‘Eco-Terrorism’ Legitimized by British Court
In a monumental ruling, a British jury acquitted six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage charges stemming from what the activists said was an attempt to shut down a coal-fired power plant. The jury decided that the activists’ action was justifiable because the plant, which emits 20,000 tons of CO2 every day, will hold some blame for immense damage caused by global warming in the future.
The ruling goes against years of convictions for similar actions and essentially praised the activists for their help in preventing global warming. To make their case, the defense argued that much of the lower-altitude areas that surround the plant could eventually be submerged in water from the effects of climate change.
- » See also: New Shipping Rules Agreed To Protect The Antarctic
- » Get Planetsave by RSS or sign up by email.
The court allowed scientific experts to present the case, including a NASA climate expert, the British Conservative Party’s environmental adviser, and an Inuit leader from Greenland. James Hanson, the NASA representative, told the jury that global warming would cause the extinction of one million species worldwide and that the Kent power plant’s emissions would be responsible for 400 of the extinctions.
Five of the six activists scaled the plant’s 650-foot smokestack in October last year to paint “Gordon” on the exterior wall. Prime Minister Gordon Brown plans to build new coal-fired plants across England, including another in Kent.
“This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement,” said Ben Stewart, one of the Greenpeace activists. “If jurors from the heart of Middle England say it’s 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?”
Photo Credit: Greenpeace.italia on Flickr via Creative Commons license.
Other Stories Related to Greenpeace Activism:
- Greenpeace Dissects “Clean Coal”
- Greenpeace versus Japan: Killing Not Necessary For Whale Research
- Greenpeace Takes on Man-Made Carbon Sequestration
Those criminals should be put in prison. Terrorism is not an acceptable tactic to achieve political goals.
Firstly, there’s no “monumental ruling”. Juries have come to similar verdicts in the UK before, notably acquitting Greenpeace activists of criminal damage when they pulled up GM crops. It is a long-help principle of criminal law in the UK that you can break the law to prevent a greater harm. This and the GM trial have pushed that somewhat, but this isn’t a new legal concept.
Secondly, so what? The verdict of a jury doesn’t set any precedents. All this means is that, like in the GM trial, the jury had more sympathy with the activists tha the power company. It is interesting, and it is good news for activists who haven’t always been able to count on public sympathies, but it isn’t some exciting new legal concept.
So what if I see someone breathing? Technically they are exhaling carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, as thus contributing to “global warming” so if I were a member of the fanatical religion of “global warming” it would be my civic duty to kill them right? Better yet why not just have a mass suicide? Perhaps the judge and jurors would like to start. This verdict is ridiculous! They committed a crime and interrupted who knows how many peoples jobs and incomes!
What, Athon, were you trying to say? Really?
Yeah, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and, tadaa, the science behind it is all on this site: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Proving, eh, lol, global warming by CO2 is a scam. Yes, the science is all pretty clear cut. Didn’t I say that?
Yeah, and I know proof is mathematical term… why? Because the proof, is, GUESS WHAT? Mathematical. Duh. I gave you the link even, it’s all there. Science and mathematics aren’t separate, they are intertwined. When talking about scientific proof here, we are talking mathematics. So now, are you going to give me evidence that it isn’t? No? That’s what I thought, nobody ever does. You only want to try and nitpick at grammar because you can’t face facts.
And what the hell? I said that CO2 absorbs radiation, not trap heat in like most people think. And what do you do? Counter my statement that CO2 absorbs radiation by saying the exact same thing? What are you playing at? This shows you don’t know how to read, or at least not paying attention, if you were wondering. CO2 absorbs some of the radiation as it’s coming back from Earth. But this is a only a delay of the travel, and it’s not permanent. Also, it can only absorb a certain amount, once saturated it fails to absorb more. If you were wondering, Oxygen does too, but only at radiations <0.3um.
“But if you’re going to talk science, knowing what you’re talking about helps.”
I do, you obviously don’t. If your going to play with fire at least visit the site first so you don’t fall on your face again. And next time, actually face facts instead of picking at grammar like an… well, you get the point. Amazingly, you basically ignored everything I said, and provided no proof for your stance.
I think this sets a dangerous precedence. What they did may not have been harmful but essentially the courts give free reign to any similar act which may be “justified” right? How about spraypainting some cows to protest excessive methane production? Or someone’s garage door if they drive an SUV?
I am sure in some mythologies a pen
might be called the strongest weapon.
From a practical point, I see just blunt
abuse of language by ‘attack’ and ‘terror’.
Perhaps this, from a semantic viewpoint
minorly valuable, piece of uhm journalism
could still qualify its author to report
on pro-life terrorists bombing hospitals,
where his scareline style will be matching.
[...] action comes mere months after a UK jury acquitted Greenpeace protestors who had vandalized the same smokestack. The court ruled that the activists were acting in the [...]
This is lunacy. Is there no rule of law in England? Are property rights secondary to the agendas of environmental groups?