Good news from the U.K.: The Kingsnorth Six were acquitted by a Crown Court jury. They were members of a group of 23 Greenpeace volunteers who had attempted to shut down the Kingsnorth coal-fired power plant, specifically the six were the ones painting the smokestack with "Gordon Bin It" when interrupted by the police. Their defense was "lawful excuse": that they were protecting property of greater value (the Earth!) from the impact of climate change. We will need our Mercedes-driving lawyer friends to tell us if the verdict has greater significance -- but the jurors were common people, not politicians. It was an impressive show -- judge and lawyers with their white wigs -- hopefully it has an impact.
Written testimony [PDF] that I submitted for the case is a bit long. The "Summary facts" are below. The main point, that the government, the utility, and the fossil fuel industry, were aware of the facts, but continued to ignore them are more generally valid worldwide. It raises the question of whether the right people are on trial.
Summary facts
These summary facts were known by the U.K. government, by the utility EON, by the fossil fuel industry, and by the defendants at the time of their actions in 2007:
- Tipping points: The climate system is dangerously close to tipping points that could have disastrous consequences for young people, life and property, and general well-being on the planet that will be inherited from today's elders.
- Coal's dominant role: Coal is the fossil fuel most responsible for excess CO2 in the air today, and coal reserves contain much more potential CO2 than do oil or gas. Coal is the fossil fuel that is most susceptible to either (a) having the CO2 captured and sequestered if coal is used in power plants, or (b) leaving the coal in the ground, instead emphasizing use of cleaner fuels and energy efficiency.
- Recognized responsibilities: The U.K. is one of the nations most responsible for human-made CO2 in the air today, indeed, on a per capita basis it is the most responsible of all nations that are major emitters of CO2. This fact is recognized by developing countries, making it implausible that they would consider altering their plans for coal use if the U.K. plans to continue to rely on coal-fired power.
- Recognized impacts of climate change: The U.K. government, EON, and the fossil fuel industry were aware of the likely impacts of continuation of coal emissions, specifically impacts on future sea levels, extinctions of animal and plant species, and regional climate effects, i.e., they were all aware that their actions would contribute to these adverse impacts, leaving a more impoverished planet for today's young people and the unborn.
- Greenwash: Governments, utilities, and the fossil fuel industry have presented public faces acknowledging the importance of climate change and claiming that they are taking appropriate actions. Yet the facts, as shown in this document, contradict their claims. Construction of new coal-fired power plants makes it unrealistic to hope for the prompt phase-out of coal emissions and thus makes it practically impossible to avert climate disasters for today's young people and future generations.
Recognition of these basic facts by the defendants, realization that the facts were also known by the government, utility, and fossil fuel industry, and realization that the actions needed to protect life and property of the present and future generations were not being taken undoubtedly played a role in the decision of the defendants to act as they did.
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Comments
View as Flat
Russ Posted 7:21 am
11 Sep 2008
Of course, it's not likely to gain any traction in American jurisprudence anytime soon. Even in progressive legal circles William O. Douglas is considered something of a buffoon for arguing the legal rights of non-human elements of nature.
(Although, we did get a tenuous extension of the standing prerogative in the Supreme Court in the CO2/EPA/CAA decision. But that won't last long if Palin's elected.)
However, if people ever do become really concerned over climate change, I suppose there's the possibility of the appeal to jury nullification, a sometimes-effective form of civil disobedience.
Here's a little more material from The Independent,
linked from Energy Bulletin.
He added: "This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement. When a jury of normal people say it is legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, then where does that leave Government energy policy? We have the clean technologies at hand to power our economy. It's time we turned to them instead of coal."
Ms Hall said: "The jury heard from the most distinguished climate scientist in the world. How could they ignore his warnings and reject his leading scientific arguments?"
--
Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage - such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.
The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and could encourage further direct action.
As for anyone who's worried about this being a manifestation of anarchy, look at it this way.
We should look at the "rule of law" the same way we look at energy and farming.
In energy, we understand that the status quo is the result of massive subsidies and other welfare for fossil fuels and the accompanying social infrastructure for over a century, while renewables have been unconscionably neglected and assailed. Therefore, to "level the playing field" and achieve energy justice, we must both revoke fossil fuel welfare and substitute massive a Keynesian effort on behalf of renewables.
The parallel welfare and infrastructure history is true for industrial monocrop agriculture vs. small, diversified, region and local oriented farming and local oriented gardening, organic or not. In the same way, the parallel solution is both practically necessary and morally right.
So it is with the law. The government and big corporations are free to violate the law at will. Torture and domestic surveillance are two highly relevant areas where the law now exists in name only.
Since we're talking about the environment here, I'll just give a few environmental examples.
Wholesale violations of the CAA (refusing to regulate CO2, denying California a waiver without cause, flouting of NSR); CWA (MTR defiling of streams, flouting wetlands mitigation requirements, supporting industry refusal to deploy the required "best available science" in the cooling water case[currently before the supreme court]); NEPA (failing to conduct requisite EIRs in every context imaginable, everything from Roadless Rule rescindment to snowmobiles in Yellowstone to the navy blasting whales with sonar); administratively gutting the NFMA and the ESA, as well as failing to adequately list the polar bear under the latter......
You get the point - we have an outlaw government. So why is this not seen as a monumental manifestation of anarchy, but a few protesters who cause some trivial property damage are?
It's simply ideology. The law is supposed to serve humanity. It is supposed to seek the public good, including the environmental good.
But for the greed fundamentalists and affiliated thugs, there is no law but the law of the jungle, the right of the stronger, and the legislature, the code of law, the police, the courts, the prisons, are only there as tools of this might-makes-right agenda, and the only value is money and filthy gutter notions of power.
That's how they're able to lasciviously applaud when corporations and their ideologues in power drag the law through the mud, while they tremble with anger on behalf of the "sanctity of the law" wherever a small voice of protest speaks up against their reign of terror.
It's this Hobbesian ideology which truly lives up to the common lurid conception of "anarchy", not a handful of non-violent activists whose action is consonant with a higher view of the law, as expressed in this case.
Permalink
human power Posted 3:39 pm
11 Sep 2008
Unfortunately, if this trial had taken place in the U.S., we would have likely seen convictions; if you doubt this, just look at operation backfire, which has a 100% conviction rate of monkey-wrenchers.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:48 am
13 Sep 2008
Permalink