Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

[matticus]

I seem to be in parallel debates on multiple platforms this week, where self-proclaimed "sceptics" take the same weird arguments to justify ignoring the Green views:
They all say they're smarter than Greta et al. They see the Bigger Picture or similar.
Apparently the solution "isn't that simple".
And because someone with a public profile is allegedly hypocritical, that obviously negates what they say.
How convenient that this provides an excuse to do what they wanted to do ...

Are there any other positions I should listen to? I'm getting bored of this one ...

 

[bobzmyunkle]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...tralia-climate-innes-fitzgerald-cross-country

 

[matticus]

Was there a Danish footballer who wouldn't fly? Played for a British club at quite high level.

(who remembers BA in the A-Team?? )

 

[mudsticks]

Was there a Danish footballer who wouldn't fly? Played for a British club at quite high level.

(who remembers BA in the A-Team?? )

There's a whole network of us if you're interested..
https://flightfree.co.uk/

We share tips on getting about flight free, and suchlike.😇

All whilst sporting heavy gold chains, denim waistcoats, and mohawks, naturally 👌🏼

 

[winjim]

There's a whole network of us if you're interested..
https://flightfree.co.uk/

We share tips on getting about flight free, and suchlike.😇

All whilst sporting heavy gold chains, denim waistcoats, and mohawks, naturally 👌🏼

There's someone I work with who doesn't fly, mostly for environmental reasons but also I think he's just not keen on the idea. It's a bit of an issue only because he's a world renowned expert in his particular field so does get invited to speak at a lot of conferences.

 

[jowwy]

Was there a Danish footballer who wouldn't fly? Played for a British club at quite high level.

(who remembers BA in the A-Team?? )

Dutch…..not danish. Denis Bergkamp

 

[AndyRM]

Bergkamp has aviophobia, he doesn't do it because of any moral principle. It's a legit thing and the two shouldn't be conflated.

 

[mudsticks]

There's someone I work with who doesn't fly, mostly for environmental reasons but also I think he's just not keen on the idea. It's a bit of an issue only because he's a world renowned expert in his particular field so does get invited to speak at a lot of conferences.

i decided to turn down the chance of an all expenses paid trip to Central America to attend a week long conference there because of the 'me no flyee' situation.

It wasn't an easy decision to make - some of my 'Much-greener-than-me' associates suggested maybe i really should go because of the potential benefits of my being there.

Which was a nice ego boost i s'pose, but in the end i didn't go - because otherwise it doesn't seem like much of a 'moral stand' to take if you so easily change your mind when something tasty is dangled.

Anyway i've promised myself that i might still go one day - only for longer - and go by boat - probs take a bike too and have a nose around for a couple of months, to make it worth going..

 

[matticus]

Bergkamp has aviophobia, he doesn't do it because of any moral principle. It's a legit thing and the two shouldn't be conflated.

Thankyou - that's the fella!

 

[newfhouse]

Man on trial for climate protest is jailed for contempt of court as a consequence of explaining his climate protest.

An environmental activist has been jailed for eight weeks after disobeying a judge’s instruction not to mention the climate crisis as his motivation during his trial for taking part in a road-blocking protest.

David Nixon, 36, a care worker from Barnsley, was sentenced at Inner London crown court on Tuesday after admitting contempt of court the day before by using his closing address to begin telling a jury about his reasons for protesting.

He and three others had been on trial for causing a public nuisance by blocking a busy junction in the City of London on 25 October 2021 as part of the Insulate Britain climate campaign. They were found guilty and will be sentenced on 24 March.

The judge, Silas Reid, had told the defendants not to refer to climate change as motivation for their actions, but during his closing speech Nixon turned to the subject of insulation and its relation to climate change.

As Reid directed the jury to leave the court, Nixon said: “That’s before moving on to climate change. Posters around the court building are saying that we are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.

“You’ve not been able to hear these truths because this court has not allowed me to say them. Our safety is at risk, our society is at risk.”

Reid gave Nixon two opportunities on Tuesday to apologise for defying the court, which he refused.

Nixon, who represented himself, told Reid he had found the inability to tell the jury why he had taken part in the protest “soul-destroying”.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-jailed-for-eight-weeks-for-contempt-of-court

 

[matticus]

At first glance this is a sad, even shocking story. I'd like to hear from a legal eagle about how much was just the judge "doing his job", and whether it's normal common to get stitched-up like this.

 

[icowden]

At first glance this is a sad, even shocking story. I'd like to hear from a legal eagle about how much was just the judge "doing his job", and whether it's normal common to get stitched-up like this.

Not a legal eagle, but my guess would be that the Judge wanted to specifically focus on whether the guy was guilty of causing a public nuisance and that he felt that the climate change issue was unduly emotive and might bias the Jury away from considering the actual charge and legal arguments regarding it.

In other words *why* they were causing a public nuisance was not the issue being tried, only whether or not the actions could be considered a public nuisance.

To be fair to the Judge he also gave the guy two opportunities to apologise to the Court and thus avoid a contempt charge. Unfortunately he didn't and so is learning the hard way that that is a bad idea. It's pretty much summed up here:-

He told Nixon the criminal courts were solely there to establish whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of defendants. “You said the court is not upholding what it is there to uphold,” he said. “You were wrong about that. This court is here to determine whether people have committed crimes.”

By defying his orders about what could be mentioned in court, Nixon had put that function in jeopardy and created a risk that the trial would have to be repeated, Reid said.

“Your contempt … is very serious because it represents a complete disrespect for the court and the court process,” he said. “You compounded the initial contempt by continuing to speak … I find it hard to think of a more calculated and deliberate contempt.”

This bit is really stupid:

A spokesperson for Insulate Britain said locking people up for “telling the truth in court” was the “mark of an extreme authoritarian regime”.
“We declare that the British legal system no longer has legitimacy in our eyes,” they said.

Displays breathtaking stupidity, ignorance of the legal system and is likely to lose them support. He wasn't locked up for telling the truth, he was locked up for potentially jeopardising a trial by causing Jury bias, leading to the possible expense of a retrial. Given the scarcity of trial slots, the Judge is right to be a little peeved by this chaps arrogance.

 

[theclaud]

the climate change issue was unduly emotive

Unduly emotive, you say! Fancy people getting all exercised about an unliveable planet.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Not a legal eagle, but my guess would be that the Judge wanted to specifically focus on whether the guy was guilty of causing a public nuisance and that he felt that the climate change issue was unduly emotive and might bias the Jury away from considering the actual charge and legal arguments regarding it.

There does seem to have been cases under this judge (and possibly others, he's the one I Googled) where the jury have acquitted climate protesters when they were probably technically guilty. I guess he's been given a good talking to. We just can't have this sort of thing Silas.

 

[matticus]

cases where the jury have acquitted climate protesters when they were probably technically guilty

I recall similar acquitals; IIRC the defence was that in the light of climate change, it was reasonable to cause disruption, block roads etc. Google found this, which is a bit similar:

"This Policy Exchange report outlines the inadequacy of the criminal law in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Ziegler, which ruled that deliberate physical obstruction of the highway did not necessarily constitute the offence of obstructing the highway. The Supreme Court ruled that protestors should not be convicted if a conviction would be a disproportionate interference with their Convention rights to protest, which was to be decided at trial. The judgment has spilled over in relation to offences other than obstruction of the highway, including criminal damage. "
https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/the-just-stop-oil-protests/

My bold! That bit seems rather relevant to this "contempt of court" charge on Mr Nixon.