely catastrophic. Failure to take immediate action will almost certainly mean that the current generation of children on the planet will be the last.

As well as selfish intransigence at Bali, the Senate have compounded the problem by signing into legislation the energy bill on Thursday. This bill calls for a renewable fuel obligation of 15 billion gallons of ethanol to be consumed annually by 2015 rising to 36 billion gallons to be consumed annually by 2022. If this is intended to be a part of some environmentally friendly initiative aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions by using biofuels, then again make no mistake in recognising that it is dangerous stupidity to believe this.

We are entering a dangerous and turbulent world were the population is soaring, and food production is collapsing due to the combined impacts of climate change, industrialisation and soil exhaustion. Tensions will grow as food prices rise. Inflation and interest rates will be forced up destroying economic growth. The current sub prime housing crash is a direct result of this changing world and a foretaste of worse to come.

In the face of this looming crisis, you have agreed to convert the world’s breadbasket into a second rate gas pump. The food that would have been grown will now have to be grown elsewhere, and this will be achieved by burning down more of the tropical rainforests, so reducing the carbon absorption of the biosphere. All this for an extremely inefficient way of producing a gas substitute to enable people to continue driving unnecessarily large cars unnecessarily long distances.

This is a desperate legacy to the world, and one that only the most self-interested nation of the world could contemplate.

Your nations inability to show clear leadership and make the sacrifices necessary to achieve cuts in greenhouse gases is in stark contrast to the sacrifices that your young men made for our freedoms in the Second World War.

The next time that I visit your war graves in France, I will pay special respect to those American soldiers who gave their lives and whose legacies are now being so hopelessly squandered.

This email has been copied to all senators and will appear on my blog
http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/


Yours faithfully,
Kevin Lister

Letter to Ruth Kelly re Heathrow Runway 3

contact me at kevsclimatecolumn@btinternet.com

Subject: Heathrow Runway 3 and Terminal 6

Dear Ms Kelly,

I have listened with absolute dismay at your statement that you intend to precede with Heathrow’s 3rd runway and 6th terminal. I have six specific points that I want you to address which follow below.

Point 1

I note that you have said carbon trading can offset the emissions from the extra flights at Heathrow. You must realise that this is a nonsense position. The IPCC report has effectively called for a cut in excess of 100% of current emissions, and even this does not guarantee avoidance of catastrophic warming. The graphs below are extracted from the report.

These two graphs need to be read together. The graph on the right hand side shows the expected stabilised temperature for various levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The best possible scenario presented is that the greenhouse gases stabilise in the 445-490 ppm range. This would result in a best possible temperature increase of between 1.8 dec C to 3.8 deg C. Mathematical modelling suggests that an average temperature rise above 2 deg C is likely to lead to runaway climate change, so we are already at extremely high risk of catastrophic change. To achieve this best possible but still awful scenario the necessary cuts in CO2 emissions are shown on the left hand side. This disturbingly shows that not only must we completely eliminate CO2 emissions, but also we must somehow think how to extract additional CO2 out of the atmosphere. Given that we need to get our emissions below zero, carbon trading is clear nonsense. Your belief that we can somehow carbon trade our way out of the global warming implications of a third runway suggests that you have not grasped the implication of this report at all.

The implications of the IPCC report are such that we should be considering shutting Heathrow, not allowing further expansion.

Point 2

Your position on runway 3 is clearly driven by the aviation industry and its immediate supporters. I am aware that the organisation Flying Matters, (see http://www.flyingmatters.co.uk/) has already started lobbying MPs to stop aviation being included within the governments climate change bill. The industry is instead arguing that an international agreement should be brought into place. However, they have been deliberately vague on explaining what the international agreements would be. Given the impossibility of putting an international agreement like this together in any meaningful way that would actually result in timely and necessary aviation cuts, it is hardly surprising that the aviation industry is campaigning for an international agreement.

Can you confirm if you believe that aviation should be in your government’s climate change bill and confirm exactly what your department’s position is on this?

Point 3

Recent Mori polls have shown that supporters of a freeze on airport expansion outnumber opponents by more than two to one (49% vs 20%). You are clearly backing the minority interests of the aviation industry and its immediate big business supporters over the interests of the wider public and scientific evidence. You are also doing this on the most contentious issue possible, were people are now scared for their future and their children’s future. You are ignoring the protesters that have so far been making their point peacefully in the streets of our cities and with events such as the Climate Camp at Heathrow last year.

If you proceed with this development, you must expect that the protests will turn increasingly bitter and violent. The police will clearly be bought in on the side of the airport and its supporters, thus compromising police neutrality at a time when the police will be coming under additional strain from the effects of climate change on the wider economy. The heavy handed policing at Heathrow during last year’s Climate Camp was seen by many as a warning of things to come.

Can you confirm what conversation and agreements have been made with the Secretary of State and what the Secretary of State’s view is on the police being effectively used as a private army in support of the aviation industry’s interests?


Point 4

The email sent in response to the petition on the 10 Downing Street web site against Heathrow claimed that the “UK now has the fastest growing railway in Europe.” Can you confirm how much CO2 emissions will be generated from this growth and where the power will come from for this expansion. It is worth considering that a Pendolino on the West Coast lines requires 5.1 Mega Watts of power. There are 53 Pendolino is the Virgin Fleet. Basic calculations show that just these trains requires approximately 600 wind turbines to provide adequate power. In addtion, there is the rest of the electrified Rail network.

Point 5

A collegue of mine is a pilot in BA and regularly flies from from Saudi Arabia to Heathrow. He tells me that the first class is often full of people coming over for shoping weekends. This is clealy a rediculous use of critical resources and a totally unnecessary contriubtion to global warming. It is strong argument that we need to reduce demand for travel.

Your statements so far on travel policies have all been concerned with providing enough supply to met demand. Can you confirm what you are doing to reduce demand.

Point 6

You have stated in your letters to MPs that a consultation period will be initated and you have a web site for consultation.

Can you confirm the point of this. You have already stated that you intend to proceed with the third runway and the policies of your departments are completely ignoring all the available science.

I look forward to your reply addressing specifically each of the points above.

Yours sincerely


Kevin Lister

c.c:

David Drew MP,
Flying Matters