Global Warming Justifies Breaking the Law

However you feel about direct action that includes property damage, it appears that at least when it comes to global warming, and at least in the UK, property damage might actually be a catalyst to help nudge an administration to alter their policies for the better.

Steve directed me to "Cleared: Jury Decides That Threat of Global Warming Justifies Breaking the Law" in yesterday’s Independent, which made me feel hopeful about the effects of a type of direct action that often makes us wonder, "Does that do any good? Is that a waste of time? Does that make us look silly?"

Here are some high points:

• "The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage."
• "The acquittal was the second time in a decade that the ‘lawful excuse’ defence has been successfully used by Greenpeace activists. In 1999, 28 Greenpeace campaigners led [by] Lord Melchett, who was director at the time, were cleared of criminal damage after trashing an experimental field of GM crops in Norfolk. In each case the damage was not disputed – the point at issue was the motive."
• The activists on trial this time intended to scale the chimney at a Kingsnorth power station in Kent and paint "Gordon, Bin it" on the side of it. They got as far as "Gordon" before they came down (by court injunction).

• "During the trial the defendants said they had acted lawfully,
  owing to an honestly held belief that their attempt to stop emissions
  from Kingsnorth would prevent further damage to properties worldwide
  caused by global warming. Their aim, they said, was to rein back CO2
  emissions and bring urgent pressure to bear on the Government and E.ON
  to changes policies. They insisted their action had caused the minimum
  amount of damage necessary to close the plant down and constituted a
  ‘proportionate response’ to the increasing environmental threat."
• One of the defendants said: "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."

This opens the door to more direct action, at least in the UK, and
at least regarding climate change. What do you think about that? And do
you think such a scenario would be effective in the fight against, say,
factory farms (which no doubt have enormous negative environmental
impact)? My initial thoughts are:

• The test is: Was the direct action intended to prevent larger crimes?
   
• The success of the case hinges on whether experts agree on the crimes currently committed by factory farms, which they won’t.
• The jury would all be on the defensive (as opposed to the
  defense) because they’d probably be people who eat animals. That’s a
  tougher place to start from than: We all want the best for our planet
  and we won’t have to change what we do, as individuals, to do the best
  for our plant (and we don’t have to feel guilty or complicit).
• None of that convinces me that direct action including property damage is a terrible, out-of-the-question idea, though, as I prefer a case-by-case approach.

As for the case at hand, the acquittal is a great first step. Now I
look forward to what happens next, and whether any energy policy change
comes of it.

PS-To find out where the candidates for US President stand on climate and energy issues, check out Grist’s "Compare the Candidates" chart. I hope Ralph Nader can forgive me for abandoning him this time around.