Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Al Gore's Call for Climate Change Disobedience, UK Court's Climate Change Ruling and Lewis Gordon Pugh's North Pole Kayaking 'Do Monty Python Proud'!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/14/do1402.xml

Climate change chicanery

By Christopher Booker


The Independent UK


14/09/2008


Recent events have seen the scare campaign over global warming descend to the level of a Monty Python sketch.
































http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w















Much publicity was given, for instance, to Lewis Gordon Pugh, who set out to paddle a kayak to the Pole to demonstrate the vanishing of the Arctic ice. At 80.5 degrees north, still 600 miles short of his goal, he met with ice so thick that he and his fossil-fuelled support ship had to turn back.

But this did not prevent him receiving a congratulatory call from Gordon Brown, nor boasting that he had travelled "further north than anyone has kayaked so far".


It took the admirable Watts Up With That blog, run by the American meteorologist Anthony Watts, to point out that in 1893 the Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen found the Arctic so ice-free that he was able to kayak above 82 degrees north, 100 miles nearer the Pole than our hapless campaigner against "unprecedented global warming".

Then there was the much-publicised speech to Compassion in World Farming by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pleading for people to give up meat, on the grounds that the digestive methane given off by cattle contributes more to greenhouse gases than all the world's transport.


[IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE 'GASSING' OF ANOTHER, ESPECIALLY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (PRESUMABLY, AS THE RESULT OF ONE'S CARNIVOROUS PREDILECTIONS), COULD TRIGGER A CRIMINAL CHARGE OF 1ST DEGREE BATTERY & POTENTIALLY JAIL TIME. See: Man Charged After Allegedly Passing Gas Toward Cop, CBS News (Sept. 25, 2008) at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/ap/strange/main4476754.shtml ].


Although hailed by the BBC as "the UN's top climate scientist", Dr Pachauri, who holds PhDs in economics and engineering, is nothing of the kind, but just an apparatchik.

A vegetarian Hindu, Dr Pachauri not only used highly tendentious figures to promote his cause but said nothing about the contribution made to global warming by India's 400 million sacred cows, which presumably would still be free to vent wind even if the rest of humanity is converted to eating veggieburgers.

Telegraph.co.uk/earth

There has also been an acclaimed new paper by Michael Mann, the creator of the iconic "hockey stick" graph, purporting to show that the world has recently become hotter than at any time in recorded history, eliminating all the wealth of evidence to show that temperatures were higher in the Mediaeval Warm Period than today.

After being used obsessively by the IPCC's 2001 report to promote the cause, the "hockey stick" was comprehensively discredited, not least by Steve McIntyre, a Canadian computer analyst, who showed that Mann had built into his computer programme an algorithm (or "al-gore-ithm") which would produce the hockey stick shape even if the data fed in was just "random noise".

Two weeks ago Dr Mann published a new study, claiming to have used 1,209 new historic "temperature proxies" to show that his original graph was essentially correct after all. This was faithfully reported by the media as further confirmation that we live in a time of unprecedented warming. Steve McIntyre immediately got to work and, supported by expert readers on his Climate Audit website, shredded Mann's new version as mercilessly as he had the original.

He again showed how selective Mann had been in his new data, excluding anything which confirmed the Mediaeval Warming and concentrating on that showing temperatures recently rising to record levels.

Finnish experts pointed out that, where Mann placed emphasis on the evidence of sediments from Finnish lakes, there were particular reasons why these should have shown rising temperatures in recent years, such as expanding towns on their shores. McIntyre even discovered a part of Mann's programme akin to a disguised version of his earlier algorithm, which he now calls "Mannomatics".

But Mann's new study will surely be used to push the warmist party line in the run-up to the IPCC international conference in Copenhagen next year to agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, temperatures continue to drop. The latest Nasa satellite readings on global temperatures from the University of Alabama, one of four officially recognised sources of temperature data, show that August was the fourth month this year when temperatures fell below their 30-year average, ie since satellite records began. The US National Climatic Data Center showsis showing that last month in the USA was only the 39th warmest since records began 113 years ago.
It is high time, however, that we took all this chicanery and wishful thinking seriously - as was evidenced in Maidstone Crown [Kangaroo] Court last Wednesday, by the acquittal of six Greenpeace campaigners tried for criminal damage to Kingsnorth power station.

They were attempting to stop a new coal-fired power station being built, to produce 1,600 megawatts of electricity (two and a half times as much as is generated by all the 2,300 wind turbines so far built in Britain).

As gleefully reported on the front page of The Independent, and at length by other promoters of warming alarmism such as the BBC and The Guardian, the jury agreed that the damage they had perpetrated was lawfully justified - because the damage done by the new power station, in raising global sea levels and contributing to the extinction of "a million species", would be far worse.

The court was swayed to this remarkable verdict by the evidence of two "expert witnesses" for the defence: Zac Goldsmith, one of David Cameron's envrionmental policy advisers and a prospective Conservative MP, and James Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Dr Hansen, who has been the world's leading global warming campaigner for 20 years (along with his ally Al Gore), claimed that the proposed Kingsnorth power station alone would be responsible for the extinction of "400 species".

It is extraordinary that two such partisan witnesses were accepted by the court in this role, since the rules, as defined by Mr Justice Cresswell in 1993, insist that the function of an "expert witness" is only to give "objective evidence". He must not be an "advocate" for one side or the other on any issue on which experts are divided.

This should have ruled Dr Hansen out at once. Question marks are raised over his institute's temperature data. Last year he was forced by Steve McIntyre to revise his figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as Hansen claimed, but the 1930s. He has also campaigned tirelessly for the scrapping of all coal-fired power stations.

Yet we are critically dependent on coal-generated power: it supplies 35 per cent of Britain's needs and 50 per cent of America's. Thanks to EU rules, we will be forced to close six coal-fired power stations before long, and without new ones, such as that proposed for Kingsnorth, our economy will judder to a halt.

David Cameron could well be prime minister by then. That one of his closest advisers believes that criminal damage is justified to stop coal-fired power plants being built is just as alarming as that the British courts now seem to agree with him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants
Sep 24, 2008 3:29pm EDT

By Michelle Nichols
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people on Wednesday to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.
CAN YOU SPOT THE LOONEY?





The former U.S. vice president, whose climate changedocumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award, told a philanthropic meeting in New York City that "the world has lost ground to the climate crisis."

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.


"I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact," he said. "I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that."


[THE STATEMENT THAT, "THE RISK FROM THE GLOBAL CLIMATE CRISIS IS GREAT" IS A 'MATERIAL FACT'??? ANY PUBLIC DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS SO-CALLED 'MATERIAL FACT' IS EQUIVALENT TO FRAUD?? MR. GORE, ARE YOU AWARE THAT MUCH OF THE PUBLIC THINKS YOU ARE A LOONEY?]
The government says about 28 coal plants are under construction in the United States. Another 20 projects have permits or are near the start of construction.

Scientists say carbon gases from burning fossil fuel for power and transport are a key factor in global warming.

Carbon capture and storage could give coal power an extended lease on life by keeping power plants' greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere and easing climate change.
But no commercial-scale project exists anywhere to demonstrate the technology, partly because it is expected to increase up-front capital costs by an additional 50 percent.

So-called geo-sequestration of carbon sees carbon dioxide liquefied and pumped into underground rock layers for long term storage.

(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Christine Kearney and Xavier Briand)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Gore Urges 'Civil Disobedience' Toward Coal Plants

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Al Gore called Wednesday for "civil disobedience" to combat the construction of coal power plants without the ability to store carbon, Reuters reported.
The former vice president, whose efforts to raise awareness of global warming have made him the most prominent voice on that issue, made the comment during a session at the fourth annual Clinton Global Initiative in Manhattan.
"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore said, according to Reuters.
It wasn't clear what specific action he intended by "civil disobedience," which calls for the intentional violation of laws deemed to be unjust.
Since leaving the White House after losing to George Bush in the 2000 presidential election, Gore has turn his focus to environmental issues, a longtime passion. The 2006 documentary based on his lecture, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar. In addition, he received a Nobel Peace Prize for his climate change work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[WE MIGHT HAVE AN IDEA REGARDING THE TYPE OF SPECIFIC ACTIONS MR. GORE HAS IN MIND].
See, e.g., Liz Veazey, NC Youth Stop Coal Plant Construction: 8 arrested!, STUDENT ENVTL. ACTION COALITION, Apr. 1, 2008, available at: http://www.seac.org/node/296 (“Shortly after activists locked themselves to construction equipment, police arrived on the scene and used pain compliance holds and tazers to force them to unlock themselves. 8 young people were arrested. We’ve talked to one of them from jail and they seem to be ok.”); Steven Mufson, Coal Rush Reverses, Power Firms Follow: Plans for New Plants Stalled by Growing Opposition, WASH. POST (Sept. 4, 2007), available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090301119_pf.html ].

["What is most disturbing about these legal and illegal grassroots initiatives, as the Mayor of Missoula, Montana and the Florida Public Service Commission had previously found out, is that they were encouraged overwhelmingly by current and former high-level U.S. politicians of predominantly one political persuasion. In the case of Montana and Florida, local popular doubts over the wisdom of going forward with new coal plant builds arose as the result of strident public opposition voiced (a “warning shot fired”) by U.S. Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid while, in North Carolina, illegal student protests were triggered by statements made by Former Democratic Vice President Al Gore."
See: Lawrence Kogan, The Extra-WTO Precautionary Principle: One European “Fashion” Export The United States Can Do Without, 17 Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review 2 (2008) at pp. 586-87, at: http://www.itssd.org/Kogan%2017%5B1%5D.2.pdf ].

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenpeace Kingsnorth trial collapse is embarrassing for Gordon Brown

Earthlog - Charles Clover's weekly column that takes an inside look at the environment

Telegraph UK
11/09/08

Whatever you may think of the anti-nuclear environmental group Greenpeace, the collapse of the case against its activists for causing criminal damage to a coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent is embarrassing to the Brown Government, for it leaves it looking, well, browner than ever.

Six activists admitted trying to shut down the station and painting "Gordon" down the chimney in a protest at EON's plans to build an even bigger coal-fired station next door.

But a jury of nine bought the activists' argument, supported in person by James Hansen, the US climate scientist and director of Nasa, that Greenpeace were legally justified because they were trying to prevent climate change causing greater damage to property around the world.

The jury, in other words, took at face value pronouncements by ministers such as Hilary Benn, David Miliband, and Gordon Brown himself, and by Sir David King, the former chief scientist, that that global warming is with us and that the proliferation of coal-fired plants in China, at a rate of two a day, risks dangerous climate change. Proliferation of coal fired plants in China is damaging, but not apparently proliferation in Britain.

[NO EVIDENCE REQUIRED!! BRITISH JUSTICE REQUIRES ONLY ATTESTATIONS BY 'DISTINGUISHED' PUBLIC FIGURES, NOTHING MORE - RULE BY MEN, NOT RULE OF LAW!! ]

John Hutton, the Business secretary, who is expected to take a decision on whether Kingsnorth should go ahead after the party conferences, is absolutely right that Britain needs coal to keep the lights on and give stability to its electricity grid.

But he has got himself into an incredible muddle over when and how carbon capture technology should be fitted to coal fired stations.

Hutton's department and the power utilities believe they must build unabated coal plants and let them pollute for years in order to push up the price of permits to pollute to a level sufficient to make carbon capture and storage commercial. This is madness.

The Conservatives, Lib Dems and Governor Schwarzenegger in California are all right, there should be no new coal plants without carbon capture.
[WE WONDER WHETHER THE GOVERNATOR AND LIB DEMS ARE 'CLOSET' MEMBERS OF THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY. BASED ON ITS EMBRACE OF EURO-STYLE 'ENVIRONMENTALISM' CALIFORNIA CAN EASILY PASS AS THE 28TH E.U. MEMBER STATE!]
If you hold the views the Government has expressed on global warming (and there are plenty of people in the world, for instance Sarah Palin who don't) then it should be a matter of principle. Now a jury appears to think so, too.

[THIS JURY DID NOT WEIGH ANY EVIDENCE, ONLY RHETORIC. THEREFORE, THE JURY VERDICT SHOULD HAVE NO VALIDITY OR STANDING AS A MATTER OF LAW. THIS BRITISH LEGAL FORUM WAS NOTHING LESS THAN A KANGAROO COURT].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenpeace activists cleared of damaging UK power plant

By Eoin O'Carroll

Christian Science Monitor

09.11.08


A British court cleared six Greenpeace activists Monday of causing more than $50,000 of criminal damage to a coal-fired power plant. The court ruled that, by shutting down the plant, the activists were preventing greater property damage from climate change.

Five of the activists scaled the 650-foot smokestack at Kingsnorth power station with the intention of painting “Gordon bin it” on it (that would be British English for “Prime Minister Gordon Brown, throw it out”). They got as far as writing “Gordon” before someone climbed up there to serve them a court injunction.

The activists argued that they possessed a “lawful excuse” for trying to shut the plant down, because they were trying to prevent the coal plant from causing greater property damage around the world by way of global warming. An example of lawful excuse, as cited by the prosecution and quoted in a Greenpeace blog, would be breaking a window to rescue a child from a burning car.


The Guardian details the expert testimony marshaled by the activists:
The court had heard from Professor Jim Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, that the 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted daily by Kingsnorth could be responsible for the extinction of up to 400 species. Hansen, a Nasa director who advises Al Gore, the former US presidential candidate turned climate change campaigner, told the court that humanity was in “grave peril”. Somebody needs to step forward and say there has to be a moratorium, draw a line in the sand and say no more coal-fired power stations.”

It also heard [opposition leader] David Cameron’s environment adviser, millionaire environmentalist Zac Goldsmith, and an Inuit leader from Greenland both say climate change was already seriously affecting life around the world. Goldsmith told the court: “By building a coal-power plant in this country, it makes it very much harder [to exert] pressure on countries like China and India” to reduce their burgeoning use of the fossil fuel.

The court was told that some of the property in immediate need of protection included parts of Kent at risk from rising sea levels, the Pacific island state of Tuvalu and areas of Greenland. The defendants also cited the Arctic ice sheet, China’s Yellow River region, the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica, coastal areas of Bangladesh and the city of New Orleans.

The jury was told that Kingsnorth emitted the same amount of carbon dioxide as the 30 least polluting countries in the world combined – and that there were advanced plans to build a new coal-fired power station next to the existing site on the Hoo peninsula.

The jury – nine men and three women – found the testimony compelling, and found the six activists not guilty.

Greenpeace is delighted at the ruling. “This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement,” said Ben Stewart, one of the six defendants, as reported by Reuters:

“If jurors from the heart of Middle England say it’s legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, then where does that leave government energy policy?

“We have the clean technologies at hand to power our economy, it’s time we turned to them instead of coal.”

Emily Highmore, a spokeswoman for E.ON, the German energy firm that operates the plant, told the BBC that she was less than thrilled at the outcome.
She said: “We respect people’s right to protest, but what Greenpeace did was hugely irresponsible. It put people’s lives at risk and that is clearly completely unacceptable.”
[ALSO, IT DIRECTLY VIOLATED E.ON's PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS WHICH, IN THE UK, APPARENTLY ARE 'POSITIVE' RIGHTS CONDITIONED UPON THE GENERAL WILL, OR IN THIS CASE, ON GREENPEACE'S RIGHT TO PROTEST / EXERCISE ITS RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.]

Ms Highmore called for an “open and honest debate” about the challenges of energy and climate change, but added: “That’s a debate that shouldn’t be taking place at the top of a chimney stack.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law


By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

The Independent UK

11 September 2008

The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.
Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change.

[THE 'GREENPEACE 6']

The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and could encourage further direct action.

Kingsnorth was the centre for mass protests by climate camp activists last month. Last year, three protesters managed to paint Gordon Brown's name on the plant's chimney. Their handi-work cost £35,000 to remove.


The plan to build a successor to the power station is likely to be the first of a new generation of coal-fired plants. As coal produces more of the carbon emissions causing climate change than any other fuel, campaigners claim that a new station would be a disastrous setback in the battle against global warming, and send out a negative signal to the rest of the world about how serious Britain really is about tackling the climate threat.

But the proposals, from the energy giant E.ON, are firmly backed by the Business Secretary, John Hutton, and the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks. Some members of the Cabinet are thought to be unhappy about them, including the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn. Mr Brown is likely to have the final say on the matter later this year.

During the eight-day trial, the world's leading climate scientist, Professor James Hansen of Nasa, who had flown from American to give evidence, appealed to the Prime Minister personally to "take a leadership role" in cancelling the plan and scrapping the idea of a coal-fired future for Britain. Last December he wrote to Mr Brown with a similar appeal. At the trial, he called for an moratorium on all coal-fired power stations, and his hour-long testimony about the gravity of the climate danger, which painted a bleak picture, was listened to intently by the jury of nine women and three men.
Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.

He was one of several leading public figures who gave evidence for the defence, including Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Richmond Park and director of the Ecologist magazine, who similarly told the jury that in his opinion, direct action could be justified in the minds of many people if it was intended to prevent larger crimes being committed.

The acquittal was the second time in a decade that the "lawful excuse" defence has been successfully used by Greenpeace activists. In 1999, 28 Greenpeace campaigners led Lord Melchett, who was director at the time, were cleared of criminal damage after trashing an experimental field of GM crops in Norfolk. In each case the damage was not disputed – the point at issue was the motive.

[See: Lawrence Kogan, Economic sabotage a form of free speech?, New Zealand Rural News (6/28/05) at: http://www.itssd.org/Publications/Rural%20News%20--%20Rural%20News_co_nz.pdf ].

The defendants who scaled the 630ft chimney at Kingsnorth, near Hoo, last year were Huw Williams, 41, from Nottingham; Ben Stewart, 34, from Lyminge, Kent; Kevin Drake, 44, from Westbury, Wiltshire; Will Rose, 29, from London; and Emily Hall, 34, from New Zealand. Tim Hewke, 48, from Ulcombe, Kent, helped organise the protest.

The court heard how, dressed in orange boiler suits and white hard hats bearing the Greenpeace logo, the six-strong group arrived at the site at 6.30am on 8 October. Armed with bags containing abseiling gear, five of them scaled the chimney while Mr Hewke waited below to liaise between the climbers and police.

The climbers had planned to paint "Gordon, bin it" in huge letters on the side of the chimney, but although they succeeded in temporarily shutting the station, they only got as far as painting the word "Gordon" on the chimney before they descended, having been threatened with a High Court injunction. Removing the graffiti cost E.ON £35,000, the court heard.

During the trial the defendants said they had acted lawfully, owing to an honestly held belief that their attempt to stop emissions from Kingsnorth would prevent further damage to properties worldwide caused by global warming. Their aim, they said, was to rein back CO2 emissions and bring urgent pressure to bear on the Government and E.ON to changes policies. They insisted their action had caused the minimum amount of damage necessary to close the plant down and constituted a "proportionate response" to the increasing environmental threat.

Speaking outside court after being cleared yesterday, Mr Stewart said: "This is a huge blow for ministers and their plans for new coal-fired power stations. It wasn't only us in the dock, it was the coal-fired generation as well. After this verdict, the only people left in Britain who think new coal is a good idea are John Hutton and Malcolm Wicks. It's time the Prime Minister stepped in, showed some leadership and embraced the clean energy future for Britain."

He added: "This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement. When a jury of normal people say it is legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, then where does that leave Government energy policy? We have the clean technologies at hand to power our economy. It's time we turned to them instead of coal."

Ms Hall said: "The jury heard from the most distinguished climate scientist in the world. How could they ignore his warnings and reject his leading scientific arguments?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not guilty: the Greenpeace activists who used climate change as a legal defence
Protesters cleared of damaging power station · Rare defence may boost other environment groups

by John Vidal, environment editor

The Guardian UK

September 11, 2008

----------------------------
Kingsnorth trial: Coal protesters cleared of criminal damage to chimney

The trial of the six Greenpeace UK activists was the first case in which acting to prevent climate change causing damage to property formed part of a 'lawful excuse' defence

by John Vidal, environment editor
Guardian.co.uk

September 10 2008

Six Greenpeace climate change activists have been cleared of causing criminal damage at a coal-fired power station in a verdict that is expected to embarrass the government and strengthen the anti-coal movement.

The jury of nine men and three women at Maidstone crown court cleared the six, five of whom had scaled a 200m tall chimney at Kingsnorth power station at Hoo, Kent in October 2007.

The activists admitted trying to shut down the station by occupying the smokestack and painting the world "Gordon" down the chimney, but argued that they were legally justified because they were trying to prevent climate change causing greater damage to property around the world.
It was the first case where preventing property damage caused by climate change has been used as part of a "lawful excuse" defence in court. It is now expected to be used widely by environment groups.

The court had heard from Prof James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, that the 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted daily by Kingsnorth could be responsible for the extinction of up to 400 species.

Hansen, a Nasa director who advises Al Gore, told the court that humanity was in "grave peril". He said: "Somebody needs to step forward and say there has to be a moratorium, draw a line in the sand and say no more coal-fired power stations."

It also heard David Cameron's environment adviser, millionaire environmentalist Zac Goldsmith, and an Inuit leader from Greenland say that climate change was already seriously affecting life around the world.

The court was told was that some of the property in immediate need of protection included parts of Kent at risk from rising sea levels, the Pacific island state of Tuvalu and areas of Greenland. The defendants also cited the Arctic ice sheet, China's Yellow river region, the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica, coastal areas of Bangladesh and the city of New Orleans.

Goldsmith told the court: "By building a coal-power plant in this country, it makes it very much harder in exerting pressure on countries like China and India to reduce their burgeoning use of the fossil fuel."

The jury was told that Kingsnorth emits the same amount of CO2 as the 30 least polluting countries in the world combined – and that there are advanced plans to build a new coal-fired power station next to the existing site on the Hoo Peninsula in Kent.

Greenpeace used the court's decision to pile pressure on government to abandon plans for a new generation of coal-fired plants.

"Today's acquittal is a potent challenge to the government's plans for new coal-fired stations from jurors representing ordinary people in Britain who, after hearing the evidence, supported the right to take direct action in order to protect the climate," said Ben Stewart, Greenpeace's communications director who was one of the six acquitted.

The others were Will Rose, Kevin Drake, Tim Hewke, Huw Williams and Emily Hall.

"It wasn't only us in the dock, it was coal-fired power generation as well. The only people left in Britain who think new coal is a good idea are business secretary John Hutton and the energy minister Malcolm Wicks," said Hall.
"It's time the prime minister stepped in and embraced a clean energy future for Britain."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power station protesters cleared

BBC News

September 10, 2008

Six Greenpeace activists have been cleared of causing criminal damage during a protest over coal-fired power.

The activists were charged with causing £30,000 of damage after they scaled Kingsnorth power station in Hoo, Kent.

At Maidstone Crown Court Judge David Caddick said the jury had to examine whether protesters had a lawful excuse.

The defendants said the protest was lawful because it aimed to prevent damaging emissions. Energy firm E.ON said lives had been put at risk. [????]

Five people who scaled the chimney - Huw Williams, 41, of Nottingham; Ben Stewart, 34, of Lyminge, Kent; Kevin Drake, 44, of Westbury, Wiltshire; Will Rose, 29, of London; and Emily Hall, 34, from New Zealand - were all charged with causing criminal damage.

'Gordon, bin it'

Tim Hewke, 48, from Ulcombe, Kent, accused by the prosecution of organising the protest from the ground, also faced the same charge.

Jurors heard how protesters painted the name "Gordon" on the 200m (650ft) chimney on 8 October last year, in a political protest against the redevelopment of the plant as a coal-burning unit.

They had planned to daub the words "Gordon, bin it" on the stack in a reference to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, but were threatened with a High Court injunction and arrested.

After the hearing, E.ON spokeswoman Emily Highmore said the firm, which is planning to build a coal-fired unit at the plant, was "hugely disappointed".

She said: "We respect people's right to protest, but what Greenpeace did was hugely irresponsible. It put people's lives at risk and that is clearly completely unacceptable."

Ms Highmore called for an "open and honest debate" about the challenges of energy and climate change, but added: "That's a debate that shouldn't be taking place at the top of a chimney stack."

She added: "Our men and women who work at Kingsnorth have a right to go to work to do their lawful business and to do it safely, so we're very concerned indeed about today's outcome."

This is a huge blow for ministers and their plans for new coal-fired power stations [said] Ben Stewart

Outside the court, activist Mr Stewart said the verdict was "a tipping point for the climate change movement".

He said: "When 12 normal [???] people say it is legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet then where does that leave government energy policy?"

Mr Stewart called for "clean technologies" to be used instead of coal.

And he said: "This is a huge blow for ministers and their plans for new coal-fired power stations."


There has been no government response to the verdict.

Activists scaled Kingsnorth power station in Hoo in a protest over a coal-fired power plant.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Economic Saboteurs Now Include Among Their Ranks NASA Scientist James Hanson?? Common Sense Has Gone With the Wind!

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4864
Hansen: Coal Plant Vandals Actions ‘Justified’ Because of ‘Emergency Situation’



All fired up, American climate scientist James Hansen explains why he’s testifying against coal Hansen: Coal plant vandals actions ‘justified’ because of ‘emergency situation’ By EPW Blog Saturday, September 6, 2008


By EPW Blog


Saturday, September 6, 2008



[H/T: to Tom Nelson ] NASA’s James Hansen: Coal plant vandals actions ‘justified’ because of ‘emergency situation’ - Nature.com - September 5, 2008 Excerpt: Q So do you think that these activists were justified in doing what they did? Hansen: The activists drawing attention to the issue seems to me as justified. You should try to do things through the democratic process, but we really are getting to an emergency situation. We can’t continue to build more coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2 if we hope to solve the problem.

All fired up American climate scientist James Hansen explains why he’s testifying against coal.


Geoff Brumfiel


James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, is well known for rattling his nation’s political establishment. This week, the climate scientist was in London, UK, to testify on behalf of activists who defaced a coal-fired power station in Kent. Geoff Brumfiel caught up with Hansen at a London hotel to find out what has got him all hot and bothered. Why did you come to testify?


Nothing could be more central to the problem we face with global climate change. If you look at the size of the oil, gas and coal reservoirs you’ll see that the oil and gas have enough CO2 to bring us up to a dangerous level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.


There’s a potential to solve that problem if we phase out coal. If we were to have a moratorium on coal-fired power plants within the next few years, and then phase out the existing ones between 2010 and 2030, then CO2 would peak at something between 400 and 425 parts per million. That leaves a difficult problem, but one that you can solve.


Do you think that leaders like UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown have lived up to their promises on climate change?


It depends on whether they will have a moratorium on coal-fired power. I think that the greenest leaders, like German chancellor Angela Merkel and Prime Minister Brown, are saying the right words. But if you look at their actions, emissions are continuing to increase. All of these countries and the United States are planning to build more coal-fired power plants. And if you build more coal-fired power plants, then it is not possible to achieve the goals that they say they are committed to. It’s a really simple argument and yet they won’t face up to it.


So do you think that these activists were justified in doing what they did?


The activists drawing attention to the issue seems to me as justified. You should try to do things through the democratic process, but we really are getting to an emergency situation. We can’t continue to build more coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2 if we hope to solve the problem.


We need to get energy from somewhere. So if we’re not getting it from coal, then where?


The first thing we should do is focus on energy efficiency. The fact that utilities make more money by selling more energy is a big problem. We have to change those rules. Then there is renewable energy — in order to be able to fully exploit renewable energy, we need better electric grids. So those should be the first things, but I think that we also need to look at next-generation nuclear power.


Some have said you are hypocritical for flying all the way from the US to the UK just to testify. How do you respond?


I like to travel as little as possible, not only because it uses less CO2 but because I prefer to do science. But sometimes there are things which are sufficiently important that I think it makes sense.


What do you think the roll of the scientist should be in the broader societal debate on climate change?


I think it would be irresponsible not to speak out. There is a clear gap between what is understood by the relevant scientific community and what is known by the public, and we have to try and close that gap. If we don’t do something in the very near future, we’re going to create a situation for our children and grandchildren that is out of control.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x154579






UK Protestors Occupy Coal Train - wanna chain yourself to a bull dozer?



Democratic [Party] Underground Blog


NICE!!! We need to do more way of this in North America - remember when Gore asked why we weren't chaining ourselves to bulldozers at coal plant sites? Well, why aren't we?Protestors who halted a coal train carrying fuel for Drax power station in Yorkshire, the single biggest source of CO2 in the UK, are settling in to make sure supplies of coal to the power station remain cut off. The protest comes six weeks before the 2008 Camp for Climate Action at Kingsnorth power station - which will also highlight how using coal to supply energy will be a disaster for the planet.Dressed in white overalls and canary outfits, they used safety signals to stop the train on a bridge overlooking the power station, before climbing on board and dumping coal off onto the tracks.http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/protestors-coal ...Anyone want to buy the chains? I know a few bulldozers...


[APPARENTLY, DR. HANSEN BELIEVES THAT INDIVIDUALS CAN TAKE 'JUSTICE' INTO THEIR OWN HANDS WHENEVER THEY BELIEVE THAT THE 'PUBLIC INTEREST' IS AT STAKE. IN THIS REGARD, HIS POLITICAL AGENDA IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE GLORIFIED BRITISH LORD MELCHETT AND OTHER BIOTECH, ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRIOR INCIDENTS OF LAWLESS/CRIMINAL ECONOMIC SABOTAGE COMMITTED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM DURING THE PAST 10 YEARS AGAINST FARMERS, SCIENTISTS, LABORATORY EMPLOYEES, SHAREHOLDERS AND SHOPKEEPERS (FOOD RETAILERS). SADLY, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT UNDER FORMER PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR and THE BRITISH COURTS DID VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO PUNISH THE PERPETRATORS WHO CONTINUE TO BELIEVE and ACT AS IF THEY HAVE RIGHTS TO HARM OTHERS AND THEIR PROPERTY. APPARENTLY, CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVISTS FEEL THE SAME WAY, and ARE UNWILLING TO PROVIDE PROOF BEYOND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL (RELIGIOUS & POLITICAL) IDEOLOGY AND THEIR UNSUBSTANTIATED 'FEARS' OF ECO-ARGMAGEDDON. BOTH EUROPEAN AND U.S. BLUE PARTY POLITICIANS AND GRANT-SEEKING, POLITICALLY CORRECT SCIENTISTS ARE TO BLAME FOR THIS. THEY WISH TO CHANGE THE GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM SO THAT HARD SCIENTIFIC and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF PROBABLE HARM OR 'RISK' OF HARM, IS NO LONGER REQUIRED. INSTEAD THEY WISH TO ESTABLISH A NEW 'HAZARD'-BASED PARADIGM THAT MERELY REQUIRES TO SHOW THE 'POSSIBILITY' OF ENVIRONMENTAL HARM. IT WOULD SEEM, THEN, THAT WHEN THEY DON'T GET THEIR WAY, THEY RIOT AND RESORT TO CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. HOW CAN THE FEAR-BASED CLIMATE CHANGE POLITICIANS, SCIENTISTS AND ACTIVISTS NOW BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY?? THEY CANNOT!!]


[See: Economic Sabotage IS Free Speech In The UK; Is It Now Also Free Speech In the US?, ITSSD Journal on Economic Sabotage, at: http://itssdjournaleconomicsabotage.blogspot.com/2008/03/economic-sabotage-is-free-speech-in-uk.html ].


[See: UK Lord Melchett: Aristocrat Eco-warrior, BBC News.com, at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/405061.stm ].


July 27, 1999

UKLord Melchett: Aristocrat eco-warrior

The fourth Lord Melchett is lead away by police Lord Peter Melchett, Labour peer and executive director of Greenpeace UK, is probably experiencing the most inactive period of his adult life.

Arrested for his part in the dawn raid on a farm trialling GM crops and charged with theft and criminal damage, the Old Etonian was refused bail by a stipendiary magistrate in Norwich on Tuesday.


The 51-year-old aristocrat eco-warrior is well-known for his dedication to the green cause, although his political and activist career has tended to be within the law.




Young Lord



He inherited his title aged 23 when his father Lord Julian, chairman of British Steel, died suddenly of a heart attack in 1973.


Greenpeace activists vandalised the trial crops. He toyed with the idea of renouncing it, but instead entered politics as a Labour peer, making his maiden speech in the Lords about cruelty to animals in zoos.


His great-grandfather, then Sir Alfred Mond, and the founder of ICI, had already indelibly linked the family name with both socialism and activism.


As head of the World Foundation of Jewish Sports Clubs, he recommended a boycott of the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin.


Sir Peter became a whip, and then a junior minister - in environment and industry under Harold Wilson, and in Northern Ireland under Jim Callaghan.
Voted for abolition of Lords


From 1976-79 he chaired a working party on pop festivals, and still is a regular at Glastonbury.



He withdrew from the Lords when he took up a position on the board of the environmental organisation - but returned to vote for its abolition.



His concern for the environment started in his youth on the family's 750-acre estate, Courtyard Farm, on the north Norfolk cost.



[IT'S NICE NOT TO WORRY ABOUT HAVING ENOUGH MONEY TO EAT, WITHOUT FEAR OF HAVING YOUR LIVELIHOOD DESTROYED, ISN'T IT, MR. MELCHETT??]


He said: "On our farm, partridges went down from their hundreds to tens and you'd see the chicks dead in the fields.

Brent Spar ended in controversy for Greenpeace"I remember being told that it was because of the drought or the weather; now we know it was the pesticides."

His father, Lord Julian and mother, socialite Sonia Sinclair, were keen preservers of hedgerows at Courtyard Farm.


Lord Melchett normally cycles to work at Greenpeace HQ from his home in North London, which he shares with his partner Cassandra and their two teenage children.

He is known for always arriving late - but tends to stay late into the night to carry out the work he has been doing for the past decade, and which often takes him all over the world.

He has seen Greenpeace through its lows - with inaccurate measurements taken from the Brent Spar oil platform - and its highs - the campaign against genetic engineering is the organisation's longest, and it says, the most popular.
Energetic and dedicated



The organisation holds him in high regard. Spokeswoman Mirella Von Lindenfels said: "He does not really regard himself as a leader, he sees himself as a small cog within the worldwide Greenpeace, he does not appear to see himself as an important person at all.





"He is energetic and thoroughly dedicated. He has a great deal of experience and he is indefatigable."



He is known to his colleagues simply as Peter, and like all of its activists will receive legal and moral support throughout his detention.

Ms Von Lindenfels said: "Peter, like the others who were arrested, is highly trained in non-violent direct action, and he will be fully supported by Greenpeace.

"He feels, as so many people do, very, very strongly about the issue of GM crops and technology."


[FORTUNATELY, ECONOMIC SABOTAGE IS NOT FREE SPEECH IN THE U.S.A, AT LEAST NOT YET!]



[See: Eco & Animal Terrorism is NOT Free Speech in the USA!, ITSSD Journal on Economic Sabotage, at: http://itssdjournaleconomicsabotage.blogspot.com/2008/07/eco-animal-terrorism-is-not-free-speech.html; NYSE Finally Musters Courage to Defend Economic Freedom and Defy Animal Extremists, ITSSD Journal on Economic Sabotage at: http://itssdjournaleconomicsabotage.blogspot.com/2008/03/nyse-finally-musters-courage-to-defend.html; Fire ELFs Attack Homes Under Construction in Washington State, ITSSD Journal on Economic Sabotage, ITSSD Journal on Economic Sabotage at: http://itssdjournaleconomicsabotage.blogspot.com/2008/03/fire-elfs-attack-homes-under.html ].


[See also: ITSSD: 'Putting Country First' Means Defending America's Sovereignty, Constitution and Free Enterprise System Against Foreign Incursion, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/09/putting-country-first-means-defending.html ].

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Eco & Animal Terrorism is NOT Free Speech in the USA!

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/animal-rights-protests-grow-violent/20080708093209990001?icid=100214839x1205191633x1200260402


Animal-Rights Protests Grow Violent


By Marcus Wohlsen


Associated Press


2008-07-08


BERKELEY, California (July 8) - In the hills above the University of California's Berkeley campus, nine protesters gathered in front of the home of a toxicology professor, their faces covered with scarves and hoods despite the warm spring weather.


One scrawled "killer" in chalk on the scientist's doorstep, while another hurled insults through a bullhorn and announced, "Your neighbor kills animals!" Someone shattered a window. [AT A MINIMUM, THESE ACTS CONSIST OF THE INTENTIONAL CIVIL LAW TORTS OF TRESPASS, ASSAULT, BATTERY, DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER & TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS. AT MOST, THESE ACTS CAN RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL ACTS OF TRESPASS, VANDALISM, ASSAULT, TERRORIZING, HARRASSMENT, STALKING, ATTEMPTED BATTERY &/OR BATTERY.]


Animal rights activists are becoming increasingly confrontational, heading right to the doorsteps of scientists. Here, protesters demonstrate outside the home of a University of California professor in Berkeley, Calif., May 31.

...Douglass, an activist who declined to give his full name, yells through a bullhorn while protesting outside the professor's home. The activists are borrowing tactics used by anti-abortion demonstrators, harassing and terrorizing scientists in their homes.

...Graffiti and a broken window mark the doorway of the professor's home. The protesters, upset about the UC Berkeley entomologist's experimentation on animals, scrawled "killer," "murderer," and an obscenity on the entryway before breaking a window.

...An activist confronts one of the professor's neighbors. "What they've decided to do now is make things more personal," said one researcher. A spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front said, "if you had to hurt somebody or intimidate them or kill them, it would be morally justifiable." Source: AP


Borrowing the kind of tactics used by anti-abortion demonstrators, animal rights activists are increasingly taking their rage straight to scientists' front doors.


Over the past couple of years, more and more researchers who experiment on animals have been harassed and terrorized in their own homes with weapons that include firebombs, flooding and acid.


Scientists say the vandalism and intimidation threaten not just themselves and their families but the future of medical research. Specialists in such fields as addiction, eyesight and the aging brain have been targeted.


"It used to be everyone was worried about their laboratories being broken into and their data being destroyed, their animals being taken away," said Jeffrey Kordower, head of the Society for Neuroscience's animal research committee. "What they've decided to do now is make things more personal."

In May 2008, an animal rights group stripped nearly naked before lying down on the floor of a shopping mall in Sydney, Australia. The "die-in" protested the export of live animals.

...A PETA protester wrapped herself in cellophane and painted her body with fake blood to protest the National Cattlemens Beef Association's Spring Legislative Conference in March 2006. The protesters wanted to persuade the cattlemen that "Meat is Murder."

...PETA launched a campaign in 2004 to try to force DaimlerChrysler to market leather-free vehicles in India. The leather interior of a car can require the hides of up to 15 cows. This protester, dressed as butcher, pretends to slaughter a cow on top of a Mercedes in front of the DaimlerChrysler headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.

...An unidentified PETA protester splatters Yum! Brands CEO David Novak with fake blood as he enters a KFC in Hanover, Germany, in 2003. The protest sought to resume negotiations between Yum! and KFC suppliers to improve their animals' living conditions.

...A member of the animal protection group Fauna dressed as a chicken hands out leaflets in Budapest, Hungary, in 2003. Fauna campaigned for increased education in schools about fair treatment for animals. The 33-pound chicken costume circulates among animal rights groups across Europe.

Accompanying the attacks is increasingly tough talk from activists such as Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front press office. In an interview with The Associated Press, he said he is not encouraging anyone to commit murder, but "if you had to hurt somebody or intimidate them or kill them, it would be morally justifiable.


"The Washington-based Foundation for Biomedical Research said researchers were harassed or otherwise victimized more than 70 times in 2003, up from just 10 the year before. The number of attacks has held steady or risen ever since, according to the group.


Activists say the escalation in tactics results from a frustration that nonviolent methods have failed to stop what they call the needless torture and killing of animals. [TOO BAD!!]


"An animal has as much of a right to life as we do. To take a life without provocation is immoral, it's violent, there's no excuse for it," said Jacob Black, 23, an organizer of demonstrations at the homes of UC Berkeley researchers. "To name and shame these people as morally bankrupt individuals in our society is key."


A Web site aimed at Berkeley lists the names of a dozen researchers and their home, work and e-mail addresses, their photos, and often their home numbers. The roster also includes graphic descriptions of each scientist's purported work with animals.


"This information is here so that others may pressure these individuals with legal protests - we do not participate in or encourage illegal activity," the Web site says.Despite that disclaimer, the late May protest in the Berkeley hills left a window of the toxicology professor's home shattered along with the window of a neighbor, who sprayed demonstrators with a garden hose to drive them away.


Activists say researchers drill holes into the skulls of monkeys and cats in pursuit of esoteric discoveries that will never help anyone.


But scientists say every effort is made to minimize the suffering of animals used in experiments. Rigorous government and university regulations provide detailed protocols for the humane treatment of lab animals. And scientists must show they have exhausted all other options to obtain data before they turn to animals as test subjects.


Many scientists are reluctant to discuss the effect violent incidents have had on biomedical research. They worry that any sign the attacks are succeeding could just lead to more of the same.



But at least one researcher decided the pressure was too much.


In 2006, activists began besieging the homes of several UCLA professors. Masked protesters converged on scientists' homes late at night, banging on doors, throwing firecrackers and chanting, "We know where you sleep," according to court documents.


Threatening calls and e-mails followed. Firebombs were left near homes three times; two failed to go off, while the third charred a front door. One professor's home was flooded when a garden hose was shoved through a broken window.


[ANIMAL PROTESTERS BEWARE! - DEPENDING ON THE JURISDICTION, THE LAW PERMITS USE OF SIGNIFICANT AND EVEN DEADLY FORCE, AS A MEANS OF SELF-DEFENSE, WHERE A TRESPASS THREATENS DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY. SOME JURISDICTIONS PERMIT USE OF SIGNIFICANT OR DEADLY FORCE TO PREVENT THEFT OF PROPERTY.]

During the onslaught, which lasted two years, a UCLA scientist with small children informed protesters he had stopped doing animal research."Effective immediately, I am no longer doing animal research," vision researcher Dario Ringach wrote in an e-mail. "Please don't bother my family anymore."


Though no one has been seriously hurt since the jump in home protests, the attacks have drawn the attention of the FBI. The agency has broad authority to investigate animal rights incidents under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006. [Public Law No: 109-374 , at: http://npl.ly.gov.tw/pdf/5562.pdf ].


"We consider this to be a serious problem, especially when people's lives are being disrupted," said agent David Strange, who oversees a domestic counterterrorism squad at the FBI's Oakland office. "We call it terrorism because it is a violent act violating federal criminal laws that has a political or social motivation to it."


Six members of a Philadelphia-based organization were sentenced to federal prison after they and the group itself were convicted in 2006 of using a Web site to incite threats, harassment and vandalism against people connected with a company that tests drugs and household products on animals.


But otherwise, few activists have been prosecuted, because of free speech concerns and the movement's extreme secrecy.


[See: Economic Sabotage IS Free Speech In The UK; Is It Now Also Free Speech In the US?, ITSSD Journal on Economic Sabotage, at: http://itssdjournaleconomicsabotage.blogspot.com/2008/03/economic-sabotage-is-free-speech-in-uk.html ].


Recently, federal investigators joined a probe into an alleged February assault against the husband of a University of California, Santa Cruz breast-cancer researcher who experiments on mice. Police said masked activists pounded on the family's front door during a birthday party for their young daughter, and one threw a punch when the husband tried to force them to leave.


Afterward, UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal backed a proposed state law that would limit activists' access to public information about animal experiments. Blumenthal called acts against animal researchers "the greatest threat to academic freedom that I've seen in the history of this campus."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Monday, July 7, 2008

Consumers Likely to Lose as PETA Herds US & European Importers of Australian Wool Products Like Sheep

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_28/b4092040870521.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe+index+page_top+stories

The Wool Industry Gets Bloodied

Pressured by PETA, companies from Timberland to H&M are banning Australian wool




By Kerry Capell


Business Week


July 3, 2008


It's an unlikely international cause célèbre: sheep's rear ends. But because of activists at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, it's an issue that threatens to undermine Australia's $2.2 billion wool industry.

Forget fur and leather—PETA's latest target is wool. Australian merino wool, to be exact. The animal rights group is on a quest to get clothing companies to quit using wool from so-called mulesed merino sheep. So far, more than 30 have signed on to the ban, including Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF), Timberland (TBL),













H&M, and Hugo Boss. On June 4, German sportswear giant Adidas became the latest global brand to add its name to the list. "Approaching companies with big names and deep pockets is the best way to drive change," says PETA official Matt Prescott.


PETA's gripe, mulesing, involves removing folds of skin from a sheep's hindquarters, a process named for John Mules, who devised it 70-plus years ago. The procedure, generally performed without anesthetics, guards against infestation by blowflies whose eggs hatch into flesh-eating maggots. Australian merinos are more susceptible to attacks because they've been bred to have wrinkly coats that boost wool output. Four years ago, when PETA first began lobbying against mulesing, few apparel makers had even heard of the practice.


The animal rights group picked Benetton, the Italian company whose name is often associated with sweaters, as its first target.
It dispatched protesters wielding placards that read "Benetton: Baaad to Sheep" to picket stores and put up a billboard in New York City with the tag line "Did your sweater cause a bloody butt?"

It worked. Benetton publicly came out in favor of phasing out mulesing. PETA has since had little trouble recruiting other clothing companies to its cause. After all, one European retailer says, who wants to be on PETA's radar screen?

Bad PR couldn't come at a worse time for the Australian wool industry. Production is at an 80-year low, a casualty of prolonged drought. Four years ago, Australian Wool Innovation, the industry's marketing, research, and development council, pledged to phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. AWI has already sunk $13 million into researching options. These range from high-tech (genetically breeding wrinkle-free sheep) to the decidedly crude (surgical clips that cause folds of skin to wither and fall off). AWI Chairman Brian van Rooyen says he is confident "there will be alternatives to mulesing ready for adoption prior to 2010."


STEPPING UP THE PRESSURE


Yet in the eyes of PETA and some retailers, the industry isn't moving fast enough. After H&M met with AWI at the start of the year, it decided to "direct our buying to mulesing-free merino wool because the company felt the phase-out of the practice was proceeding too slowly," says Ingrid Schullström, H&M's corporate social responsibility manager. Hugo Boss has held workshops with suppliers to increase the amount of wool sourced from unmulesed lambs. Both companies say they have been inundated with e-mails from consumers supporting the move to unmulesed wool. "Clearly, this is something that concerns many of our customers," says Schullström.


Australia's 55,000 sheep farmers, meanwhile, are unhappy about being cast as barbarians.


Mulesing, they say, is the best way to protect their flocks from an even worse fate: being chewed alive by maggots. Says Charles Olsson, a breeder in Goulburn, New South Wales: "We wouldn't perform this operation unless it was absolutely necessary."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sports brands taking a stance

Brands of Sports Weblog


June 6, 2008


This appears to be something we are seeing more and more of in the industry.


Adidas announced Wednesday that they are boycotting Australian wool and sheep that have been mulesed.


Mulesing is viewed as an unnecessary way of taking wool from sheep and adidas communicated this in a letter to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in the United States declaring its position on the matter. [ADDIDAS, A EUROPEAN COMPANY SELLS OUT...]


Fair play to adidas, they clearly have an agenda which appears to be addressing their production practices and appeal to consumers and their inner desire to do good. Only recently did they announce the grun collection which aims to better the environment by efficiently utilizing the natural resources of this world.


Now a worldwide consumer movement, as they (consumers) demand brands to be transparent and to offer clarity on their stance on certain issues. The sporting goods industry appear to be taking this as a real top of agenda item, reacting fast and with real purpose. Yes, consumers still and will always demand value but they also want a brand ‘with’ values - values that they can relate to in every sense of the word. [VERY FEW CONSUMERS CARE ABOUT THIS NONSENSE, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE PETA GROUP SAYS. IT'S ALL ABOUT PRESERVING BRAND REPUTATION AMID THREATS OF PUBLIC DISPARAGEMENT.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Australia: Hugo Boss to Ban Wool Produced Using Mulesing

CSRwire - Video Commentary & Research (http://vcr.csrwire.com/)

By natalie


04/28/2008
Hugo Boss has said that it will avoid wool for its fashion clothing chain from producers still using the practice of mulesing by 2010. The move prompted the Australian Wool Growers Association to say that it expected Australian producers to have largely moved towards alternatives to the practice within the two year deadline. Around 15 to 20 percent of the Australian wool farms producing 'superfine wool' supply Hugo Boss.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hugo Boss rejects mulesing


By Catherine Clifford

ABC Rural - New South Wales News


16/04/2008


Australia's wool industry is once again defending its efforts to find an alternative to mulesing, after European fashion giant, Hugo Boss, announced it will phase out its purchase of Australian wool from mulesed sheep.


[HUGO BOSS, ANOTHER EUROPEAN COMPANY, SELLS OUT...]


The company, which has 1,252 stores in 105 countries, also says it will not support the use of clips as an alternative to the controversial practice.Mulesing is the surgical removal of skin from the rear of the sheep to prevent flystrike and the clips have been developed as an alternative to shut off blood flow to the skin, which effectively dies within 24 hours. After a period of time the clips and the skin fall off, or the clips can be removed.


In a strongly-worded statement, the German-based retailer, which sources Australian wool for its classic Mens' collections, said it must disassociate itself from mulesing because the practice contravenes the company's corporate values. [THIS IS CALLED 'PETA-WASHING'].


The statement went on to say that if mulesing in Australia has not ended completely by 2010, Hugo Boss will refuse to purchase wool material from farms that perform mulesing, including from farms that employ what the company refers to as "clip mulesing".

Spokeswomen Meera Ullal and Dr Hjördis Kettenbach say Hugo Boss considers clips to cause suffering, too.


"The clip is applied to the sheep's skin, there is no blood circulation, the skin dies and falls off so, for us in our understanding, it would be another form of mulesing," they say.

Hugo Boss says it has been involved in ongoing discussions with the Australian government and Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) for several years over the issue, stating it has repeatedly highlighted its desire to both parties for "more animal-friendly treatment of sheep".


Ms Ullal said Hugo Boss hopes its announcement, to concentrate its purchases on non-mulesed wool, will set a clear example for the international retail and textile industry and bring new momentum to Australia's efforts to find a suitable, pain-free alternative to mulesing.


Manager of the Australian Wool and Sheep Industry Taskforce, veterinarian Dr Norm Blackman, says the Taskforce is disappointed Hugo Boss has included clips in its statement on mulesing, saying, by definition, the two are very different.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Australia: Hugo Boss to ban wool produced using mulesing


Business Respect, Issue Number 126


16 Apr 2008


Hugo Boss has said that it will avoid wool for its fashion clothing chain from producers still using the practice of mulesing by 2010 saying that such practices contravene the company's corporate values.


The move prompted the Australian Wool Growers Association to say that it expected Australian producers to have largely moved towards alternatives to the practice within the two year deadline. At the moment, it said, farmers are using pain relief techniques whilst searching for viable alternatives.


Around 15 to 20 percent of the Australian wool farms producing 'superfine wool' supply Hugo Boss.


Campaign group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have been waging an ongoing struggle against Australian farmers to see an end to mulesing.