Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
- 'Biggest Act of Civil Disobedience in Canadian History'
Popular content
Today's Top News
Cleared! Jury Decides That Threat of Global Warming Justifies Breaking The Law
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.
Huw Williams, Kevin Drake, Ben Stewart, Tim Hewke, Emily Hall and Will Rose (L-R) outside Maidstone Crown Court. (Photograph: Jiri Rezac/Greenpeace) 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.
Kingsnorth was the centre for mass protests by climate camp activists last month. Last year, three protesters managed to paint Gordon Brown's name on the plant's chimney. Their handi-work cost £35,000 to remove.
The plan to build a successor to the power station is likely to be the first of a new generation of coal-fired plants. As coal produces more of the carbon emissions causing climate change than any other fuel, campaigners claim that a new station would be a disastrous setback in the battle against global warming, and send out a negative signal to the rest of the world about how serious Britain really is about tackling the climate threat.
But the proposals, from the energy giant E.ON, are firmly backed by the Business Secretary, John Hutton, and the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks. Some members of the Cabinet are thought to be unhappy about them, including the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn. Mr Brown is likely to have the final say on the matter later this year.
During the eight-day trial, the world's leading climate scientist, Professor James Hansen of Nasa, who had flown from American to give evidence, appealed to the Prime Minister personally to "take a leadership role" in cancelling the plan and scrapping the idea of a coal-fired future for Britain. Last December he wrote to Mr Brown with a similar appeal. At the trial, he called for an moratorium on all coal-fired power stations, and his hour-long testimony about the gravity of the climate danger, which painted a bleak picture, was listened to intently by the jury of nine women and three men.
Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.
He was one of several leading public figures who gave evidence for the defence, including Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Richmond Park and director of the Ecologist magazine, who similarly told the jury that in his opinion, direct action could be justified in the minds of many people if it was intended to prevent larger crimes being committed.
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 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 defendants who scaled the 630ft chimney at Kingsnorth, near Hoo, last year were Huw Williams, 41, from Nottingham; Ben Stewart, 34, from Lyminge, Kent; Kevin Drake, 44, from Westbury, Wiltshire; Will Rose, 29, from London; and Emily Hall, 34, from New Zealand. Tim Hewke, 48, from Ulcombe, Kent, helped organise the protest.
The court heard how, dressed in orange boiler suits and white hard hats bearing the Greenpeace logo, the six-strong group arrived at the site at 6.30am on 8 October. Armed with bags containing abseiling gear, five of them scaled the chimney while Mr Hewke waited below to liaise between the climbers and police.
The climbers had planned to paint "Gordon, bin it" in huge letters on the side of the chimney, but although they succeeded in temporarily shutting the station, they only got as far as painting the word "Gordon" on the chimney before they descended, having been threatened with a High Court injunction. Removing the graffiti cost E.ON £35,000, the court heard.
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.
Speaking outside court after being cleared yesterday, Mr Stewart said: "This is a huge blow for ministers and their plans for new coal-fired power stations. It wasn't only us in the dock, it was the coal-fired generation as well. After this verdict, the only people left in Britain who think new coal is a good idea are John Hutton and Malcolm Wicks. It's time the Prime Minister stepped in, showed some leadership and embraced the clean energy future for Britain."
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?"
- Posted in

95 Comments so far
Show AllHooray!
Thank you for this verdict!
Progressive citizens take notice: juries can be the power of the people against the corrupt corporate regime. This is great news.
Yeah... since the powers that be see that citizen juries can no longer be counted on to do their bidding, I bet you'll see more trials by judge in protest cases.
In Britain. Here...?
Scratch Open A Cynic And You Will Find An Angry Idealist.
You'd be a 'terrorist' or an inciter-to-riot.
"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."
"Normal people" number in the millions. Those driving the oil, coal, nuclear energy machines for the money numbers in the thousands. Looks to me like another kind of war looming on the horizon - people fighting for their lives and big money.
Holy crap! What an encouraging development!
"After this verdict, the only people left in Britain who think new coal is a good idea are John Hutton and Malcolm Wicks."
Well, Hutton, Wicks and the coal companies, perhaps.
Hooray for the Brits. Their people have spoken. The Brits - the people, that is - spoke a lot more loudly against the horror that Iraq became too than the couldn't-care-less-masses across the pond. Didn't stop the slaughter, of course, but the comparison leaves the Yanks - the masses - looking a lot less "wonderful", by comparison.
Now, if only this attitude of the people and this kind of verdict could be extended beyond coal companies to the war industry companies, and extended to the USofA....
If only.
when it comes to human/environmental rights, the brits can be very tenacious............
You must be new to this planet. Welcome to Planet Earth, where the Lie is the Truth.
Slave Trade, Colonialism, Drug Trade, etc. Our American rulers get knighted by the Queen for doing their dirty work. They outsourced the military and economic arm of imperialism to America. You probably think we even won the Revolutionary War, they just left their agents in charge and conned us into thinking we were free. When they worried we were getting bit too independent, they started the Civil War to divide us in 2. Russia saved our bacon. So they shot Lincoln as punishment (and the Czar), and started up the KKK to prevent the freed slaves from being assimilated into society and driving the southern blacks into the urban ghettos to the North, thus promoting a lingering racism to divide and rule us.
There is a lot more, WW I, WW II, etc but that would be too much for you. BTW the Beatles and many of the British bands were creations of the London Tavistok Institute who wrote their music which was intended to alter the minds of Americas youth in the 60's with the drugs they kindly supplied, which we allowed. The Tavistock Institute was a British psyops unit to control minds with drugs, psychology and propaganda, and is well entrenched in the US under other names.
The British being behind environmentalism and AGW is added evidence it is a scam.
You see, the elite do not consider the normal person human, we are beasts, they are humans. Get it. Human (elite) rights is their right to exploit the beasts (normal man) that they will soon mark (666) with implanted. Don't worry about discrimination, they will also mark the cattle, chicken and pigs with implanted chips so they can collect the right amount of carbon tax from the farmers.
Farewell England...we hardly knew ya
Awwww... did a court rule that the little SnowWolf's precious notions of private property could be overruled by grave threats to the commons and humanity at large... Shhh, come here, let it all out. It'll be OK. No one owns the air we breathe, and preserving our ability to survive on Earth is more important than individual property. I know. It sucks, but the world's not fair little SnowWolf. Come now, don't cry, rest your head on my shoulder little one...
But cheer up, I bought us another lock for the front door and the latest in video surveillance. Hush now, you and your possessions are safe from those dirty hippies here.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
No...a Court aquitted People on the basis of a Myth
Welcome to Fantasy Island
Oh wow? You're a climate scientist now? Forgive me, I didn't know.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
I know Bullshit when I read it...they tried to pull off the perfect Scam...and it almost worked...except the Sun decided to take a Holiday and ruin their plans...
Forget Warming...This Planet is cooling...
I wonder if Al Gore will turn in His Nobel Prize now?
(I knew it had become a Joke when they gave it to Arafat)
Much more of this "Global Warming" and I'm going to get Frostbite
Canadian Scientists Fear Global Cooling
By Nathan Burchfiel (Bio | Archive)
February 8, 2008 - 16:33 ET
Investor's Business Daily is reporting something we haven't seen much of in the media since the 1970s: concerns about global cooling. You read that correctly: cooling.
Kenneth Tapping, a researcher at Canada's National Research Council, wants to look for evidence of increased sunspot activity, according to IBD. "The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century."
A "solar hibernation" in the 17th Century "corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715," IBD reported. "Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe."
Tapping's concerns fly in the face of the current media drumbeat about global warming, which would have Americans believe the Earth is on course for catastrophic climate changes unless the federal government (i.e. taxpayers) steps in to save the day.
The media have warned of impending climate changes for at least the last century. Most recently, global warming has been the, er, hot topic. But in the 1970s it was global cooling.
Could Tapping's concerns be the turning point in the media's environmentalist crusade? It's more likely the media will simply ignore - or maybe even viciously attack him - as a global warming "denier" or equally loaded buzz word commonly used to attack or discredit scientists and others who don't buy into the global warming catastrophe hype.
..."would have Americans believe the Earth is on course for catastrophic climate changes unless the federal government (i.e. taxpayers) steps in to save the day".
No, all the taxpayers have to do is stop paying for war, deforestation, desertification, and pollution. Then the rainforest can stop burning and the tropical oceans could be safe to swim in instead of full of jellyfish. Then perhaps the Gulf of Mexico could get some "Global Cooling" and stop sending hurricaines.
Maybe we could even fish in rivers again and drink the water!
But the taxpayers would have to stop paying for the wars and subsidies that allow the oil, energy, timber, chemical and security corporations etc. to rape the Earth!
We taxpayers could even take the chunk of our tax dollars that go to the Pentagon, Halliburton, Blackwater and Oil Company CEO's vacation homes, and put solar panels on our roof, or plant some trees. Imagine that!
Well SnowWolf I said I didn't want to talk to you but after seeing your dissembling meltdown over one small victory by environmentalists, I must confess that I cannot wait for the next victory.
I'm not melting down...bemused is more like it
Wow, maybe you don't know what you're talking about because you're busy reading business journals instead of science journals.
Because, if you did your OWN research, you'd find that the IBD is taking Tapping's words out of context. He never meant to imply greenhouse gasses aren't causing warming. And in fact has said:
"It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started."
Hmmmmmmmm..... HMMMMMMMMMMMM....
What was that about you knowing Bullshit when you see it?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
I'm going where the evidence leads...and so far...its not leading where you say its going
you can believe whatever you want...but I am skeptical at this point
I don't say where it is going. I don't believe what I want. The scientific community says where it's going. If you want to debate the scientific community, be my guest. There are avenues for it. Publish something in a peer-reviewed journal. See what becomes of it. I'm sure there's plenty of money and prestige that would come with debunking global warming in a reputable journal.
In the meantime, you are no different than the other anti-science forces in this country who cherry-pick the words of scientists, and rearrange evidence to fit within a predetermined mold. Creationists, Intelligent Designers, Flat-Earthers, Climate-change deniers, Young-earthers, and (IMO) 9-11 conspiracy nuts (bet you'll agree with that one at least) -- it's all the same thing.
I mean, I just posted a quote from the very same scientist you just tried to use to prove that the earth is cooling, saying you are wrong. And yet this doesn't concern you?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Who is this scientific "community" and where do the grants for research and revenues that pay their salaries come from, and who owns the journals that controls who gets published?
SnowWolf - Will you concede that energy from coal and other man made pollutants are responsible for the posted (DO NOT EAT FISH THAT YOU CAUGHT HERE) signs in 48 states? I'm not sure of the actual wording. Will you concede that energy from coal and other man made pollutants are responsible for the spike in diseases in the last 50 years? Cancer and asthma are two that come to mind. How many do you know that have, or have died from cancer?
Well Yes I'll concede you that...
I think we SHOULD Pursue Alternative Energy...do it All...CNG...Hydrogen Fuel Cells...Wind...Solar...NUKE...get off this crazy Oil addiction...but until the Technology is up to Speed...Lets Drill our own
The technology is up to speed, and would be even more so if the Oil industry didn't have a history of sabotaging it, and if we took all the subsidies and tax breaks we give to big oil and give it to alternatives instead.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
SnowWolf - There is another piece on CD today. (I.E.A. SAYS OIL DEMAND SLOWING) Go left on home page, then down. You might find it interesting.
Where will you go when your Fantasy Island is underwater?
Will you go to the land of evolution is a myth?
I predict in the future: Those who fight for the environment with direct action (who fight for the forests, rivers, oceans, non-human species etc. - treasures that belong to all the people, not just the corporations that rape the earth for profit; with impunity and with tax subsidies) will be viewed by history similarly to those who had the ethics and courage to oppose industrial slavery in America.
These issues should be brought to court, and to juries, more often. Direct action has been redefined as terrorism by the Fascists. I'm glad people are fighting back!
Like Capt. Watson, of Sea Shepherd says, "We'll make great ancestors!".
HIs wife was held for 60 days, by Homeland "security" for refusing to release membership lists. They stil dont have them (I dont think) I hope the US will follow suit. No one was killed . Global climate change is killing alot of people.
As for "clean coal"--ever lived im a house heated by coal?? LOL It is NOT (and never can be ) "clean". Just the way we get it out of the ground is criminal
This is similar to the Dublin jury's acquittal of the Pitstop Ploughshares for disabling/damaging a US Navy plane in an act of nonviolent war resistance.
Of course, the tiny lizard-brained proto-intellectuals here will scoff at the idea that damaging property is "nonviolent"-- just as there are a few peculiar progressive reactionaries (pardon the oxymoron) who have defended the Twin Cities Imperial Stormtroopers' actions because of a few acts of politically-motivated vandalism.
It strikes me as preposterous when persons of ANY political persuasion become passionately outraged about destruction of property, but take in stride heinous destruction of flesh-and-blood "collateral damage".
So it's refreshing and gratifying to see "jury nullification" taking such an enlightened form; it really does reflect rare "bottom-up" leadership in reaching a new understanding of justice.
Maybe the US will catch on! It's far more high-minded and defensible in these instances than, say, in acquitting OJ (the last time around, that is).
"it's refreshing and gratifying to see "jury nullification" taking such an enlightened form"
Yes, Jury Nullification has been an American tradition as well - but you will not hear that from a U.S. Judge! Instead juries are told what to do and think unless they know they can make up their own minds. Mandatory minimum sentences are a prime example of this. How many juries even know they have sentenced someone to a 10 or 30 year prison term just because the judge has advised them that the defendent is "guilty". Meanwhile I know businesses that have been robbed twice by the same person in less than a year, because the robber was let out of jail due to prison overcrowding - by pot growers.
Ouch!
Go Greenpeace!
TO: SnowWolf
You are surprised because you have seen justice done (probably the first time)
As there is no justice in US please disband the DOJ (department of justice)
I've seen Justice dispensed...thanks
How can people applaud violence and destruction of another's property? If you cannot make a convincing argument without resorting to violence, then maybe your argument cannot stand on its own merits. Using "climate change" as a justification to destroy property that supposedly contributes to climate change establishes a precedent for people to come destroy your car. What's the difference?
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
Because we have studied American History and remember that those who participated in the Boston Tea Party used to be revered as American heroes who resisted the tyrany of an oppressive state that used taxation without representation.
Kind of like now.
Your tax dollars pay for the wars, infrastructure, roads and tax subsidies to notorious multinational corporations that destroy the environment and displace workers and create death, torture and homelessness for humans and non humans alike.
This could also be defined as a form of "violence" and "destruction" of the property that every human on the planet "owns" by virtue of his or her birth as a resident of planet Earth, not some government sanctioned "ownership" called a corporation.
I don't own a car, so I don't buy oil that has been stolen from people who can't defend themselves.
Revenge Girl - I applaud you for not owning a car, so you don't buy oil..., but do you use plastics, and god only knows what other products that are made from that oil?
Being an American I know what violence and destruction is and the Greempeace action was not violence and distruction! Violence and destruction would be would killing or crippling the plant manager and blowing up the stack and promising to return and do it again if the power plant tried to rebuild. Something Al Quida or the US Army would do!
Greenpeace... violent? ...destruction of property?
That coal power plant smoke stack can belch smoke just as well with Brown's name painted on it's side as it can pollute with anything else painted on it's side! Painting a message on the side of a smoke stack is not destruction or violent. The Greenpeace action was NOT meant to be an argument but a statement. The power plants' reply to the Greenpeace statement was to paint over the message. Painting a slogan, message or symbol on a blank wall or surface is not destroying the property. Do you really expect anyone to think there is no difference between the pollution that comes from a single car as to that of a single coal power plant?
If someoneone painted "polluter" on the side of my car (which is not a blank wall or smoke stack but for the sake of making a point) of course they would be right and my reply would be to clean it off or paint over it or ...advertise the fact that ...yes , and I would agree... my car does spews fossil fuel pollution just like the coal power plant does... BUT of course at a much much smaller level!
My goodness!... protest against environmental destuction and violence with a painted message in the early 21st cent...get use to it or ban the public sale of paint and brushes!
Someone seems to be missing the point that unlike your polluting car the polluting coal fired power plant is making electricity to be sold to citizens within the community. You might drive your car (and pollute) out of necessity, but their pollution is for profit. Just as individuals have ethical responsibilities to be good citizens, so too do companies have an ethical responsibility to citizens. Unfortunately, companies seem to neglect (or completely ignore) their ethical responsibility when it clashes with the bottom line. This is unacceptable & inappropriate, dangerous ground to tread, and often even lethal.
When citizens are being attacked, with their lives threatened, they have the right to defend themselves. Lives shortened by lung diseases, or ruined by mercury caused autism, are no different really than afflictions caused by a drive by shooting, except an irresponsibly operated smokestack is a stationary source of misery that never drives away.
Solution? Tax the hell out of coal, to pay for environmental & health damages. Sure the price of electricity will go up, but just as rising gasoline prices have caused people to become energy conscious, so too will they consider investing in cleaner safer power sources, leading to market forces forcing the coal business failing unless they clean up their act. Shift subsidies away from fossil fuels & nuclear toward renewables, level the playing field, and archaic power sources will be phased out.
There's a HUGE difference between violence and the destruction of property. I want to point that out first and foremost. No one said these people could murder or injure the owner of this company.
I would also argue a difference between corporate property and personal property.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
No there is not. Violence is violence. Otherwise, KKK goons would be justified in burning down blacks' houses, as long as no one is home.
Ummmm. Violence is violence and property destruction is property destruction. The KKK burning down a home with no one in it is still a lot different from burning down a home and murdering the family inside. Not to say that they aren't each equally deplorable.
But, apples and oranges, the analogy you just made is horrible. First of all, blacks are not a threat to humanity. This should be the most obvious thing. Secondly, if you were going to make an analogy involving the KKK, it would be to have them paint the N word on someone's house not burn it down (as in this case the activists merely painted something on a smokestack).
Lastly, I still see a big difference between corporate and personal property.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
While here in the bastion of "democracy," Feds are conducting violent "pre-emptive" raids on dissenters, non-Fox journalists, and Quakers, and nuns, and grandmothers.
From the FBI website: "Special interest extremists (eco-terrorists) continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes." Even today, the FBI considers "eco-terrorism" the NUMBER ONE terrorist threat in America. Wouldn't want to "force" segments of society to "change attitudes" about issues like transgenic mutant food (AKA, genetically modified/engineered,) or massive animal abuse, or the increasing toxicity of our water, or... or... or...
The six acquitted GP memebers would have gotten life without parole here in the USA, after a few dozen hours of "enhanced interrogations," a bit of tazering, maybe a blinding dose of pepper spray, surely. And all will now be placed on the "terrorist watch list" and will never be allowed into America again.
Feel safer?
Enjoy and think.
Hi ~COCO~ howzit goin? Hey, ease up with the big words, you made me use my dictionary.
hi kem, just fine thanks. glad the mad scientists didn't eradicate us last wednesday though with their particle accelerator experiments. another word for tenacious might be 'bulldog'..........how's that???
Since it was merely a test there was a zero percent chance of eradication. If I understand correctly there is a nearly zero percent chance of eradication when they actually do the experiment.
well let's hope you're right...........but they're working on it.
And if I am wrong, it will be over quicker and less painful than Operation Iraqi Lib. . .I mean. . .Operation Iraqi Freedom.