Breaking news: Kingsnorth Six found not guilty!

Posted by bex — 10 September 2008 at 3:29pm - Comments
The Greenpeace activists who closed down Kingsnorth coal-fired power station
All rights reserved. Credit: Will Rose / Greenpeace
The Greenpeace activists who closed down Kingsnorth coal-fired power station

See all trial updates.


It's been a pretty unusual ten days but today has been truly extraordinary. At 3.20pm, the jury came back into court and announced a majority verdict of not guilty! All six defendants - Kevin, Emily, Tim, Will, Ben and Huw - were acquitted of criminal damage.

To recap on how important this verdict is: the defendants campaigners were accused of causing £30,000 of criminal damage to Kingsnorth smokestack from painting. The defence was that they had 'lawful excuse' - because they were acting to protect property around the world "in immediate need of protection" from the impacts of climate change, caused in part by burning coal.

So the evidence for the defence centred around the enormous damage burning coal does to ecosystems, people and property around the planet - and the UK government's abject failure to take any meaningful action.

(This is the first case, by the way, where preventing property damage from climate change has been used as part of a 'lawful excuse' defence in Crown Court.)

During the trial, the world's leading climate scientist came to court and challenged the government's plans for new coal, calling for Gordon Brown to announce a moratorium on all new coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and storage. Cameron's environmental policy adviser said there was "a staggering mismatch between what we've heard from government and what we've seen from government in terms of policy". An expert on climate change impacts in the UK said some of the property in immediate need of protection from sea level rises included parts of Kent (Kingsnorth being "extremely vulnerable") and that "it behoves us to act with urgency". And an Inuit leader told of his first hand experiences of the impacts of climate change.

After hearing all of the evidence, the jurors (representatives of ordinary British people) supported the right to take direct action to protect the climate from the burning of coal.

So where does this leave the government's energy policy? Seen in the light of the verdict, their plans to build a new coal plant at Kingsnorth (which could emit as much as the world's 30 least polluting countries combined every year for 40 or 50 years) show not only their abject failure to act on climate change, but also that their policies are actively leading us in the wrong (and very dangerous) direction. Ministers now find themselves in a very tight corner.

Once I'm back in the office, I'll publish the witness statements from Jim Hansen, Dr Geoff Meaden, Zac Goldsmith, Jennifer Morgan and Aqqaluk Lynge in full (they're well worth reading). And keep an eye out for our next podcast, where we'll be talking to the defendants and to Jim Hansen about coal, climate change and the trial.

In the meantime, you can find out more about coal, why we don't need it to keep the lights on and why the government should be pursuing efficiency, renewables and combined heat and power instead.

But for now, with a huge thanks to the brilliant defence legal team - Michael Wolkind QC, barrister Quincy Whitaker, and Mike Schwarz and Catherine Jackson of Bindmans Solicitors - it's over and out from the Kingsnorth trial.

To everyone receiving this by email, thank you for signing up for the updates, and for your messages of support. If you'd like to hear from us regularly, you can sign up to get fortnightly(ish) updates about our campaigns and nonviolent direct actions from us here.

Finally, we've turned commenting back on, so feel free to leave your thoughts below (although I might take a wee while to answer them; I suspect some celebrations with the defendants are afoot)...


Video: why new coal power stations in the UK would be a disaster for the climate

Just a quick one to say thanks for the all comments and messages of support (and richarduk - we'll definitely be sleeping well tonight)! I'll answer a few of the criticisms separately.

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

PS The Guardian's running a poll: is climate change a valid defence?

You wrote:
If you have a belief, you gather all the evidence to support it and present it to the people.

We did exactly that - after hearing the evidence from Jim Hansen, Zac Goldsmith, Geoff Meaden and the defendants, the jury (representatives of the people) considered it and concluded that what we did wasn't illegal - because we were acting to protect property of greater value in immediate need of protection.

You also wrote:
YOUR alternative is, you have a belief, you don't have the evidence, so you smash something in exasperation. You people just do not 'get it' do you?

Um, what did we smash? As the judge said, we're not mindless vandals. We painted a chimney, which apparently cost £30,000 to clean up. As the jury heard, the social costs of the emissions from Kingsnorth power station is around £1 million pounds a day (calculated using Lord Stern's estimate that the emissions of one tonne of carbon will incur around £50 in social costs).

On your other point on nuclear power, have a read of this (a report by leading energy consultants) to see why we can keep the lights on without new coal or new nuclear - in fact just by the government meeting its existing renewables and efficiency targets.

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

Thanks for coming along - and good to meet you (if it was you I met :)

Yep, you're right about it not setting a legal precedent. And as the jurors were told, it was their job to return verdicts on these defendants - and leave future cases to future jurors.

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

Hey Gandalf

You might want to read Zac Goldsmith's evidence, where he told the jury that power companies have received an enormous windfall of £billions - one widely accepted report said that E.ON alone got £466 million from 'permits to pollute'.

He told the court that Ofgem had effectively said that the system had led to consumers paying companies for polluting more. Steve Smith of Ofgem: "In essence rather than the polluter paying, the polluter is actually getting paid. It is a straight transfer [of cash] from customers to generators' shareholders."

And then have a look at an E.on director's reaction to high energy costs for consumers.

Or Ben's evidence that the Stern Report puts the social costs of each tonne of CO2 at around £50. Kingsnorth emits around 20,000 tonnes of CO2 a day - which adds up to around £1 million in social costs every day from Kingsnorth.

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

They're now up in full.

Bex
gpuk

Hey Steve

I'm definitely not going to argue with you that the government wants nuclear but I'm not sure I follow your logic. That we should stop campaigning on coal and just stick to our nuclear campaign?

The point is that our energy system is a shambles - criminally wasteful and inefficient (the typical conventional power plant in the UK is only around 38 per cent efficient) - and both the new nuclear and new coal plants the government wants would lock us into this system.

Combined heat and power plants in a decentralised energy system on the other hand can reach efficiencies of up to 95%. And they deal with heating, which is the UK's biggest source of emissions (ahead of electricity and transport) - and which our conventional plants do almost nothing to address.

Which is why we're campaigning for a decentralised energy system based on renewables, efficiency and combined heat and power. (I think the link you referred to was about decentralised energy, not wind power specifically by the way - but this one may be clearer.)

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

Hi Mike

As you imply, China obviously needs to be part of the energy solution to climate change. Which is why Greenpeace China is campaigning on coal:

Greenpeace’s coal campaign aims at reducing China’s dependency (70% of primary energy use) on coal. We continue to push for renewable energy policies in the hopes of exploiting China’s vast renewable energy resources.

But it's also vital that the UK sorts out its own energy policy. How can the UK hope to help convince China to turn away from coal if we're planning to keep using it here?

Per person, the UK bears more responsibility for historical CO2 emissions in the atmosphere than anyone else (followed by the US, then Germany). As Jim Hansen said, "[t]his 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."

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

Hi Vinny

My fault, sorry. I reported it correctly in the original blog and in most comments, but I accidentally left out the word 'dioxide' in one of my comments. To clarify: the Stern Review put the social costs of carbon dioxide at around £50 per tonne.

Meaning that the point I was making is still true: if the social cost of carbon dioxide is around £50, and if Kingsnorth emits 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a day, then the social costs of emissions from Kingsnorth are around £1 million a day.

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

Thanks for commenting Anna - and a huge thanks to your dad too.

Bex
gpuk

Just a quick one to say thanks for the all comments and messages of support (and richarduk - we'll definitely be sleeping well tonight)! I'll answer a few of the criticisms separately. Cheers, Bex gpuk PS The Guardian's running a poll: is climate change a valid defence?

You wrote: If you have a belief, you gather all the evidence to support it and present it to the people. We did exactly that - after hearing the evidence from Jim Hansen, Zac Goldsmith, Geoff Meaden and the defendants, the jury (representatives of the people) considered it and concluded that what we did wasn't illegal - because we were acting to protect property of greater value in immediate need of protection. You also wrote: YOUR alternative is, you have a belief, you don't have the evidence, so you smash something in exasperation. You people just do not 'get it' do you? Um, what did we smash? As the judge said, we're not mindless vandals. We painted a chimney, which apparently cost £30,000 to clean up. As the jury heard, the social costs of the emissions from Kingsnorth power station is around £1 million pounds a day (calculated using Lord Stern's estimate that the emissions of one tonne of carbon will incur around £50 in social costs). On your other point on nuclear power, have a read of this (a report by leading energy consultants) to see why we can keep the lights on without new coal or new nuclear - in fact just by the government meeting its existing renewables and efficiency targets. Cheers, Bex gpuk

Thanks for coming along - and good to meet you (if it was you I met :) Yep, you're right about it not setting a legal precedent. And as the jurors were told, it was their job to return verdicts on these defendants - and leave future cases to future jurors. Cheers, Bex gpuk

Hey Gandalf You might want to read Zac Goldsmith's evidence, where he told the jury that power companies have received an enormous windfall of £billions - one widely accepted report said that E.ON alone got £466 million from 'permits to pollute'. He told the court that Ofgem had effectively said that the system had led to consumers paying companies for polluting more. Steve Smith of Ofgem: "In essence rather than the polluter paying, the polluter is actually getting paid. It is a straight transfer [of cash] from customers to generators' shareholders." And then have a look at an E.on director's reaction to high energy costs for consumers. Or Ben's evidence that the Stern Report puts the social costs of each tonne of CO2 at around £50. Kingsnorth emits around 20,000 tonnes of CO2 a day - which adds up to around £1 million in social costs every day from Kingsnorth. Cheers, Bex gpuk

They're now up in full. Bex gpuk

Hey Steve I'm definitely not going to argue with you that the government wants nuclear but I'm not sure I follow your logic. That we should stop campaigning on coal and just stick to our nuclear campaign? The point is that our energy system is a shambles - criminally wasteful and inefficient (the typical conventional power plant in the UK is only around 38 per cent efficient) - and both the new nuclear and new coal plants the government wants would lock us into this system. Combined heat and power plants in a decentralised energy system on the other hand can reach efficiencies of up to 95%. And they deal with heating, which is the UK's biggest source of emissions (ahead of electricity and transport) - and which our conventional plants do almost nothing to address. Which is why we're campaigning for a decentralised energy system based on renewables, efficiency and combined heat and power. (I think the link you referred to was about decentralised energy, not wind power specifically by the way - but this one may be clearer.) Cheers, Bex gpuk

Hi Mike As you imply, China obviously needs to be part of the energy solution to climate change. Which is why Greenpeace China is campaigning on coal: Greenpeace’s coal campaign aims at reducing China’s dependency (70% of primary energy use) on coal. We continue to push for renewable energy policies in the hopes of exploiting China’s vast renewable energy resources. But it's also vital that the UK sorts out its own energy policy. How can the UK hope to help convince China to turn away from coal if we're planning to keep using it here? Per person, the UK bears more responsibility for historical CO2 emissions in the atmosphere than anyone else (followed by the US, then Germany). As Jim Hansen said, "[t]his 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." Cheers, Bex gpuk

Hi Vinny My fault, sorry. I reported it correctly in the original blog and in most comments, but I accidentally left out the word 'dioxide' in one of my comments. To clarify: the Stern Review put the social costs of carbon dioxide at around £50 per tonne. Meaning that the point I was making is still true: if the social cost of carbon dioxide is around £50, and if Kingsnorth emits 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a day, then the social costs of emissions from Kingsnorth are around £1 million a day. Cheers, Bex gpuk

Thanks for commenting Anna - and a huge thanks to your dad too. Bex gpuk

Follow Greenpeace UK