This is one of those papers that makes you sit up and evaluate what you’re doing, or at least it did for me. It’s short but seminal, and it made me terrified for the future, but also more resolutely committed to learning more about the climate system, and taking action to mitigate against the kind of nightmare future that this predicts.
Here’s a link to the paper I’m talking about. I’d highly recommend reading it. Full citation here: Trusel, L. D., Frey, K. E., Das, S. B., Karnauskas, K. B., Munneke, P. K., Van Meijgaard, E., & Van Den Broeke, M. R. (2015). Divergent trajectories of Antarctic surface melt under two twenty-first-century climate scenarios. Nature Geoscience.
This one goes out to all the roadmen, the van drivers, and the lads lads lads out there (and everyone else too). Anyone who has ever made lewd and obscene comments, or worse still, noises, at someone (me) publicly, get 2 knoe.
Do you think I need you to point out that I have a massive arse? Don’t worry mate, I am in fact aware – I’m the one who has to wrestle it into my clothes every day – so I don’t need your insightful comments to graciously bring my attention to it. Trust me, I’ve also heard all of your shit jokes and hilarious one-liners, just like every other woman you shout them at.
Don’t tell me to smile, you have no ownership of my body and no right to tell me what to do with it – and I won’t smile just because it makes you enjoy looking at me more or because you think I exist purely for your pleasure.
Maybe it’s time to think about what you’re actually saying when you casually look me up and down and make some kind of judgement about the way I look. Because it’s not a compliment, regardless of how much you might protest that it is. No, it’s an assertion of power, and a statement that says: “I am a man, and I have the right to treat your body like an object to be consumed”.
It’s not about me necessarily; it’s about your own fragile masculinity and the need to demonstrate to other men that you are hyper macho. It’s about keeping women in their place – because women who are not oppressed represent a threat to male dominance and the crumbling fortress of patriarchy. It’s a display of power which is intended, however subconsciously, to humiliate women and remind them that they are second-class citizens.
That’s why these type of comments are so much more common when they’re likely to go unanswered – like when you’re driving by or I’m cycling past you (and yes, I’m cycling faster than you can bro: it’s not an affront to your manliness, I’ve just got killer quads).
Here’s why: because if she had the chance to reply, you’d be forced to confront the idiocy and disrespectfulness of your actions towards that woman you shouted at like a dog. You’d have to ask yourself why you’re expressing such contempt for another human being, why you’re actively trying to make someone feel uncomfortable and unsafe in the space you’re temporarily sharing.
And don’t get me wrong – you’re as much a product of our very strange, fractious society as I am. You might have grown up thinking that it’s OK to treat women as if we are inferior to men – it’s an understandable perspective given the onslaught of information to that effect that we are bombarded with through the media, porn and advertising. You might have been brought up by people who reinforced those values, explicitly or implicitly, and ended up emulating the behaviour of the role models you had in your life.
But while that might be an explanation, it’s not an excuse not to think about what you’re doing.
Patriarchy hurts men as much as it hurts women, albeit in a completely different way. It teaches men that they have to be strong, to provide for their families, to never show weakness or emotion, to be the picture of buff, manly, physical prowess. It’s a lot to live up to.
And when, inevitably, you cannot be all of those things at once, you need to disguise this and compensate by reasserting your masculinity, imposing yourself on someone you perceive to be weaker than yourself, because it’s easy and it makes you feel good.
But that isn’t going to make anything better. Patriarchy will continue to oppress people of all genders as long as there is a vanguard to protect and perpetuate it by behaving in the way you’re behaving. I’m not suggesting it’ll be easy to smash such an engrained and hegemonic system, but we’ve got to at least try, right?
In the meantime, think about what you just said to me, and whether you would kick off if someone said that to your sister, or daughter, or mother, or friend.
And while you’re doing that, I’m gonna keep learning to wolf whistle so that hopefully soon when you whistle at me I will be able to make more than a feeble, spitty whooshing noise in return. Table flip, bitch.
Until recently I had known very little about la ZAD, aside from the fact that it is an occupied area of land in Brittany where a new airport is proposed at Notre Dames des Landes. Happily, this changed this weekend when myself and two of the other Heathrow hooligans decided to visit for a little holidarity (or hoolidarity, to be more precise). It was an inspirational experience which demonstrated the similarities between the UK and French political contexts on multiple levels. For one, the resistance to airport expansion: Grow Heathrow could learn a lot from the occupation tactics and mass mobilisation abilities of La ZAD. The level of support from all sectors of society in the local area is amazing, and a fantastic example of a unifying struggle – la ZAD encapsulates the fight against new runways, against capitalism, against land grabs, against environmental destruction, and attempts to build a new, more inclusive and compassionate future. Although there are many reasons why la ZAD is so interesting and iconic in the French context, some stand out particularly. La ZAD represents a resistance to the status quo, the repression of the state, and to capitalism. More than this, the ZADists are building a better alternative. It is a collective project, which means there is huge, far-reaching support. This support extends beyond France, too: la ZAD is outward looking as much as it is inwardly focused. On a wider scale, it has become even more apparent to me of late that we must strive to link up our battles to sustain a unified attack on capitalist exploitation across the world: the relationships and connections we build are crucial to success.
The feeling of excitement that I felt when we got to la ZAD was similar to the buzz underlying an activist camp like Reclaim the Power or Climate Camp – that same sense of lawlessness, restlessness, and boundless productive energy of people actively working to create positive change. On the one hand, the mood of resistance is palpable as the threat of eviction is omnipresent: the Gendarme set up checkpoints and raid occupied buildings regularly. This weekend, another Farm was re-occupied after it had been evicted some years ago. On the way back to Nantes station we passed seven or eight vans of Gendarmes on their way to la ZAD, probably to evict the squatters again. It is therefore very much a live battleground, and you can feel it: everything feels sort of semi-finished, rough around the edges, and impermanent. Despite this, there is an amazing creative energy. The way veteran ZADists talk about la ZAD is always in terms of “projects” – people are always trying to create things, build things, and change things for the better. It’s that energy that will allow us to create a new world in the shell of the old, and la ZAD feels like an experiment that might actually work. Even though of course it has its flaws, it is admirable that people are trying to create an alternative reality that works on principles of equality and collectivism rather than individualism and exploitation.
If there was a theme that I had to say underpins the entire ZAD struggle, it would be collectivism. Everything is organised in collectives: each occupied farm or building is run by a collective, and la ZAD as a whole is run by weekly meetings of their members. The farms are run collectively as well: take this for an example. In 2012, Bellevue, one of the farms, was evicted. A group of local farmers got together and re-occupied the land, and now run the farm together, allowing it to stay a functioning farm that produces food for its occupiers and la ZAD more broadly. Food production and land struggles are woven into the fabric of la ZAD – after all, it is an agricultural area and much of the local support for the occupation comes from farmers. But la ZAD has much broader support, because its issues are not just local ones. Resistance to the proposed NDDL airport has been simmering for forty years, and the struggle has become iconic across France. It has inspired widespread collectivism, far beyond the Breton countryside. Across France (and Europe), ZAD committees organise and support the project. When we were there this weekend, a 100-strong meeting in a local village comprised mainly of committee members from across France; in fact only around 15 of those people were actually local. It demonstrates the enormous support la ZAD has across the country, and goes some way to explaining why they have such huge mobilisation power. On Saturday 27th February, a massive demonstration was called (which was ostensibly the reason for our visit – we got a chance to address the crowds from the back of a tractor; amazing), which attracted something like 50,000 people to shut down two major highways around the proposed airport site. In January (bearing in mind that Brittany in winter is wet, muddy, and rainy – even more so than England – and la ZAD is essentially a swamp) about 1000 people turned up in response to a call-out by la ZAD to help with a work weekend. 1000 people! It’s astounding. The ability they have to mobilise seems to me to come from a) the culture of resistance and trade union membership in France b) the length of time the struggle has been established over and c) the broad coalition of groups who support the movement. This last point was evident at the demo on Saturday – as well as the classic anarcho contingent you’d find at any UK demo there was a massive amount of ‘normal’ people, lots of farmers (driving tractors), many more older people than I am used to seeing at marches, and generally a very broad spectrum. Protest is part of French culture, and it is evident.
Although the French political context is different, there is a lot we can gain from internationalism. The similarities between the anti-aviation campaigns in the UK and France are striking. Both are resisting capitalist exploitation of people and of the environment. Both are campaigning against the extraction of profit from the land for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. Both are instrumental in preventing climate change as a result of airport expansion and land degradation. Both are resisting state repression. Both governments wish to suppress these movements because they threaten the profit-making ability of the elites that run these countries. The common ground is enormous, and the differences are circumstantial. Yes, the French have higher union membership and are more used to taking to the streets to protest, but also their political climate means that these forms of ‘legitimate’ protest are safer and more acceptable. The military police in France are so much more violent than in the UK – they can use tear gas and rubber bullets for one thing, and don’t seem to regard the safety of peaceful protesters as something worth worrying about. This means that direct action, which has a long and colourful history in the UK, doesn’t happen in anything like the same way. In short, it’s much more dangerous to lock yourself to something because they don’t seem to care if they break your neck or not while removing you. Nonetheless, there is a lot we could learn from each other: a sustained campaign of non-violent direct action such as is undertaken by groups like Plane Stupid could be an incredibly effective form of protest at la ZAD. Similarly, the tactics of occupation, the construction of structures, and mass mobilisation strategies could be readily applied in the UK.
We went as members of Plane Stupid and of the Heathrow 13 to extend our solidarity with la ZAD and to form linkages between us. We found that there are many shared experiences and that we can learn from each other. Airport expansion is another symptom of a capitalist agenda that seeks to extract maximum profit from the environment and people to concentrate in the hands of the few in power, at the expense of the majority. We must do everything we can to resist exploitation on all fronts. Solidarity forever! La ZAD partout!
Originally published on the Norwich Radical.
I’m writing this in something of a state of shock. Yesterday, following a hastily shortened trial, and alongside twelve others of the #Heathrow13, I was found guilty of aggravated trespass and being ‘unlawfully airside’ (as it’s known in the biz – whatever that biz may be) and told that it was “almost inevitable that you will all receive immediate custodial sentences”. Everyone else was evidently shocked too. There were gasps in the public gallery as this bombshell was dropped, and cries of “shame on you!” from supporters watching.
The verdict in itself was certainly no surprise, as we had expected our necessity defence – that the action was justified by the devastating impacts that will be be caused by climate change and air pollution – to fail on legal grounds. However, although we had been prepared for custodial sentences on the advice of our barristers, we had not expected it. The previous week, the judge had given positive indications that she might be lenient – suggesting that she wanted the matter to go away quickly. Unfortunately it seems as though it was us that she wanted to go away quickly. I heard some people speculating that she may have come under political pressure over the weekend, given her apparent change of tack. However, the judge has a track record for harsh sentencing – she was drafted in for emergency sentencing following the 2011 London riots and is well known for public order cases. Unluckily for the Plane Stupid activists who blocked the Heathrow tunnel last December, she is also presiding over their case in March. The precedent she set yesterday was not a happy one.
The background is this: in July last year we entered the northern runway at Heathrow and locked ourselves together, erecting a tripod and harris fencing cage to resemble an iceberg. One of us sat on top wearing a polar bear outfit, using classic climate change imagery to underline the link between aviation and climate change. We occupied the runway for six hours, causing 25 flights to be cancelled, and in so doing saving hundreds, if not thousands, of tonnes of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) from being emitted.
Heathrow airport is – or at least was in 2012 – the most highly polluting airport in the world. It is responsible for half of the UK’s emissions from aviation (i.e. it emits the same amount of greenhouse gases as all other UK airports put together). Aviation is responsible for 6% of the UK’s CO2 emissions, but this figure is misleading because the pollutants are emitted at altitude, where they have a more significant climate effect – the figure is therefore usually cited as being 2.7 times larger. That makes aviation responsible for somewhere in the region of 15% of UK emissions, and Heathrow responsible for half of that. After from the notorious Drax coal-fired power station, Heathrow is the largest single point emitter of CO2 in the country.
A recent study also found that within a 32 km radius of Heathrow, 31 deaths each year were directly attributable to emissions of NOx from aircraft. This term is short hand for Nitric oxides (NO and NO2), which are implicated in respiratory illnesses like asthma and the infamous ‘Heathrow cough’ which defendant Sam and defence witness Bryan spoke about in their evidence.
In short, Heathrow airport is killing people – both locally through air pollution and globally from climate change. However, it operates in a legislative vacuum – because a company that contributes £7 billion to the UK economy (apparently) doesn’t have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us. Aircraft fuel is exempt from VAT, and aviation has not been included in any national or international climate change legislation, essentially because no one can agree on how to do it. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) recently included aviation in its mechanism, but only flights that originate and arrive in the EU are accounted for: that’s just 11% of global aviation emissions. Heathrow airport regularly violates legal air quality limits for NOx and ozone particularly – in 2013 illegal levels of ozone were recorded at Harmondsworth monitoring station (the only monitoring station in the area) on eleven occasions. Heathrow is permitted ten breaches per year.
Judge Wright in her judgement lingered on the effects to passengers and the UK economy. This is unsurprising – the legal system is not equipped to deal with the unchartered territory that climate change presents. The law does not yet have the vision to see that people can (and are!) act pre-emptively to prevent serious harm from threats as nebulous and enormous as climate change. Although we may not know their “names and addresses”, we know that people are dying every day from climate change – hundreds of thousands of people.
We will be – if sentenced as she suggests – the first people in UK legal history to go down for aggravated trespass exclusively. This charge was devised in the nineties to catch protesters, and it is the most common charge I have seen on my activist friends’ rap sheets. This is unprecedented, and we are being made an example of – peaceful protest is very rarely rewarded with prison time except in “exceptional” circumstances. The judgement is intended to deter others, and is symptomatic of the tightening of restrictions on protest and dissent under the guise of austerity – because remember, we are all in it together. Except some of us are more in it than others, and private property trumps human life, every time. The example that is being set is that you cannot cost companies an “astronomical” amount of money, without going down for it.
However, by doing this, Judge Wright has done something for the campaign that we could never have done ourselves – she has martyred us. Although this in itself is problematic, along with being called ‘heroes’ and compared to the suffragettes and Chartists, that is a whole other can of worms for another time. For now, I’ll happily be a Heathrow hooligan.
We have all been asked whether we would do it again, and I think the answer is the same. We all stand by what we did – doing what we could to fight climate change in the face of considerable adversity and against the will of the rich and powerful, using the only resources we had available to us – ourselves. The #Heathrow13 may be the first, but we will certainly not be the last. As long as airport expansion is on the table, anywhere, Plane Stupid will be there. We’re in it for the long haul.
Originally published on the Greenpeace blog.
Last July, I was part of a Plane Stupid direct action on Heathrow’s Northern runway. The action was part of long-running campaign against the third runway at Heathrow, and against UK airport expansion more generally. Today, we were found guilty of aggravated trespass and entering a security-restricted zone of an airport. Sentencing is expected on February 24th. We took action because we saw that it was sorely needed. When laws are unjust, ordinary people must take action to change them. Like the ‘Delta 5’, who were recently charged with stopping a coal train in the US, we acted to minimise the climate impacts of a hugely polluting industry. Although the legal system does not yet recognise that climate defence is not an offence, in the words of Judge Wright, we have “already won”.
On the 1st July, the long-awaited Airports Commission report was released, recommending the construction of a third runway at Heathrow. If the government acts on this recommendation (which appears likely) it will represent another massive U-turn on their part: in their 2010 pre-election manifesto, David Cameron’s Tories asserted that they would not back a third runway at Heathrow, “no ifs, no buts”. This promise was made at the height of the campaign against a third runway when there was significant pressure to oppose further development at Heathrow. Now in power, they clearly realise airport expansion is still an unpopular topic for Londoners. The decision is evidently a political one, with little consideration of the environmental impacts or necessity for more runways. Despite claims that airport capacity in the Southeast is at its limit, in a 2012 Parliamentary Transport Committee meeting, the chiefs of four of the region’s largest airports gave evidence to the effect that there is spare capacity at many airports in the UK. The final decision has been delayed until after the London elections in May so as not to hamper Conservative mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith’s chances, as he represents the Richmond Park & North Kingston constituency which sits under the flight path.
The environmental case against airport expansion – not just at Heathrow – is clear. The sector is stubbornly difficult to decarbonise and efficiency savings are far outstripped by increasing demand. If it were a country, the aviation industry would be the 7th most polluting in the world. According to DfT figures, aviation accounts for 6% of UK CO2 emissions but this figure is misleading because it doesn’t account for the amplified effects of emitting pollutants at cruising altitude, where they are much less readily removed and have more significant climate effects. Add to this the emissions of non-CO2 pollutants and a more accurate picture emerges, though policy-makers are still reluctant to accept that aviation is damaging to local health and global climate.
Aviation and shipping have so far been the elephant in the room when devising climate legislation, both national and international. Excluded from the 2008 Climate Change Act and Kyoto agreements, the trend has been followed at every climate summit to date – and Paris is no exception. Although included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme from 2012, only flights that both originate and arrive in the European Economic Area are included – or around 11% of global aviation emissions. The International Civil Aviation Organisation, the specialised UN agency that regulates the aviation industry, makes noise about efficiency improvements and climate change targets but achieves very little. Those in power are taking very little action to tackle aviation’s significant contribution to climate change, so we must.
Last week, we gave evidence as part of our trial for charges of aggravated trespass and entering an aerodrome without permission. I gave evidence first, and found the line of prosecution far less hostile than I had imagined. Happily, the judge is also considerably more sympathetic than I think any of us anticipated, even making judicial note of the fact that climate change’s effects are “devastating” and that aviation is responsible for emissions – according to our barristers, potentially a first in legal history.
An incredible demo on Monday morning attended by such prominent figures as Natalie Bennett got us off to a flying start (excuse the pun), and support has been pouring in from all quarters. It’s been incredible, and we are very grateful for all the statements of solidarity we have received. We have been lauded as heroes and defenders of democracy, and I think the level of praise has been unexpected for all of us. We are, in the words of defendant – and fellow ‘hooligan’ – Mel Strickland, “13 ordinary people who find ourselves in an impossible situation…with the colossal problem of climate change. We don’t have the power, influence or resources that Heathrow does and there is no political will to change things via legal procedures.” Given the immovability of the government on the matter, we were all faced with a choice – to do nothing, or to take direct action.
Day 3: a sad day for J McDiz
By this point we’re all relatively relaxed about the whole shebang – I’ve sussed the cycle route to Willesden and everything. The last day of evidence was started with Eddy, followed by the Welsh contingent – Rich, Kara and Bec.
Sassy McGhee is doing his darndest now to prove that there was an ‘inception period’ between the perceived threat and the action that we took to prevent death and serious injury from air pollution and climate change – both requisites of the necessity defence we are running.
His questions seem bizarre, and by this point we’re all tired of the rigmarole of the line of enquiry – everyone is getting bored of being asked (and hearing the response to) “but do you know anyone there? [insert name of Pacific island/developing state/Heathrow village]”.
Of course when it comes to climate change it shouldn’t matter whether or not you know anyone personally – surely basic human compassion motivates you sufficiently to want to prevent people dying in droves, both now, and in the future from vector borne diseases, extreme weather events, and respiratory illnesses.
Yet another example of how the law is archaic, and a reminder that laws never get changed unless you break them.
Eddy spoke mainly on this topic – about our interconnectedness and how he didn’t see a reason for us to know personally anyone affected by climate change. Besides, we’re all affected by climate change; it’s just an unquantifiable set of effects…
Kara has used her work as an outdoor educator and environmental journalist to inform her activism, and she came across as a reasonable and well-informed person.
When asked by the judge, she said she had intended to stay there for as long as possible and stop “hundreds of planes”. Following this, the public got an unintended insight into the preparation and considerations that go into an action like this – when asked how we would attend to basic necessities such as going to the toilet, Kara responded (after flashing a sheepish grin at her giggling co-defendants) that “we were wearing nappies, Madam”. Laughter in the gallery >> The press association reporter scribbling >> Instant quote in the Guardian = WINNER.
It’s a serious point though:
“A day of discomfort is a very small price I’m willing to pay. We live a life of privilege in the UK, compared to people in the global south who face the prospect of death and destruction of their homes every single day from climate change.”
Six hours on a runway not weeing is small change in the grand scheme of things.
Rich has trained in law and despite being pretty snotty managed to beast his evidence. He started with a killer line slating the (lack of) international environmental law:
“It was in the last year of my law degree, when I took a module on international environmental law. The lecturer said that essentially there is no international environmental law, or at least none that’s worth the paper it’s written on.”
Rich has worked on consultations and policy professionally, and his experience is impressive. I think the judge thought so too.
I think McGhee started getting tetchy with Rich’s use of semantics on the topic of motivations, straying into the territory of neuroscience. He outsassed him with “Luckily we do not have to worry about what a neuroscientist might say, Mr. Hawkins”, a comment made all the more hilarious by the fact that one of Rich’s character references comes from a neuroscientist. Ah, what larks.
Last up was Bec, whose calm and collected manner was brilliant to underline the defence that our actions were reasonable and proportionate, never mind the fact that we “don’t know the names and addresses” of the 300,000 people who died last year as a result of climate change.
And so. That concluded the defendants’ evidence. The expert report of Alice Bows-Larkin had been agreed by the prosecution, so she was not required to give evidence live: it seems to me like they are all under pressure to reduce the media impact of this, and to make it go away quickly. Live evidence is much more powerful and attracts way more attention than evidence submitted in hard copy, even if it is read out in court.
The defence barristers read some key passages from the expert report, such as, to summarise:
- Heathrow contributes around 48% of the CO2 produced by domestic and international flights associated with the UK.
- Aviation’s climate effects are significantly higher than the emissions figures suggest because at the altitude that they fly at, the radiative forcing of pollutants is higher
- Significant barriers exit to decarbonisation in the aviation sector: the only option to reduce emissions from aviation is essentially to reduce demand.
- Crucially, for our defence: “The IPCC state that if climate change continues as projected in line with their Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP), the major negative changes to health compared to a no climate change future will include (inter alia):
- “Greater risk of injury, disease, and death due to more intense heat waves and fires (very high confidence)”
- “Increased risk of undernutrition resulting from diminished food production in poor regions (high confidence)”
- “Increased risks of food- and water-borne diseases (very high confidence) and vector-borne diseases (medium confidence)”(p713)”
Local residents’ testimony was read next. Bryan’s asthma has been worsening as a result of exposure to pollutants from the airport. His garden backs onto the airport and he says he can smell burning rubber outside. He has to stay inside the house and the noise causes him serious stress.
Marina’s statement detailed the effects of pollution on her health, which requires her to use medical oxygen. She notices a pronounced difference in her respiratory health when she leaves West London.
Phil has a 99% blockage in one artery, which he says is caused by stress and air pollution. His doctors have advised him to move from Harmondsworth where he has lived for 42 years.
This evidence was moving enough when passages were read and summarised by the barristers. One can only imagine what wonders it would have done for our defence had the witnesses been permitted to speak live.
The next bit was unexpectedly lovely and made me feel really proud. All of our references of good character were read and summarised for the court, and it made me immensely happy to be part of such a solid crew of passionate, talented, dedicated and wholly good people.
Hearing quotes read from my own statements gave me goosebumps to think that people I know and love have such respect for me, and that the same is true for all the other hooligans. Serious love. If I wasn’t such a hardass I probably could’ve shed a little tear.
The final battle was to get John McDonnell’s statement agreed by the prosecution – we’d already accepted that he wouldn’t be allowed to come to court to give evidence live. McGhee argued relentlessly that it wasn’t admissible or relevant and the judge agreed on the grounds that it didn’t help her decide on the issues she has to decide on: “Did the defendants honestly hold a reasonable belief that what they were doing was necessary to protect life and limb?”
Judge Wright attempted to persuade cunty McGhee to agree his statement, suggesting that the defendants might feel “aggrieved” were his evidence not to be heard.
However, he showed his true colours with his retort: “While I have some sympathy as a person for that argument, as the Prosecution lawyer I have none…End of story.”
Just remember kids: lawyers aren’t people. Straight from the horse’s mouth.
The final (incredible) thing that Judge Wright added was that despite not allowing J McDiz to give evidence in person, “I would say to the defendants, in respect of what you wanted him to say, you’ve already won.”
I’m continually surprised and amazed at the level of comprehension and sympathy we’re getting from a figure of establishment like DJ Wright (great stagename, btw: this alter ego is definitely well acquainted with my m8 Mandy on a weekend. That might be a you-had-to-be-there joke… soz). It’s all reinforcing the notion in my head that we are actually contributing to change – and that we’re merely ahead of the game in pushing for justice and testing the boundaries of the legal system.
So. That’s it. It’s all over – except it’s not. Sentencing happens on Monday 25th January at some point after 2pm, giving time for closing submissions from the prosecution and defence in the morning.
If you can come down and support, there’s an event here. It’s basically a foregone conclusion, but come and wave goodbye to our liberty with us regardless!
Day 2: evidence
Amusingly, after getting schooled during my evidence on the use of “Third World”, sassy McGhee has rather taken to using the term “Global South”. If nothing else, that’s an achievement in itself.
The Prosecution has been trying to prove that any effect we had on emissions was minimal in the grand scheme of things. Those who gave evidence on the second day refuted this by comparing the emissions saved by cancelling 25 flights to the energy usage of individuals and households in the UK, and confirming that in absolute terms, the figures are astounding. Stopping a flight is probably the most significant action an individual can take to reduce emissions, if you consider that the average UK citizen generates 9.4 tonnes of CO2 in a year, and the average household uses 20.7 tonnes (and a flight emits about 11).
All the defendants are Virtuous Activists – most of us have not flown in several years, do not drive and are actively involved in campaigning. It’s a shame we have all come across as being so painfully middle class but I think this probably plays into the judge forming more positive opinions of us. Besides, a lot of us ARE painfully middle class. The number of degrees between us is a bit sickening. It means, however, that we are in a position to utilise the privilege given to us by the patriarchal, imperialist and oppressive capitalist system.
Mel Strickland kicked off the day’s proceedings, delivering measured, sincere and impassioned evidence. She emphasised that the actions of Plane Stupid on the 13th of July were a direct action, which directly reduced emissions from aviation by preventing aircraft from taking off. She drew on expert testimony from Alice Bows-Larkin to show that this was a reasonable and proportionate response, given that Heathrow represents 48% of UK emissions from aviation, and that aviation cannot be decarbonised.
“We are 13 ordinary people who find ourselves in an impossible situation…with the colossal problem of climate change. We don’t have the power, influence or resources that Heathrow does and there is no political will to change things via legal procedures.”
Mel told the Prosecutor in her cross-examination that it is those who are unrepresented and have no stake in the political process, the millions who are suffering as a result of climate change, and local residents breathing poisonous air who she had in mind on that runway.
Amazingly, at this point, the Judge acknowledged that CO2 emissions cause climate change, with potentially “catastrophic” effects, and that aviation contributes to this.
Mel went on to say that efforts beyond the law are essential to democracy, and she exemplified, “That’s why you’re a Judge, Madam, because of the efforts of the suffragettes”; hands-down most badass retort to the judge all day (or any day)!
She ended on another powerful note: “This action was a carefully considered minimum possible response to total political failure to tackle climate change. We felt it was a basic moral commitment to act.” BOOM!
Next up, Dr. Rob Basto gave an emotional and clear testimony. He was typically modest, underplaying the understanding he has as a result of years of work and the small matter of a PhD in atmospheric physics. As he mentioned, the Arctic may be nearly ice-free in the summer by mid-century. Rob cited reading about this 15 years ago (when it was nowhere near as certain) as one of the pivotal and terrifying moment when he really became aware of climate change.
Rob also spoke emotively about the impacts of Heathrow Airport’s toxic air pollution on his sister-in-law’s health. He drew a useful analogy with smoking – we have a law against smoking inside. By preventing one person from smoking, you are improving the health and life outcomes of everyone in the room. Just because there is no identifiable person or effect does not mean the law to prevent people smoking inside is any less valid. Cancelling flights is like this – one less plane is 11 tonnes more CO2 that is not emitted.
We all have a responsibility to act, and the danger is now, and Rob isn’t going to stand idly by while people die, and neither will any of the other defendants.
Graham Thompson is a veteran climate campaigner, and he explained at length the negative effects of emissions from aviation, particularly at high altitude. As he noted, Heathrow is a huge point source of emissions, second in the UK only to Drax Power Station.
Judge Wright’s patience began to “wear thin” after Graham continued to elaborate on climate change’s relationship with Heathrow, but again she noted that she was prepared to believe that all the defendants feel passionately about the issues and feel they’ve been “banging their heads against a brick wall.”
Edge-of-the-seat stuff! What a result! Graham’s best quotes were tough to decide; it’s a clincher between these two:
“I’m sometimes concerned that I’m not doing enough, but I’ve never been worried I’m doing too much”
“I don’t believe I am entitled to break the law generally. I felt like breaking the law was not the most serious issue in this particular instance.”
The Judge keeps coming back to the issue that the emissions prevented were a tiny fraction of those emitted globally – however, this doesn’t detract from the fact that the world is 250 tonnes of CO2 better off as a result.
Next up: the polar bear (AKA Cameron Kaye). Cameron is a community campaigner who lives in the Heathrow villages and is involved with grassroots groups like HACAN and SHE. He restated that the Davies Report had been the final straw in terms of the campaign.
When pressed by the Judge, he described the difference between a direct action such as ours and a protest. Direct action stops the issue that one is concerned about, whereas a protest is more about raising awareness and lobbying. On the issue of necessity: “I felt like I didn’t have a choice any more.”
Comically, Cameron was grilled about why he was dressed as a polar bear – this mainly focused on the visual connotations and imagery associated as a means to suggest our actions were a publicity stunt. Perhaps it was useful to explain that the imagery was intended to be an iceberg (surrounded by people in blue – ahem – ‘the sea’) because it seems like we were the only ones who got that part. Something to work on next time, I suppose.
Danni Paffard, a “Professional Environmental Campaigner”, took to the witness box next. She came out swinging with some comparisons and statistics on climate and aviation emissions. As she pointed out, 2015 was the hottest year on record and contained news of Indonesian forest fires, floods in the UK and droughts in California.
Before Danni could get much further the judge interjected to prevent the trial becoming a “political platform”.
Even the people we hire to think about the impacts of aviation and climate change are being ignored by government. This represents a “huge failure in democratic processes [around Heathrow] and actions needs to be taken”. There are no other avenues to take. As Danni aptly put it, “Given the scale of the challenge, I think it was completely reasonable. Given the scale of the challenge, I think it was completely necessary.” Every tonne of carbon counts, especially when we’re running out of time.
The award for the best out of context quote for the day goes to District Judge Wright:
“Were you taking action in order to save the apples?”
Lucky number 8, Alistair Tamlit, focused on the failure of the political process, and the effects of climate change on people in the global South who are not responsible for emissions from aviation. He defended our actions as “absolutely” necessary and “absolutely reasonable in the face of the scale of climate change.”
Sheila Menon rapidly followed, hailing climate change as a “human rights issue of gargantuan scale”. She reminded us that the window of opportunity to act on climate change is rapidly closing and therefore reinforced the urgency that underpinned our decision to act. Ordinary people are paying with their lives because economic growth and prosperity are prioritised over life and limb, and people around the world are discounted in decisions, alarmingly.
Sheila then highlighted the inadequacy of the Davies Commission’s findings in that they investigated which airport to expand rather than whether to expand at all. Deciding to fly more planes represents a “suicidal” decision, given that we are currently on track for 4°C warming, which would have severe implications across the world. Even sitting in the shade in the hottest parts of the world could lead to death from exhaustion and heat stroke.
The day concluded abruptly and somewhat dramatically with the Judge rescheduling and shortening the trial. This meant an early finish and an impromptu trip to the pub before training. All this court stuff is doing wonders for my boxing career; I should do this more often!
A similar version of this has been published on the Plane Stupid website.