Scientific Alliance, Newsletter, September 19, 2008

Last week, we wrote of the reduced tolerance shown by courts to those who had deliberately trashed GM crop trials; an encouraging trend which seemed to redefine what is or is not acceptable in the name of protecting the environment. However, the opposite has now occurred in a case of climate change protestors.

Five Greenpeace activists scaled the chimney of E.ON’s coal-fired power station in Kingsnorth, Kent last October to try to shut down the plant (this year also saw several days of protest against plans to build a new coal station on the site). Their original plan to paint “Gordon, bin it” was cut short, leaving a chimney apparently named Gordon. A prosecution for criminal damage was brought against them plus a sixth Greenpeace member who planned the protest.

The defense argued that the damage was justified because of the dangers caused by additional carbon dioxide emissions, an argument previously used mainly when damage has been caused to protect the property of others from immediate harm. The defence called the well-known American climate scientist, Professor Jim Hansen of NASA, as an expert witness. His testimony included the claim that emissions from the current Kingsnorth plant would lead to the extinction of up to 400 species. Millionaire Zac Goldsmith, ex-editor of The Ecologist, environmental adviser to David Cameron and prospective Tory MP, also gave evidence, and argued support for coal-fired stations would make it difficult for the UK to push for emissions reductions in other countries.
To the surprise - indeed, shock - of many, the jury accepted the defence of “lawful excuse” and acquitted all of the defendants. This is a clear signal for more such protests to be carried out with impunity. Not only will headlines be made, but the protestors will likely get off scot-free. This is a dangerously slippery slope, allowing Greenpeace and others to promote their view of the world with little fear of the consequences. Hopefully, this tolerance will not last.

The “lawful excuse” defence was successfully used also in 2000 in the case against Lord Melchett and another merry band of Greenpeace activists who decided to destroy a GM field trial. Since then, as we have seen, the legal system (in some countries, at least) has started taking a more robust view of environmental vandalism and some of the perpetrators have received fines or prison sentences. But the damage was done; the message was that society would to a large extent find acceptable what it considered to be damage done in a good cause. The green movement has always considered that the end justifies the means, and this reinforced their belief in themselves. Read more here.