E mail to Mark Ryan, MD of Gloucestershire Airport

Click here to go back to my home page

Dear Mark

I listened with interest to your recent interview on Radio Gloucestershire and your explanation of the benefits that will arise from the development of the airport. I have already written to councillors in Tewksbury , Gloucester and Cheltenham , (see my blog)

Unfortunately, as I listen to your interview, I can not help but remember the story of King Canute as he tried to turn the tide back. However, I am not sure if I am King Canute trying to turn the tide of airport expansion, or if you are King Canute in pursuing a carbon intensive development against the overwhelming tide of scientific development and hoping that no bad will come your way.

You must by now be aware of climate change and surely you must be aware of the dangers that it poses to us all. If you are not I can explain. I am a maths lecturer and have looked deeply in the mathematics of it. I can assure you that we face a situation of unprecedented and unequivocal danger. The problem was further highlighted just this week with the report that the Southern Ocean is now fully saturated with CO2. If this does not make responsible and intelligent people stop and reconsider their positions, then we are genuinely doomed.

The problem that I have with your position, and the problem that deep down you must also have, is that you are trying to make your position on the expansion of your airport seem good by comparing your intentions with the "baddest boys in the class." Your position is a bit like saying that it is okay to rob the corner shop because it is small in relation to the great train robbery.

The weakness of your position is best illustrated with the points that you have raised in your web site and in your project summary.

Your have said that “We (Gloucestershire airport) are committed to the UK aviation industry's Sustainable Aviation Strategy.” However, there is no clear definition and agreement on what a sustainable aviation strategy is. Given the science, the current level of aviation emissions is not sustainable, let along any further increase as planned. The aviation strategy also assumes growth in aviation. Growth in anything is not sustainable! Eventually you will always reach limits. Unfortunately the emerging evidence is that we have probably already breached these and that we may simply be living in the time lag period between causation and effect. Statements such as Sustainable Aviation are misnomers that are designed to spin the government out of difficult decisions. You should have the insight to see this.

You have said “Aviations contribution to global warming, relative to other economic sectors is currently small.” This is wrong. Relative to other economic sectors aviations contribution to global warming is large due to accentuating factors such as radiative forcing. It appears small in reports such as Stern because the Stern report includes the contribution for deforestation and only talks about direct CO2 emissions. Coming back to my previous point, you are fundamentally comparing your emissions against sources such as deforestation. This does not make your proposals benign.

You have said “Climate change is a global issue and action is needed at local, national and international level.” You are correct to point out that action is needed at all levels. This also means everyone recognising that their actions contribute. I feel that I am being patronising in saying that stopping expanding your airport is a local action that you can take.

You have said “Emissions trading are the most effective market mechanism for achieving improvements in the aviation industry and an important component of Government policy is the inclusion of aircraft emissions in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.” This is simply not true. Despite the government’s rhetoric, it has absolutely no detailed plan on how emission trading can work on the international stage to achieve a significant reduction in aviation emissions. The impact of the acceleration of aviation is such that virtually all manufacturing in the EU would have to be stopped to ensure that the existing targets are achieved. On the subject of emissions trading, Douglas Alexander (Transport Secretary) said to the Environmental Audit Committee:

“In terms of where we are in those negotiations, the evidence from the public statements of Lufthansa, even in the last 48 hours, evidences that the argument is not yet won within the aviation community. It is also no secret that some of our international partners are less than convinced of the merits even of a European scheme, never mind a wider scheme given the global nature of air travel"

Even the government's recent draft climate change bill suggests that if aviation were to be bought into the ETS system, the targets would be moved to accommodate the extra emissions. This is hardly a recipe for robustly managing global warming.

You have said that you will “minimise greenhouse gas emissions through the use of energy saving measures in the buildings and services within our control and improvements to aircraft operational procedures.” This is welcome, but it is fiddling while Rome burns. Your increased services will by far outweigh any improvements to buildings that you make.

In your interview with Radio Gloucestershire you implied that because Boeings and Airbuses will not be using the extended facilities that this somehow makes the proposals acceptable. However, with a significantly increased service pattern your emissions will increase significantly, regardless of the badge on the plane, perhaps not as much, but they will increase none the less. The science is clear. We can not countenance any further expansion of aviation, however regrettable.

You have also made misleading claims elsewhere on your web site such as if there were no airport, housing developments on the site would create more CO2 emissions than the airport. However, houses are built to accommodate an expanding population in the area. If they are not built on the site of the airport, they will be simply be built somewhere else.

I could go on picking holes in your arguments as easily as you put the arguments up. However what I would ask you to do is read your history books in light of the emerging evidence and try and find a time in the past were people were faced with apparently unending opportunities at the expense of those who had no say. The closest parallel I can find is with the German people during the rise of fascism when many benefited from the property confiscation of the Jews and the expansion to the East. Few protested, largely as a result of the improvements of their living standards and most supported the Nazi party. Your children and my children stand in the same place as the Jews. Their future is being stolen from under their feet and they have no say in it, but it is a guaranteed certainty that by robbing them of a future they will suffer in ways that will far exceed the Jews. I appreciate that you are doing your job in pressing for the expansion of the airport and that you probably have a family to support. However, continue the analogy with Germany a bit further. In the Nuremburg trials, “just following orders and doing my job” was not considered to be a defence.

I trust that you appreciate that I draw this comparison as an illustration of the severity of the challenge that we face. I am sure that you are an honourable person and that you will not take it in any way that I imply you are a Nazi.

As a society we will face major decisions in the near future were we have to accept sacrifices to our standards of living and expectations in order to secure our survival. Airport expansion is one of the first major tests of our resolve were we replace the expansionist business models of the past with alternative consolidation and retrenchment models. By taking on this challenge, Gloucester Airport has the opportunity to be a role model in the future world that we are rapidly and uncontrolably moving towards. I urge you to reconsider your position on this expansion.

On a more positive historical note from Ghandi "Be the change that you want to be."

Yours,

Kevin Lister,

2nd e-mail to all Tewksbury Councillors on Staverton Airport

Click here to go back to my home page

Dear Councillors,

In my last email (see post below) to yourselves regarding the planning application for Staverton Aiport, I warned that the un-stated objective of the developments at Staverton airport was to facilitate new infrastructure to allow the introduction of passenger services from the airport and that it was not just to improve safety as the airport management claimed. I argued in my previous email that given the latest evidence on global warming, especially in the light of the IPCC report, this was unacceptable. The report in this week’s Gloucester Echo (attached below) has confirmed the worst fears.

It is now clear that the airport management's claim that the development was safety related was clearly designed to mislead and avoid the necessary public scrutiny that an airport development should be subjected to, especially given the increasing public concern about global warming.

To give an order of magnitude of the environmental impact of this development, I previously calculated that the proposed development would require approximately 1.5 million trees to be planted to absorb the CO2 produced. Given the increased number of flights that the airport management is now claiming it wants to introduce, this will be an under-estimate.

Despite the airport management’s claims, the development will have a significant global warming impact. It is incumbent on yourselves to oppose this development for the following reasons:-

• Aviation is the fastest growing source of carbon emissions. Current government policy effectively provides unrestricted development of aviation in the face of all credible scientific evidence. The governments own figures show that aviation's emissions will treble by the year 2050.

• The government and the aviation industry, (including the Staverton airport web site) claim that aviation emissions can be managed through incorporation of aviation into the European Carbon Trading Scheme. This is a cynical lie. The transport secretary (Douglas Alexander) on being questioned by the environmental audit committee on the inclusion of aviation into the European Carbon Trading Scheme said:-
  
  "In terms of where we are in those negotiations, the evidence from the public statements of Lufthansa, even in the last 48 hours, evidences that the argument is not yet won within the aviation community. It is also no secret that some of our international partners are less than convinced of the merits even of a European scheme, never mind a wider scheme given the global nature of air travel"
  
  It is therefore absolutely obvious that there is no mechanism in place that will ameliorate the emissions generated from this development or for that matter any other airport expansion, despite the claims made by Staverton airport and others within the industry.

• The aviation industry would like to claim that their emissions are a small percentage of the overall total compared to power generation and car emissions. However policies are gradually being developed to reduce these such as carbon capture for power stations and road pricing for cars. Aviation is the only major emitter of carbon that is doing absolutely nothing to reduce its total emissions.

• The airport's management claim that with the new development the total number of flights from the airport will not increase, implying that existing flights will be replaced by the new services. There is absolutely no evidence to support this and it is inconceivable that the airport management will terminate existing businesses and service contracts once they introduced new passenger services. The most likely scenario is that the existing customers will be maintained and the proposed new business will be run in addition.

• Tewksbury Council signed the Nottingham declaration on climate change. This is a powerful statement to make. However, actions speak louder than words and in this case the strongest statement that the council can make on their support for climate change is to completely and utterly reject the proposed developments at Staverton.
  

• The airport literature claims “business jets operating from the airport having the range to take colleagues to almost anywhere,” implying that this is important to businesses in the area. However as a council committed to the Nottingham declaration, it is incumbent on you to encourage businesses in the area to use low carbon forms of communication such as video conferencing, rather than allow the most carbon intensive mode of operation possible. Also, in reality a large number of these “business jet” flights are likely to be made by the rich and famous and will not support any critical business development.
  

• The airport has made and will continue to make the claim that its emissions are small compared to the adjacent motorway. However, this overlooks that fact that airport is actively seeking to increase its carbon emissions. If history has told us anything, it is that it is far easier to stop a bad idea from beginning than to stop a bad idea from continuing. Japan tries to continue whaling because it has a whaling industry to support, cars are driven long distances on motorways because people choose to live further from work and demand that motorways stay accessible so they can continue to work. In the near future as the impacts of climate change bite deeply into everyone’s standard of living and future security, those industries and people who have become dependent on airports like Staverton will argue that its continued operation is essential for the maintenance of their livelihoods, to the detriment of everyone else.

I therefore urge you to uphold the commitment that you have made to the Nottingham climate change declaration and reject this unnecessary and damaging development. The science on global warming is now unequivocal and it applies to us all.

Yours sincerely,
Kevin Lister

See article from This is Gloucestershire