Kingsnorth media coverage catapults coal onto the public agenda

Posted by jossc — 11 September 2008 at 1:28pm - Comments

Emily Hall prepares to send a message to the government

Hats off to the Kingsnorth Six for having the courage to risk prison to hold the government's misguided energy policy to account. The fact that Gordon Brown and co are planning to ramp up Britain's consumption of coal (the most climate damaging fossil fuel) had gone largely unnoticed by our mainstream media until yesterday's successful trial result. Not any more!

In case you missed the media coverage of the outcome of the Kingsnorth Six trial, here are a few representative samples. First off the blocks came last night's Channel 4 News, closely followed by a great piece from Roger Harribin on the BBC's 10 o'clock evening bulletin. Then this morning BBC Radio 4's flagship Today programme featured an interview with Ben Stewart of the Kingsnorth Six, while the Independent splashed the story across its front page and inside pages.

Amazingly most of the rest of the national press coverage was either positive or at least neutral, with lots of focus given to the expert witmess testimony of leading climate scientist Professor James Hansen. Only the likes of professional nay-sayers like Spectator columnist Melanie Phillips and Tory right-winger Teddy Taylor MP (interviewed on radio 2's Jeremy Vine show this lunchtime) were able to summon up anything like their usual levels of righteous indignation and bile.

So all in all, a good day for the climate and a bad day for the proposed new coal-fired power plants. Let's keep 'em coming!

Yes it was indeed awesome (even without your intended irony). For the first time a jury was asked, in effect, to pass judgment on the dangers posed by climate change. And whether you like it or not they decided that yes, it is a grave threat and, since we now have some insight into our contribution to its causes, we cannot blithely carry on with 'business as usual'.

Regarding your point that "Now we can commit almost any crime and claim it was done in the name of the environment" - since the activists were not convicted then by definition they committed no crime - so get your facts right. The point here is that the entire process is about establishing what is legal and what is not - on a case by case basis. But there's no doubt that this decision moves the debate forward, placing the power companies in a similar position to that of Big Tobacco a few years back when they knew for a fact that their products caused cancer but were forced to pretend that they didn't in order to keep raking in the profits.

In truth, this is not about setting a legal precedent, it is about the judgement from 12 ordinary members of the public that the science of climate change is effectively proven, and therefore the need to act urgently is now so compelling that there are indeed circumstances when acting to prevent emissions in order to protect the damage caused by climate change is legitimate. As an indictment of the government's policy of pushing forward coal at all costs, it sends a powerful message.

According to leading climate scientist and expert witness in the case, Professor James Hansen, "the main point [is] that
the government, the utility, and the fossil fuel industry, were aware of the facts but continued to ignore them. It raises the question of whether the right people are on trial."

Dr Hansen goes on to articulate these key facts in detail:

(1) Tipping Points: the climate system is dangerously close to tipping points that could have disastrous consequences for young people, life and property, and general well-being on the planet that will be inherited from today's elders.

(2) Coal's Dominant Role : Coal is the fossil fuel most responsible for excess CO2 in the air today, and coal reserves contain much more potential CO2 than do oil or gas. Coal is the fossil fuel that is most susceptible to either (a) having the CO2 captured and sequestered if coal is used in power plants, or (b) leaving the coal in the ground, instead emphasizing use of cleaner fuels and energy efficiency.

(3) Recognized Responsibilities : The UK is one of the nations most responsible for human-made CO2 in the air today, indeed, on a per capita basis it is the most responsible of all nations that are major emitters of CO2. This fact is recognized by developing countries, making it implausible that they would consider altering their plans for coal use if the UK plans to continue to rely on coal-fired power.

(4) Recognized Impacts of Climate Change : The UK government, EON, and the fossil fuel industry were aware of the likely impacts of continuation of coal emissions, specifically impacts on future sea level, extinctions of animal and plant species, and regional climate effects, i.e., they were all aware that their actions would contribute to these adverse impacts, leaving a more impoverished planet for today's young people and the unborn.

(5) Greenwash : Governments, utilities, and the fossil fuel industry have presented public faces acknowledging the importance of climate change and claiming that they are taking appropriate actions. Yet the facts, as shown in this document*, contradict their claims. Construction of new coal-fired power plants makes it unrealistic to hope for the prompt phase-out of coal emissions and thus makes it practically impossible to avert climate disasters for today's young people and future generations.

He concludes that "Recognition of these basic facts by the defendants, realization that the facts were also known by the government, utility, and fossil fuel industry, and realization that the actions needed to protect life and property of the present and future generations were not being taken undoubtedly played a role in the decision of the defendants to act as they did."

It was these facts that were accepted by the jury and led to the acquittal, and caused Prof Hansen to raise the question of "whether the right people [were] on trial". The implicit answer is, of course, no - but like the top echelons of Big Tobacco, in the not too distant future they may well be.

* Read Jim Hansen's written testimony in full (pdf)

Yes it was indeed awesome (even without your intended irony). For the first time a jury was asked, in effect, to pass judgment on the dangers posed by climate change. And whether you like it or not they decided that yes, it is a grave threat and, since we now have some insight into our contribution to its causes, we cannot blithely carry on with 'business as usual'.

Regarding your point that "Now we can commit almost any crime and claim it was done in the name of the environment" - since the activists were not convicted then by definition they committed no crime - so get your facts right. The point here is that the entire process is about establishing what is legal and what is not - on a case by case basis. But there's no doubt that this decision moves the debate forward, placing the power companies in a similar position to that of Big Tobacco a few years back when they knew for a fact that their products caused cancer but were forced to pretend that they didn't in order to keep raking in the profits.

In truth, this is not about setting a legal precedent, it is about the judgement from 12 ordinary members of the public that the science of climate change is effectively proven, and therefore the need to act urgently is now so compelling that there are indeed circumstances when acting to prevent emissions in order to protect the damage caused by climate change is legitimate. As an indictment of the government's policy of pushing forward coal at all costs, it sends a powerful message.

According to leading climate scientist and expert witness in the case, Professor James Hansen, "the main point [is] that the government, the utility, and the fossil fuel industry, were aware of the facts but continued to ignore them. It raises the question of whether the right people are on trial."

Dr Hansen goes on to articulate these key facts in detail:

(1) Tipping Points: the climate system is dangerously close to tipping points that could have disastrous consequences for young people, life and property, and general well-being on the planet that will be inherited from today's elders.

(2) Coal's Dominant Role : Coal is the fossil fuel most responsible for excess CO2 in the air today, and coal reserves contain much more potential CO2 than do oil or gas. Coal is the fossil fuel that is most susceptible to either (a) having the CO2 captured and sequestered if coal is used in power plants, or (b) leaving the coal in the ground, instead emphasizing use of cleaner fuels and energy efficiency.

(3) Recognized Responsibilities : The UK is one of the nations most responsible for human-made CO2 in the air today, indeed, on a per capita basis it is the most responsible of all nations that are major emitters of CO2. This fact is recognized by developing countries, making it implausible that they would consider altering their plans for coal use if the UK plans to continue to rely on coal-fired power.

(4) Recognized Impacts of Climate Change : The UK government, EON, and the fossil fuel industry were aware of the likely impacts of continuation of coal emissions, specifically impacts on future sea level, extinctions of animal and plant species, and regional climate effects, i.e., they were all aware that their actions would contribute to these adverse impacts, leaving a more impoverished planet for today's young people and the unborn.

(5) Greenwash : Governments, utilities, and the fossil fuel industry have presented public faces acknowledging the importance of climate change and claiming that they are taking appropriate actions. Yet the facts, as shown in this document*, contradict their claims. Construction of new coal-fired power plants makes it unrealistic to hope for the prompt phase-out of coal emissions and thus makes it practically impossible to avert climate disasters for today's young people and future generations.

He concludes that "Recognition of these basic facts by the defendants, realization that the facts were also known by the government, utility, and fossil fuel industry, and realization that the actions needed to protect life and property of the present and future generations were not being taken undoubtedly played a role in the decision of the defendants to act as they did."

It was these facts that were accepted by the jury and led to the acquittal, and caused Prof Hansen to raise the question of "whether the right people [were] on trial". The implicit answer is, of course, no - but like the top echelons of Big Tobacco, in the not too distant future they may well be.

* Read Jim Hansen's written testimony in full (pdf)

About Joss

Bass player and backing vox in the four piece beat combo that is the UK Greenpeace Web Experience. In my 6 years here I've worked on almost every campaign and been fascinated by them all to varying degrees. Just now I'm working on Peace and Oceans - which means getting rid of our Trident nuclear weapons system and creating large marine reserves so that marine life can get some protection from overfishing.

Follow Greenpeace UK