A piece in the UK Guardian from climate activist Bradley Day shows how NOT to get people on side when it comes to taking action against climate change.
After being found guilty along with 20 others of conspiring to shut down the Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal power station but escaping jail sentences he claims that "If a jury that received extensive education on climate change could not vindicate the Ratcliffe activists, then who will?"
On paper I imagine I would be his ideal juror. I doubt that I would learn too much that I am not already aware of form the 'extensive education' that the jury received. I am interested in climate science and accept what the main authorities, like the Royal Society, say on the matter, and I believe it is past time that we should be taking effective action to prevent and mitigate the effects that the science predict. But I to would have been amongst the unanimous guilty verdict if I had been called as a juror.
I am not against protests. I think there should be more and more widespread protests against inaction and more campaigning against inaction and the adoption of energy generation that has less or zero green house gas emission. I might even be part of any such actions.
But I can not condone the stated objective of their actions - to shut down a power station. We all need power for our modern lifestyles. We may agree that we need to change the source of that power with immediacy but whole communities rely on that power NOW. It supplies their homes, amenities, schools, care homes, hospitals etc. While some of these have emergency procedures in place for power cuts most do not. Bradley Day has sadly misjudged the majority of people if he thinks this is a way to win hearts, minds and support. By all means campaign, educate and yes, even protest, but not like this.