The Quiet Road

13 responses to "Climate Change: A thought-experiment"

1. Hi,

   Let’s assume the assumption is correct, and that property destruction is justifiable in such circumstances – the important thing to consider is the effects…

   The intention of sinking a whaling ship is to stop whaling, and it would certainly stop that ship from hunting whales – so it has the intended effect.

   The intention of smashing up a fighter plane is to impede the UK’s military strategy – so again it has the intended effect.

   The intention of smashing up a civil aviation plane is to reduce carbon emissions. Now, in the very short term, it has that effect. But in the fairly short term, the insurers would pay up for another plane to be built. And the effect of building another plane would be to increase carbon emissions.
   You can say exactly the same about parked cars, or anything else which has embodied energy in its production.

   You don’t use whale bones to build a whaling ship, and you don’t have to drop bombs to build a fighter plane. But you do need to burn tons of carbon to build a plane.

   So rather than preventing a greater crime, your actions would be causing a greater crime (creating more carbon emissions).

   

   December 6th, 2007 | 8:24pm
   by Peter

   
   

2. Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Peter, though I’m not sure I agree with your analysis.

   If I were to successfully write-off a civil airliner tomorrow, it’s undoubtedly true that the insurance company would cough up for a new plane and an order would be placed. Within hours probably.

   It should be noted, mind, that in the case of the Ploughshares action for instance, BAe built and exported a replacement jet to the Indonesians. So this fact doesn’t necessarily change the legal position.

   All the same, if it did in fact result in a measurable increase in carbon emissions (thanks to the energy used in building a replacement aircraft) then arguably the ethical argument is lost even if the legal one remains, and the action becomes illegitimate.

   However, there are two reasons why I believe this may not be the case. I’ve only done a cursory search but I’ve been unable to find estimates for the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during the manufacturing process of an airliner. But according to a NASA aeronautical engineer, “most commercial airplanes can take a year to build from scratch to finish“.

   It’s difficult to nail down how much an average commercial airliner emits in a single year. But the following ‘back-of-the-napkin’ calculation is illustrative (and rather conservative). Ryanair carried 42.5 million passengers in 2006 (source). Each plane has a capacity of 189 passengers and they have 120 planes (source). So even assuming 100% efficiency, each plane is making 1873 flights per year.

   I suspect (taking into account the additional effects of emissions at altitude) that 1873 flights will produce more CO2 than the manufacture of a plane. But that’s a guess. I’ll try track down some figures on the manufacturing end to do a proper comparison. Alternatively, if you have access to the figures that would back up your argument, Peter, then by all means post them. See, I’m not so sure it’s as cut-and-dried as you state.

   My second objection to your analysis, however, may be valid even in the face of data that suggests aircraft production involves emitting more CO2 than 1873 flights. As a single act, I accept that I’m on shaky ground with this one… the airline and insurance industry can absorb the loss of a single plane with relative ease. However, implicit in my question (and partially explicit… my reference to 5000 hypothetical friends) is the idea that actively destroying ‘the tools of tyranny’ involves more than a single act. Planes are expensive items, how many would have to be “rapidly decommissioned” before the strategy began to cause serious financial damage to the industry, sharply forcing up prices and thereby effectively reducing passenger numbers?

   I suspect not very many at all.

   

   December 7th, 2007 | 1:11am
   by Jim Bliss

   
   

3. I’m a Kantian at heart – I believe there is such a thing as social justice, it is possible for society to make progress towards it and it is possible for people to agree on what a more just society would be like. Nevertheless, I think there’s a huge difference between ‘just’/’unjust’ and ‘lawful’/’unlawful’, and – more importantly – that there always will be.

   A large part of what makes an action lawful – or, where it is unlawful, makes it impossible to prosecute – is public sympathy: it’s not the inherent justice of an act that matters, in other words, it’s that lots of people out there believe it to be just, and believe it strongly enough to override any setback to their own interests. (And I say ‘lots of people’ rather than ‘a majority’ – public opinion isn’t an exact science.)

   You make a good case for the justice of vandalising planes (and, more importantly, cars). But John Harris made a good case for the ‘survival lottery‘, Norman Geras made a good case for giving all the money you don’t need to charity and Peter Singer makes a good case for veganism and infanticide. For as long as more people feel strongly (if wrongly) that their interests would be set back by actions like this than feel strongly that they’re just, thought experiments is all they’ll be.

   

   December 8th, 2007 | 11:27am
   by Phil

   
   

4. I agree that this form of direct action is destined to remain a thought-expreiment for a while yet. But I do believe it — or something like it — will eventually occur. The interaction between future Climate Change activism and the practical effects of peak oil mean that all bets are off as regards to the specifics of how that activism will manifest (if oil depletion cripples aviation then Climate Change activism will certainly be concentrated elsewhere).

   I’m certain that there’ll be a moment when enough people become convinced of the reality of Climate Change that dramatic action against perceived “Carbon Criminals” will be taken. That said, I’m also certain that this won’t occur until it’s too late to make any practical difference (as I believe it may already be).

   It’s a while since I’ve studied Kant. Mind you, I’m reading a lot of Jung at the moment, and he’s vaguely like reading the Critique of Pure Reason if it had been written on the evenings Immanuel smoked opium and took mushrooms. Actually, that’s not quite true; quite aside from the content, and despite the occasional woolly-headedness and gratuitous weirdness, Jung is a far better writer than Kant. In fact, I doubt psychoanalysis would’ve had anything like impact it did have, if Freud and Jung hadn’t been such exceptional writers.

   But as a Kantian, would you not agree that an issue like Climate Change (i.e. something that is global and — by definition — transcends any single “society”) is beyond “social justice”? In fact, if we’re going to dance with Kant, then what about an appeal to “human dignity” which is arguably far more relevant in this case. The deprivations that will be suffered by those left homeless and stranded by the effects of Climate Change are surely a grievous affront to human dignity.

   In practice, those who will suffer most are not from societies where the emissions are taking place (I think Bangladesh and Mozambique will be the first two nations to be seriously affected by sea-level rises, in terms of sheer numbers of people involved). This makes a call to ‘social justice’ problematic to say the least.

   Indeed, it seems like a situation where western public sympathy (against the sabotage of cars or planes) is pitting social justice directly against human dignity.

   

   December 8th, 2007 | 6:10pm
   by Jim Bliss

   
   

5. it seems like a situation where western public sympathy (against the sabotage of cars or planes) is pitting social justice directly against human dignity

   Not quite what I was getting at. I’m using ‘social’ to mean no more than ‘having to do with how people live together’. In that sense, dealing with climate change has to be a major element of any project for social justice on a world scale.

   My problem was with formulations such as “legally legitimate as well as ethically” or “ethically and legally acceptable”. I don’t think you can get to ‘legal’ through an appeal to justice. What’s just may be decidable by philosophers – it may even be possible to reach a high level of agreement as to what it is – but what’s legal (in a particular society, at a particular time) can only be decided through politics.

   

   December 9th, 2007 | 6:58pm
   by Phil

   
   

6. As Penny Eastwood – the woman who did a one-person blockade of lastminute.com by supergluing herself to the front door of their head office – once said, if Osama bin Laden were producing vast quantities of a noxious gas and releasing it into the air how would we react? If we knew where he was, and in fact he was doing it near our homes with very little security, what would it be morally responsible for us to do?

   The science is very clear. If we wait for runaway climate change to happen before we act, it will be too late. We need radical changes in our way of life if we are to avoid runaway climate change, and pronto. Thing is, it’s all possible, with technology that already exists, for us to keep well fed and warm and dry and get around. The one exception, the only high-emitting industry with no low-carbon alternative, is aviation. As such, it is rightly singled out.

   I realise, as you’ve said Jim and as Phil’s emphasised, that we’re focusing here on the legal status.

   Huge carbon emissions, despite effectively being a conspiracy to commit mass murder, aren’t covered by the Genocide Act. Anti-nuclear protesters looked into that law and it has to be the killing of a specific group of people. If the killing is indiscriminate – even if it’s far greater – it’s not genocide under English law.

   However, the defence of necessity is curious. The defence must show that they sincerely believed they were preventing a greater crime. The accuracy of their sincere belief is irrelevant.

   In practice, faced with damage to government or corporate property, most courts ignore this. But stick a case like that in front of a jury and funny things can happen. There’s not only the Hawk jet case, more recently there was the B52 Two.

   In March 2003 two people went into RAF Fairford where American bombers were leaving to bomb Baghdad prior to the invasion of Iraq. The men intended to disable planes or their support equipment. In their trial, it was ruled that a Crime of Aggression was not a crime under domestic law. They still argued that they were acting to prevent damage to life and property in Iraq. In October 2006, the jury failed to reach a verdict.

   At the retrial in May this year, it took less than three hours for the jury to declare a unanimous Not Guilty verdict. Going to trash those planes was legal.

   The key thing seems to be getting a jury. Of course, it’s easier for a jury to be morally outraged by the Indonesian war in East Timor or the – by then – near-universal dislike of the occupation of Iraq. It may be different when it’s flights from UK airports, something that most members of the jury will use and enjoy.

   But just as the Jim’s first hypothetical plane-trashing might inspire others, so it might help to move the debate about climate change; it could normalise this type of action.

   One of the striking things about the Camp For Climate Action (last year at Drax coal-fired power station, this year at Heathrow) was the low level of hostility to the protesters. Campers were fully expecting ‘you want to turn the lights out’ and ‘you want to take holidays away from ordinary people’ stuff, yet were often met with a very different reaction.

   Public understanding of climate change, its scale and urgency, are good enough that radical solutions such as those proposed by the Camp For Climate Action are given a serious hearing. The Camp’s media team were taken aback by the journalists having the attitude of ‘about time somebody suggested something that squares up to the problem’. So maybe a jury, faced with expert witnesses putting the detail of climate change to them over several days, would acquit plane-trashers.

   In April, protesters occupied Ratcliffe on Soar coal-fired power station in Nottinghamshire. Their case has yet to come to trial, but at the pre-trial review it was ruled that they will be allowed to argue a defence of necessity based on the climate damage the plant causes. As far as I know, they’re having a magistrate trial rather than a jury, though.

   

   December 11th, 2007 | 9:43pm
   by merrick

   
   

7. Oh, and regarding the ‘why not cars?’ thing – the difference between planes and cars is one of scale. A plane is responsible for a lot more emissions than a car could ever be.

   Nonetheless, there have been those spoof parking tickets dished out on cars in the UK since the mid-90s, with a newer (very realistic) version done for 4X4s.

   4x4s and SUVs have already been a target. Six years ago in the USA, Jeff Luers was convicted of firebombing an SUV dealership for climate change reasons. He was sentenced to 23 years.

   

   December 11th, 2007 | 9:45pm
   by merrick

   
   

8. The key thing seems to be getting a jury. Of course, it’s easier for a jury to be morally outraged by the Indonesian war in East Timor or the – by then – near-universal dislike of the occupation of Iraq. It may be different when it’s flights from UK airports, something that most members of the jury will use and enjoy.

   A more positive way of making my original point would be that if an action can’t be prosecuted, then effectively it’s legal. The question for anyone considering this type of terrorism* would be how far the climate of opinion has already moved their way, and whether the action itself would move it further.

   *the use or threat of action [which] involves serious damage to property, where the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause (Terrorism Act 2000)

   

   December 14th, 2007 | 7:51am
   by Phil

   
   

9. Ok, so I know I feel less happy about the prospect of messing with cars than commercial aircraft, and less happy about messing with commercial aircraft than military vehicles and whaling ships… Why?

   Well, examining the motives behind my initial ‘gut’ reaction, two reasons spring to mind.

   First probably the ‘directness’ of the threats that I’d be removing. Whaling boats kill whales – kill the boat, save the whale. Cars kill, but slowly, as an accumulated effect. Though now the threat of climate change is urgent and real, it doesn’t ‘feel’ as urgent (no dead bodies on the TV, caused by car-fumes).

   Second, convenience. I know perfectly well that if someone blows up a whaling boat, it won’t affect me negatively – I’ll only see positives. If people start blowing up cars or commercial aircraft, people will be inconvenienced directly. Whilst the public are aware of the need to tackle climate change, most people don’t want themselves to be the ones that have to change. Campaign outside a power station, and I’m sure even a few employees will be quietly pleased – destroy a commercial aircraft, and I doubt the holidaymakers whose flights have been cancelled will be queuing up to shake hands 🙂

   

   December 14th, 2007 | 4:09pm
   by Jherad

   
   

10. Jherad, I think you have the same gut response as most of us. However, I question the validity of our hierarchy.

    the ‘directness’ of the threats that I’d be removing. Whaling boats kill whales – kill the boat, save the whale. Cars kill, but slowly, as an accumulated effect. Though now the threat of climate change is urgent and real, it doesn’t ‘feel’ as urgent (no dead bodies on the TV

    That’s because the people who are dying aren’t very white or very rich, so the TV isn’t interested.

    Increased sea temperatures have moved Eastern African rainfall, drying out lands in Ethiopia and starving people. Rising sea levels have ruined lands in Bangladesh, again destroying peoples’ ability to feed themselves.

    But this is Ethiopia and Bangladesh. Whilst they are practically bywords for global poverty, our attitude is one of poverty being some unfortunate act of god rather than a preventable and political action. More, the people it happens to are less important and less human than us.

    Though I hesitate to the point of cryogenic freezing before commending him as an activist, there’s no way of saying it better than Bono at the 2004 Labour Party conference;

    there’s no way we can look at Africa – a continent bursting into flames – and if we’re honest conclude that it would ever be allowed to happen anywhere else. Anywhere else. Certainly not here, in Europe. Or America. Or Australia, or Canada. There’s just no chance. You see, deep down, if we really accepted that Africans were equal to us, we would all do more to put the fire out.

    The bodies are piling up. The UN conservatively estimates that, already, 150,000 people a year are dying from climate change. That’s a 9/11 every fortnight. Imagine how much we’d see of it, complete with heart-rending human interest stories, if that were happening in America.

    Second, convenience. I know perfectly well that if someone blows up a whaling boat, it won’t affect me negatively – I’ll only see positives. If people start blowing up cars or commercial aircraft, people will be inconvenienced directly. Whilst the public are aware of the need to tackle climate change, most people don’t want themselves to be the ones that have to change.

    And this is the problem. The science is clear; we need drastic cuts in emissions pronto – at least a 60% global cut by 2030, which for us over-emitters means a 90-95% cut. There’s no way we can do that with a bit of lightbulb changing. even if we reduce all other emissions to zero, it’s no good if we leave aviation going. The UK government claims to want a 60% cut by 2050 (itself not enough, but let’s play). Under that same government’s plans for airport expansion, aviation would account for around 200% of the entire country’s emissions target before anyone does anything else like flick a light switch or turn their car ignition.

    Aviation is a case like no other. It’s only a newcomer to our lives, most of the world has never done it and never will, and there is no alternative technology to make it low-carbon. It simply has to go.

    destroy a commercial aircraft, and I doubt the holidaymakers whose flights have been cancelled will be queuing up to shake hands

    But those destroying the aircraft aren’t seeking to be liked by the passengers any more than the French Resistance blowing up railway lines were seeking to be liked by Nazis.

    

    December 15th, 2007 | 9:20pm
    by merrick

    
    

11. those destroying the aircraft aren’t seeking to be liked by the passengers

    True, but being liked by the jury would be handy.

    

    December 15th, 2007 | 10:39pm
    by Phil

    
    

12. An update for you about the Ratcliffe power station protesters.

    Dr Simon lewis is a climatologist and Royal Society Research Fellow, and he was an expert witenss at the trial. In an article in the Guardian he reports

    judge Morris Cooper presented a 20-page judgment accepting there was an “urgent need for drastic action”, but convicted them of aggravated trespass, saying their defence, that their crime was necessary to save lives, could not be substantiated.

    Lewis goes on to point out that this is because there is no figure for the deaths. The sole reliable number (the World Health Organisation one I linked to above) is old and its methods limited.

    It may be difficult to exactly attribute death to climate change, but – as Lewis points out – no more so than getting a number for passive smoking.

    

    February 28th, 2008 | 8:32pm
    by merrick

    
    

13. Maybe times are changing. Greenpeace activists who disrupted Kingsnorth coal fired power station ran a defence of lawful excuse. Their jury just found them Not Guilty.

    Mind you, Greenpeace have the dosh to get NASA climate boffin Jim Hansen over to testify for the defence.

    Still, it bodes well for the Drax coal train protesters when their case comes before a jury.

    

    September 10th, 2008 | 5:24pm
    by merrick

    
    

Comments have been closed on this post to prevent spam. If you wish to add a comment, however, simply post it to a more recent entry along with a note about where it should go. I'll reopen the comments here and transfer it over.

• Previous post
• Next post

Browse content by tag

2011, Afghanistan, Africa, AI, America, Andrew Bridgen, Anglo Irish Bank, Anthropology, Argentina, Art, Australia, Autobahn, Barack Obama, Big Business, Bill Hicks, Billy Bragg, Blog stuff, Books, Booze, Bosnia, Brendan Gleeson, Brexit, Brian Eno, Brian Hayes, Britain, Budget 2011, Budget 2012, Canada, CAP, Cars, China, Chris Hedges, Christopher Hitchens, Climate change, Comedy, Conservatives, Copyright, Court, Crime, Cyprus, Dan and Dan, Dana Rosemary Scallon, David Bowie, David Byrne, David Cameron, David McWilliams, David Norris, Donald Trump, Don Cheadle, Dreams, Drug policy, Dublin, Ecology, Economics, Election2007, Election2008, Election2009, Election2010, Election2011, Election2012, Election2014, Enda Kenny, Equatorial Guinea, Europe, Execution, Existentialism, Falkland Islands, Fianna Fáil, Fiction, Film, Fine Gael, France, French Resistance, Galway, Gay Mitchell, George 'Dubya' Bush, George Orwell, George Papandreou, Greece, Gregory Bateson, Guy Môquet, Haiti, happy new year, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, James Joyce, Japan, John Gilroy, John Michael McDonagh, Ken MacLeod, Korea, Kraftwerk, Labour, Language, Law, Le Pen, Literal Wormholes, Macron, Manifesto 17, Margaret Thatcher, Martin McGuinness, Mary Davis, Memories, Michael D Higgins, Michael Taft, Middle East, Mike Oldfield, Miscellanity, Mitt Romney, Music, NewsBite, Norway, Nukes, Occupy Dame Street, Occupy Movement, On This Deity, Otis Gibbs, Pakistan, Pat Shortt, Peak oil, Philip Challinor, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Poetry, Politics, pop, President, Psychoanalysis, Psychology, Public Transport, Ray Bradbury, Referendum 2012, Religion, Revolution, Rick Santorum, Ronald Reagan, Ronald Wright, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sean Gallagher, Sean Quinn, Serbia, Sinn Féin, Space, Spain, Sport, St. Vincent, Sustainability, Syria, Takeshi Kitano, Talking Heads, Tech, Terrorism, The Democratic Circus, The Media, Thomas Paine, Tony Blair, Travel, Trees, Tubular Bells, TV, Ukraine, United States, Vincent Browne, War, World affairs, World War Two, Yemen