Trial Day 5 - Cheryl Cole more effective than direct action

<!--StartFragment--> <!--EndFragment-->

<!--StartFragment-->

http://ratcliffeontrial.org/2010/11/day-5-cheryl-cole-more-effective-than-direct-action/

Week two, Monday morning. As the politicians and industry lobbyists gather in Cancun Mexico for another round of the ill-fated climate talks, Sarah Shoraka, one of those who was arrested in the attempt to shut down Ratcliffe took the stand to eloquently explain why there is a ‘democratic deficit’ when it comes to climate change.

This was the opening for the defence, the chance to lay out why the defendants were compelled to attempt to shut down the third biggest source of emissions in the UK. Sarah spoke of her fears about climate change, and her concern that we are heading towards ‘the tipping point’ of no return. Sarah has been a campaigner for some years, and has had a lot of experience in presenting information to MPs, environment ministers, submitting evidence and answering questions, and has recognized that this approach is limited in the face of the magnitude of the threat of climate change.

 While press interest in the action would have been a pleasing side effect, Sarah stressed that there was a very real, and concrete climate benefit in the action. If Ratcliffe had been stopped, E.ON would have been forced to switch to more expensive, but much less emissions-intensive gas in order to meet it’s energy production shortfall, reducing more emissions in this one action than Sarah would have been responsible for in her entire lifetime.

 The prosecution then went on to cross-examine Sarah. The main line of offence at this point seems to be “you are all very smart and well organized, but how unfortunately misguided about these tactics you are.” The prosecutor said that direct action would make you look “quirky and kooky” to “ordinary people.” Ignoring or misunderstanding Sarah’s knowledge of the relative emissions-intensity of coal vs gas, the prosecutor insisted that no emissions would have been saved as E.ON would have made up the shortfall from somewhere.

 The prosecution then went on to suggest a bizarre list of ways that the activists could better have spent their time. She started off establishing her credentials to do this by letting the jury know that she bought second hand clothes and had a compost toilet, before the judge told her that her personal life wasn’t relevant to the court case.

 She cited Paul McCartney and Coldplay’s Chris Martin as examples of effective environmentalism, through their involvement with ‘Meat Free Mondays’. Instead of closing down power stations, she suggested that the defendants would be better off searching for celebrity endorsements for the likes of ‘Turn-off Tuesdays” or “Switch-Off Sundays.” Finally, she suggested that the money that was spent on the action would have been better off hiring Cheryl Cole to model second hand fashions.

 We are contacting the UK delegation to Cancun to see if it is not too late for these radical new solutions to climate change to be tabled.

<!--EndFragment-->