Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Yes Yes Yes! Justice is done

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/10/activists.carbonemissions

At last, the legal system has recognised two key points that have been sorely lacking in official discourse in the last decade:

1) The science behind climate change necessitates immediate action to reduce the inevitable damage that will be caused - it isn't a debate its an imperative.

2) Civil disobedience and direct action are legitimate, justifiable and essential parts of British and global democracy, as they have been for centuries. When the government and established order is acting too slowly, citizens have every fucking right to take steps.

I would like to congratulate all involved; heroes all in my eyes.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When the protestors start trying to occupy more power stations, and actually begin disrupting our power, you won't be singing like a bird then will you?

    Trying to close down a power station for a day to "make a point" is entirely pointless, if they really want to make a difference to climate change they need to close China. All their actions accomplish is misery for the thousands of people left without power if they suceed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually this is a fallacy - and yes, yes I will be singing like Noel Coward thank you very much! :D

    Seriously though you do bring up an important point, and we were talking about this in the pub yesterday - does this now give a free pass to unmitigated disruption of power stations and vital institutions?

    If the answer were yes I would, of course, not support that (this would be madness). However, it appears that when this becomes the subject of case law, it will have to be in exceptional circumstances where their is clear evidence of direct cause and effect as was demonstrated by the scientists and witnesses in the case.

    These activists had access to expert testimony, as well as a clear body of evidence that made their actions entirely justifiable. The objective was not to shut down the power station because then we can shut down the rest - but to draw attention to and enshrine in the legal system, a recognition of the damage we do as a society to parts of the world where we don't always as yet feel the immediate knock on.

    So entirely take your point in the sense that no, I'm not all for your average blackshirt Anarchist just getting up of a morning and deciding to scupper the local energy concern, but the details of the case don't make that a serious danger anyway.

    What it does do is score a point for concerned, rationally acting, well informed citizenry to intervene in the energy policies of governments who are too slow to act of unwilling to listen.

    And I appreciate that probably wasn't clear in my original post :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Trouble with case law is it's exceptionally hard to over turn. You now have the problem of a criminal offence, effectively being legalised as long as it can be justified. If we don't see a tide of protestors closing up powerstations in the near future then I'll be surprised. How will they power the servers at Indymedia though if they succeed......?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    How will they power the servers at Indymedia though if they succeed......?


    hamster%20on%20wheel.JPG
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You now have the problem of a criminal offence, effectively being legalised as long as it can be justified.

    But it isn't - because your average protestor will not have access to the laundry list of defence witnesses these guys pulled in - furthermore, aren't you forgetting the essential point in all this that we aren't talking about shutting down all power stations.

    What we are talking about is highlighting that we need to reduce, not increase our ability to consume and generate fossil fuel power. This particular coal fired station represented a particular demonstrable case where it would have had a sustained and catastrophic impact.

    There is little evidence (indeed I note that you provided none) that this will lead to a mass wave of power station shut downs. And to be honest, your average participant at the camp for climate change action isn't a reactionary brick chucking squad-dwelling dullard - they know the consequences of shutting down loads of power stations at once, thats why that as a strategy hasn't been tried.

    I just find it amazing that in the face of quite possibly the biggest threat human kind had ever faced the first people to get the bullet are the ones making noise, but to be honest, t'was ever thus.

    Plus that wheel would need at least two gerbils or one very athletic bunny to generate enough power.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    thats why that as a strategy hasn't been tried.



    Incorrect. Protestors tried to shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in Nottinghamshire about a year ago by climbing onto the conveyor belts used to carry coal into the furnaces.

    Whilst the damage to the smoke stack at this Kingsnorth is relatively minor, the very fact that the people were present on the site would be enough for the managers to seriously consider shutting the site down, or at least some of the generators.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This kind of stuff usually gets on my nerves, and for a good reason.
    It reminds me of when vegiterians say they don't eat meat, and try to tell others not to eat meat, just to stop the production of meat being made, causing animal cruelty to decrease.

    Which has been proven to be fueling the cause they're supposed to be preventing. I don't see how this is any different. They seem to think that coal burning is the world problem of global warming, when it is nowhere near the cause. global warming is a natural cycle that happens constantly. Regardless of that though I do think that it should be decreased, otherwise we'd be in shit street when it runs out.

    I would support these type of people if they supported a good cause. Perhaps hydrogen taps in cars. If only more people knew about them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    (apologies for the lateness of my reply - for some unfathomable reason I haven't been able to sign into TheSite for the past little while)
    Incorrect

    What I was referring to was the mass coordinated shut down of large parts of the power grid to systematically deprive large swathes of the country of power. Apart from anything else this is likely to cause more ecological damage by putting in jeopardy lots of complex systems that would do a damn sight more damage to the environment should they be allowed to fail.

    Once again I am constraining my support to the specific conditions of this action - a measured, well researched, reasonable, well executed response to a clear and present danger.

    What scares me is (for example) check a large swathe of the editorials from the New Scientist over the past year dealing with the politics of climate change - public discourse is hopelessly behind the mass of peer reviewed scientific evidence - its not a future thing, and its not a debate anymore - its fact and its happening and you can see it as such.

    And to cap it all off we've got Sarah Palin with a shot at the White House who is governor of Alaska (of all fucking places!) and a climate change 'sceptic' - in the same way she is an evolutionary 'sceptic' - you couldn't write this stuff.
    It reminds me of when vegiterians say they don't eat meat, and try to tell others not to eat meat, just to stop the production of meat being made, causing animal cruelty to decrease.

    Which has been proven to be fueling the cause they're supposed to be preventing

    Sorry run that by me again? Its quite clear from WHO projections; and indeed this is just further verification of what has been known for years, that reducing consumption and production of meat will have an immensely positive impact on the environment, particularly in the Amazon area where beef production has toasted the rainforest).

    Why does acting on this information annoy you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    [offtopic]

    The meat production business, specially in the viel area of meat production has been proven that if people don't buy meat, regardless of eating it or not, has fueled animal cruelty because animals are exported abroad and are then treated badly down to the cost of exporting from the country they came from so they have to cut back on production costs, which usually means the animals are kept enclosed and treated badly.

    But that was just an example that protesting and doing the wrong thing isn't always for the better.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That doesn't follow from what I can see - what you are saying is that because there is a product that has ethical problems in production, we should continue to buy that product in order to mitigate some of these effects.

    This is basically sustaining an undesirable situation for the mitigation of immediate effects for one generation of animals. However, if you reduce the demand for meat then the knock on effect will be a reduction in production; less animals will be reared to suffer, and from an environmental standpoint there will be less farting food-bag cattle and forest clearance for agricultural production.

    Reducing demand is the only reliable way to reduce production - what you are proposing only sustains what is already unsustainable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Reducing demand is the only reliable way to reduce production - what you are proposing only sustains what is already unsustainable.

    In theory, but if the production isn't met in one country, for anything not just animals, I used that as an example, then it's taken elsewhere and sold off cheaper and makes an knock on effect of problems.

    What is always seemed as the 'best thing' to do, isn't always the best thing. In this case, what where they planning on happening by drawing and defacing a building? It's not going to stop coal production completly, it'll just close that plant down for a few hours to get it cleaned off.

    All I'm saying is they aren't helping. They could do something pro-active, like invent an safer and easier way to use hydrogen taps in cars, and at a cheaper cost, instead they climb up buildings and deface them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In theory, but if the production isn't met in one country, for anything not just animals, I used that as an example, then it's taken elsewhere and sold off cheaper and makes an knock on effect of problems.

    No in fact actually - look at the success of Fair Trade for the supreme example of international market pressure (not without problems but no one thought it would come this far). Then regulation needs to be pushed for and this can be achieved in part by sustained consumer action, political pressure and coordination between peoples within a given economic area such as the EU - indeed in the case of global warming this is the only thing that has a hope of working.
    What is always seemed as the 'best thing' to do, isn't always the best thing. In this case, what where they planning on happening by drawing and defacing a building? It's not going to stop coal production completly, it'll just close that plant down for a few hours to get it cleaned off.

    Of course not but that is clearly not the point - it was a political act to bring to the attention of authorities the fact that citizens are concerned and to highlight their willingness to act. Its about proportional response, and apart from anything your general line seems to be if you don't get it sorted in one go don't bother.
    All I'm saying is they aren't helping. They could do something pro-active, like invent an safer and easier way to use hydrogen taps in cars, and at a cheaper cost, instead they climb up buildings and deface them.

    People are, so go and read up about the Camp, what they were actually doing there apart from the action at the plant - there was all kind of sustainability stuff, positive ideas and initiatives being floated, and involving many highly skill, educated and knowledgeable people.
Sign In or Register to comment.