Thursday, September 20, 2007

Minutes: 18th September (Video, Pdf, Text)

The meeting minutes are available as a PDF here.


Monday, September 17, 2007

Next meeting: Tuesday 18th September

Next meeting:
7:30PM Tuesday 18th September Room NK3 New Kings building, Aberdeen University, Corner of Regent Walk and High Street, Old Aberdeen.
On the Agenda:
Discussion of Camp for Climate Action, RBS Critical Mass, Working Groups, Fundraiser, Transition Town Aberdeeen? Shared Planet cooperation...a lot more!

Last weeks minutes here.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Biofuels from Large-scale Monocultures are not Clean Energy

Press release by Aberdeen Campaign Against Climate Change

-embargoed for 10am, 23/5/07-

Aberdeen Campaign Against Climate Change will be holding a banner protest outside the All-Energy Conference at the Exhibition Centre, on Wednesday, 23rd May, 9.30 am, to protest against the promotion of large-scale monocultures for biofuels. The protest will coincide with a speech to be made by the US Ambassador H.E. Robert H. Tuttle, who has defended the United States' 'climate policy' in a newsletter published by the organisers of the All Energy Conference, quoting biofuel expansion as his country's 'positive response' to global warming.
Almuth Ernsting of Aberdeen Campaign Against Climate Change says: 'The US government have been sabotaging progress at international climate conferences for years and their emissions continue to rise steeply. Large-scale biofuels do not mitigate global warming, but make it happen even faster, as rainforests and other ecosystems are rapidly being destroyed to make way for vast monocultures to grow crops for cars in rich nations”.
Earlier this year, over 250 organisations and prominent individuals from North and South sent an Open Letter to the European Union, which also promotes rapid biofuel expansion, warning that production of biofuel crops threatens to accelerate climate change, increases destruction of biodiversity, competes with food production causing price increases for staple crops, and threatens local communities in the global South. Serious human rights abuses are arising in South America and South East Asia related to monoculture expansion for biofuels.
Alan Fleming of the campaign states: "We are holding this protest outside the All Energy conference to make sure that people distinguish between clean, truly renewable sources of energy such as sustainable wind, solar, wave and tidal power on the one hand and biofuels from large-scale monocultures on the other. We are glad the All Energy conference will promote wind, solar and marine energy sources as part of the solution to climate change. However, companies with interests in biofuels who are presenting at the conference should be aware of the problems biofuels are creating. Both intensive agriculture and deforestation are major contributors to global warming and biofuels threaten to greatly increase those emissions. Poor countries already suffer from ever more extreme weather events and rising temperatures caused mainly by fossil fuel emissions from rich nations. Now, they are seeing their farmlands, forests and pasture lands transformed into vast monocultures as Europe and the US try to solve their energy problems at the expense of the global South."

The protesters will hold banners stating "One tank of SUV fuel = 1 year's food", "Deforestation for biofuels fuels climate chaos" and "Biofuels destroy forests and fuel climate change". They will hand information leaflets to people entering and leaving the conference.

Photo opportunity: from 9.30 am, 23/5/07, outside main entrance, Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre

1. For US Ambassador H.E. Robert H. Tuttle’s written contribution to the All Energy Conference,, Issue 2, page 6.
2. Aberdeen Campaign Against Climate change is a local campaign group which seeks to raise awareness of the causes of climate change and promotes individual and government action to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Further details can be found at
3. For background information about the impacts of biofuel expansion, see
4. Early this year, over 250 organisations and prominent individuals from North and South send an Open Letter against biofuel targets to the EU. This can be found at
5. US demand for biofuel from corn has increased the current world grain deficit, raising corn prices significantly, rising corn prices in Mexico by around 400% and leading to widespread protests in that country. A declaration by Latin American Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) has stated that “We want food sovereignty, not biofuels… While Europeans maintain their lifestyle based on automobile culture, the population of Southern countries will have less and less land for food crops and will loose its food sovereignty…” See: .
6. Indonesia's biofuel plans, are set to expand Palm Oil production 43-fold [] and threaten most of that country's remaining rainforests and peatlands. If those plans are implemented, up to 50 billion tonnes of carbon are likely to be released into the atmosphere. This is the equivalent of over six years of global fossil fuel burning would clearly stand in the way of our common objective of stabilizing the climate before feedback mechanisms make this impossible.7. NASA have shown that the rate of Amazon deforestation directly correlates with the world market price of soya []. That price is expected to rise sharply as demand for soya biodiesel grows. Soya expansion is linked to deforestation not just in the Amazon but also elsewhere, including the Pantanal, South America's Atlantic Forest and a portion of the Paranaense forest in Paraguay and North of Argentina. In Argentina, more than 500000 ht of forest land were converted to soya plantations between 1998 to 2002 [].

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Please take part in climate change bill consultation


The Government is circulating a draft Climate Change Bill for public consultation. It is available at: - Please respond to this consultation, and please write to your MP and ask that he or she calls for government support of Contraction and Convergence.

To find out more, see and .

You can edit and send off a 'standard' letter via this website:


Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Draft Climate Change Bill

I wish to respond to the draft Climate Change Bill. The bill’s intention to provide leadership in avoiding dangerous rates of global climate change is good and I support this intention. However, I have serious reservations about the vacuous context in which this UK-only target figure has been selected.

Lacking any globally numerate rationale for emissions control, it is at best symbolic and in reality wholly inadequate and deeply misleading. Concentrations of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere are an expression of cumulative emissions. The rate of concentrations rising is accelerating as a result of two factors:

-1. emissions from human sources – such as fossil fuel burning - are still rising, 2. the natural sinks for these gases – such as the oceans and the forests – are slowly failing with result that an increasing fraction of emissions is staying permanently in the atmosphere. These factors make the situation increasingly urgent as we continue to cause the problem of climate change much faster than we are acting to avoid it.

The relationship between concentrations, sources and sinks for emissions can best be understood like that of a bath [the atmosphere] into which water from a tap flows [source emissions] and from which water drains away through a plug-hole [sunk emissions]. The tap-is flowing faster than ever; the plug-hole is getting increasingly blocked and the bath is threatening to over-flow. If there is still to be any meaningful chance of achieving the objective of the UN Treaty, very deep cuts in human emissions and the restoration of natural sinks are needed globally, quickly and organised in a globally rational and equitable mechanism.The only emissions reduction mechanism that can be deployed to this purpose is Contraction and Convergence (C&C) as devised by the Global Commons Institute which already has enormous support: -

A leadership role on the international stage by definition requires C&C as, in the words of the Climate Treaty Secretariat the objective of the Treaty inevitably requires it. Failure to organise and achieve this imperils modern civilisation, the lives of billions of the people and the biodiversity on Earth. The Government must adopt Contraction and Convergence without further delay.

Yours faithfully,



Please either write a similar letter to your MP, or send a copy of your response to the Defra consultation and ask him or her to support calls for the government to support Contraction and Convergence without delay and to raise my concerns both in Parliament and with the Government.

You can email your MP via .

Monday, February 05, 2007

Briefing on Shell

Why Shell?

We produce oil that you need but we produce so much more than that !

More discussion about shell here, background on projects, actions and a video of the 'Art Attack' at London's Natural History Museum.

  • We produce epidemics of breathing disorders and cancer.
  • We produce more Co2 emissions through flared gas in Nigeria than the whole remainder of the Nigerian economy produces to support 130’000’000 people!
  • We produce areas of average biodiversity (from the worlds most biodiverse sites).

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Protest Against Gas Flaring by Shell in Nigeria

The text (minus pictures) below is from a leaflet which we handed out during a protest outside a Shell petrol station in Aberdeen on 3rd February. We were aware that other groups in the UK were planning protests against Shell on the same day, although we only found out those details through Indymedia afterwards ( Please take part in the email action at the end of the post! Many thanks.


Shell have just reported record annual profits of $25 billion - but insist that they can't afford to stop flaring gas and polluting vast tracts of Nigeria. And they refuse to pay the bill for cleaning up the 13 million barrels of oil which they have 'accidentally' spilled in Nigeria since they started their operations there.
They could capture and sell the gas, but instead they burn it on the ground, often right in the middle of farmers' fields.

It’s a disaster for the climate …
Gas flaring in Nigeria emits more greenhouse gases than all the other emissions from sub-Saharan Africa combined, according to the World Bank. Furthermore, regular methane leaks have been reported from pipelines. Methane is 23 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. People in Africa already suffer disproportionally from the effects of global warming, caused largely by the industrialised countries and the fossil fuel companies, including Shell.

It’s a disaster for local people …
For over 30 years, gas flaring has spewed a cocktail of toxic chemicals over vast areas of Nigeria. Some of the soil is now completely infertile, whilst pollution with benzene, dioxin, hydrogen sulfide and other toxins causes asthma, cancer, particularly leukaemia, respiratory diseases in children, and premature deaths. Oil spills have destroyed the livelihoods of fishing and farming communities.

Illegal …
Shell continues to flare gas despite a Nigerian Court of Appeal judgment that this is unconstitutional and breaches fundamental human rights.

What you can do:

1. Email Shell today and ask them to stop gas flaring in Nigeria and clean up the pollution they caused:
2. Ask the Director of the Natural History Museum, Michael Dixon, to stop working with Shell and to stop allowing them to sponsor the annual wildlife photography exhibition: send emails to and copy them to and

Leaflet produced by
Aberdeen Campaign Against Climate Change.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Write now to object to the Western Peripheral Route

Write now to object to the Western Peripheral Route!

The proposed Western Peripheral Route will cost many hundreds of millions of pound, lead to massive greenbelt development and will generate more traffic overall, which means more greenhouse gas emissions - at a time when we really need to cut our emissions very fast and steeply.

Some local politicians and some of the media seem to think that such a road will reduce congestion and therefore reduce emissions. The local group Road Sense, and Friends of the Earth Aberdeen, have compiled good evidence as to why this will not be the case. However, the same argument has been made many times in many cities and countries, and invariably road building increases traffic and congestion levels get back to what they were and then higher very quickly. As has happened in Newbury.

We do not need more traffic, but we need those hundreds of millions of pounds to build a low-carbon energy and transport system!

Please write your letter objection before 9th February. See the Road Sense website for full details of the address, how to write the letter, and which points you could include: .

Tuesday, January 02, 2007


On 13th December, Aberdeen City Council approved BAA’s application for a runway extention with a 33:6 majority. This decision is deeply disappointing, and a lot of us feel very unhappy with the way it was reached and with the debate that preceded it.

We have been advised that the Scottish Executive might decide to call in such an application if enough local objectors write to their MSPs and to the Minister for Communities.

You can write to your MSPs via this website: .
Since Malcolm Chisholm’s resignation, not new Minister for Communities has been appointed. You can write a general letter to ‘The Minister’ at, and also to the Deputy Minister of Communities, Des McNulty (same email address).

You might like to make the following points in your letter:

It is our understanding that Councillors were given no clear assurance that opposing the application against the advice from Planning Officers, and on grounds of global warming concerns, would not result in disciplinary/legal repercussions (they were told that this was unlikely but not that it could be ruled out).

Councillors were clearly advised that local authorities were not competent to refuse such an application on grounds of climate change. We do not know whether this is correct under Scottish planning law.

Councillors were advised not to allow a ‘deputation’, ie non-Members to give evidence because if the application was refused then BAA could challenge the refusal on grounds of ‘bias’ because both sides had not been given the opportunity to speak. After agreeing with this advice, it was then revealed that BAA themselves had asked for a deputation, thus undermining the argument regarding possible bias.

Chief Council Officer Margaret Bochel advised Councillors that the decision made by Uttlesford District Council to refuse an application by BAA to expand Stanstead airport was not relevant because this was not a comparable type of application. We subsequently enquired with campaigners against Stanstead airport expansion who state that they believe the Council’s arguments and reasoning would have applied to a runway extension in exactly the same way as they applied to the application for an increase in the total number of flights (ie the one which was refused).

Statements made in the Environmental Impact Assessment (commissioned by BAA) were accepted as facts without being questioned – despite clear evidence submitted by ourselves and individuals which completely undermine a number of those statements (see our briefing paper in the previous post).

One of our members took some very detailed notes of what was said at the meeting. If you would like us to email you those details, please contact us at Many thanks.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Briefing Paper to Councillors

Below is our briefing paper which we have sent to every Councillor in Aberdeen. We have also sent personal Christmas cards to the Councillors, wishing them a Merry Christmas and asking them ' Think Before You Vote - Aviation Fuels Climate Change'. Please join us outside the Town House in Broad Street at 1.30 pm on Wednesday, 13th December for a half-hour presence with placards and banners.

BAA’s Application for Runway Extension (A5/2080)
Briefing Paper by Aberdeen Campaign Against Climate Change

What is Aberdeen Campaign Against Climate Change:
We are a local group which seeks to raise awareness of the impacts of climate change and the need for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are affiliated to the national Campaign Against Climate Change ( We have no party-political affiliation.

Why is BAA applying for runway extension:
The 2003 Aviation White Paper calls for airport expansion across most UK airports and supports a trebling of aviation for the whole of the UK by 2030. BAA plc’s Outline Masterplan for Aberdeen expects a doubling in the number of passengers by 2030 and a steep increase in the overall number of flights. The runway extension is an essential part of BAA achieving that aim. It would allow heavier planes with greater fuel-loads, including cargo planes, to use the airport. Currently, BAA plc is owned by the Spanish toll roads operator Ferovial. It is more responsible to its shareholders than to people in Aberdeen. But the White Paper was written 3 years before the recent Stern Review into the Economics of Global warming and before the Environmental Change Institute’s report into ‘Aviation, Climate Change and Aviation Policy’. Public and political awareness of global warming has increased dramatically since then, even over the past year.

BAA says that two types of slightly more efficient aircraft, Boeing 737-800 and Airbus 321 require a larger runway to operate from Aberdeen airport. Both types of aircraft already operate from Aberdeen and it is said that they can only operate with a reduced passenger and/or fuel-load. More passengers and thus more fuel may increase ‘efficiency’ – but also they increase pollution and global warming. What matters to the climate is the total of fossil fuels that we burn. Some slightly more efficient planes, more passengers and a lot more emissions overall are bad news for the climate.

It is widely claimed that more cheap flights benefit many low-income families, however the Civil Aviation Authority has shown that this is a myth. The CAA state: “Their main effect has been to provide further opportunities to those in middle and higher income groups to fly more often.” Low-income households account for a small proportion of flights, because they can rarely afford the other costs associated with such holidays. (

How does airport expansion affect climate change?
With respect to climate change, BAA’s claims that the runway extension will allow some more efficient aircraft are irrelevant: it is the amount of emissions that matters. The runway extension would encourage a steep increase in emissions for the following reasons:

First, longer runways encourage larger and heavier planes, including more cargo planes, which tend to carry and burn more fuel. BAA has claimed that the runway extension is necessary to allow slightly more efficient Airbus 321 and Boeing 737-800 aircraft to fly from Aberdeen. Both types of aircraft already fly regularly from Aberdeen. A longer runway would allow them to carry more fuel and passengers – and again, this means more emissions, not less. What matters to the climate is the total of fossil fuels that we burn. A higher proportion of more fuel-efficient planes, but with more passengers and cargo and thus a lot more emissions overall are bad news for the climate.

Second, The number of passengers using Aberdeen airport grew by 9.9% last year. BAA predicts that there will be four more flights every hour during the day by 2015, and another 2 more flights per hour by 2030. This is a 20% increase in the number of flights in 9 years. Fuel efficiency will not compensate for this since it is forecast to improve by only 1% a year.

Third, claims that more direct flights from Scottish Airports mean fewer flights from the south-east of England are not backed up. Transport Minister Tavish Scott was asked in a parliamentary question whether there was any evidence that a single flight from England had been cut because of the large number of new direct flights from Scotland – his answer was no.

Fourth, at the Planning Meeting on 16th November, some Members suggested that more direct flights from Aberdeen would reduce greenhouse emissions from car journeys to other airports. However, per passenger-mile, aviation causes 2-10 times more global warming than surface transport (see: (See the European Federation on Transport and Aviation report: Publications/2006/2006-06_aviation_clearing_the_ air_myths_reality.pdf)

SNH stated in their submission to the Planning Department that they had requested an assessment of the impact of runway extension on overall greenhouse gas emissions caused by aircraft using Aberdeen airport, but that this was not done. The Environmental Impact Assessment makes some general statements about ‘efficiency’, but does not assess the carbon footprint of the present airport compared to one following runway extension.

Why is it so urgent to get our greenhouse gas emissions down now?
James Hansen, NASA’s most senior climate scientist, warns that without strong action on climate change in the next 5-10 years we will commit ourselves to a ‘very different planet’, with higher temperatures, rapid melting of ice caps leading to very destructive sea level rises and to extinctions on a massive scale. Methane, a more potent green-house gas than CO2, would be released from natural stores and would add to an irretrievable temperature-runaway. We need to cut global emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 50% initially, and then further, by at least 60-80% in total. We must start to stabilise levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now.

160,000 people a year are already dying from global warming, according to the World Health Organisation – after recent warming of less than 1°C. Death rates are expected to increase with the average global temperature. Developing nations are suffering most at present, but as temperatures rise, impacts will become more severe everywhere, including in Aberdeen.

It will be impossible to stabilise the climate if aviation is expanded at the rate BAA demands; more essential carbon-emitting activities would have to be reduced beyond reason. One return flight from London to Florida produces a global warming effect equivalent to 4.6 tonnes of CO2. This is more than the 4.45 tonnes that the average global citizen emits in a year! For comparison, the per capita CO2 emissions for the UK are above 9.1 tonnes per year, for India, 1 tonne per year, and for China, 2.9 tonnes a year. Countries like India and China have made clear that they want strong action to reduce emissions globally, but only if those actions don’t allow countries like the UK to burn an unfair share of fossil fuels.

At the Planning Meeting on 16th November, Mr. H. Campbell advised that ‘Global warming is an issue that is being discussed at International and National levels and if any decisions are made at these levels they will eventually trickle down into planning policy which we would implement. So we don’t feel that the issue of global warming should be hung onto the coat tails of this particular planning application’: This counsel of delay sends a wrong message. We have only 5-10 years.

Economic impact:
Information provided to the Planning Committee about the economics of this application, for their meeting on 16th November, looks sparse and limited. Claims that airport expansion would boost Aberdeen’s economy are over-simple and are not substantiated adequately.

Research by Friends of the Earth has shown that: ‘All regions except London run a huge economic deficit from aviation’. ‘Although foreign visitors spent £11 billion in the UK in 2004, UK residents spent more than double this (£26 billion) during trips abroad. This creates an overall loss to the UK economy of £15 billion per year. If airports expand as planned, more people will holiday abroad which is likely to double this tourism deficit by 2030. The cumulative extra cost to the UK economy in the coming decades would be well over £100 billion. ( deficit.pdf).

This view of the economics suggests a net drain on Aberdeen’s regional economy which would become worse with airport expansion. It is not adequate for members of Aberdeen City Council to assume that economic impact is a decisive factor in favour of this important planning application nor that further expansion would add significantly to the Airport’s present benefits to the region. If Aberdeen City Council believed that the short-term economic impact of airport expansion should a significant factor in their decision, then they might well wish to commission an independent economic assessment to establish the full facts.

The Stern Review, October 2006, stresses that the economic impact from unmitigated global warming will far outweigh any short-term gains: ( gov. uk/independent_ reviews/ stern_review_economics_climate_change /stern_review_report.cfm). The true costs, however, cannot be calculated in economic balance sheets – they will be counted in human lives.

Noise impact:
Although, primarily, we are concerned about climate change, we sympathise with the many people who already suffer noise from the airport and who will be exposed to increasingly frequent aircraft noise. BAA’s method of averaging aircraft noise, relied on by the Council, produces the ludicrous result that even a doubling of the number of flights would produce a barely perceptible increase in noise nuisance (+3dB LAeq) as they measure it. Also, it excludes noise from ground-running. Airport expansion, including extension of the runway, simply means more fixed-wing flights to and from Aberdeen and thus more noise events. It is unlikely that most noisy planes now in use will be replaced in the next 10-20 years. A longer runway generally allows heavier and larger aircraft to take off and land, including more heavily laden cargo aircraft. Heavier aircraft will still tend to be noisier, not quieter.

The World Health Organisation is an authority on the health impacts of noise. It states that:
‘- - for clear speech perception the background noise level should not exceed 35 dB(A).' ‘To protect the majority of people from being seriously annoyed during the daytime, the outdoor sound level from steady, continuous noise should not exceed 55 dB LAeq on balconies, terraces and in outdoor living areas’. ( guidelines2.html see also: Noise/ Pollution/ 20030528_2).
Aberdeen City Council uses 60 dBLAeq as a limit for daytime noise round new housing development; i.e. more than twice the sound pressure of 55 dB. BAA’s 2006 Impact Assessment doesn’t even show the daytime 55 dB contours.

Recently, Aberdeen City Council’s planners have misinterpreted the BAA-Enviros Impact Assessment 2004’s figures for the number of people likely to be awakened by night flights (they implied ‘per night’ when it meant ‘per flight’). Also, they have failed to provide adequate noise reports for local planning applications and for the current Public Inquiry into the Local Plan 2004, where also they quoted BAA’s misleading map of helicopter flight paths over housing areas. This inadequate approach to environmental noise provides little confidence in the Council’s environmental judgements. It re-enforces the need for a closer assessment of the environmental effects of expanding Aberdeen Airport, independent of BAA and other financial interests.

Road traffic impact:
BAA’s Outline Masterplan states that the number of car parking spaces could be increased by 600 by 2015. This, and more drop-off traffic, means more road traffic, noise and air pollution in areas around Dyce and Bucksburn as well as encouraging extra climate-change emissions.

What do we ask Aberdeen City Council to do?
We ask Aberdeen City Council to put the overwhelming need to stabilise climate above the short-term interests of BAA, the air-transport industry and holiday-makers. We ask the Council to act responsibly in the long-term interest of local people who will be vulnerable to accelerated sea level rises and to world-wide social disruption.

Uttlesford District Council has refused BAA’s planning application for a runway extension at Stanstead Airport, largely because of the climate change impacts. If Uttlesford can take a stand in this way, then so should Aberdeen.

We therefore call on the City Council to either refuse the Planning Application at this stage, or to defer it pending an independent assessment of the overall climate change impact of runway extension, as requested by SNH.

Website: 6th December 200

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Campaign Against Climate Change (Scotland)

Campaign Against Climate Change (Scotland)


BAA's application to extend the runway in Aberdeen was debated by the Planning Committee on 16th November. Although the vast majority of members of the committee wanted to grant the application there and then, three Councillors got it referred to the full Council instead. It will now be considered on 13th December, and Aberdeen Campaign Against Climate Change will be able to give oral evidence.

Councillors referred to the large number of emails which they had received from people concerned about the climate change impacts. Those Councillors who were unhappy to grant the application there and then spoke very movingly of their misgivings about making a decision which will make global warming worse, and one of them spoke of his fears for his grandchildren and said he doubted that they would look back and be thankful, just because all the right boxes had been ticked at the time.

Many Councillors, however, felt that Aberdeen City Council had no competency to refuse the application on grounds of global warming, due to the government's planning guidelines. One of them suggested raising concerns about the disconnect between government policies on climate change and those on airport expansion in a letter to the central government. This may well be something we might want to remind them of.

Disappointingly, a lot of Councillors appeared to accept BAA's assurances that runway expansion would help to get quieter and more efficient aircraft to use our airport, and that noise levels and emissions would therefore reduce. We fear that they are being misled by BAA: The Outline Masterplan makes it clear that the aim is a considerable increase in the overall number of flights. Furthermore, a parliamentary question was recently asked of Tavish Scott who replied that there was no evidence that the increase in direct flights from Scotland had replaced a single flight from the south-east of England - even though such a replacement is part of the rationale behind the Rural Development Fund's subsidies for aviation in Scotland.

Meantime, it is more important than ever that members support the Airport Watch Rethink campaign ( ). We will hold a meeting to discuss airport expansion on Thursday, 30th November, 7.30 pm, New Kings Building (corner or Regent Walk and High Street).

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Campaign Against Climate Change (Scotland)

Campaign Against Climate Change (Scotland)

PLEASE SEE BELOW FOR DETAILS OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEMO IN LONDON ON 4TH NOVEMBER! Please email us on for details as to where Aberdeen people will be meeting.

Day of Action Against Short-Haul Flights

We will be supporting the Day of Action Against Short-Haul Flights, which is co-ordinated by Plane Stupid ( a national organisation which supports grass-roots groups against airport expansion and the current high volume of air travel. Many groups are planning protests outside travel agents and flight shops and we will be doing something similar. The official day of action is Monday 6th November, but we will be holding a protest on Saturday, 11th November, from 11am in Aberdeen. We are planning a lawful protest involving banners, however, we would like to have a bit of a surprise effect and therefore ask people who are interested in taking part to contact us directly for details.

Here are some of the main reasons for the Day of Action:

1. 45% of all flights within Europe are for distances of less than 500 kilometres. Train and bus services are available for most of those journeys, often taking the same amount of time or just slightly more.

2. Aviation is the fastest growing source of CO2 emissions in the UK, and every flight contributes about three times as much to global warming than the the CO2 emitted, because of the effects of emitting water vapour and NOx high up in the atmosphere. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Research has calculated that all other sectors of the economy would have to stop emitting any greenhouse gases at all by 2050 if the UK was to meet its target of reducing total emissions by 60% whilst allowing for aviation growth as planned.

3. The government's target itself is way too low to prevent the meltdown of Greenland and West Antarctica , the extinction of about 50% of all species, probably millions of death and also the risk of runaway greenhouse warming. We need emission cuts by 80-90% now, and that means FAR LESS FLIGHTS.

4. 160,000 people a year are dying from global warming already, according to the World Health Organisation. Millions of people in Africa and Asia are suffering from droughts and flooding made far worse by the less than 1 degree C warming so far. Short flights may be comfortable for us and seem 'essential' to our jobs and personal lives. But surely, the terrible suffering and the deaths in places like Somalia, Sudan, or Bangladesh are too high a price!

5. There are 87 domestic flights from Aberdeen every day, compared to 26-27 international flights. Most of the recent growth in air travel to an from Aberdeen has been growth in domestic flights.

6. The UK government could easily impose fuel duty on domestic flights (something that would not be as straightforward with regards to international flights). We have fuel duty on cars, buses and trains - there is no excuse for exempting the most polluting form of transport! The money raised could be spent on an integrated sustainable transport system, with decent cycle lanes, bus lanes, and affordable rail travel.

Almuth Ernsting

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Campaign Against Climate Change (Scotland)

Campaign Against Climate Change (Scotland)

The Climate of Poverty - Public Meeting

On Wednesday, 18th October, Marjorie Clark from Christian Aid will present their new report 'The Climate of Poverty'. The public meeting will be held in the Aberdeen Art Centre, King Street and start at 7.30 pm.

The Christian Aid report looks at how climate change is threatening and destroying the livelihoods of many people in poor countries today, and particularly focuses on Kenya and Bangladesh. It warns that, without strong action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, all the development gains will be reversed and poverty will become ever worse. Christian Aid work with people who are amongst the one-third of humanity without any access to electricity. They tend to suffer the most from global warming caused by the life-styles and energy economies in the rich nations. The report calls for steep reductions in emissions and for funding and technology transfers to enable poor countries to develop clean energy.

This is a joint meeting organised by Christian Aid and Aberdeen Campaign Against Climate Change

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Campaign Against Climate Change (Scotland)

Campaign Against Climate Change (Scotland)

Climate March on 4th November

On Saturday, 4th November, members of our Aberdeen group will be going to the National Climate March in London. This is part of global climate demonstrations which will be taking place in more than 40 countries on the same day, shortly before the opening of the UN Climate Change negotiations in Nairobi. This will be the second global day of action against climate change, and almost certainly the largest ever climate change demonstration. Please come along if you can.

People will be meeting before 12 noon at Grosvenor Square for a rally, and the march will join up with a mass event in Trafalgar Square, organised by Stop Climate Chaos, a large coalition of development, environmental and faith-based NGOs.

For full details of the programme, please see .

Most of us will be travelling on the overnight Megabus. Stop Climate Chaos have arranged a special return fee of just 4.50 pounds from anywhere in the UK. In order to book a seat, please phone the special National Express Number 07740 938 954 which is open 9am - 5pm Monday to Friday.
You need to quote 'RSPB 2006' to get the special offer. We will post nearer the time with a meeting place for people from Aberdeen, given that some of us will be taking trains.

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Campaign Against Climate Change (Scotland)

Campaign Against Climate Change (Scotland)

PLEASE SEE ENTRY BELOW for our public climate change meetings on Monday 9th October and on Wednesday, 18th October and please come along!

Book your transport to Britain's biggest Climate March ever on 4th November now!

Saturday, 4th November will see the largest ever global demonstrations against climate change, in around 40 different countries. Those are taking place just before the opening of the important UN Climate Change Talks in Nairobi, and should send a strong message to political leaders that we need urgent measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions now.

The London Climate March will be meeting from 10.45 outside the US embassy at Grosvenor Square. For a full programme, see the national website . The march will meet up with a large event and rally organised by the Stop Climate Change coalition at Trafalgar Square, called I-Count. For full details of the I-Count event, see here: .

Stop Climate Chaos have got an agreement with National Express so that people can get the Megabus from anywhere in the UK to get to the event, for a return fare of 4.50 pounds. They also provide details of any other transport which has been locally arranged (although, from Aberdeen, it will have to be Megabus or the train). Given this very cheap deal, we will not be booking our own coach - doing so would cost around 2000 pounds. Please phone now to book your ticket for the overnight Megabus. For details of how to do that (with the special phone number and reference number to quote), see here:

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Campaign Against Climate Change (Scotland)

Campaign Against Climate Change (Scotland)

Two public meetings in October:

Please come along to two public meetings:

Monday, 9th October, 7.30 pm, Aberdeen Foyer, Marywell Street (off Crown Street):
'The Threat of Climate Change' , Sarah Hughes, Oceanographer
' Reducing Carbon Emissions from your Home', speaker from SCARF
' What is Scotland Doing about Climate Change Emissions?', Shiona Baird MSP
' How Can We Prevent the Worst of Climate Chaos?', local group speaker

Wednesday, 18th October, 7.30 pm, Aberdeen Art Centre, King Street
"The Climate of Poverty': Joint Meeting Organised by Christian Aid and Aberdeen Campaign Against Climate Change
Marjorie Clarke from Christian Aid will present their new report about climate change and developing countries.

Please let others know about those events. If you would like posters or fliers, please email your details to