Quantcast
Connect with us

US court deems disobedience a ‘necessity’ against climate change, environmental threats

Published

on

When politics damage climate, civil disobedience should be allowed to save the day, Massachusetts court rules.

For almost a year now, hundreds of Massachusetts locals have fought to thwart the construction of a high-pressure fracked gas pipeline, set to run through five miles of West Roxbury, a Boston neighborhood. The protests got increasingly heated, with people sitting in and refusing to vacate holes that were dug for the pipeline, eventually culminating in some 200 arrests. Many of them faced criminal charges for trespassing and disturbing the peace.

ADVERTISEMENT

This Tuesday, however, the final 13 protesters facing charges were found not responsible by a Massachusetts judge; the potential environmental and public health impacts of the pipeline – including its potential role in deepening climate change – made the public’s disobedience legally necessary, he ruled.

Legally illegal
Although environment and climate activists have been using the necessity defense more and more in recent years to tackle fossil fuel infrastructure development, this is the first case where a judge ruled defendants not responsible on the basis of this defense, according to the Climate Disobedience Center.

“We believe this is a first,” Marla Marcum, director of the Climate Disobedience Center, told ThinkProgress. “It’s pretty powerful, to us, that a judge listened very carefully and determined, essentially, that it was necessary for these people to take this action in an attempt to prevent a greater harm.”

The necessity defense is a legal construct through which people can argue that a crime was justified in order to prevent greater harm. However, in the context of climate change action, it’s a tool that has found limited use; one of the tenets of the necessity defense is to prove that the threat was imminent, and could not be avoided through legal means, thus warranting the use of non-legal means. The West Roxbury protesters argued that the pipeline constituted a local environmental risk, a catalyst for climate change, and that their elected officials didn’t succeed in having the project blocked or rerouted.

ADVERTISEMENT

Perhaps feeling an unfavorable tide, prosecutors downgraded the charges from criminal to civil during the lawsuit, which prevented the protesters from mounting a full defense in front of a jury. The judge, however, allowed each defendant two minutes to explain their actions against the project, and decided to find them not responsible – the civil equivalent of ‘not guilty’ – on the basis of necessity.

While it didn’t prevent the pipeline going operational, the company behind it, Spectra Energy, was forced to admit on the record that it didn’t have a safety plan in place in the event of a catastrophic failure. It goes to show, however, that while we may feel powerless in the face of huge, daunting issues such as climate change, and even when officials seem uninterested or unable to heed our woes, there are still mechanisms in place for people to express their will. The legal system can make a huge difference in deciding what is right and giving those concerned about the environment a voice.

“I think it’s important to continue putting in the laps of people like judges, prosecutors, and juries, the opportunity to make a decision about what is right in this moment,” Marcum siad. “People who occupy those roles care deeply and are worried about climate and the future for their children and grandchildren, and occasionally show a feeling of relief or gratitude that some group has brought into their sphere of power the ability to really hear and evaluate based on all of the evidence.”

ADVERTISEMENT

For now, the West Roxbury decision doesn’t set any legally binding precedent, but it definitely sets an example for people trying to get courts to take their concerns into account. With a federal government that seems increasingly pandering to business interests, and more inclined to crack down on justified protests with legal consequences, judges will likely face more such cases in the future.

And their decisions, for better or worse, will shape the world for tens of generations to come.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Swiss holding ‘funeral march’ to mark disappearance of an Alpine glacier

Published

on

Dozens of people will undertake a "funeral march" up a steep Swiss mountainside on Sunday to mark the disappearance of an Alpine glacier amid growing global alarm over climate change.

The Pizol "has lost so much substance that from a scientific perspective it is no longer a glacier," Alessandra Degiacomi, of the Swiss Association for Climate Protection, told AFP.

The organisation which helped organise Sunday's march said around 100 people were due to take part in the event, set to take place as the UN gathers youth activists and world leaders in New York to mull the action needed to curb global warming.

Continue Reading

2020 Election

UAW strike ‘threatens to upend the economy in Michigan’ — and could destroy Trump’s re-election: report

Published

on

At the end of the first week of a major strike by the United Auto Workers, the employment standoff threatens to upend President Donald Trump's 2020 re-election map, the Chicago Times reported Saturday.

Approximately 46,000 workers have been striking against General Motors.

There are two major threats to Trump's campaign from the strike.

The first is that the strike could cause regional recessions -- threatening Trump's political standing in key Rust Belt states.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Security forces fired live rounds at protesters calling for the ouster of Egyptian president: report

Published

on

Egyptian security forces clashed with hundreds of anti-government protesters in the port city of Suez on Saturday, firing tear gas and live rounds, said several residents who participated in the demonstrations.

A heavy security presence was also maintained in Cairo's Tahrir Square, the epicentre of Egypt's 2011 revolution, after protests in several cities called for the removal of general-turned-president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

Such demonstrations are rare after Egypt effectively banned protests under a law passed following the 2013 military ouster of Islamist ex-president Mohamed Morsi.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Investigate and Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image