Comments on: Here come de judge

By: cindy

cindy — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:15:44 +0000

erk – sorry about link – this should be better done a deal with the UK Govt

Gareth: still can’t “click to edit”..

[Gareth says: fixed your link, and I've been trying make that edit function work properly -but the solution evades me. It's a server issue, I think, but the support team are being very slow sorting it out...]

By: cindy

cindy — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:14:22 +0000

Good question Stephen.

The UK, of course, is part of the European ETS, which is starting to bite (Drax, another coal-fired power station, had profits slashed in half because of the ETS starting to kick in there).

EON argues, on one hand, that CCS will take care of emissions, and is proposing to build a CCS demonstration plant there. However, it seems that it has done a deal with the UK Govt to get consent without a CCS condition attached to it.

Usual industry/govt connivance: happens everywhere it seems.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:30:01 +0000

Isn’t the UK part of an ETS in some way shape or form? Strange that it’s still the most economical action for a power company to take…

By: cindy

cindy — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 04:25:00 +0000

The “lawful excuse” was also used some years ago when women in the UK broke into an airbase and smashed the windows of Hawk aircraft destined for Indonesia. They got off because their damage was less than what the Hawks would ultimately cause. It was also successfully used by Greenpeace to defend the ripping up of a field of GE maize.

Greenpeace got NASA’s James Hansen to testify for them in the case. In his statement released in response to the verdict he said:

“The main point, that the government, the utility, and the fossil fuel industry, were aware of the facts but continued to ignore them are more generally valid worldwide. It raises the question of whether the right people are on trial.”

Here’s the long version of his testimony.

Apparently the verdict has thrown a cat amongst the pigeons in the UK Govt which is in the final throes of deciding whether to allow EON to build a new Kingsnorth coal-fired power station.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:01:19 +0000

Steve and rata, you raise good points. I can’t see anyone trying to quantify the damage coal does to you/biosphere anytime soon, because it’s just wwaaaaay too hard! Re: health, they are taxed, and to some extent the taxes go towards your healthcare costs, for what it’s worth.

By: rata

rata — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:06:38 +0000

i think the precendent of coal companies disturbing our climate system for profit is pretty unsettling.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:34:55 +0000

Coal plants damage private property (and people, and the rest of the biosphere) much worse than a bit of paint. Who will compensate me for breathing coal emissions, and for the cost of climate change to me and my descendants? Oh, I see, for the coal companies that’s a freebie. How special for them.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:41:26 +0000

Brown would probably rather less people knew who the PM was, seeing as then less people would know who to vote against . There was a similar example with that group that busted the spybase dome a few months ago – I forget their name, but they were left off a few times in the UK for similar property damage costs because it was to prevent ‘an illegal war’ (Iraq)!

By: Sonny Whitelaw

Sonny Whitelaw — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:24:53 +0000

Stephen – totally agree, on all counts. The precedent is alarming even if a part of me sniggered a bit. And AU$80,000 for a paint job on a smokestack? What was wrong with leaving Brown’s name on the thing ?

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:28:12 +0000

That’s remarkable Sonny! I’m also flabbergasted, and the precedent it sets for damaging private property is very unsettling, even if it was only paint. Would love to know how removing that costed £35,000, maybe they should shop around in future…