This is the most amazing story I've read in months and I hadn't heard boo about it in the mainstream US press.
About two weeks ago a single activist breached the security of one of the most heavily guarded power plants in Britain, climbed two 10-foot electrified razor wire fences, and shut down a 500 MW turbine--enough to power an entire city. He left a calling card reading "no new coal" and left the same way he came. The UK papers say that for the four hours the plant was shut down, Britain's climate change emissions were decreased by about 2 percent. They're calling the unknown activist the "green Banksy" after the renowned, anonymous (until recently) street artist, which is a hint to the media's barely concealed admiration for this enviro-saboteur.
What's even more remarkable than the astonishing success and daring of his feat is that there's recent British precedence for a legal defense of it. In September a British jury found that the clear and lethal threat of global warming is urgent enough to justify the vandalism of six Greenpeace activists who caused $50,000 worth of damage to another coal plant. Under the "lawful excuse" doctrine the jurors decided that the activists, who painted the prime minister's name on the plant's chimney, acted to save lives, analogous to breaking down the door of a house in order to put out a fire. The world's leading climate change scientist, James Hansen, actually flew in from America to testify as an expert witness on behalf of Greenpeace.
Al Gore has also gone on record as calling for "civil disobedience" by young people to stop new coal plants from being built.
I don't know whether to be amazed by the power of individual direct action to stop global warming, or dismayed at the idea that Nobel Prize winners are leaving it up to individuals to do what international governments seem unwilling to agree on.
Photo: The Guardian
Related Stories: | Topics:Innovation, Technology, Design, Ethonomics, biodiversity, Green, Sustainable, environment, United Kingdom, United States, Science and Technology, Climatology, Earth Science |
Recent Comments | 3 Total
December 28, 2008 at 10:05pm by Hans Eisenman
This kind of tit-for-tat approach to resolving the problems of the world can only lead to more trouble. It's easy to justify transgressions against the moral codes of the world by saying the end justifies it all. Rarely in civilized society is that truly necessary. It's takes even more creativity, courage and backbone to find legal and ethical ways to get people to change. Ways that set a good example for our progeny, rather than giving them a reason to slip a little further into darkness and chaos themselves.
November 3, 2009 at 9:06pm by Paul Dinther
2% reduction in CO2 emission just because one power plant is down for 4 hours? Does nobody do maths anymore these days?
I looked up the thermal electricity generation for the UK in 2003 which was about 250 billion kwh. This is 250000000 MWh (This is much higher today)
The 500MW plant assuming it actually was running at full capacity was down for 4 hours and therefore was prevented from generating 2000MWh worth of power.
The potential reduction in CO2 emissions would not have been 2% but 0.0008% (250000000 / 2000) * 100. This 2500 times less than claimed!
And even this number is far too high because other power plants would have been running under a higher load to make up for the lost plant.
Is it a requirement these days to be stupid before you can be a journalist and write crap like this?