The debate has gone on my entire life and I am now an old man. In the states, Exxon has known (and concealed) the facts of climate change since the 1950s.
Debates exactly equal Delays.
The legal system hasn't changed ... it was set up to protect property owned by imortal, amoral corporations.
Spot on - Liberalism and Law from 16th C. England on - nothing but crime and genocide. This dialectic of Law and Violence goes to the heart of slavery and oppression we are told to call 'freedom'
Good reporting! The 'corporate state' knows no limits (except forced by broad social mobilization) to its violence and threats of violence in pursuit of endless capital accumulation by the financial elite it serves. Hence, 'we the people' must organize beyond street protests to exert sufficient public pressure to 'stop the insanity' of the terminal trajectory of the global political economy.
Brilliant. I think the theories of change being employed by Roger Hallam have seriously underestimated the cohesion of the communities that enacted them. Ghandi and MLK were leaders in structurally strong communities, in which people were willing to die, not just get sent to prison.
Our present communities are structurally weak and diffuse (by design), from laws set down by the same corrupt system of violence, many years ago. This eclipsing of protest is just the latest.
Building strong, resilent communities will take some doing, and will involve a land base. Despite the propaganda around online 'communities' and the Arab spring, the structural part of these rebellions, again, is in the cohesion of actual communities not the social media platforms.
My partner and I were both arrested in the XR protests, and there is worth in this action. However, without strong land based community we are deeply compromised by the structural enslavement of wages, rents, supply chain commodities and all the rest.
There's a reason why climate activism takes place mostly in countries like England. Because it's easy and safe. England could go to zero emissions and no one would notice, because the massive consumption happens in the United States and China, and the oil comes from Russia and Saudi Arabia, and the US of course because the US is leader in production and consumption. Try activism in Saudi Arabia or Russia or China, well of course that wouldn't last long, you'd vanish or be dead. That's not a reason to stop activism, because everything helps however useless it seems at the time. But if the AMOC falters and England's climate goes like Norway, then god alone knows what we can expect. Norway's population is under 6million, UK over 66million. Ask Michael Gove about that, or even Sir Keir as it'll soon be his problem.
Would you like to become a barrister Rachel? Beard the establishment in his den with your irrefutable logic? Take over where Polly Higgins sadly left off.
PS: Since the corporate state is a self-declared enemy of Nature, it is up to 'the people' to counter that terminal gambit. There is no other source of human authority to do so.
People in Latin America standing in front of bulldozers (many of whom are killed though some have eg prevented their rivers being from being dammed) is different to people in the Home Counties breaking windows, throwing orange paint around or stopping doctors and nurses from getting to work. It may make these people feel brave and as though they're doing something- but as it's having the opposite effect on whether British people want to talk about the climate crisis-I strongly suggest they rethink.
Yes I can understand why you lost subs. Climate activists should not get a free pass for criminal damage. Nor is their behaviour at sports events, with staged photo ops, laudable either; it is counter productive, even environmentalists find them really annoying.
Climate protests have appeared to be protected by the establishment til now but the backlash is now sufficient for the new narrative against the JSO etc ‘mob’ (according the Daily Mail) and both Tories and Labour, and George Galloway, arer heading away from even paying lip service to ‘net zero’ scams and are denying that their even is a climate crisis.
In the UK? That is why a man like Sam Melia gets sent to prison, but Muslim rape gangs and rapists in general are allowed to be free?
Colonialism is the reason? Not that those in charge choose what is actually important and prosecute based on that, on the principles of anarcho-tyranny? Then why is the same thing happening in places like Sweden or Ireland, which had no colonies?
Please explain that, and please refrain from using the CoLoNiALiSm as a catch-all excuse instead of actually engaging in critical thinking and criticism.
So, the court of appeal has disallowed, in advance, future uses in jury trials of the ‘consent’ argument that relies on evidence about the effects of climate change. This is a serious blow that is bound to result in more convictions. It reminds me, a bit remotely, of the Dred Scott decision of the US Supreme Court in 1857 that found slavery legal and that black slaves were not and could never be citizens. Utter disaster, yet within 3 years the North was at war with the southern States, within 5 years came the Emancipation Proclamation, and within 6 years came the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery forever. Therefore, take heart, and in particular don’t use this occasion to attack the entire basis of the rule of law. Good grief, the rule of law is all we have; it is the foundation of all our freedoms. If you are going to attack the rule of law on the basis of one bad decision, let us know what you have in mind as an alternative. Can we not trace a line from Magna Carta 1215, to the Petition of Right 1628, to the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, to the Glorious Revolution 1688 and on to the to the Declaration of Independence 1776? All flawed, all wanting, and yet these are the great documents on which we entrust “our lives, our souls, our debts, our careful wives, our children and our sins.” And these are the jurists of the rule of law - Hobbes, Locke, Grotius, Erasmus, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Smith, Hume, and was it not Lord Mansfield then Chief Justice of King’s Bench in 1772 who reportedly said, in the habeas corpus case of James Somersett an escaped slave: “….slavery is so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it…”? So now we have a woman called Sue Carr, the most senior judge in England and Wales, with a decision we do not like because it denies a defense to climate activists, but it is something that we can say “a woman, the most senior judge” without blinking an eye, even though for sure she is not (yet) a member of the Garrick Club. Evolutionary change is slow and incremental which can be maddening, but revolutionary change is all too often lethal.
So, Rachel says the rule of law is based on violence. Well, yes, there are penalties for breaking the law, if that is what you mean, but the architecture of our laws, from legislation to create them, courts to administer them, police forces that enforce them, including all the laws intended to protect our freedoms and our security within and outside our homes, constitute the surety for our survival. It is misleading to denounce all this as based on violence, and therefore to be disregarded or overthrown. You might just as well say, if I tell my child to behave or she’ll be on the naughty list, that I’m using violence. Your arguments are too rash, too unadvised, too sudden, but if you must persist, then let us know what comes next if 300 years of thinking is to be torn down. The activists are breaking the law, in a good cause they believe in; the courts have struck down one defense, so the activists and their lawyers must think of new arguments, new ways of enlightening society. The comment of Elizabeth Higgins is correct: the data is always up for debate, even if 98% of scientists agree, although as far as I can tell they are also highly apt to disagree. It’s quite possible we have already passed enough tipping points that warming is not now stoppable; certainly James Hansen and Paul Beckwith, and others, seem to suggest this. The ice caps at both poles are melting and this seems unstoppable. The AMOC is apparently in dire straits. The idea of unavoidable wet bulb temperatures lethal to humans is gaining traction. All this is cause for great concern, for action and activism, but the worst thing is if we all go mad and turn on each other. My parents had World War II, theirs had WW I, somehow we missed nuclear war (so far), and now we have global warming which seems worse than anything before. According to the great David Deutsch (Beginning of Infinity) this is how it will always be for us humans: gigantic then more gigantic problems, which we have to solve and which, as he says, are solvable if we have the right knowledge. So far, anyway.
“Andrew Bridgen, a member of the science-denying Net Zero Scrutiny Group, stood up in the Houses of Parliament and gassed: “Independent scientists have stated that higher carbon dioxide levels would be beneficial for life on the planet through increased plant growth… So can we have a debate on government time about the cost benefits of Net Zero before trillions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are wasted?””
What’s wrong with having a debate? If the position of Net Zero can be defended with proven facts, then do so. Lay out the facts, the evidence, and proposed solutions. Certainly before trillions of pounds are spent on what might not even solve the problems.
Maybe it’s easier to rely on emotional histrionics, blocking roads, damaging property, gluing hands to roads, and vandalizing priceless artwork than to present a case with logic, math, real world solutions, and facts.
Maybe because the case lacks logic, math, real world solutions, and facts.
The debate has gone on my entire life and I am now an old man. In the states, Exxon has known (and concealed) the facts of climate change since the 1950s.
Debates exactly equal Delays.
The legal system hasn't changed ... it was set up to protect property owned by imortal, amoral corporations.
Spot on - Liberalism and Law from 16th C. England on - nothing but crime and genocide. This dialectic of Law and Violence goes to the heart of slavery and oppression we are told to call 'freedom'
Good reporting! The 'corporate state' knows no limits (except forced by broad social mobilization) to its violence and threats of violence in pursuit of endless capital accumulation by the financial elite it serves. Hence, 'we the people' must organize beyond street protests to exert sufficient public pressure to 'stop the insanity' of the terminal trajectory of the global political economy.
Brilliant. I think the theories of change being employed by Roger Hallam have seriously underestimated the cohesion of the communities that enacted them. Ghandi and MLK were leaders in structurally strong communities, in which people were willing to die, not just get sent to prison.
Our present communities are structurally weak and diffuse (by design), from laws set down by the same corrupt system of violence, many years ago. This eclipsing of protest is just the latest.
Building strong, resilent communities will take some doing, and will involve a land base. Despite the propaganda around online 'communities' and the Arab spring, the structural part of these rebellions, again, is in the cohesion of actual communities not the social media platforms.
My partner and I were both arrested in the XR protests, and there is worth in this action. However, without strong land based community we are deeply compromised by the structural enslavement of wages, rents, supply chain commodities and all the rest.
There's a reason why climate activism takes place mostly in countries like England. Because it's easy and safe. England could go to zero emissions and no one would notice, because the massive consumption happens in the United States and China, and the oil comes from Russia and Saudi Arabia, and the US of course because the US is leader in production and consumption. Try activism in Saudi Arabia or Russia or China, well of course that wouldn't last long, you'd vanish or be dead. That's not a reason to stop activism, because everything helps however useless it seems at the time. But if the AMOC falters and England's climate goes like Norway, then god alone knows what we can expect. Norway's population is under 6million, UK over 66million. Ask Michael Gove about that, or even Sir Keir as it'll soon be his problem.
Would you like to become a barrister Rachel? Beard the establishment in his den with your irrefutable logic? Take over where Polly Higgins sadly left off.
Time to interview some elders still in touch with the living earth? Tyson Yankaporta in Australia is a good contact to start the process.
PS: Since the corporate state is a self-declared enemy of Nature, it is up to 'the people' to counter that terminal gambit. There is no other source of human authority to do so.
People in Latin America standing in front of bulldozers (many of whom are killed though some have eg prevented their rivers being from being dammed) is different to people in the Home Counties breaking windows, throwing orange paint around or stopping doctors and nurses from getting to work. It may make these people feel brave and as though they're doing something- but as it's having the opposite effect on whether British people want to talk about the climate crisis-I strongly suggest they rethink.
Yes I can understand why you lost subs. Climate activists should not get a free pass for criminal damage. Nor is their behaviour at sports events, with staged photo ops, laudable either; it is counter productive, even environmentalists find them really annoying.
Climate protests have appeared to be protected by the establishment til now but the backlash is now sufficient for the new narrative against the JSO etc ‘mob’ (according the Daily Mail) and both Tories and Labour, and George Galloway, arer heading away from even paying lip service to ‘net zero’ scams and are denying that their even is a climate crisis.
A living legacy of British colonialism?
In the UK? That is why a man like Sam Melia gets sent to prison, but Muslim rape gangs and rapists in general are allowed to be free?
Colonialism is the reason? Not that those in charge choose what is actually important and prosecute based on that, on the principles of anarcho-tyranny? Then why is the same thing happening in places like Sweden or Ireland, which had no colonies?
Please explain that, and please refrain from using the CoLoNiALiSm as a catch-all excuse instead of actually engaging in critical thinking and criticism.
These are empty words without argumentation.
So, the court of appeal has disallowed, in advance, future uses in jury trials of the ‘consent’ argument that relies on evidence about the effects of climate change. This is a serious blow that is bound to result in more convictions. It reminds me, a bit remotely, of the Dred Scott decision of the US Supreme Court in 1857 that found slavery legal and that black slaves were not and could never be citizens. Utter disaster, yet within 3 years the North was at war with the southern States, within 5 years came the Emancipation Proclamation, and within 6 years came the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery forever. Therefore, take heart, and in particular don’t use this occasion to attack the entire basis of the rule of law. Good grief, the rule of law is all we have; it is the foundation of all our freedoms. If you are going to attack the rule of law on the basis of one bad decision, let us know what you have in mind as an alternative. Can we not trace a line from Magna Carta 1215, to the Petition of Right 1628, to the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, to the Glorious Revolution 1688 and on to the to the Declaration of Independence 1776? All flawed, all wanting, and yet these are the great documents on which we entrust “our lives, our souls, our debts, our careful wives, our children and our sins.” And these are the jurists of the rule of law - Hobbes, Locke, Grotius, Erasmus, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Smith, Hume, and was it not Lord Mansfield then Chief Justice of King’s Bench in 1772 who reportedly said, in the habeas corpus case of James Somersett an escaped slave: “….slavery is so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it…”? So now we have a woman called Sue Carr, the most senior judge in England and Wales, with a decision we do not like because it denies a defense to climate activists, but it is something that we can say “a woman, the most senior judge” without blinking an eye, even though for sure she is not (yet) a member of the Garrick Club. Evolutionary change is slow and incremental which can be maddening, but revolutionary change is all too often lethal.
So, Rachel says the rule of law is based on violence. Well, yes, there are penalties for breaking the law, if that is what you mean, but the architecture of our laws, from legislation to create them, courts to administer them, police forces that enforce them, including all the laws intended to protect our freedoms and our security within and outside our homes, constitute the surety for our survival. It is misleading to denounce all this as based on violence, and therefore to be disregarded or overthrown. You might just as well say, if I tell my child to behave or she’ll be on the naughty list, that I’m using violence. Your arguments are too rash, too unadvised, too sudden, but if you must persist, then let us know what comes next if 300 years of thinking is to be torn down. The activists are breaking the law, in a good cause they believe in; the courts have struck down one defense, so the activists and their lawyers must think of new arguments, new ways of enlightening society. The comment of Elizabeth Higgins is correct: the data is always up for debate, even if 98% of scientists agree, although as far as I can tell they are also highly apt to disagree. It’s quite possible we have already passed enough tipping points that warming is not now stoppable; certainly James Hansen and Paul Beckwith, and others, seem to suggest this. The ice caps at both poles are melting and this seems unstoppable. The AMOC is apparently in dire straits. The idea of unavoidable wet bulb temperatures lethal to humans is gaining traction. All this is cause for great concern, for action and activism, but the worst thing is if we all go mad and turn on each other. My parents had World War II, theirs had WW I, somehow we missed nuclear war (so far), and now we have global warming which seems worse than anything before. According to the great David Deutsch (Beginning of Infinity) this is how it will always be for us humans: gigantic then more gigantic problems, which we have to solve and which, as he says, are solvable if we have the right knowledge. So far, anyway.
You wrote:
“Andrew Bridgen, a member of the science-denying Net Zero Scrutiny Group, stood up in the Houses of Parliament and gassed: “Independent scientists have stated that higher carbon dioxide levels would be beneficial for life on the planet through increased plant growth… So can we have a debate on government time about the cost benefits of Net Zero before trillions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are wasted?””
What’s wrong with having a debate? If the position of Net Zero can be defended with proven facts, then do so. Lay out the facts, the evidence, and proposed solutions. Certainly before trillions of pounds are spent on what might not even solve the problems.
Maybe it’s easier to rely on emotional histrionics, blocking roads, damaging property, gluing hands to roads, and vandalizing priceless artwork than to present a case with logic, math, real world solutions, and facts.
Maybe because the case lacks logic, math, real world solutions, and facts.