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

Dear Kevin,


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Kind regards,



Hannah

Palm Oil Direct Action Protest

Dear Hannah,

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

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

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

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

Anti Dove products

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

PALM OIL VICTIM

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

Audit trail for Palm Oil

Dear Paul, 

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

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

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

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

We look forwards to your prompt reply.

Regards,

Kevin Lister

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

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

Dear Mr Lister

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

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

Kind Regards


Paul Milligan
Customer Service Executive

Police unprepared to act on environemental fraud

Dear Inspector Chester ,


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

Regards,


Kevin Lister



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

From: Chester, Stephen

Subject: FW: Fraud at Gloucestershire Airport

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

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


Dear Mr Lister,


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


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


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


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


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


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


I am sorry I cannot be of more help.


Regards,



Steve Chester
Inspector


Cheltenham Road East Police Station (CRE)

Gloucestershire Constabulary


+ Churchdown, Gloucester, GL3 1HX


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

Tescos use of Palm Oil

Dear Sir Terry,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Kevin Lister

Full text of letter sent to the Times

click here for published letter

Dear Editor,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Kevin

 

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

Dear Inspector Chester,


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

We look forward to your reply.


Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about Express

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parlimentary action needed on lying aviation adverts (Email to David Drew MP)

Dear David,

Good to meet up again this morning.

As discussed, I am now getting no response from the Advertising Standards Agency following my complaints against the misleading adverts of the aviation industry. All the adverts that I have complained about erroneously claim that flying can be made environmentally friendly. Claims of this nature are becoming increasingly common.

I have pointed out to the ASA that the marketing strategy of the aviation industry is the same as that employed by the cigarette industry in the late 1940s when they claimed smoking filtered cigarettes was safe. We know that it is preposterous to think cigarettes can be safe, in the same way that we know aviations claim of environmentally friendly flying is also preposterous. However, we also know that the cigarette advertising strategy was overwhelmingly successful, making Marlboro the most highly valued brand in history. By employing the same methods, the aviation industry is being equally successful in getting people to ignore the clear and present dangers of climate change and to continue flying regardless.

As I am unable to make any further progress with the ASA in having adverts that are making deliberately misleading environmental claims banned, I would therefore ask that you raise this critical issue in parliament with other like-minded MPs.

I would further appreciate that you question in parliament the merit of having a self-regulating body policing the critical issue of advertisers consistently flouting the science on climate change. Page 3 of ASA code of practise states, “The Committee of Advertising Practice members include organisations that represent the advertising, sales promotion, direct marketing and media businesses.” The lack of action on the aviation adverts demonstrates a clear and dangerous conflict of interest as advertising for business expansion is given preference over truthful statements on climate change impacts.

The adverts that I have recently complained about and the ASA responses that I have received follow below. In each case the advert is in clear breach of sections 49.1 and 49.2 of ASA code of conduct.  

• Finnair claimed on London Underground bill boards that flying with them is “Eco-smart.” I complained, but did not even receive an acknowledgement.

• Airbus  claimed in a National Geographic advert they “see the bigger picture, and work to minimize environmental impact by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”  This is unequivocal rubbish. Airbus will never work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and every efficiency improvement the aviation industry has introduced since the Wright brothers has never reduced CO₂ emissions. Despite this plain logic, the ASA rejected my complaint. I then had the matter referred to the Independent Reviewer of ASA Adjudications. However he backed the council’s initial decision, which raises serious questions about his independence. Amongst the bizarre justifications he made was National Geographic readers would understand it to be false, irrespective of the advert being targeted towards children. Again, targeting adverts at children is a case of the aviation industry borrowing another tactic from the cigarette industry. It is outrageous that the ASA are still allowing this tactic.

• Easyjet claimed that we should demand a “more intelligent approach to aviation,” with the suggestion that flying EasyJet was environmentally intelligent. Easyjet’s advert also suggested that we pressurise airlines to fly the most fuel-efficient planes. My complaint to the ASA was again rejected, despite having no response from my letter to Easyjet suggesting that they change their fleet to fuel-efficient turboprops.

I have complained about three other adverts were aviation companies made erroneous claims about being environmentally friendly. In each case the ASA has upheld the advert and rejected my complaint.

In light of the events at Copenhagen this week, it is vital as a society we demand major companies and CO₂ emitters are truthful with their adverts and are not allowed to maximise profits by subverting the science.

Regards and best wishes,

Kevin Lister

Napoleon tries to quell the rebellion

Dear Mr Godwin,

Thank you for your condescending email, in which you have continued to demonstrate your ability to distort the facts and believe your own lies. I said to you at the meeting on Wednesday that I would create as much bad publicity for you as possible. I had no idea that you would help by circulating such a pathetic email to such a wide audience.

To take your points (in red):

You suggest that I think that I am the only person in Gloucestershire that is concerned about global warming.

Not for one moment do I believe that I am the only person in Gloucestershire, there are many more. You should reflect that many of these people are becoming increasingly angry with people such as yourself who choose to ignore the science of climate change and destroy the future for short-term gains.

You say, “Global warming and better protection of the environment has been discussed ad nauseam by the Council and others for many years, which is why most of us decided a long time ago to become councillors and argue the case from inside the Council rather than continually bleat like you do from the outside.”

To suggest that you became a councillor to take effective action on climate change from the inside is nonsense. You are after all backing the airport which only relatively recently issued a report denying climate change even existed. To put the matter to rest, you might want to clarify what significant action your silly little organisation “People against Bureaucracy” has ever taken on climate change.

I point you again to Animal Farm, "No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?" As Napoleon consolidated the decision making process, then so have you.

In case you have not realised, it is impossible to expand an airport and double its "enterprise value" without massively increasing CO2 emissions. But maybe you do realise this, and have deliberately removed the CO2 targets from your report to mislead the scrutiny committee about the potential financial returns of the airport. I ask you again, please confirm if it was a deliberte omission, or were you not curious enought to enquire how the finanical targets could be achieved with the green management plan in place.

Your say, “Carping and making snide remarks at people who are doing their best to balance the arguments for and against progress is unhelpful.”

You have never made any attempt to find a balance.  Even if you did you might want to explain how that balance between expanding an airport and making cuts of 80% in CO2 emissions can be achieved.  

You say, “I would have thought that your time could have been better spent putting your concerns to the world leaders at Copenhagen who are striving to reach agreement to control global emissions.”

Well I do, and also if you bother to read to the newspapers you will learn that the prognosis for any meaningful agreement coming out of Copenhagen is virtually zero. This is why we have to take local action to stop fools like you.

You say, “Whilst the report to the Scrutiny Committee contained a summary of the main points of the approved Runway Safety Project document, it was not the intention to 're-invent the wheel' and go back over the RSP details but solely to seek approval for the funding of the project.”

You again distort the facts so much you believe your own lies. Much of the meeting was taken up with glorious claims as to how much additional business was going to be attracted to the airport.  As you say, this meeting was not about reinventing the wheel,  it was about validating the business plan before funding was approved. Unfortunately your well trained sheep bleated in your support and not one of them asked how the business plan objectives could be achieved within the constraints of the green management plan.

Also, as the airport still can not provide any documentation to demonstrate that this development will increase the safety of the people living in the public safety zone, then please stop referring to it as a Runway Safety Project.

You say "Surprisingly, there were no public questions from you or anyone else, which is why I was taken aback by your attitude after we left the committee room. It is not the way to make a point once a meeting has been concluded. Your manner was offensive to say the least."

Why should we bother asking any more questions?  We have asked hundreds in the past and not one of them has had any impact on the final outcome. Submission of formal questions merely legitimises the fraudulent way in which this development is being pursued and allows you to pretend consultation with the public has been carried out.

You say, "Finally, you know as well as I do that the figure concerning CO2 emissions contained in the approved Runway Safety Project document will be monitored from day one, as will all the other conditions in the document. If we fail to do this, but I can assure you we will, then that will be the time for you to start posing more questions"

I have already asked the question what will happen if the ceilings are exceeded. I was told, "Good management would ensure that they do get exceeded." This give no assureance especially when the the Green Management policy imposes no penalties on the airport in the event that the celing is breached and the same good management will simultanously be tasked with maximising profits. So in the inevitable event of the ceiling being breached, the best that we can do is have another round of questions, which on the basis of past experience will be totally fruitless.  

So given the lies that you have peddled, the lack of an effective democratic process, the publication of a meaningless green management plan and the inability of councillors to understand even basic science, I make no apology for my manner, which you unfortunately found offensive.

The lack of accountable process and the vested interests involved means that we are left with direct action as the only option and advise that you are a legitimate target of future protests.

Finally on your words of wisdon on flies; just because millions of flies eat shit, it does no mean it is a good thing to do.  In the same way as surrounding yourself with  many fools that agree with you does not make you right.

Kevin Lister

---

From: Les Godwin
To: cllr.garth.barnes@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.robin.macdonald@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.pat.thornton@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.andrew.wall@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.paul.massey@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.tim.cooper@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.paul.wheeldon@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.bernard.fisher@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.stuart.hutton@cheltenham.gov.uk; malcolm_stennett@o2.co.uk; Kevin Lister
Cc: Mark Ryan ; "Pratley, Pat" ; "Whittaker, Freddie" ; Michael Corely
Sent: Sunday, 15 November, 2009 19:59:41
Subject: Re: Behaving like sheep over the airport



Dear Mr Lister,

I don't usually respond to emails such as yours but on this occasion I am going to break my golden rule.

Why on earth you think that you are the only person in Gloucestershire who is concerned about CO2 emissions has amazed me since I first read your views on the matter some months ago. I can assure you that some of us have been concerned about this long before you thought of the idea.

Global warming and better protection of the environment has been discussed ad nauseam by the Council and others for many years, which is why most of us decided a long time ago to become councillors and argue the case from inside the Council rather than continually bleat like you do from the outside.

Carping and making snide remarks at people who are doing their best to balance the arguments for and against progress is unhelpful.

I would have thought that your time could have been better spent putting your concerns to the world leaders at Copenhagen who are striving to reach  agreement to control global emissions, which, if the newspaper reports are correct, are going to find it hard to satisfy the demands of every nation and an Agreement might not be forthcoming.

The Joint Airport Scrutiny Working Group have done an excellent job of coming to a sensible conclusion regarding the needs of the Airport and the needs of the wider public.

Following months of deliberation, alterations and amendments to a Green Policy resulted in the policy being included in the Runway Safety Project document that was presented and approved by Gloucester City Council and Cheltenham Borough Council earlier this year.

At both venues and on each occasion members of the public were able to put their questions to members of the committees.

Since those times, council meetings have taken place to discuss the funding of the project, which became necessary once Tewkesbury Borough Council planners decided to grant permission on the four outstanding planning applications. The council discussions were successfully concluded.

On Wednesday, 11th November I presented the JASWG report to the E, B & I Overview and Scrutiny Committee seeking their approval of the funding method.

Whilst the report to the Scrutiny Committee contained a summary of the main points of the approved Runway Safety Project document, it was not the intention to 're-invent the wheel' and go back over the RSP details but solely to seek approval for the funding of the project.

Surprisingly, there were no public questions from you or anyone else, which is why I was taken aback by your attitude after we left the committee room. It is not the way to make a point once a meeting has been concluded. Your manner was offensive to say the least.

If you were so concerned about emissions and you wanted confirmation that the ceiling in the original document still stood , why didn't you put your question?  

I am not sure whether the Chairman would have allowed questions unless they were about the funding proposals contained in the recommendations, but that would have been his decision..

Finally, you know as well as I do that the figure concerning CO2 emissions contained in the approved Runway Safety Project document will be monitored from day one, as will all the other conditions in the document.

If we fail to do this, but I can assure you we will, then that will be the time for you to start posing more questions.

There is an old saying that 'you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.' You should reflect on that.

Cllr Godwin.

Chairman JASWG,

Cheltenham Borough Council.

Email to the sheep in Cheltenham Scrutiny committee

Dear Councillors,


I attended the scrutiny committee this week to hear the debate on the airport. I can only say how appalled I was at the level of scrutiny you showed on the business case put forward by Councillor Les Godwin.

In fact there was no scrutiny at all. You merely agreed with everything said by Les Godwin and you were all unanimous in your praise of his paper.

It seems that many of you need reminding of the history of this proposal. The airport was forced to produce a “Green Management Plan” to address the genuine concerns that this development would result in significant CO2 emissions at a time when the rest of the population are being told to do everything possible to reduce their emissions and be ready to pay increased utility bills as a consequence. A key part of the Airport’s green management plan was to impose a CO2 ceiling of 4,000 tonnes annum and a commitment to an annual review.

However, section 7.3 (extract attached) of Les Godwin’s business case which covers the environment, completely ignores the CO2 ceiling and there is no reference to any annual review of the “Green management plan.”

When I asked Les Godwin why this was not included and how he expected the airport to make the returns he claimed while simultaneously staying within the CO2 targets, he pleaded ignorance and said that he did not know that the CO2 targets were not included. He is therefore either stupid or pretends to be stupid. I will leave if for you to decide.

As it does not take much intelligence to work out that it would be impossible to make the returns claimed whilst staying within the CO2 limits, I would like you to explain to me and the other people that are equally concerned by this development why you did not ask the obvious question of how the airport was to stay within its Green Management target whilst making the returns claimed.

Your behaviour skilfully re-enacts George Orwell’s Animal Farm. We have the advocates of environmental destruction, such as Les Godwin, taking over our planet in the same way as Napoleon took over the farm. Napoleon’s take over was consolidated with the support of bleating sheep in the same was as you all unanimously praised Les Godwin.

Extract:

Section 7.3 of Joint Airport Scrutiny Working Group

Amongst the conditions are a number which capture and reflect aspects of the airport’s Green Policy. These conditions specifically relate to the airport operations and are set out below:


(a) The number of air movements at the airport shall not exceed 95,000 a year (excluding police, emergency and military related flights)
(b) The airports main hours of operation shall be restricted to between the hours of 0830 – 1930 with no more than 1.5 % of movements per annum outside of these hours (excluding police, emergency and military related flights, and those arriving late for operational reasons)


(c) The number of movements between the hours of 23.00 and 06.00 shall be limited to 100 per calendar year (excluding police, emergency and military related flights).

Comment to Chris Booker, Telegraph

To Chris (and the other global warming deniers at the Telegraph)

You are either liars or stupid.

You say that global temperatures have started to drop since 1998. They have not. The trend since 1998 has continued an upward trend with roughly the same gradient as it did since 1941. Taking the data from 1941 to present, and drawing a line of best fit shows the temperature to be increasing at the rate of 0.01 deg C per year. Taking the data from 1998 to today and again drawing a line of best fit, shows the temperature to be increasing at the rate of 0.013 deg C per year, i.e. the rate of increase is increasing, not decreasing as Chris claims.

What Chris is stupid enough to do, is to mix up correlation with trends. By taking the 1998 as a start point, he starts that period with a year that was exceptionally hot due to a severe El Nino. He then compares every other year against 1998 and ignores all the data in between. The effect of 1998 on the data set taken from that date to today simply reduces the correlation.

The rapid rise in temperature in 1998 during the El Nino shows how sensitive our climate is to perturbation. It should be seen as a warning of the risks we face, not an opportunity for imbeciles to distort the science further.

Chris’s basic argument that scientists don’t know what they are talking about when predicting climate change is a bit rich from someone who does not understand basic school boy statistics.

The temperature trends follow below:

 Data source for graphs, NASA

Another Chance the ASA to show they will not stand by

Complaint to the ASA about Finnair Advert

This advert is making the claim that by choosing to fly by Finnair, you can be “eco-smart.”

This is totally misleading and breaches the ASA code, sections 49.1 and 49.2.

Section 49.1 says “The basis of any claim should be explained clearly and should be qualified where necessary.” There is no explanation of this claim. To say that their planes are brand new is not an explanation of why it is eco-smart to fly with Finnair. Put simply, planes will always produce huge amounts of emissions, irrespective of how modern they are. If an airline expands its business as a result of a market shift towards modern planes then the emissions will increase accordingly. The extra emissions will outweigh the savings. None of this is eco-smart.

Also other airlines and airplane manufacturers are making similar claims about their environmental benefits, i.e. Easy Jet, Airbus, and Boeing. Finnair’s advert makes no comparison between the age of their planes and those of similar operators or no comparison against the most fuel efficient planes available today.

Section 49.2 says, “Claims such as ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘wholly biodegradable’ should not be used without qualification unless marketers can provide convincing evidence that their product will cause no environmental damage when taking into account the full life cycle of the product.”

There is no qualification to this advert. It simply implies that the passenger is “eco-smart,” if they travel with Finnair. The advert does not provide any quantification of the CO2 emissions per person taking a flight and certainly does not put it into context, i.e. by comparing with emissions of a UK holiday.

Furthermore, the advert is aimed at users of London Underground. In general the users of Lonn Underground will not be as well versed about the issues surrounding climate change and the impact of aviation as readers of publications such as the National Geographic. As such they are more likely to be persuaded by the lie that flying by Finnair was in actual fact eco-smart, rather than highly environmentally damaging.

More ongoing dialogue with the ASA

Dear Mr Caines,

You may wish to close this discussion, but I will not and you will be hearing more from me. Every time some organisation such as Airbus flexes its marketing muscle to discredit or subvert the debate on climate change, I will complain. On the basis my past experience of complaining to the ASA on false environmental claims, I expect the ASA to reject the complaint, and I will then appeal.

I will build up a file of the all the cases where the ASA does not take action on those companies deliberately subverting the debate on climate change and present this to my MP and other politicians who are actively pressing for the level of the debate on climate change to be raised.

As for the points in your letter:

I am not wrong to state that you and the ASA have upheld the Airbus advert. Your actions speak louder than words. You have chosen to take no action when you should have done so. The ASA web site says that that one of your aims is to stop misleading adverts. Airbus's claim that "it is working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," is totally misleading and they are now free to continue these claims.

You say in your email that "I had not succeeded in making out a case." However, irrespective of what evidence that I would have presented, you would have come to the same conclusion, especially when it is absolutely clear that this decision is in breach of your own code. I would be interested to know how many ASA adjudications that you actually overturn, especially on sensitive issues such as this. I have previously spoken to people at the ASA and been told that ASA council decisions are rarely overturned by your "independent review."

It therefore seems that you are a rubber stamper, not an independent reviewer. I would therefore suggest that you consider early retirement and get out of the way to make space for a genuine independent reviewer.

So you are aware of the effectiveness of these types of adverts, only recently the government gave a 350 million pound loan to Airbus for the new A350, which was justified by Peter Mandelson as supporting the development of an environmentally friendly plane. This is after a billion of yet unpaid loans to support the A380. This comes at a time when the poorest people in our society are being told to expect to pay increased fuel bills to combat climate change. This is a propaganda coup that Goebbels would be proud of.

Kevin Lister

---

From: john caines
To: Kevin Lister <>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 September, 2009 1:51:55 PM
Subject: Re: ASA Case A09-101952: Airbus - Request for Review



Dear Mr Lister

I am replying to your email below, not because I think that there is much value in prolonging this exchange of correspondence (now that I have closed my file on the case), but because I regard it as desirable to put on record where I consider that you have got things wrong.

You are wrong to suggest that in my letter to you of 28 September I have made a decision to uphold the Airbus advertisement. You are also wrong to accuse me of supporting what you describe as Airbus' propaganda and false representations.

The only point contained in my letter of 28 September was my conclusion that you had not succeeded in making out a case to justify my asking the Council of the ASA to reconsider its decision not to investigate a complaint which you had made about an Airbus advertisement. I have not "upheld" that advertisement. Nor have I said that I support that advertisement. I have merely said that you have not persuaded me that the ASA Council's judgement was either unfair or unreasonable.

Your assertion that I work to protect the interests of business rather than the interests of individuals is both unjust and unfounded. During my ten years as Independent Reviewer there have been many occasions when my decisions have been against the interests of business.

You also imply that the ASA is biased in favour of business. It is not for me to try to defend the ASA. It is well able to do that itself. My own experience of dealing with some 500 review request cases during the past ten years has shown me that you are totally unjustified in making such a statement.

Yours sincerely

Sir John Caines

Independent Reviewer

Letter to Sir John Caines - ASA Independent reviewer

Dear Sir John,

Thank you for you letter – I am however extremely angry with your decision to uphold the Airbus advert. My anger will be shared by many others. The population is becoming increasingly terrified by the prospects of climate change and angry about the way in which large organisations such as Airbus are continually subverting the debate to protect their short term profit motives. We suffer this terror as we watch organisations such as Airbus receiving protection and support from the state, whilst the self evident rights to the future that we should enjoy are denied us.

Your action to support Airbus’s propaganda and false representations only reaffirms that the systems in place do not protect the individual, but are designed primarily to protect the rights of business to develop irrespective of the environmental damage caused.

Your decision to uphold the Airbus advert is based on several alarming, naïve and dangerous positions.

In your justification letter to me you have said:-

• “The Council’s view was based upon a judgement that readers of National Geographic would understand that the advertiser was not claiming that the aviation industry had no adverse impact on the environment.” Are you seriously trying to suggest that because the National Geographic is aimed an articulate and intelligent audience they will automatically be able to decipher fact from fantasy? History is full intelligent people who have been lead astray with disastrous consequences. Airbus’s advert is in the National Geographic precisely because it is a prestigious publication. Airbus’s marketing department clearly wanted its name associated with the National Geographic as a way of combating the debate on the impact of aviation on climate change. The fact that it is in the National Geographic gives credence to its claim that it is “working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

• “Readers of National Geographic would be unlikely to regard the advertisement as a claim that Airbus was taking actions which would lead to absolute, rather than relative, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” This a ridiculous position for the Advertising Standards Agency to take. Firstly, you have no way of knowing how this advert is perceived by National Geographic readers. Secondly, the aviation industry this week has been peddling its nonsense about being able to reduce its absolute emissions by 50% by 2050, when it has already failed to meet any of its past environmental targets. The reader will clearly assume that this advert is relating to absolute emissions. This after all, is the intention of the advert.

• “The Council has to strike a balance between preserving freedom of expression and ensuring that such freedom is not seriously harmful to the interests of others.” Are you saying that an organisation such as Airbus can be allowed to use its massive marketing budget to blatantly lie about its environmental credentials as this is essential to the preservation of freedom of expression? You should know that the combined marketing budgets and publicity machines of the many carbon intensive companies such as Airbus by far exceeds the worlds scientific budget on climate change. Ever since climate change was first highlighted as a serious problem in the late 1970s, big business has successfully subverted the debate to ensure profitability. This is not freedom of expression or open debate. This is manipulation on a grand scale, and this advert is simply part of this.

• “I know that this decision will be a disappointment to you and for that I am sorry. I realise that you feel very strongly about the impact of the aviation industry on the environment” This is patronising and belittling nonsense that I can do without. To say that I feel strongly is a gross understatement. I am angry at my environment being destroyed and my taxes being diverted to the aviation industry. Not only am I angry, but so are thousands of others. Many of these intelligent people are now sacrificing their own liberty by taking direct action, as there is no other real option to influence decision making. You have demonstrated again that the only way forward is by direct action.

Finally you may want to explain to me what the Advertising Standards Agency is for? This complaint, and the lack of adherence to your own code, clearly demonstrates that it is not to ensure truthful and honest claims to the public. Instead it seems that the ASA’s job is to ensure that the marketing interests of business are allowed to operate, irrespective of the environmental damage that may ensue. You have demonstrated the truth of the Plane Stupid claim that the "ASA are as toothless as a new born."

I will post this correspondence on my blog, and copy to my MP.

Kevin Lister

Request for appeal on the Airbus Adverts

Letter to the Advertising Standards Agency Independent Reviewer

Dear Sirs,

I have been told in email correspondence with Julia Dean that the grounds for which a request can be made is “Where there is a substantial flaw in the Council's adjudication or in the process by which that adjudication was made.”

You will note that the letter I received states that the “ASA council has considered the ad and your complaint but concluded there was no breach of the Code.”

I have since checked the code. This advert is clearly and unequivocally in breach of the ASA code. The relevant sections that it is in breach follow below: -

49.1 The basis of any claim should be explained clearly and should be qualified where necessary. Unqualified claims can mislead if they omit significant information.

The ASA Council’s justification for rejecting the complaint is that Airbus “did not make any specific claims about particular projects that the advertisers were involved with or goals.” By definition, the ASA are acknowledging that the statement is unqualified as they recognise that no specific claims are made; hence ASA Council has not abided by its own code and there is a substantial flaw in the adjudication.

The advert also says, “working towards.” Airbus do not say how long it will take nor by how much they intend to reduce greenhouse gases nor do they explain the basis of their claim, hence this is a totally unqualified statement, further justifying that the ASA Council has not abided by its own code and there is a substantial flaw in the adjudication.

49.2 Claims such as ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘wholly biodegradable’ should not be used without qualification unless marketers can provide convincing evidence that their product will cause no environmental damage when taking into account the full life cycle of the product. Qualified claims and comparisons such as ‘greener’ or ‘friendlier’ may be acceptable if marketers can substantiate that their product provides an overall improvement in environmental terms either against their competitors’ or their own previous products.

Airbus cannot present any convincing evidence that they are working towards reducing greenhouse gases. The Tindal Report, 2005 ( available at http://www.tyndall.ac.uk) quantifies the rise in emissions from aviation. All the evidence proves unequivocally that greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are increasing significantly and that any claims that the airline industry is reducing, or can reduce emissions, without major reductions in capacity is totally false.

In addition Airbus has implied in the advert that its drive to improve fuel efficiency is part of its drive towards to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, it has not qualified that this fuel efficiency is primarily being achieved on long range planes such as the new A380, were the total emissions will be far higher than any previous plane.

The ASA Council is therefore in breach of its own code as it has allowed the claim of working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions without qualification and in spite of the fact that the marketers can not provide any convincing evidence for their claim of working towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is a substantial flaw in the adjudication process.

49.3 Where there is a significant division of scientific opinion or where evidence is inconclusive this should be reflected in any statements made in the marketing communication. Marketers should not suggest that their claims command universal acceptance if that is not the case.

There is no division of scientific opinion on climate change. The reverse is true. The absolute consensus is that cuts in excess of 80% need to be made to greenhouse gas emissions as documented in the Copenhagen Climate Conference report (http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport). Furthermore there is absolutely no scientific evidence that suggests the aviation industry can achieve any significant cuts at all.

Thus the ASA Council is again in breach of its own guidance as it has allowed the advert in contrary to the main body of scientific opinion. This is a substantial flaw in the adjudication process.

Climate change is the defining issue of our time. The vested interests of companies such as Airbus is fundamentally derailing the debate and putting the entire future of the planet at risk. It is vital that this sort of misrepresentation is not tolerated. Its precedent is the cigarette adverts of the 1950s, were ludicrous claims such as safety cigarettes were fostered on an ignorant population. Adverts of this nature are exactly the same, only the implications of none action are greater.

I will also copy this correspondence to my MP, David Drew

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister