Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate activists on trial for blocking an oil train may be about to set a controversial legal precedent. According to Mother Jones, for the first time in American legal history, activists will be allowed to present their concerns about climate change as a legal defence for their allegedly criminal actions;
Activists on Trial for Blocking Oil Train Will Argue It Was Justified by Climate Change
n September 2014, five climate activists with Rising Tide Seattle managed to halt the passage of a crude oil train at the BNSF Delta rail yard in Everett, Wash. After eight hours blocking the tracks, the five were arrested and charged with criminal trespass and blocking a train. Today, they go on trial.
In court, the activists—known as the Delta 5—will argue their act of civil disobedience was necessary. A spokesperson for Rising Tide said the activists “will be the first ever to argue that their actions were justified because of the threat of climate change, using the ‘necessity defense.’ The outcome of [the] trial could set national precedent for climate related civil disobedience and is being carefully watched.” The defendants will call on a rail safety expert and a climate scientist to argue that their actions were justified.
…
“There came a point where I could no longer sit back and wait for the politicians to act,” said Delta 5 member Patrick Mazza. “I had to put my body on the line to demand not talk, but action on a massive scale to rapidly replace fossil fuels.”
Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/01/oil-train-activists-trial-climate-change
I’m sympathetic to concerns about shipping oil by rail. In my opinion, building an oil pipeline, like the pipeline President Obama recently vetoed, is a much safer way to transport flammable hydrocarbons, than transporting oil by train.
But how could climate concern possibly be a plausible defence for criminal acts?
The law recognises that extraordinary actions, which would normally be illegal, are sometimes justified in extreme circumstances, such as an immediate threat to someone’s life.
However, Climate Change in no sense qualifies as an immediate threat to someone’s life. Climate change does not have the same desperate imminence, as extraordinary circumstances which are currently recognised by the law, such as responding to a home invasion or a violent assault. Even if climate change ultimately threatened the survival of humanity, it is advancing at a literally glacial pace.
Activists should recognise that there is time for them to change climate policy by legal means, through political campaigns, to try to persuade voters to support the climate cause at the ballot box. Committing crimes won’t persuade people, except for the handful who already think climate change is a major threat. The fact voters aren’t listening is not a justification for breaking the law. If activists want people to listen, they could start by presenting a compelling case for action – something they have so far failed to provide.
Having said this, there is precedent, a possibility the protestors might win their court case. In 2008, protestors in England were found not guilty of criminal damage, after presenting a climate defence.
UPDATE – It looks like the “necessity defence” has just been rejected by the court. http://qz.com/594560/a-judge-just-dealt-a-bitter-setback-to-us-climate-change-protesters/
Anyone else here amazed that it took 8 hours to arrest the criminals? Train companies have their own police forces usually, and even if they were far away or could not get the miscreants to clear the path the local law enforcement should have had it done in a matter of minutes. It doesn’t take 8 hours to clear a car crash with a death involved.
Also, trains usually carry more than one thing, was there anything else on that train aside from oil? Even if these crazy fools manage to escape serious jail time though each of the companies who had their wares delayed has the opportunity to go after those responsible for recompense.
It is very odd indeed that it took eight hours to arrest these miscreants and clear the tracks. Were the BNSF police told to hold off?
BNSF oil trains are usually ‘unit trains’, meaning they a transporting only one commodity.
/Mr Lynn
Like I said earlier they all had to sober up from using the “green”.
I’d like to see the science discussed in the court room. The alarmists cannot defend their side. They are stuck with just one parrot line – 97%. Of course, the courts do not want to look at the issue – do they?
Merely believing in Global Warming/Climate Change is enough to exonerate Warmistas within their own mind, allowing them to carry out the most foolish or criminal acts imaginable. Even the killing of public ‘Deniers’ and ‘Climate Apostates’ can be considered to be justified.
Just remember who owns that oil train and who lost profit, as result of the blockade and will lose more if this sort of thing is tolerated. Some things just will not fly, regardless of the politics of the useful idiots parading around with their signs. Gotta remember the wizard’s behind the curtain… this may not turn out so well for the defendants.
It’s just a form of insanity defense.
Eric,
Thank you for the very interesting report, however, you have used the expression “climate change” five times and in doing so you fall into the trap of appearing to give credence to that expression which, after all, began as “global warming” !
Would you PLEASE STOP USING that expression.
I respectfully submit that you consider using instead the very word “CLIMATE”.
If your article was edited to DELETE the word “change” (and just say “climate”) it would impress readers in a positive manner.
We all know that there is no such thing as global warming: there are only “climate(s)” systems; none of which is capable of remaining unchanged.
Every time that writers use the dreaded “climate change” expression they unwittingly strengthen the hands of climate loons and the bed-wetters.
Regards and thanks,
WL
Wheel in Al Gore as expert witness. He has more credentials on paper than groups like CARB are accustomed to at least.
Hmm. What kind of court would allow this? Seems to me that all the court needs to know is whether they blocked the train and whether they broke a law in doing so. Their motivation for doing so is immaterial.
http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/15/judge-issues-devastating-ruling-on-global-warming-activists/
Apparently not this one.