Letter to Princess Anne - following her trip to Greece

Dear Anne,

I watched with little interest your trip to Greece to bring back the “Olympic” flame. Unfortunately, there was not much I could do at the time to avoid it. It was covered in all the newspapers, all the television stations and most of the standard web sites such as Yahoo. All the well-paid editors of these organisations told us what a great and important job you were doing and how we should all be so grateful for your efforts.

I ask you to consider the absurdity of your actions and in future to show sensitivity to the minority of people in this nation that have pressing concerns about climate change. Not everyone is bowled over by consumerist propaganda, and some are quite distressed by it. Unfortunately, I can only assume that the privilege you enjoy prevents you understanding we have exceeded all the worst-case predictions on climate change. As a direct consequence, we face the inevitability of our civilisation collapsing by the end of this century, or worse the extinction of all virtually all life on our beautiful planet.

It is therefore totally unacceptable to see you flying all the way to Greece to pick up the tiniest little flame. Your flight would have contributed about 50 tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. There is the certain irony of the flames in the jet engines sustaining your flight dwarfing the pathetically flickering ember you brought back with you.

Like it or not, you and David Beckham, are amongst the top excess consumers in our society. Relatively simple maths shows that the top 5% of our society are responsible for about 30% of the global CO2 emissions. This group of top consumers are antisocial and destructive. As a key member of this group, you maintain your position in it through a symbiotic relationship with the same big corporations that are threatening us with further unsustainable growth. In case you did not notice, the airline that flew you was BA. While it tries to demonstrate egalitarianism with your outing, it simultaneously subverts the government’s attempts to cut the aviation industry’s carbon emissions. Its sponsorship of the Olympics is merely another element of an ongoing propaganda onslaught to make us believe that ignoring environmental responsibilities is the normality we should all accept.

As well as your own reckless excess consumption, there is also the question of your parenting ability and the morality that you instil in your children. Unfortunately, I could not avoid the reports of your daughter parading the Olympic torch around Cheltenham on her pet horse. Did you suggest at any time to your daughter that perhaps supporting one of the biggest propaganda exercises since the 1936 Nazi Olympics is not the best thing that someone in her position should be doing? I put it to you that encouraging your daughter to support consumption to excess just because the privilege of her birth allows her to do so is no better than someone at the bottom of society joining the riots in the city centres last year to enjoy the same pleasures of unbridled consumption. 

What further irony that as you flew all the way to Greece to get your little spark, and rubbed your privilege into the wounds of Europe’s first failed state, the Home Secretary was putting in place plans to stop waves of Greek economic migrants flooding our country. Her plans will be supported by force if necessary. The sad fact is that your actions support the absurdity of our country happily waving nationalistic Union Jacks as we firmly shut our borders to the desperate and disposed, while allowing the privileged and powerful of the Olympics to indulge themselves at our expense.

In these increasingly troubled times, we should not be surprised if we see a resurgence of extreme right wing nationalism. Nationalism is after all, what the institutions of this country put above everything else and what they are there to support. It seems that with Royal Weddings, Golden Jubilees and Olympics, they have never been so busy getting the masses ready for the forthcoming crises.

I am sure that you must be delighted to be playing your part.

From a citizen of the world, and a subject to no one,

Kevin Lister

Climate change and conflict

Why Gloucestershire should not welcome the Olympic Torch

Sent to all editors of Gloucestershire news papers

Dear Editor,

We are approaching the big day when the Olympic torch will be paraded through Gloucestershire.  It will, no doubt, be accompanied by headlines of how the people of Gloucestershire welcome its arrival and how we are all so grateful to support such an event. Hopefully, before the good people of Gloucestershire jump on the bandwagon, many will at least stop, pause and think what this has come to represent.

It is useful to recall the tradition of the Olympic torch. Adolf Hitler started it for the 1936 games. He also is famous for going on to start the Second World War, gassing the Jews and trying to implement a scorched earth policy. Since 1936, the Olympics and politics are inseparable. It gives odious nations and destructive corporations the opportunity cleanse their image to the world.  The Olympic movement has shown that it is not too bothered which organisation capitalises on this opportunity, so long as the money rolls in.

In a clear demonstration of Olympic amorality, this year they have seen fit to award BP the title of its “sustainability partner.” This is greenwashing on a monumental scale. BP is the company that virtually destroyed the Gulf of Mexico, is destroying the Canadian Forests through their tar sands projects and now threatens to destroy the Arctic with deep sea drilling. They are one of the most polluting and destructive organisations on the planet. Their actions are leading us to disastrous runaway climate change. They are joined by fellow sponsors such as BAA which is arm twisting the government to expand the carbon intensive aviation industry and Dow Chemicals who are yet to adequately compensate the victims the Bophal disaster.

We should be under no illusions how bad the environmental catastrophe is that these large corporations are seducing us towards. Every single measurement of climate change is either at or exceeding the worst-case scenario of the 2007 IPCC report. We have been put firmly on the path to extinction.

To put it in perspective, today’s corporate sponsors of the Olympics are succeeding where their predecessor Adolf Hitler failed. They are successfully implementing a scorched earth policy by maximising carbon emissions and triggering runaway climate change. They are knowingly gassing the planet for today’s young people with critically dangerous levels of greenhouse gasses. By comparison Hitler limited his gassing mainly to the Jews. The directors of these corporations know what they are doing is wrong and immoral, but they choose to continue and hide behind propaganda.  They should take note that the defence of only carrying out orders and pleading ignorance failed at Nuremberg.

As well as the corporate sponsors, we should also be looking at the countries that come to play at the Olympics. Why do we let Bahrain and Saudi Arabia come when they are abusing human rights so violently at home? Why do we let India, Pakistan and Israel come when they have refused to abide by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and are leading the world closer than ever to nuclear war? Why do we let Russian and China come when they concern us so much we are about to impoverish our country by spending £100billion on replacing Trident? Why do we let America come when its corporations have lobbied so hard to stop climate change agreements?

We do this because it is more important the interests of the corporations and governments who profiteer from the Olympic movement are protected than the people they endanger.

The real problem is that our survival relies on us collectively facing up to enormous challenges. It has been said many times that we cannot continue with business as usual. Unfortunately, the message from the Olympics is that we should carry on with business as usual; we should look the other way when we know we should not and we should believe the unsustainable can be sustained.

The sad reality is that the Olympics are an anachronism from another time that we cannot return to.  The people of Gloucestershire should not welcome the Olympic torch.

References:

 E-mail to board of BP directors 

Copenhagen Diagnosis report

Indian violation of the NPT

Open Letter to Theresa Villiers MP, Aviation Minister

Subject: Is the B787 Dreamliner the end of the road for aviation?

Dear Theresa,

Boeing’s B787 Dreamliner world tour has just finished its stop over in the UK. The media presented it as the next generation plane that would sweep aside the challenges of climate change with the latest new technology.  Nothing is further from the truth. The reality is that the B787 is a high risk and desperate last throw of the dice by an industry whose survival is inherently incompatible with the combined crises of climate change and peak oil.

As you wrestle with the concept of making aviation sustainable, it is important you fully understand how the limitations of aero-engineering drive the commercial risk exposure to unacceptable levels.

Publicly available information on the Boeing 787 show the typical number of seats is 280, the fuel capacity is 138,700 litres and a range of 15,700 km.  Crudely, this gives a fuel consumption of 0.0316 litres/passenger km.

Similar data for the long range Boeing 777 is 350 seats, a fuel capacity of 181,283 litres, and a range of 17,000 km giving a fuel consumption of 0.0304 litres/passenger km. Using the same data for the A380 gives 0.032 litres/passenger km. Thus there is little if any measurable improvement between the B787 and previous generation planes such as the B777 and the A380 when taken on this basis.

The immediate question this raises is what has happened to the much-hyped efficiency improvements of the B787? The answer is simple. The B787 is smaller than the B777 and A380. As such, it loses economies of scale.  So the new technology simply allows a smaller plane to fly with the same seat efficiency of a larger one and with a more comfortable interior.

But this was the business strategy. Boeing wanted to get the efficiency and range of a larger plane on a smaller plane to exploit the potential of the point-to-point transport model. This would enable the aviation industry to circumvent the restrictions of the major hubs such as Heathrow and continue to grow through exploitation of regional airports.

This business model is hubris on a grand scale. It flies in the face of all the platitudes of the aviation industry about their newfound concern for the environment.  Flying thousands of B787s around the world in a point-to-point network is the most effective way to maximise carbon emissions and it ignores the economic realities of escalating fuel prices.

If the aviation industry were genuinely concerned about carbon emissions, it would have used the technology in the B787 to design slower planes.  By way of comparison, the Lockheed Constellation of the 1940’s had an efficiency of 0.0334 litres/passenger km. This is well within the margin for error for the Boeing 787. Its equivalent efficiency to today’s super modern planes was delivered by basic physics. This tells us that drag is proportional to the square of speed, power is proportional the cube of speed and if you want to fly further you have to use energy to carry the extra fuel.  So doubling the speed increases drag by a factor of four and the power consumption of the engines by a factor of eight, making an efficient plane one that flies slowly over short distances.

So the claims of Boeing and the aviation industry to have produced a revolutionary fuel-efficient plane are wrong. Their technology simply allows smaller planes to continue to fly fast and cover the long distances that only larger planes could previously manage.

More critically the development costs of the B787 are an industry record of $10billion. This gives the B787 the dubious distinction of having the lowest ever ratio between improvements over its predecessors to developments costs. It is another first associated with this plane, but one that Boeing’s marketing department keeps quiet. As such, the B787 brings aviation’s unsustainable trend of increasing development costs and diminishing returns to a critical apex.

The recent history of the A340 puts this risk into perspective. The A340 served long haul routes, but being larger than the 787 its fuel consumption of 0.031 litres/passenger km was comparable.  When oil prices rose in 2008 operators could not run it profitably as its breakeven load factor increased to 120%. This led to the plane being taken out of service and the A340 production line was shut down in 2010.

Similar developments are now being witnessed with other airlines. Qantas recently announced a delay to its A380 programme. This is largely driven by diminishing margins in the face of rising fuel costs and carbon taxes. The same economics will inevitably apply to other airlines and they will come to similar conclusions. Policy makers must realise that these events taken together are cause for serious alarm, especially as the A380 was billed as the world’s most efficient plane on its recent debut into commercial service.

The danger for Boeing is as the economics of the B787 are not significantly better than the A340 on a per seat basis the whole project is highly exposed to increases in fuel prices.  It will take only a modest increase in the price of oil to render the whole project none viable, and with it much of the aviation industry.

If this sounds implausible, then it is worth remembering that the B787 concept was developed in 2004 to allow growth in aviation to continue. It was not designed to help the industry consolidate in the face of rising fuel costs and environmental danger. The idea of whole classes of modern planes such as the A340 becoming redundant overnight was not even on the horizon.

These are fundamental issues no aviation minister can ignore. They determine future policy. Aviation growth cannot continue in the face of rising fuel costs, rising development costs and rising production costs. As such, the role of the aviation minister must be to chart the decline of the aviation industry in a way that can be done with the minimal amount of pain for those that are in the industry and those that depend on it.  The alternative is to ignore the evidence and wait for the industry to collapse suddenly and painfully and to take everyone else with it. 

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister Bsc (aero Eng), MBA

Quantifying the carbon budget of Trident

If the government will not quantify the carbon budget of Trident, we will.

We can not cooperate on climate change when we are locked into competitive engagement  

Today is just another day of destruction - nothing special

Article from Indymedia - posted 28th Feb

Today is just another day, nothing special and nothing unexpected happened. The Occupy camp was smashed in London, the shelling continued its slaughter in Syria, the drum beat for nuclear war against Iran beats another decibel louder, the world’s nuclear armed competitors meet in Moscow to see how they can co-operate to protect their aviation industries from ineffective European legislation for carbon trading, orders continue to be placed for long lead items for Trident and Russia announces its biggest ever military build up. It is just another day of routine destruction, suppression, violence and stupidity in our collective march towards armageddon. 

It could however have been a different day because today is the 28th February. This is the day that the world’s governments agreed at the Durban climate change talks as the deadline for submitting proposals to increase the level of co-operation on climate change. 

You may remember the Durban Climate Change Conference. This was the great event that was billed as an outstanding success because a couple of women toiled through two consecutive nights to produce the Durban Platform agreement. Everyone went home happy. Delegates patted each other on their backs as they got in their private jets. The world’s press did as it always does. It toed the party line and reported the world was saved. They said we did not need to worry because everyone had agreed on a legally binding agreement on climate change to come into force in 2020. 

If you had that sneaking suspicion that something was wrong and you were being fooled, then you were right. Today was the first test and the world had failed totally and utterly. Because today not a single credible proposal for co-operation on climate change has been submitted from anywhere. There has not been a single report in any mainstream media outlet about this failure. Everyone, including the environmental movement has either ignored it or is so defeated by the fight that they could not summon the energy to read the Durban Platform. 

Maybe co-operation on climate change is just too difficult a thing to talk about. Faced with a collapsing ecosystem and energy shortages, co-operation means agreeing mutual sacrifices. This is a concept incompatible with a market-based economy that must keep on growing for its very survival. It is a concept that is incompatible with the massive military build-ups across the planet that collapsing nations need to secure the last available resources. It is a concept that is incompatible with beating other nation states through economic competition. These are all the things that we love. 

So bizarrely we have a paradox. The media will report on the coming horrors of climate change. The media will report and on the horrors of war in Syria. But there is not a single piece of mainstream media that will advocate the alternatives needed to allow co-operation to take place and prevent these unfolding horrors. 

Our government tells us how we must all do our little bit on climate change and it shelters behind glossy reports such as the Low Carbon Transition plan. None of their documents cover the CO2 budget for our military and the military that we build for our oil-producing allies. It certainly does not cover the carbon budget for Trident. Could these have been omitted from the reports by some strange accident? 

So while you are told to cycle to work and survive on the carrots that you can grow, the military industrial complex will go and build the biggest and most destructive weapon systems possible such as Trident and force our competitor nations to do the same. 

All this needs taxes and taxes are only generated by continued consumption and pollution. The resulting military and economic competition makes it impossible to agree to carbon reductions. So, it is absolutely no surprise we cannot co-operate on climate change. 

If we are serious about co-operating on climate change, then the first thing that we must do is force our government to publish the carbon budget for our nuclear deterrence and force our competitor nations to do the same. It is only by demonstrating the ecological disaster these weapons are forcing upon the planet and eliminating these that we can create the space to properly co-operate on climate change. The events of today show these systems that are supposed to provide our defence are actually locking us into a downward spiral of climate change devastation. 

Freedom of information request to find what is planned in our name

Dear Mr Lacy,

Thank you for your last email.

As you must appreciate this exchange of correspondence has followed a strange path. Firstly you were unable to provide any proposals to increase the level of ambition on international climate change co-operation. Then in the last email you say that something will be provided but that you cannot say anything about it. I am sure that you will understand that I should be rightly sceptical.

As this is an issue of major public interest, I would request that you make the proposals available under the Freedom of Information act.

I have also read the document that you have referred to in the last correspondence that was the basis of your position.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tackling-climate-change/carbon-plan/3702-the-carbon-plan-delivering-our-low-carbon-future.pdf

The following suggests the strategy for achieving the targeted CO2 cuts is highly unlikely to be achieved:

• The document has a heavy reliance on carbon capture and storage. Unsurprisingly this is proving to be a commercial failure. The basic laws of thermodynamics make the idea of carbon capture and storage a non-starter. It takes so much energy to extract the carbon, compress it and then mine and transport the additional coal needed to run the process it barely passes the basic test of viability. Its fundamental flaws are made especially acute in a world that has already run increasingly short of fossil fuel. Put simply, carbon capture and storage will speed us along the path towards peak oil and peak energy. 

• Likewise, your document bets heavily on nuclear. This is despite the ongoing and developing disaster in Fukishima where large parts of Japan are being abandoned forever.  I also note that there is nothing in the document about the carbon budget associated with the massive decommissioning programme that will eventually be needed  and how this will be catered for once our fossil fuel reserves have been exhausted.

• The other significant omission is the carbon budget for the military and the construction and operation of our nuclear deterrence. Please explain how this will be incorporated into the UK Low Carbon Plan and how taxes will be raised to fund it in the economic environment that the document presupposes. 

Your own figures show UK CO2 emissions are now rising. The emissions from the nations that we are compete with are also rising. This makes it more important than ever that we propose true co-operation on climate change.  I therefore find it hard to understand why as a minimum we cannot commit to quantifying the CO2 emissions associated with the Trident System replacement as part of the Durban Platform.

Regards,

Kevin Lister

Don't worry about climate change - the government has a secret and cunning plan

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your email of 8 February, in reply to my previous letter to you (TO2012/01993/BL) of 5 February.

The UNFCC document indicates our current thinking ahead of 28 February. As mentioned in my previous correspondence, the UK remains committed to tackling global emissions and will submit as part of the EU its views on increasing the level of international mitigation ambition. I am afraid that I cannot say anymore at this stage.

We are committed, in an ambitious way, to reducing global emissions. We have legislated to accept the independent Committee on Climate Change’s (CCC) advice on the level of the Fourth Carbon Budget. This is the most ambitious legally binding limit on carbon emissions set by any government in the world to date. This represents a 50% reduction of GHG emissions in the Fourth Carbon Budget period (2023-2027) as recommended by the CCC. Internationally, the achievements at Durban, which we have outlined before, were significant and places us on a roadmap which will lead to a new global legally binding agreement with emissions reduction commitments for all but the poorest and most vulnerable countries, as you know.

I referred you to the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009) in answer to your point about how we are plotting to cut emissions by 2020, rather than your question about carbon budgets.

Departmental carbon budgets were announced in the Low Carbon Transition Plan on a pilot basis. However, the latest on how we are now managing our carbon budgets is set out in the Carbon Plan (published on 1 December 2011) on page 118:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tackling-climate-change/carbon-plan/3702-the-carbon-plan-delivering-our-low-carbon-future.pdf

The Carbon Plan also sets out the Government’s plans to meet the fourth carbon budget and showing how doing so sets us on a plausible pathway to 2050. For further information, visit:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tackling-climate-change/carbon-plan/3702-the-carbon-plan-delivering-our-low-carbon-future.pdf.

I do apologise for the lack of clarity on this point.

Yours sincerely,
Bill Lacy
DECC Correspondence Unit

UK Low Carbon Transition plan says make carbon budget for Trident

Dear Mr Lacy,

Thank you for your last correspondence and ongoing assistance in helping me understand the government's plans for abiding by the intent of the Durban Platform deadline date of the 28^th February for submission of proposals to raise the level of ambition for international co-operation on climate change.

I have read the document that you referenced:

http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/lca/application/pdf/pl-_09-19-ambition.pdf .

Unfortunately, this does not give any specifics about what this government or any other will do to raise the level of co-operation. It is merely a skeleton document with no flesh. It acknowledges the most optimistic scenarios will result in catastrophic global heating and that the level of ambition needs to be raised such that we can achieve a 50% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050.

It is worth pointing out that today's global emissions are already twice those of 1990. We therefore need to reduce global CO2 emissions to a quarter of today's.

I am delighted you have confirmed “the government will submit as part of the EU its views on increasing the level of international mitigation ambition by the 28 February.”

I, and many others, would simply like to know what these are. On the basis that nothing has yet been published, there has been no media debate on the issue and no government announcements, we are entitled to be sceptical that the issue is being treated with the seriousness it merits. Can you confirm the government will announce before hand its proposals and give a date for these?

I would also like to thank you for referring me to the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan

Page 7 of this document says, “For the first time, UK Government departments have been allocated their own carbon budgets.” This flatly contradicts your previous response when you said, “The five year Carbon Budgets introduced by the Climate Change Act 2008 set a cap or limit on greenhouse emissions on an overall economy wide basis and therefore don’t apply on an individual sectoral basis or a particular policy basis.”

Likewise, Page 36 says, “To stay on track, the Government is moving to a radical new approach. Every major decision now needs to take account of the impact on the carbon budget.” It is therefore not acceptable that for you to say that there has been no carbon budget impact assessment of pursuing Trident.

The comment on page 7 suggests that there should be a specific carbon budget for the ministry of defence and the arms industry. The comment on page 36 suggests that a decision to proceed with Trident should be subject to a carbon impact assessment. There can be no decision in government more major than the Trident replacement.

Please confirm that UK Low Carbon Transition Plan will be adhered to when it comes to the Trident Replacement.

I also note that the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan relies on carbon capture and storage being successful. As this is proving to be a failure globally, then there needs to be increasing focus on carbon budgets elsewhere and honesty in impact assessments.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

DECC climate change strategy is based on out dated documents

7 February 2012

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your email of 5 February, in response to my letter to you of 3 February (TO2012/01525/BL).

The Government is clear that domestic legislation alone is not enough to tackle climate change and that international cooperation is needed, as the Durban Platform states. In this sense, I would reiterate the achievements at Durban: the successful agreement to a roadmap which would lead to a new global legally binding agreement with emissions reductions commitments for all but the poorest and most vulnerable countries; a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to be agreed next year; and the establishment of the Green Climate Fund to help deliver financial support to developing countries to reduce emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change.

The UK remains committed to tackling global emissions, and will submit as part of the EU its views on increasing the level of international mitigation ambition by the 28 February, as set out in the Durban Conference on Climate Change. The EU submission of 20 September gives some indication of the views held by the EU on this issue. Please see the following link: http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/lca/application/pdf/pl-_09-19-ambition.pdf

I would also say that choosing between economic growth and going green is a false dichotomy; indeed, the two are inextricably linked. It is from the green industry that economic growth will come (to take one example from just one industry, up to 10,000 jobs will be created in the the solar panel industry in the next three years).

On Trident, I reiterate that the five year Carbon Budgets introduced by the Climate Change Act 2008 set a cap or limit on greenhouse emissions on an overall economy wide basis and therefore do not apply on an individual sectoral basis or a particular policy basis.

I appreciate your strong views on the issue of Trident. However, as we have said before in previous correspondence, the Government’s position is that, while we are committed to the long-term goal of nuclear disarmament, we believe we can best protect ourselves against these threats by the continued operation of a minimum, credible nuclear deterrent. Accordingly, this Government has committed to maintain the deterrent and to continue with the programme to renew it as debated and approved by Parliament in 2007.

Whether or not you agree with it, Parliament has taken a conscious and well informed decision and we are not sliding towards Trident’s replacement.

Carbon budgets are legally binding and Government is totally committed to meeting them. Indeed, the latest emissions projections (published June 2010) show we expect to reduce emissions to below the first three carbon budgets by 29 MtCO2e, 68 MtCO2e and 50 MtCO2e, respectively (central emissions scenario).

We do not agree that not meeting our emissions targets is ‘likely’. However, if the budgets are not met through reductions in domestic emissions, carbon credits can be bought to meet them. Government has to set a limit on the amount of credits that can be purchased on a carbon budget by budget basis. The limit for the first budget period is zero.

If a carbon budget is exceeded, even taking into account of any credits, section 19 of the Climate Change Act requires that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out proposals and policies to compensate in future periods for the excess emissions.

The statutory basis of the targets and budgets in the Act means that any failure to meet a budget carries a risk to Government of judicial review.

In answer to your question on carbon reductions, please refer to the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009), found on the DECC website, which plots how the UK will meet cuts in emissions by 2020:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/carbon_plan/lctp/lctp.aspx

Yours sincerely,
Bill Lacy
DECC Correspondence Unit

Further request for the proposals for international co-operation on climate chaange

Dear Mr. Lacy,

Thank you for your reply on 3^rd February.

You say “The ‘Durban Platform’ is a roadmap to a global legal agreement applicable to all parties. Negotiations for the new agreement are to begin early this year.” This I understand. What the Durban platform states is “that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries.”

I have referred to the report you quoted. It makes it clear legislative policies are inadequate to avoid runaway climate change. Its introduction states, “With the latest figures on global emissions showing a 6% increase in 2010, it is clear
 that
 more
 needs
 to
 be
 done
 to
 slow
 and
 reverse
 the
 emissions
 of
 greenhouse
 gases
 if
 the
 international
 community
 is
 to
 have
 a
 realistic
 chance
 of
 limiting
 global
 average
 temperature
 rise
 to
 2^oC.
 
 This
 report
 demonstrates
 that
 legislators
 are
 responding to this challenge albeit not at the level of ambition required,” and goes on to say “Domestic legislation is not a substitute for international concerted action.” As it is international concerted action that is needed, my question still stands - what will the UK government propose by the 28^th February to ensure the international cooperation for tackling climate change happens?

Your response gives no evidence that either the government or your department is thinking through the implications of cooperation on climate change. Instead, your responses indicate thinking that remains wedded to the concept of maintaining business as usual. Your proposal of a Local Sustainable Transport Fund has as its objective creating economic growth. This is the opposite to what is needed to tackle increasing carbon emissions. Likewise carbon savings from the CRC reduction scheme will be quickly negated by economic growth. Furthermore, neither of these proposals will do anything to increase international cooperation on climate change. This is the objective of the Durban Platform.

Your admission that no assessment of the construction and operation of Trident has been incorporated into our climate change commitments is quite incredible. As you will appreciate Trident requires a massive military industrial complex and a significant proportion of our economic activity must be devoted towards raising the taxation for it. By pursuing Trident, we also force other nation states to follow suite and they will be caught in the same carbon trap. The end result is that the Trident type systems that nations are busily building around the world to protect their security have become the biggest threat to us all by locking us into high carbon industries and inevitable runaway climate change. This makes climate change agreements of the type we need impossible and forces nations to compete rather than cooperate.

As your response also says, “Through collaborative discussion and analysis, the preferred policies and measures to meet carbon budgets are agreed across government,” I again ask for the carbon budget associated with the construction, operation and funding of Trident. If you are not able to do this, then please answer the following:

Which sections of society will be the first to be forced to make cuts in the likely event the CO2 emission targets are not achieved?

Of the carbon reductions that you have quoted to 2022, how much of this is due to exporting manufacturing to highly polluting countries such as China?

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Government does not quantify the carbon impact of the military industrial complex

Email response from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (correspondence@decc.gsi.gov.uk)

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your email response of 29 January.

The ‘Durban Platform’ is a roadmap to a global legal agreement applicable to all parties. Negotiations for the new agreement are to begin early this year and are to conclude as early as possible and no later than 2015. The commitments in the new agreement will take effect from 2020.

Many details remain to be worked out over the coming months, including specific emissions reduction targets, the length of the commitment period, and a process for dealing with surplus emissions allowances. But the headline message is clear. The ‘Kyoto architecture’ – the rules and legal framework for managing emissions – have been preserved and can be built on in the future.

You asked for a copy of the GLOBE International research which has found that every major economy has now enacted climate or energy related legislation. Please see http://www.globeinternational.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-2nd-GLOBE-Climate-Legislation-StudyFINAL-VERSION.pdf.

We are doing much to move to a low carbon economy. On transport, for instance, we also promoting smarter travel choices through the £560 Local Sustainable Transport Fund – the fund will allow Local Authorities to invest in sustainable transport projects to help create economic growth and reduce carbon emissions.

There are other examples. We have introduced the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme as part of our long term strategy to combat climate change and secure our energy supply. This will change behaviours and effectively tackle energy waste. The CRC contains drivers such as the Performance League Table to provide reputational motivation, and thorough reporting of energy use to drive best practice energy management. The price signal of the financial element increases incentives and will bring the fight against climate change to the boardroom.

So, we are taking significant and ambitious action to go low carbon and tackle climate change on the domestic front.

You finished your letter with a number of specific questions about carbon budgets which I shall deal with in turn:

As it is the job of your department to speak to others with regard to carbon budgets then can you confirm the following to me:


What discussions your department has had with the Department of Defence about incorporating the carbon budget of building, operating, maintaining and disposing Trident within the UK carbon budget and Climate Change Act?

• The five year Carbon Budgets introduced by the Climate Change Act 2008 set a cap or limit on greenhouse emissions on an overall economy wide basis and therefore don’t apply on an individual sectoral basis or a particular policy basis.

What discussions has your department had with the Exchequer about quantifying the carbon produced from the section of society that must keep consuming and producing to raise taxes to fund Trident and how will this be incorporated into the Climate Change Act?

• No discussions have been held on that basis. The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions figures are calculated on a territorial or production basis rather than on a consumption basis, because international reporting to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change require this and also because emissions reporting data on a consumption basis is not as reliable. You may be interested to know that with current planned policies, latest projections published in October indicate that the UK is on track to meet its first three carbon budgets to 2022 and that we expect to reduce emissions to below their levels by 96, 132 and 87 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) respectively, based on central forecasts.

What discussion has your department had with the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Business about accommodating the carbon for the arms and weapons systems we manufacture for other nations into our carbon budgets? As you should be aware, we are providing Saudi Arabia with arms such as the Typoon jet. This is despite Saudi’s record of impeding climate change negotiations and the majority of the suicide bombers flying planes into the Twin Towers coming from Saudi Arabia.

• Through collaborative discussion and analysis, the preferred policies and measures to meet carbon budgets are agreed across government. The resulting information on emissions savings estimates by policy provide a tool for assisting in tracking progress and risks to delivery and act as a benchmark for what we expect policies to deliver. Departments are held accountable for delivery through a framework of regular monitoring and reporting against their actions and indicators of progress. You may be interested to read the Carbon Plan, the Government’s strategy which sets out scenarios for achieving the 2050 80% reduction target, and emissions reductions and decarbonisation that will be needed along the way. The Government reports publicly on progress against the actions in the Carbon Plan on a quarterly basis and provides more detailed updates via its response to annual progress reports by the Committee on Climate Change every year.

If you have not yet instigated these discussions, can you confirm that they will immediately commence and that conclusions will be made public before the 28th Feb.

• As mentioned previously given that we don’t calculate our carbon budgets on an individual policy basis, there are no plans to discuss individual projects or policies in this way.

Yours sincerely,
Bill Lacy
DECC Correspondence Unit

Trident and climate change - demand for answers before 28th Feb from DECC

Dear Lacy, 

Thank you for your email response. However, you have not answered the questions that I asked.

To be clear, I asked what proposals DECC would put forward to the Durban Platform on the 28^th February that would increase the level of co-operation on climate change needed to avoid runaway climate change. Other than the EU-ETS, you have provided none. As you are aware the EU-ETS is not a beacon of co-operation on climate change. The Chinese, American and Indian government's are all working together to overturn it and the carbon trading scheme under which it operates has been proved to be a mechanism for fraud and obfuscation.

The lack of vision your department is showing is highly disturbing.

You quote “Research by GLOBE International has found that every major economy has now enacted climate or energy related legislation.” However I can find no reference to this on their web site. You have also not provided evidence on the effectiveness of their proposed legislation in reducing the totally of CO2 emissions. I would therefore appreciate a copy of GLOBE International research that you refer to.

In contrast to GLOBE International, the International Energy Agency have a much more pessimistic view of our future. They predict that current policies are locking us into global warming in excess of 6 deg C as we continue building carbon dependent infrastructure.

The events in this country over the recent weeks supports the IEA vision of the future. Our government wants to pursue a major additional hub airport in the Thames, has authorised a high speed rail requiring locomotives with 12 times the power consumption of those used in the past and supports a range of other high carbon industries.

In your response to me to, you asked that I refer the question of Trident to the Ministry of defence. However, as it is the job of your department to speak to others with regard to carbon budgets, then can you confirm the following to me:

• What discussions has your department had with the Department of Defence about incorporating the carbon budget of building, operating, maintaining, defending and disposing Trident within the UK carbon budget and Climate Change act?
• What discussions has your department had with the Exchequer about quantifying the carbon produced from the section of society that must keep consuming and producing to raise taxes to fund Trident and how this will be incorporated into the Climate Change Act?
• What discussion has your department had with the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Business about accommodating the carbon for the arms and weapons systems we manufacture for other nations into our carbon budgets? As you should be are aware, we are providing Saudi Arabia with arms such as the Typoon jet. This is despite Saudi's record of impeding climate change negotiations and the majority of the suicide bombers flying planes into the Twin Towers coming from Saudi Arabia.
  
• If you have not yet instigated  these discussions, can you confirm that they will immediately commence and that conclusions will be made public before the 28th Feb.

Trident and climate change - have DECC asked about Trident's carbon budget

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your email to my colleague Hadiza Kasimu, in response to her correspondence to you (reference TO2011/23141) about nuclear disarmament and climate change agreements.

I appreciate your concerns at the Durban outcomes but must emphasise that while Durban may not immediately place the world on the path to limiting climate change to our two degrees objective, it does make this path possible in a way it was not before. Durban acknowledged the gap between countries; existing mitigation pledges and the global 2 degree goal. It also agreed to a work programme to look at options for addressing this gap, with a view to increasing global ambition.

Aviation is an area where we are committed to press ahead despite the lack of international action and where the EU is standing firm. But a lot is already being done in Europe to lead the way and re-energise the debate. In January 2012 the EU has successfully included in the EU emissions trading system all emissions from incoming and departing flights into the EU territory. We are determined to make this work and the UK and EU are engaging with governments and industry around the world to make this happen.

Whilst we agree that there is still work to be done, it is not fair to say that countries will only start to reduce their emissions in 2020. Countries accounting for around 80% of global emissions have already pledged mitigation commitments or actions to 2020, and research by GLOBE International has found that every major economy has now enacted climate or energy related legislation. It is particularly encouraging that the large developing countries of Brazil, China, India, and South Africa – who together are likely to represent the engine of future global economic growth – are developing comprehensive laws to tackle climate change.

I note your comments on Trident and nuclear strategy. However, I can only reiterate the points made by my colleague Hadiza Kasimu about the Government’s position on this issue. That is, the Government believes that we need to take action to safeguard our national security at home and abroad. Clearly, the renewal of a nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system is not a decision to be taken lightly. However, the Government’s view is that this is not the right time for the UK to give up its nuclear deterrent. In many respects, we face a more dangerous situation now than we have for several decades. There are substantial risks to our security from emerging nuclear weapons states and state sponsored terrorism.

So, while committed to the long-term goal of nuclear disarmament, we believe we can best protect ourselves against these threats by the continued operation of a minimum, credible nuclear deterrent.

Accordingly, this Government has committed to maintain the deterrent and to continue with the programme to renew it as debated and approved by Parliament in 2007. Whether or not you agree with it, Parliament has taken a conscious and well informed decision and we are not sliding towards Trident’s replacement.

We are not in a position to answer the specific questions you ask about nuclear strategy. We can only outline the Government’s position as above and anything more specific on strategy is a matter for the Ministry of Defense.

I hope you find this response helpful.

Yours sincerely,
Bill LacyPreview
DECC Correspondence Unit

Protesting the Olympics and Met Police Support

Dear Theresa May,

What a strange story on the news tonight. You are reported as doing all you can to stop protest at the Olympics, yet the assistant commissioner of the Met Police, Bob Broadbent speaks out in favour of protecting the right to protest.

The Olympics is about the politics of power. It always has been and it always will be. The London 2012 Olympics has as its sponsors powerful mega-companies such as Shell, BP, BA, BAA amongst others. These are the very companies who have done everything to delay agreements on climate change and will continue to do so. Their business plans rely on continuing environmental destruction despite overwhelming evidence on climate change.  They are deliberately and knowingly pursuing a scorched earth policy.

The last organisation that ran the Olympics and attempted to implement a scorched earth policy was the Nazi party. Today’s corporations use the Olympics to justify their hold on power in exactly the same way.  Fortunately for this generation, the Nazi’s were not successful. Unfortunately for the next generation, the companies using this event to legitimise their business plans are on track to be totally successful with their scorched earth policies. 

Bob Broadbent speaking out so publicly on the right to protest is hugely significant. So far, the mega-corporations have had protection from the monopoly of legitimate violence that nation states use to impose laws that are pro-growth and pro-environmental destruction. Perhaps Bob Broadbent recognises preservation of the status quo is not in his interest or in the interest of the men and women under his command. Once the people who implement the violence of the state become repulsed with the recognition their mission is to support its destructive corporations then we will get genuine action on climate change.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Response to DECC - urgent proposals needed for Durban Platform

Dear Hadiza

Thank you for your email, reference TO2011/23141 in response to my letter linking the failure to achieve nuclear disarmament and the failure to agree climate change agreements.

Your letter confirms the worst fears.  We should prepare for the worst possible future of global heating, nuclear war and economic collapse. 

To address your points:

The Durban platform is flawed. It is premised on starting CO₂ reductions in 2020, we cannot wait this long. Atmospheric emissions are currently rising faster than the worst-case scenario of the IPCC report. Section 4 of the Durban platform suggests a review of the IPCC report is carried out over 2013-2015.  A two-year review is unnecessary and time wasting. Basic maths that is within the capabilities of a secondary school student shows the worst case scenario is already being significantly exceeded.

In 2010 the biggest ever atmospheric greenhouse gas increase of 6% was recorded.  If this trend continues annual emissions will have increased by 69% in 2020. We are not witnessing a mere increase in greenhouse gases. We are witnessing an explosion.

The situation is so severe that even cutting emissions to zero today would not guarantee that global heating can be kept below 2 deg C. By contrast, a downward reduction starting at 2020 following the exponential increase that we expect over the coming years makes planetary survival impossible.

In these circumstances it is absolutely incredible to hear that time continues to be wasted with debate on what to do with unused carbon credits from the first period.

It is hard to see how you can be so positive that the Durban Platform sends a signal to industry and business to invest in low carbon technology. There are no targets, other than to acknowledge that the existing targets will not keep the planet's temperature rise below the 2 deg C threshold and the leisurely timescale allows them 10 years of unfettered growth.

By contrast, restoration of economic growth remains the objective of all nations along with increasing greenhouse gas output. In the UK we are seeing proposals being put forward for an additional airport in the Thames, an energy consuming high-speed rail network and support for virtually every other high carbon industry. This country is no different from any other country in the world. There is absolutely no evidence of any substantive behavioural change since the Durban COP. Instead, there is increasing effort to preserve the business as usual scenario, despite it being manifestly more impossible and immoral to sustain. The current efforts by USA and China to overturn aviation's incorporation into the EU ETS further highlights how little the Durban COP has impacted actual behaviour.

This failure to see significant change in behaviour is in contrast to the opening sentence of the Durban Platform which acknowledges, “that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation.” However, the nation-state system that forms the basis of the COP compels nations to compete economically and militarily. Failure to achieve success in either sphere results in national collapse. The cooperation that is needed is therefore impossible in a competitive environment and it becomes impossible to transform to a zero carbon economy.

The epitome of this competition is the possession of nuclear weapon systems such as Trident. They require huge resources to build and huge economies to raise enough taxes.  The maximum cost estimate quoted in your response of £17billion for the platform and warhead is impossibly low. It takes no account of cost growth, which is likely to be high given the technological risks involved. It does not include operational costs, or the costs to defend Trident. Greenpeace’s well-prepared report suggested a more likely figure would be £100billion for the entire through life cost. Even their report does not include the cost for the eventual decommissioning of the submarine and disposal of the nuclear waste from both the reactors and the warheads.  Once the decision is made to pursue Trident, it becomes impossible to build a zero carbon economy, as consumption must be kept high to raise the taxes and a high carbon industry must be kept in place and operational to build it. Trident massively increases the stakes in a competitive environment.

What makes this expenditure totally inappropriate is that it is impossible to foresee any time when Trident could be used. Your letter correctly suggests, “We face a more dangerous situation now than we have for several decades. There are substantial risks to our security from emerging nuclear weapons states and state sponsored terrorism.”  If deterrence is credible we must be prepared to pre-emptively destroy cities such as Tehran in the event of a nuclear threat from Iran and before they strike our cities. It is hardly surprising they feel the need to build their own nuclear weapons. Likewise if a terrorist group such as Al Qaeda obtains nuclear weapons, which is not affiliated to a state, though gets state support such as from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, are we proposing to destroy Islamabad or Riyadh? It is better by far to focus on the dirty work of stopping nuclear weapons proliferation.

Given the strategic failure of Trident in the face of climate change, it is hugely disturbing that the initial gate document states a primary objective of the decision to proceed with a Trident replacement is that “We must retain the capability to design, build and support nuclear submarines and meet the commitment for a successor to the Vanguard Class submarines.”  This objective will be shared by our competing nations who also must continue to build nuclear submarines to keep their submarine building capability intact. This is the ultimate paradox; the thing that is meant to protect us has become our biggest threat. The nation states have become more concerned about the preservation of their arms industries than the security of their people. Both the UK security review of 2008 and the American Centre for Naval Assessment concluded that their biggest threat was climate change.

As a further disconnect from reality, the initial gate document states that the Trident replacement will “deliver our minimum credible nuclear deterrent out until the 2060s.” This is beyond 2050, when the planet is not expected to be habitable through global heating. If Trident is successful in preventing nuclear war, then the last survivors on the planet will be the crews of the Trident submarines and their equivalent submarines from other countries. If for no other reason, this is the strongest reason for not proceeding with replacement. There will be no intact economy able to safely decommission the submarines and these will pose too big a risk to the few survivors.

Section 8 of the Durban Platform states “Parties and observer organizations to submit by 28 February 2012 their views on options and ways for further increasing the level of ambition.”  As a party to this I would ask that by this date you raise the linkage between nuclear disarmament and action on climate change.

I would therefore ask that you submit the following proposals for submission by the above date:

1.       There is a global agreement to stop further building of strategic nuclear forces.

2.       The existing strategic forces are put under a multinational command and any country committed to greenhouse gas reductions can join this grouping and seek protection from it.  

3.       That an alternative economic system is introduced based on personal carbon rations and these are tradable within the countries committed to carbon reductions.

If you are not able to advance these ideas, then please advise what alternatives you propose that will allow the international co-operation needed to avoid disaster.

This correspondence will be made public on my blog http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister