Friday, September 12, 2008

If It's Good Enough For the Animal Liberation Front, It's Good Enough for Global Warming Activists

This is a disturbing turn of events. I noted to myself, but did not bring it up here, that a UK jury acquitted vandals who attacked a coal plant because it felt that fighting global warming justified their lawlessness.

I bring it up now because it turns out that result was helped to be brought about by James Hanson, the NASA scientist and apple of Al Gore's eye, who testified for the defense. From the NRO article, byline Henry Payne:

Hansen's controversial turn stems from testimony he gave this month in a London criminal trial against Greenpeace supporters who were accused of defacing--at a cost of $60,000 in property damage-- Kingsnorth, an English coal plant. Hansen testified in support of the defense's assertion that the Greenpeace members had a "lawful excuse" because they were acting to protect property around the world "in immediate need of protection” from the impacts of global warming-- caused in part, they allege, by coal burning.

By crossing the line to the side of destructive violence, Hansen--often hailed as the "the world’s leading climate scientist" by green organizations and praised by Time magazine as one of the world's "100 Most Influential People"--has seriously damaged the credibility of a movement that has struggled to separate its apocalyptic rhetoric from more extreme environmentalists who demand violent action to match that rhetoric.
This is unconscionable to anyone claiming to be--or is viewed as--a leader in an important social and political movement. And it could lead to severe consequences, as Payne notes:
Hansen's endorsement is likely to embolden radicals in the United Kingdom and possibly in the U.S., where members of the Earth Liberation Front have torched suburban homes, SUVs, logging trucks, ranger stations, and a ski resort in Vail, Colo., causing many millions of dollars in damage.

"The ramifications are huge," writes Iain Murray, an environmental-science expert with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Operators of coal-fired power stations in the U. K. have just been stripped of legal protection from the criminal actions of the environmental lobby."
It is one thing when radicals who live to tear things down act in this way, but when a respected leader validates the acts of criminals--in effect urging them on--we are in very big trouble. What was it Yeats wrote?
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
If that happens, it is because we didn't have the fortitude to resist. And I must say, the signs aren't good.

Labels:

4 Comments:

At September 12, 2008 , Blogger padraig said...

I was curious as to what comprised 60,000 pounds in property damage from "defacing" a power plant, when such plants aren't terribly scenic. Here's the article I found describing the demonstration:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/09/kingsnorthclimatecamp.climatechange

Not a lot of description of damage, although they would have had to disable the electric fence they climbed.

I suspect Hanson saw them as merely protesters. Their "wanted posters" crossed a line I don't appreciate, and I'm sure a crowd of 1500 people hanging around for a week did significant damage to the grounds. But I see some exaggeration here too.

The other week the Austrian government took a big black eye because they arrested some AR activists with insufficient evidence, then had to let them go to great fanfare on the part of AR's. I hope the English government isn't going down the same path.

That being said, Hanson's a twit to throw down with these folks. He's in a position to do a lot of good from the establishment side, and shouldn't squander that by hanging with wackos.

 
At September 14, 2008 , Blogger Joshua said...

The ruling didn't 'validate the acts of criminals', it declared they weren't criminals. If we accept that global warming is a real and present danger and that coal burning is causing it, then those who did this aren't vandals - no different to somebody who breaks a window of a burning building to put out a fire is guilty of vandalism.

 
At September 14, 2008 , Blogger padraig said...

Joshua, any firefighter will tell you if you break a window of a house on fire, you let more oxygen in and accelerate the fire.

But if you belong to a movement that thinks they can save the environment by torching Hummers and housing developments...

If you'd like an idea how successful environmentalists work, I'd suggest you look at the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy, both of which have emphasized creating "win-win" situations over harassment.

 
At September 14, 2008 , Blogger Joshua said...

Well, if a window or door is the only entrance point, you'd have to take the risk that it will accelerate the fire.

And I don't necessarily support torching Hummers, because not only will that produce greenhouse gases, but it will just end up in replacement Hummers being made.

But I am open to vandalism being an option in a select few cases.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home