Aubrey Meyer commented on Threat of unprecedented jail sentence for Heathrow 13 helps amplify protest 2016-02-22 17:27:24 +0000To Whom It may Concern at the Willesden Magistrate’s Court
I write to you (below) regarding the sentencing of the so-called “Heathrow 13”, following the judgment against them last January for their actions at Heathrow in the summer of 2015.
I understand this sentencing is to take place on the 24th February. I would be beholden to you if you would pass this information to the Deborah Wright, the judge presiding.
While they classify technically as ‘trespass’, as is well known, the actions of the Heathrow 13" were prompted largely by concern about the rising greenhouse gas emissions from the airline industry in general, and Heathrow Airport in particular.
In the light of the very stark message below, the actions of the Heathrow 13 for opposing the runaway rates of climate change associated with any Runway 3 at Heathrow were not inappropriate, while jailing them certainly would be.
There is no doubt whatsoever that, if airline emissions continue unchecked to grow at 5.5%/year (as projected by International Civil Aviation Organization – ICAO) they alone in spite of the success or failure of all and any other attempts at emissions control, will raise human-emissions and atmosphere-concentrations to runaway rates of global temperature rise going over 5°C by 2100: – http://www.gci.org.uk/images/ALE2.png http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/ALE2.pdf
This statistic is utterly appalling and possibly to some still seems quite remarkable. However, Sir David King, the UK Government’s Special Representative and Chief Negotiator on Climate Change at UN climate negotiations last December, presented this ‘COP-21 & the Way Forward’ analysis to the International Energy Agency (IEA) on January 29th this year.
What he said there, at that most distinguished and senior international level, could not have been said with greater clarity or authority: – “We will have to be very proactive to secure our future” – to whit he said: . . .
“What I am now going to show you is the behaviour if you integrate all of the INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) and see what the emissions pathway looks like and that’s shown in the yellow point-curve.
The curve which shows the blue below it is the behaviour committed by Governments in Paris": – http://www.gci.org.uk/images/TIM_Tryout_2a.png
“And you’ll see that if we follow that, it goes up to 2030. So there’s a first disadvantage of the Paris Agreement – most countries have only committed until 2030; the USA not even quite that far.
But if we add those up & then assume that we can accelerate the pathway, but only after we have achieved the 2030, you’ll see that we’ve drawn a roughly realistic pathway into the future.
Now what does that add up to in terms of temperature rise?
Well I am afraid to say that it adds up to 3-4° C temperature rise.
So now let’s go back and ask another question. If we look at the emissions per annum on the curve that has the sharpest fall, so that by 2035 we’ve actually become greenhouse gas neutral on that curve, that’s the curve required to stay below 1.5°C with a 50% chance.
In other words, from this analysis, we’ve got to be very lucky to stay below or at anything close to 1.5°C.
If you look at the blue dots and the red dots, those two curves represent two different valuations of the fall required to stay below 2.0°C with a 50:50 chance.
So somewhere between the red the blue and the yellow curves, is the pathway we need to be on if we are going to secure our future.
Now that’s quite a big difference between those pathways and the pathway shown in yellow of the simple adding up of the INDCs. But then let me emphasize, I believe we can do far better than those INDCs.
The point about my presentation to you is,
we will have to do much better and we will have to be very proactive in doing that."
Aubrey Meyer is following this site, wanting to find out more about the South East Green Party.