RSS Feed     Twitter     Facebook

Posts Tagged ‘activism’

Shareholder activism: Ready, set, dough

Activist investors are limbering up to make trouble once more

FOR the past two years activist investors have been strangely quiet. The financial crisis slashed the value of their equity investments. Many scaled back or even closed shop. But there are signs that shareholder activists, who take stock in a handful of companies and press them to change their inefficient ways, are finding their voices again.

On November 23rd Carl Icahn, a particularly bold member of the breed, and Seneca Capital, a hedge fund, blocked a $4.8 billion buy-out of Dynegy, an energy company, because, they said, the price was not high enough. Their boardroom victory scuppered what would have been one of the largest buy-outs of the year. Company bosses are now looking around nervously, wondering which other activists may re-emerge from the shadows. …

Shareholder activism at Lagardère: Under siege

A French fortress is assailed by an American activist investor

AGGRESSIVE foreign shareholders have attacked several French firms in recent years. Both Valeo, a medium-sized car-parts firm, and Atos Origin, an IT company, changed their management and strategy following activist campaigns. Colony Capital, a property fund based in Los Angeles, helped shake up Carrefour, a multinational retailer. Alexander Vik, a Norwegian investor, made an unsuccessful run at Vivendi, a telecoms and entertainment firm. But the attempt by Guy Wyser-Pratte, a New York financier, to alter the corporate structure and strategy of Lagardere, a media firm, will be by far the most daring and difficult. Mr Wyser-Pratte is seeking a seat on the firm’s board at its annual general meeting on April 27th.

Lagardere, founded by one of France’s best-known entrepreneurs, the late Jean-Luc Lagardere, used to have interests in cars, telecoms and arms manufacturing as well as in media. It still owns a 7.5% stake in EADS, Europe’s aerospace and defence champion. Lagardere also has a stake in Le Monde, the newspaper of the French elite, and publishes Paris Match, a celebrity and news magazine. The world’s second-biggest publisher of books, it is behind Stephenie Meyer’s bestselling vampire novels and the comic-strip adventures of Asterix, a cunning Gallic warrior. …

What’s up in the Big Green tent?

Some suspect foul play in the last-minute cancellation of the Big Green Gathering, but the Vestas protest might get an unexpected boost instead

News broke over the weekend that the organisers of the Big Green Gathering had finally crumbled under ceaseless pressure and demands from the local council and police, and decided not to stage the event. Bills had soared and it was deemed unfeasible for the organisation to go ahead.

The reaction, as you’d expect, is one of frustration. “The BGG is basically a gathering for people wanting to build a better world,” said Andrew Martin of Veggies. “There are workshops on green energy, ethical living, consensus-based decision-making, protesting and campaigning. I’m sure that’s got something to do with why it’s been shut down.” Veggies is a vegan catering organisations which, like some of the other organisations who regularly take part in the BGG, raises funds for environmental campaigns, including the Climate Camp.

I can’t help but suspect that the closure of the event stems from both police heavy-handedness at protests, such as at the G20 demonstrations earlier this year, and a more specific aim of undermining Climate Camp, after the police were criticised for “counterproductive” tactics. Climate Camp will be signifcantly poorer as a result of this decision (I’ve heard a confirmed figure of between £10,000 – £15,000).

The whole thing really sticks in my throat. It’s hard to imagine a festival with a more positive aim than the Big Green Gathering, which grew out of Glastonbury’s famous Green Fields and became a festival in its own right in the nineties. The aim is celebratory, and the idea that something designed to inspire and regenerate should be choked out of existence by a bunch of narrow-minded policemen and kow-towing local councillors is profoundly depressing. I may not want to spend the weekend studying alternative sewage possibilities, but I’m grateful that somebody does.

But it may be that the police are shooting themselves in the feet with this approach. In the 1990s the Criminal Justice Act united a whole slew of campaigners and party-goers in opposition and helped boost the anti-roads movement. Shutting down the BGG could potentially have the same effect.

Messages are already flying around the internet suggesting that instead of going to the BGG, people head down to join the protests outside the Vestas factory on the Isle of Wight. If just a few people take up the suggestion, the police have created a whole new headache for themselves.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


A goodbye to Jonathon Porritt

Watch a bluesy tribute to the ‘sustainability ninja’


Vestas is too vital to lose

The government must now put our money where its mouth was in the energy white paper and support the renewables industry

The chorus of red-green dissent over the proposed closure of Britain’s sole major wind turbine manufacturing plant perfectly indicates just how spectacularly this Labour government has failed both workers and the environment. In microcosm, the situation in the Isle of Wight demonstrates the extent to which ministers have ignored calls to promote the renewables industry – squandering opportunity after opportunity to create or protect jobs in fledgling green industries, as well as to meet the UK’s greenhouse gas reduction targets.

But it also illustrates the creative way in which the unions and the green movement are recognising that they share a common agenda based on an understanding that green politics can deliver both jobs and social justice.

After the NHS and the council, Vestas is the largest employer on the Isle of Wight. The loss of 600 jobs during a time of economic recession will have a devastating effect on the community. But it is clear to all involved that the decision to close the factory has a wider significance beyond the island’s economy, and those workers currently occupying the plant in a valiant attempt to preserve their futures.

The decision to close the plant goes to the very heart of the critical challenge of our time: the need to address the economic and energy crises in a way which also tackles climate change head-on. It brings us right back to the Green New Deal, an innovative plan to restructure the economy through a billion-pound package for investing in green jobs – in renewables and energy efficiency – to dramatically reduce carbon emissions and cut householders’ fuel bills.

In the wake of its white paper on energy, expectations were high that the government might be offering companies like Vestas a real reason to maintain UK operations and thus protect UK jobs, through a more favourable policy environment and long-term investment plans, combined with any necessary loans or guarantees. But the rhetoric on renewable energy has yet to be matched with swift and tangible policy changes to ensure, for example, that the wind turbines we will need to build for a greener and more sustainable future make use of parts created in UK factories – not by workers thousands of miles away.

We are undoubtedly entering a period of public spending cuts. And by all means, let us cut the mindless spending of the previous decade of turbo-consumerism, as well as gratuitous spending on the military, renewal of the Trident weapons system, unnecessary ID card schemes or endless road-building. But we must replace this with targeted investment in the energy efficiency and renewable energy infrastructure we so urgently need to enable us to make a swift transition to a steady-state, zero carbon economy.

Thanks to years of government neglect, the wind energy industry suffers from a significant lack of demand in the UK and Europe. In the face of weighty pressure from the powerful “dirty” energy lobby – coal, gas and nuclear – the government has lacked the courage to give clear signals to encourage sustainable and profitable investment in the fledgling green industries.

The renewable industry has also suffered the consequences of an unwieldy and inconsistent planning system. Only an urgent reform of the UK’s planning system that would put environmental sustainability at its heart can ensure that renewable energy developments can prosper. Where there are pressures for conflicting environmental benefits, such as the need to exploit renewable energy opportunities while also seeking to protect the UK’s rural landscapes, we need improved dialogue and firmer planning regulations to ensure that green spaces, green belts and biodiverse brownfield sites are protected – while at the same time providing space for the renewable energy industry to grow.

The proposed Isle of Wight closure isn’t just a huge blow for the 600 skilled British workers set to lose their jobs. It threatens any attempt the UK makes to position itself at the forefront of global technological efforts to create a greener and more sustainable future. The renewables sector – and the public at large – need something more substantial than intentions laid out in white papers. Ministers could make a positive start by proving to Vestas, and other renewable energy players, that it is seriously committed to providing security for future investment, to a major overhaul in policy and planning, and to the crucial fight against climate change.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Vestas is too vital to lose

The government must now put our money where its mouth was in the energy white paper and support the renewables industry

The chorus of red-green dissent over the proposed closure of Britain’s sole major wind turbine manufacturing plant perfectly indicates just how spectacularly this Labour government has failed both workers and the environment. In microcosm, the situation in the Isle of Wight demonstrates the extent to which ministers have ignored calls to promote the renewables industry – squandering opportunity after opportunity to create or protect jobs in fledgling green industries, as well as to meet the UK’s greenhouse gas reduction targets.

But it also illustrates the creative way in which the unions and the green movement are recognising that they share a common agenda based on an understanding that green politics can deliver both jobs and social justice.

After the NHS and the council, Vestas is the largest employer on the Isle of Wight. The loss of 600 jobs during a time of economic recession will have a devastating effect on the community. But it is clear to all involved that the decision to close the factory has a wider significance beyond the island’s economy, and those workers currently occupying the plant in a valiant attempt to preserve their futures.

The decision to close the plant goes to the very heart of the critical challenge of our time: the need to address the economic and energy crises in a way which also tackles climate change head-on. It brings us right back to the Green New Deal, an innovative plan to restructure the economy through a billion-pound package for investing in green jobs – in renewables and energy efficiency – to dramatically reduce carbon emissions and cut householders’ fuel bills.

In the wake of its white paper on energy, expectations were high that the government might be offering companies like Vestas a real reason to maintain UK operations and thus protect UK jobs, through a more favourable policy environment and long-term investment plans, combined with any necessary loans or guarantees. But the rhetoric on renewable energy has yet to be matched with swift and tangible policy changes to ensure, for example, that the wind turbines we will need to build for a greener and more sustainable future make use of parts created in UK factories – not by workers thousands of miles away.

We are undoubtedly entering a period of public spending cuts. And by all means, let us cut the mindless spending of the previous decade of turbo-consumerism, as well as gratuitous spending on the military, renewal of the Trident weapons system, unnecessary ID card schemes or endless road-building. But we must replace this with targeted investment in the energy efficiency and renewable energy infrastructure we so urgently need to enable us to make a swift transition to a steady-state, zero carbon economy.

Thanks to years of government neglect, the wind energy industry suffers from a significant lack of demand in the UK and Europe. In the face of weighty pressure from the powerful “dirty” energy lobby – coal, gas and nuclear – the government has lacked the courage to give clear signals to encourage sustainable and profitable investment in the fledgling green industries.

The renewable industry has also suffered the consequences of an unwieldy and inconsistent planning system. Only an urgent reform of the UK’s planning system that would put environmental sustainability at its heart can ensure that renewable energy developments can prosper. Where there are pressures for conflicting environmental benefits, such as the need to exploit renewable energy opportunities while also seeking to protect the UK’s rural landscapes, we need improved dialogue and firmer planning regulations to ensure that green spaces, green belts and biodiverse brownfield sites are protected – while at the same time providing space for the renewable energy industry to grow.

The proposed Isle of Wight closure isn’t just a huge blow for the 600 skilled British workers set to lose their jobs. It threatens any attempt the UK makes to position itself at the forefront of global technological efforts to create a greener and more sustainable future. The renewables sector – and the public at large – need something more substantial than intentions laid out in white papers. Ministers could make a positive start by proving to Vestas, and other renewable energy players, that it is seriously committed to providing security for future investment, to a major overhaul in policy and planning, and to the crucial fight against climate change.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Nicholas Stephanopoulos: Do Conservatives Follow the Framers — or the French?

Who declared that the country’s legal system is “poorly organized if a judge enjoys the dangerous privilege of interpreting the law or adding to its…

Police tactics at Kingsnorth criticised

Official review says orders were not communicated properly, leading to indiscriminate use of stop and search on activists

Kent police’s blanket use of stop-and-search powers on thousands of environmental activists at the Kingsnorth demonstration was “disproportionate and counterproductive”, according to an official review into the force’s handling of protests released today.

A total of 8,218 searches were carried out on protesters at the week-long demonstration last August against the energy company E.ON’s proposed coal-fired power-station, after orders from senior commanders were misinterpreted “as an instruction to search everyone”.

Although “huge amounts of property were seized” during the climate camp protests, only 2,000 stop-and-search forms – fewer than 25% – were legible. The report said this raised questions about the competence of police officers and their understanding of the law.

Most protesters were stopped under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Pace), which requires officers to have reasonable suspicion that an individual is carrying prohibited weapons or articles that could be used for criminal damage.

David Howarth, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, echoed the report’s findings when he said: “This is yet another example of the disproportionate use of stop and search, and shows how, even on the report’s own narrow terms, this tactic is totally counterproductive.”

The scale of the stop-and-search operation came to light in two inquiries by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) into Kent police’s £5.3m operation, the largest of its kind in the UK last year. More than 1,400 officers were drafted in from 24 forces to assist with the operation, codenamed Oasis, on the Hoo peninsula.

The Kent force has come under sustained criticism for its management of the demonstration, after allegations of brutality by officers who had covered their badge numbers and concern that police used “psychological operations”, including playing loud music at night to deprive activists of sleep.

The force was also forced to apologise after an investigation by the Guardian established its officers had placed journalists covering the demonstration under surveillance.

The reports – an initial debrief by the NPIA and a broader review conducted on its behalf by South Yorkshire police – found the Kingsnorth operation was “in the main successful” because it had stopped protesters getting on to the site and ensured there was “no interruption to power supply”. However, many of the concerns put forward by demonstrators appear to be substantiated in its findings.

The reviews paint a picture of widespread breakdown in communication, with police officers from visiting forces given hardly any explanation about why they had been deployed by Kent. They found officers on the ground were under-trained, did not understand their powers, lacked knowledge of basic public order terminology and were given outdated intelligence.

The reports were most critical of the stop-and-search policy, which saw all protesters made to line up in airport-style checkpoints to be searched going to and from the camp. Commanders, the review reveals, initially told officers that “personal grounds must be justified and no blanket power approach is to be taken” when searching under section 1 of Pace. But they were then told “that the camp is illegal and the intention of the camp is to commit damage, hence the grounds for searching attendees to the camp is made”, which resulted in almost every activist being searched multiple times.

The reports said this resulted in a “vicious cycle”, “moving non-activists closer to resistance and violence on account of tactics they saw hard to accept as justified by the police. With this developing crowd dynamic of hostility, intelligence then presented a worsening picture, which provided more grounds to search camp attendees.”

A list of more than 2,000 possessions taken from protesters, released under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that, in a supposed attempt to prevent activists causing injury or taking a nearby river, officers took packets of balloons, tents, a clown’s outfit, camping equipment, cycle helmets and bike locks, bin bags, party poppers, leaflets and soap.

The NPIA debrief was particularly critical of the failure of officers to write legibly. “The fact that so many forms were submitted in such poor quality also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of supervision and the overall knowledge of policing powers, which was felt to be lacking.”

Kent police’s chief constable, Michael Fuller, welcomed the “numerous areas of good practice”, while accepting that there were some lessons to learn. “While many of the recommendations made to us have already been adopted in the intervening 12 months, there is still work to be done either within Kent or in conjunction with other forces or agencies.”

The review recommended the Kent force should have worked more closely with E.ON. However, Howarth said it was not the police’s job to take the side of companies during legitimate protest.

“It is quite wrong to suggest that the police should have worked more closely from the start with the energy company. The police are not a private security firm. Their job is to act in the public interest, and the public interest includes the right to protest.”

The report also said the government should consider introducing new legislation to allow a senior officer to authorise stop and search where “widespread acts of criminal damage was likely”. But Howarth dismissed the recommendation. “It is bizarre to suggest that the right response to excessive use of stop and search should be a change in the law to make stop and search more widely available.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Meet Belcha, EU’s biggest polluter

• Polish facility pumps out 30m tonnes of CO2 a year
• Activists say giant plants undermine climate fight

The biggest single producer of carbon emissions in the European Union has been named – and it is about to get even bigger. The appropriately titled Elektrownia Belchatow – a massive coal-fired power station – belched out 30,862,792 tonnes of CO2 last year and by 2010 the whole generating facility will have grown by 20%.

The Polish energy giant was named as climate change enemy number one in a report by the London-based Sandbag Climate Campaign and its greenhouse gas output dwarfed the 22m tonnes of annual carbon produced by the Drax power station in North Yorkshire and a host of equally dirty German plants.

Sandbag said the expansion of Belchatow and the planned construction of 50 coal-fired plants across the European mainland demonstrated that policies such as the EU’s European Trading Scheme (ETS) were not working.

Bryony Worthington, founder of Sandbag, said the price of pollution allowances in the ETS was too low to deter companies from choosing coal over clean energy, noting that six of the 10 most polluting plants are in Germany despite generous government subsidies for solar and other clean technologies.

“They have to buy emission allowances yet they are still planning a massive expansion. If the scheme was having the desired effect they would be pursuing cleaner options now, not at some distant point in the future,” she added.

While British ministers have taken a stand against constructing new coal stations at Kingsnorth in Kent and elsewhere without “clean” technology to capture the emissions, the deluge of projects in Europe is undermining EU credibility ahead of the forthcoming UN negotiations in Copenhagen on tackling global warming, according to Mark Johnson, a Brussels-based campaigner at the WWF.

“Dozens of new unabated projects across Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland and elsewhere are either under construction or could soon be approved. Going ahead with these could wreck Europe’s climate strategy,” he said.

Elektrownia Belchatow is raising coal-fired capacity from 4,400 megawatts to 5,258 from next year. The facility, which burns the most polluting lignite “brown” coal from its own mine next door, is earmarked for a full carbon capture and storage prototype, but only by 2015 at the earliest.

A spokesman for French engineering company Alstom said they were working on a range of initiatives to improve the wider efficiency of the plant and reduce its carbon output. It is one of an estimated 11 new coal schemes planned in Poland, while 28 more are on the drawing board in Germany, according to the WWF.

While Poland has long been dependent on its home-mined lignite, Germany is expanding its coal-fired stations to produce electricity in anticipation of a rundown in its nuclear facilities.

This strategy, being pioneered by RWE and E.ON, could yet be changed as the two main political parties vying for power in the September elections have opposing views on how energy security should be achieved.

E.ON said that coal is being pursued because it answers some of the problems posed in the energy sector.

“It is a cheap form of power but it also gives security of supply and flexibility. The final element is obviously to find a way of not damaging the environment and we hope CCS will be the answer to that,” explained a UK spokesman for the German company.

Protests by environmentalists over E.ON’s plans to build a coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth have encouraged Ed Miliband, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, to rule that there should be no plants in the UK without some degree of CCS, with the remainder of any plant having CCS fitted within five years of it being judged “technically and economically proven”.

The WWF believes the 50 coal schemes in total around Europe represent about 50 gigawatts of power. That compares with the 70GW of total power produced in Britain from all existing sources, including gas, nuclear and a small but growing contribution from wind.

New coal stations are being planned in big numbers in the US and China but the EU has been arguing that all countries should proceed only if they use CCS to turn them into “clean” coal projects.

The EU is committed to cutting carbon emissions by at least 20% by the year 2020 and 80% by 2050 and wants all nations to agree tough new targets at Copenhagen.

The concept of CCS is considered vital to the fight against global warming.

But question marks remain about whether the feasibility of doing it at large scale and at a cost that makes it work, leaving Belchatow and others belching on.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Arlene M. Roberts: Judging Sonia: In Defense of Judicial Activism and a Wise Latina

Today concludes week one of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. One salient issue that dominated the hearings was judicial activism….

Monica Youn: Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Activist?

As in every Supreme Court confirmation hearing, in Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s questioning before the Senate yesterday, accusations of “judicial activism” are flying thick and fast….

Kevin Grandia: If there was an Oscar for Activism Powershift AU should win it

Now we’ve all seen protests and most of us have seen flash-mobs, but the former tend to come across as somewhat pushy and in-your-face, while…

Your chance to quiz Eon on energy

Put your questions on coal, fossil fuels and renewables to the chief executive of the German energy firm Eon

Under the You Ask, They Answer microscope this week is the German energy giant Eon and its chief executive, Paul Golby. The company runs fossil fuel power stations, windfarms and biomass plants across the UK. Most controversially it has been attacked by environmental campaigners for its plan to open the first new coal-fired power station in the UK for 20 years at Kingsnorth, in Kent. It also has plans to build two new nuclear power stations and is a major investor in the £2.2bn London Array offshore wind farm. Golby has described anti-coal protesters as “a little naive”.

This is your chance to put your questions direct to Paul Golby and to Eon. How do you feel about expanding coal generation in the UK and new nuclear power stations? Are coal protesters “naive”? Should the company be doing more to invest in renewables? Or should it be paying more attention to keeping customer bills low?

Golby will be live online between 11am and noon on Monday. For the rest of the week until Friday afternoon a team of Eon staff will tackle other questions and comments on the blog. They are:

Emily Highmore – Senior media and communications officer

Tim Pyke – Climate manager

Sara Vaughan – director of regulation & energy policy

Jonathan Smith – PR and media relations manager

Please post your questions below.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Your chance to quiz Eon on energy

Put your questions on coal, fossil fuels and renewables to the chief executive of the German energy firm Eon

Under the You Ask, They Answer microscope this week is the German energy giant Eon and its chief executive, Paul Golby. The company runs fossil fuel power stations, windfarms and biomass plants across the UK. Most controversially it has been attacked by environmental campaigners for its plan to open the first new coal-fired power station in the UK for 20 years at Kingsnorth, in Kent. It also has plans to build two new nuclear power stations and is a major investor in the £2.2bn London Array offshore wind farm. Golby has described anti-coal protesters as “a little naive”.

This is your chance to put your questions direct to Paul Golby and to Eon. How do you feel about expanding coal generation in the UK and new nuclear power stations? Are coal protesters “naive”? Should the company be doing more to invest in renewables? Or should it be paying more attention to keeping customer bills low?

Golby will be live online between 11am and noon on Monday. For the rest of the week until Friday afternoon a team of Eon staff will tackle other questions and comments on the blog. They are:

Emily Highmore – Senior media and communications officer

Tim Pyke – Climate manager

Sara Vaughan – director of regulation & energy policy

Jonathan Smith – PR and media relations manager

Please post your questions below.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


A trial held in a climate of injustice

The outcome of the trial of the Drax protesters was determined the minute the judge banned the consideration of climate change

I would say that if the law considers it acceptable to kill 180 people a year, then the law has some catching up to do.

When Beth Stratford addressed the jury on Wednesday at the trial of the Drax 29 she was speaking in the knowledge that the judge in her trial had already secured a guilty verdict by his earlier decision to ban consideration of climate change from the proceedings. It was a bizarre, deeply flawed decision by Justice Spencer that determined the path of the trial from the outset. In his ruling he wrote,

I rule as a matter of law that … evidence concerning the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is inadmissible. To rule otherwise would allow these defendants to hijack the trial process just as surely as they hijacked the coal train.

We can’t know for sure what was in his mind when he concluded that anthropogenic global warming was so “irrelevant” as to deserve banishment from his courtroom. But I can’t help wondering if the judge – and the wider judicial system – had one eye on the outcome of our recent trial in Maidstone, where six of us were found not guilty of criminal damage despite admitting we climbed and painted on the chimney at Kingsnorth.

Our acquittal in the Kingsnorth case caused great disquiet in Whitehall. The attorney general, Lady Scotland, a member of the government, took active steps towards appealing the decision allowing us to run a climate change defence, before dropping the appeal for reasons unknown (our legal advisers suggested the government may have lost, in the process setting a precedent allowing climate protesters to run the kind of defence banned in the Drax trial).

Now it is evident that instead of appealing our case, the judiciary decided to adopt an alternative strategy – relying on judges to eject the basic laws of physics, biology and chemistry from their courtrooms and declare climate change inadmissible. Indeed, Justice Spencer addressed the question of a scientific consensus on climate change in his summing up to the jury by saying: “There may well be people who would argue against it, certainly against the urgency [of acting], I don’t know, but it’s irrelevant.”

Our earlier acquittal had a small but nevertheless very real influence on the energy and climate change debate in this country, but I am certain that an acquittal of the Drax 29 would have had an immeasurably greater impact. They defended themselves in the most eloquent and articulate fashion, shaming into silence the prosecutors and the men from the police’s National Extremism Unit who sat at the back of court, arms folded, as they were forced to listen to Amy Clancy telling the court how she’d never been arrested before but that the train occupation was the “most reasonable and responsible thing I have done in my life”.

The Drax defendants are heroes of our time. They knew they were almost certain to be convicted from the moment the judge ruled out consideration of climate change. But the protesters pleaded not guilty anyway, they went ahead without legal representation and for two days they forced Justice Spencer’s court to hear evidence of the greatest threat faced by humanity. Their defence ended with Jonathan Stevenson’s address to the jury, in which he said:

The law will eventually have to change and acknowledge the harm that carbon emissions do to all of us, by making them illegal. The only question is whether the law will catch up in time for there to be anything left to protect.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Activists who stopped train convicted

Climate change protesters face community service after judge rejects justification defence

Climate change protesters who ambushed and hijacked a power station coal train failed to convince a jury today that their actions were justified by the “imminent threat” of devastation from global warming.

The 22 men and women, including a senior university lecturer, teachers and film-makers, were convicted – after less than two hours of deliberation – of obstructing the service carrying 42,000 tonnes of coal to Drax in North Yorkshire last June.

Their hopes of repeating the “Kingsnorth Six” judgment last September, when activists who defaced a power station chimney were acquitted by a Kent jury, were dashed by a judge, who refused to admit arguments that the hijack was “necessary and proportionate to prevent the greater crime of carbon pollution“.

Although he eventually allowed an unexpectedly large amount of evidence about climate change to be heard, Judge James Spencer refused to let expert witnesses such as Nasa scientist, Prof James Hansen, address the seven women and five men on the jury at Leeds crown court. In a pre-trial ruling he said that to do so would allow the protesters “to hijack the trial process as surely as they hijacked the coal train“.

He did however compliment the group, who conducted their own defence, on making an “eloquent, sincere, moving and engaging” case to the court. After the verdicts, he said that sentencing in early September would definitely not include jail terms, but was likely to be community service.

The 22, plus a further five protesters who earlier pleaded guilty and two who are ill but expected to submit guilty pleas in due course, will however face hefty financial penalties. The crown is applying for both its costs and £36,000 compensation for cleaning up coal shovelled on to the tracks during a 16-hour standoff with police.

After the verdict, one of the 22, Dr Louise Hemmerman, 31, said: “The judge declared from day one that climate change was irrelevant to the trial, despite the fact that it was the sole reason for doing what we did.”

Another of the group, Jonathan Stevenson, 27, who works for a development charity, said: “This won’t be the last case where climate protesters are in court for taking peaceful direct action, and while some judges may think climate change is irrelevant, they won’t be able to hold back the tide forever.”

Stevenson asked the judge after the verdicts if an order banning the defendants from power stations would apply more widely, to include roads. Judge Spencer replied with a smile: “I would steer clear of demonstrations, all of you, until this case is completely over. Try to find some other activities to do on your holidays.”

Hansen, head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whom the defendants had intended to call to the stand to speak about the science of climate change, said: “Civil resistance is not an easy path, but given abdication of responsibility by the government, it is an essential path.”

Hansen was arrested last week for his part in a protest over mountaintop coalmining in West Virginia. He has previously said that direct action is necessary because the democratic process is not bringing about policy change fast enough.

The chief crown prosecutor for North Yorkshire, Rob Turnbull, said: “While the CPS [crown prosecution service] respects the rights of individuals to lawfully protest, it takes a serious view of criminal activity which targets those carrying out lawful activities.” He defended Judge Spencer’s pre-trial ruling on the grounds that no one was in such immediate danger from global warning that hijacking a coal train was “proportionate”.

“The judge said that if the power station contributed to global warming, and all that entailed, it was for the government to attend to and not the protesters. He also said that no reasonable jury could conclude that the crime these defendants allegedly committed was either reasonable or proportionate when there were democratic processes available in this country for political change.”

The 22 were acquitted of actually stopping the train, after evidence that no one knew which of them had donned fake railwaymen’s uniforms and used red flags to bring it to a halt. The ambush stopped the train right on a bridge over the river Aire, whose girders gave protesters the means to clamber up and use 15 shovels to start unloading coal.

Passenger and freight services in the area were disrupted for two days, but Drax generated power normally throughout.

Those convicted were: Theo Bard, 24, Amy Clancy, 24, Brian Farelly, 32, Grainne Gannon, 26, Bryn Hoskins, 24, Jasmin Karalis, 25, Ellen Potts, 33, Bertie Russell, 24, Alison Stratford,26, Jonathan Stevenson, 27 and Felix Wight, all of London, Melanie Evans,25, Matthew Fawcette, 34, Robin Gillett, 23, Kristina Jones 22, Oliver Rodker, 40 and Thomas Spencer,23, all of Manchester, Paul Chatterton, 36, and Louise Hemmerman, 31, of Leeds, Melanie Evans, 25, of Stockport, Paul Morozzo, 42, of Hebden Bridge, Christopher Ward, 38, of Newport Pagnell and Elizabeth Whelan of Glasgow.

The five who pleaded guilty earlier were: Theo Brown, 22 and Clemmie James, 24, of London, Malcolm Carroll, 53, of Stafford, Thomas Johnstone, 25, of Liverpool and Paul Mellett, 29, of Colerne, Wiltshire. The two have indicated they will plead guilty when well are Caroline Williams, 25, of London and Sam Martingell, 24, of Leeds.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Jury retires in Drax protest trial

Final statement from the 22 defendants asked jury to ‘look beyond the confines of this court’ and ‘make a judgment based not just on law, but on justice’

The jury considering the case of the hijacking of a coal train by climate campaigners retired today after a final statement from the 22 defendants which the judge – who has repeatedly ruled political evidence inadmissible – described as “eloquent and sincere”.

In their statement, the group appealed to the jury to “to look beyond the confines of this court to the wider world, and to make a judgment based not just on law, but on justice.”

They were contradicted immediately afterwards by Judge James Spencer, who directed the jury at Leeds crown court that they should ignore climate change issues. He instructed them to consider only the facts of who took part in the stopping of a train carrying 42,000 tonnes of coal in June last year to Drax in North Yorkshire, the biggest coal-fired power station in Europe.

The defendants, aged between 43 and 21, plead not guilty to obstructing a railway engine contrary to the Malicious Damage Act of 1861. They have admitted that the train was flagged down by fake signalmen and occupied for 16 hours while coal was shovelled out of its hoppers, but argue that the action was “necessary and proportionate to prevent the crime of carbon emissions” and the deaths that result from them.

The judge had ruled the “necessity defence” inadmissible at a previous hearing, and he told the jury that accepting the argument would breach the principle that the law applied to all. But he emphasised that all 22 were “sincere in their views and of good character” and he included summaries of their climate change evidence in his summing up.

He described an account of a lesson on climate change, given by primary school teacher Grainne Gannon, 26, as “moving and engagingly told.” He also told the jury: “We heard evidence from the train driver and he was the first to say how polite, orderly and responsible the protesters were.”

The trial was originally set to last two weeks but sped up rapidly after the defence barristers withdrew because they could not professionally argue the “necessity” case against the explicit instructions of the judge. The 22 took over themselves, and cut their planned evidence by half as Judge Spencer became increasingly relaxed about allowing them to describe their motivations.

His earlier ruling, however, prevented the attendance of a string of expert witnesses from the UN, Nasa, and countries affected by possible consequences of global warming such as the Arctic and New Orleans. The defendants managed to refer to these in court, but were warned by the judge against summarising their views because they would be hearsay evidence.

On the third and final day of evidence, Gannon who boarded the train dressed as a coalminer’s warning canary, reinforced points made by a university lecturer, a film-maker, a charity worker and others about why they had felt compelled to act. She concluded: “burning coal means carbon pollution which means death.”

The final statement was given by charity worker Jonathan Stevenson, 26, from London, who cited Lord Denning’s admiration of a jury in 1670 which refused to convict William Penn and other Quakers for “disorderly preaching” even though they were themselves imprisoned by a judge, “without so much as a chamber pot”. Stevenson told the jury that Judge Spencer was not going to do that and also referred to a law lords decision in 2005 that no judge could direct a jury to return a guilty verdict.

He said: “The freedom that you have, that the legal system allows juries, is what enables the law, where necessary, to move forward. Times change, and what was acceptable in one era may not be acceptable in another.

“The law will eventually have to change and acknowledge the harm that carbon emissions do to all of us, by making them illegal.”

The defendents are: Theo Bard, 24, Amy Clancy, 24, Brian Farelly, 32, Grainne Gannon, 26, Bryn Hoskins, 24, Jasmin Karalis, 25, Ellen Potts, 33, Bertie Russell, 24, Alison Stratford, 26, Jonathan Stevenson, 27 and Felix Wight, all of London, Melanie Evans, 25, Matthew Fawcette, 34, Robin Gillett, 23, Kristina Jones, 22, Oliver Rodker, 40, and Thomas Spencer,23, all of Manchester, Paul Chatterton, 36, and Louise Hemmerman, 31, of Leeds, Melanie Evans, 25, of Stockport, Paul Morozzo, 42, of Hebden Bridge, Christopher Ward, 38, of Newport Pagnell and Elizabeth Whelan of Glasgow.

A verdict is expected tomorrow.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Drax protesters plead climate cause

Climate change protesters accused of hijacking a power station coal train managed to mount a vigorous political defence of their actions in court yesterday during hours of cat-and-mouse negotiations with a judge.

In spite of repeated adjournments and warnings to stick to the facts of the ambush in June last year, the group of university lecturers, film-makers and others addressed a jury in Leeds on global warming, Arctic melt and the history of reforming Britain’s laws.

Initially, the trial of 22 activists at Leeds crown court seemed doomed to a stalemate, with Judge Spencer insisting that he would cut short any attempt to justify the hijack by what he acknowledged were “genuine and deeply felt motives”. He told the trial more than 20 times that the jury’s only task was to decide whether the train, taking coal to Drax power station in North Yorkshire, had been illegally stopped.

Three times he interrupted Dr Paul Chatterton, lead speaker of the defendants, who are conducting their own case, to ask him politely “to come back to what happened on the train”. But equally politely, Chatterton, a senior lecturer in geography at Leeds University, returned to the “deadly and urgent threat” posed to the planet by carbon emissions from Drax, the largest coal-fired power station in Europe.

The pattern continued all day, as the defendants succeeded in getting a wealth of evidence across to the seven women and five men on the jury. Judge Spencer allowed film-maker Beth Stratford, 26, to show the court pictures of her flooded home town, which had spurred her to join climate change campaigners. She revealed that the defence had lined up expert witnesses from the UN, Nasa and several universities, but these had been stood down because of a previous ruling that wider motive issues would not be admitted in evidence.

The defendants, aged between 21 and 43, have pleaded not guilty to obstructing a railway engine contrary to the Malicious Damage Act of 1861. The trial has heard that the train was stopped in a “well-planned and executed operation, which was also polite and orderly” by protesters dressed as railway staff waving red flags.

The ambush took place at a river bridge and allowed the group to clamber on board some of the 21 huge hoppers and shovel coal on to the track. The action disrupted local passenger and freight services for two days and cost £30,000 to clean up.

Richard Mansell QC, prosecuting, gave the court details yesterday of a wedding code used by the group in which the train was the bride, at whose approach the campaigners, nicknamed “priests” and “in-laws”, moved into action.

The six defendants who gave evidence yesterday all agreed that they had taken part, and Chatterton, described in character references from his colleagues as “an outstanding scholar, citizen and role model for students”, told the judge plainly: “I was on the train and I intended to stay on it for as long as possible.”

Turning to the jury, he said: “I need to tell you the reasons for my involvement and what was going through my mind. In my studies at university, I had come to see the impact that pollution from Drax was having, both globally and locally.

“UN statistics show that the amount of carbon produced by Drax was responsible for 180 deaths a year. Every minute we were on that train, we were stopping carbon emissions.”

In fact, Drax functioned uninterrupted during the 16-hour stand-off before police cut climbing bolts and locks attaching protesters to the train and bridge. But the hijack led to renewed interest in the climate change debate.

The case continues.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Drax judge relaxes ban on climate change talk

Lecturer tells jury Drax power station threat is ‘deadly and urgent’

Climate change protesters accused of hijacking a power station coal train managed to address a jury on political issues today after a judge relaxed repeated warnings to give them some leeway.

Judge Spencer had earlier repeatedly told Leeds University lecturer Paul Chatterton, who is leading the defence of 22 activists, that the jury was only concerned with whether they had stopped and boarded the train and not with their reasons for doing so.

But after almost an hour’s adjournment he allowed Chatterton and a second protester, 26-year-old film-maker Alison Stratford, wider scope before finally intervening to cut them short.

Chatterton, who has lectured on geography for 11 years, said that he had acted because of “passion and terror at the implications of coal-burning power stations for global warning”.

He told the jury that he did not consider the train hijack to be an illegal act, because United Nations statistics suggested that the amount of carbon produced by Drax was responsible for 180 deaths a year. He said: “The threat is deadly and it is urgent …” The judge then interrupted him again, saying: “I’ve let you go on – please remember the legal restraints.”

Stratford was allowed to show the jury photographs of houses under water in her home town of Louth, Lincolnshire, which she said had roused her fears about climate change. She choked and had to recover in the witness box as she described how her four-year-old nephew had told her: “Don’t worry, we can fix it.”

“I was on the train to show him that I had done everything I could,” she said. But when she got on to Arctic ice melt and polar bears, the judge again asked: “Could you talk about the train?”

The court heard that the protesters had lined up academic witnesses and a scientist from Nasa to address the jury, but this had been ruled inadmissible. Adjourning for lunch, the judge warned that he would show less patience if defendants insisted on talking about their “genuine and deeply held feelings about climate change” rather than the nuts and bolts of the train hijack.

The defendants, aged between 43 and 21, have pleaded not guilty to obstructing a railway engine contrary to the Malicious Damage Act of 1861. But Chatterton admitted as soon as he began his defence that he had been on the train and had “intended to stay on it as long as possible”.

Earlier he told the jury that the prosecution case, which began and ended yesterday, had been “incredibly partial” about the incident on 13 June last year. Addressing the seven women and five men directly across the crowded courtroom at Leeds crown court, he said: “They said what went on there but did not deal with why.”

Yesterday, Richard Mansell QC, prosecuting, told the jury that the defendants “preparing a misuse of the court process to continue the protest action which they started when they boarded that train just over a year ago”.

The accused are Theo Bard, 24; Amy Clancy, 24; Brian Farelly, 32; Grainne Gannon, 26; Bryn Hoskins, 24; Jasmin Karalis, 25; Ellen Potts, 33; Bertie Russell, 24; Alison Stratford, 26; Jonathan Stevenson, 27 and Felix Wight, all of London; Melanie Evans, 25; Matthew Fawcette, 34; Robin Gillett, 23; Kristina Jones, 22; Oliver Rodker, 40 and Thomas Spencer, 23, all of Manchester; Paul Chatterton, 36, and Louise Hemmerman, 31, of Leeds; Melanie Evans, 25, of Stockport; Paul Morozzo, 42, of Hebden Bridge; Christopher Ward, 38, of Newport Pagnell, and Elizabeth Whelan, of Glasgow.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Drax hijack trial ‘like second protest’

Prosecutors accuse 22 activists who took control of a coal train last year of ‘misusing the court process to continue the action’

Climate change campaigners who hijacked a power station coal train were accused today of planning to turn their trial into a second public protest on energy policy and global warming.

Prosecution lawyers claimed that 22 men and women who clambered aboard a 21-wagon supply service to Drax in north Yorkshire last year were bent on “misusing the court process to continue the action.”

The dock at Leeds crown court overflowed into the well as the group, aged between 21 and 48, pleaded not guilty to obstructing a railway engine contrary to the Malicious Damage Act of 1861.

The court heard that they had carried out “a well-planned and orchestrated action,” halting the train with red flags and fake railwaymen’s uniforms precisely by a river bridge which they could use to climb on to the huge coal hoppers.

“They effectively took control of the train,” said Richard Mansell QC, prosecuting, “and then started shovelling its coal on to the track below.” Makeshift tents were erected on two of the wagons while other protesters manacled themselves to the train and bridge girders, using locks that police specialists did not cut through for 16 hours.

The protest was aimed at greenhouse gas pollution from coal-burning at Drax, the largest power station of its kind in Europe, and fuel trains were disrupted for two days. Mansell told the jury of six men and six women that passenger and freight services had been disrupted, causing financial loss to several companies, and the clearing of the coal and ballast cleaning had cost £30,000.

The court heard that there was a good-humoured atmosphere on all sides during the confrontation, which ended at midnight when a specialist police team unlocked the last protester. One of the group, who are from London, Manchester, Leeds, Wales, the south-east and Scotland, had dressed as a canary. She carried a placard with the words “How many warnings do we need? The Canary”. She also joined in a request – which was not met – that the chief executive of Drax come the two miles down the rail line to talk to them.

The jury heard that the group had come thoroughly prepared, with 15 shovels, advice on what to do if arrested and scarves to avoid inhaling coal dust. The two who stopped the train initially told its driver Nicholas Wilson that they were stopping him because there was “a load of protesters on the line ahead”. They then revealed that they were part of the group, but assured him that he would come to no harm.

Wilson, who worked for the EWS company that ran the train, had no option but to stop because of the health and safety risk of people on the tracks.

Mansell told the trial, which is expected to last for a fortnight, that the 22 would be representing themselves and were likely to seek political sympathy rather than challenge the facts. He said that there was no question that the train had been illegally stopped and boarded, and the defendants would not seek to deny their actions.

“You may wonder therefore what possible issue it is that you are here to try,” he said. “We must wait and see, but the Crown suspects that what is happening here is that the defendants may seek to play on your emotions, and your sympathies with their cause, if you have them, so as to find them all not guilty.

“If you were to do this, by effectively ignoring the evidence, that would not be true to your oath or affirmation. If they are guilty in law of the offence, then the only true verdict is one of guilty.”

“The Crown says that they are preparing a misuse of the court process to continue the protest action which they started when they boarded that train just over a year ago.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds