MyFox
 

Kevin_Lemanowicz's Blog

by Kevin_Lemanowicz from Dedham, MA

Last Post 18 hours Ago


Go Ahead, Destroy That (Fill-In) If You Are Against It
Sep 17, 2008 | 10:54 PM
Category: Weather
Report This Post

A jury in England recently returned a verdict that I still can't believe.

The case was one in which Greenpeace activists painted words on the chimney of a coal-fired power plant.  The damage was 35,000 British pounds.  That isn't a ton of pounds, but that is not the point.  The defense was that Greenpeace was justified doing this damage to the power plant to prevent greater damage caused by climate change brought about by burning fossil fuels, in this case coal.  They cited the Criminal Damage Act of 1971 which allows damage to a property to prevent even greater damage, such as breaking down the door of a burning house to put out a fire or saving people trapped inside.

The jury bought the defense, and the accused were found not-guilty.  This means that a precedent has been set for future damage.  Talk about a slippery slope.  Here are some of the things you may now be able to do under this Act...

Kill Cows at will- After all, Cows are prodigious methane producers (just take a whiff when you drive by).  Methane is a known greenhouse gas and is likely part of the reason the globe may be warming... if you believe it is warming.

Pour Miracle-Grow on anybody's bushes, shrubs, or gardens- We know plants use up carbon dioxide, so more plants will help curb the amount of CO2 sitting in our environment.

Smash up cars- Ah, the biggest polluters.  Go ahead, destroy your neighbors SUV.  It undoubtedly is adding tons of toxic fumes to the atmosphere.  While you are at it, just dump out all the motor oil you can find at gas stations.  You might even want to just pull the hoses out of the gas pumps.

Put out everybody's cigarettes- You see someone smoking, put it out.  Just take it out of their mouth and squish it.  You'll stop the toxic smoke from entering people's lungs, and save health care dollars. 

Now, what can you do to other people?  Aren't they all spewing carbon dioxide from their mouths, too?

Exaggeration?  Perhaps.  Slippery slope?  Undoubtedly.

Did I mention the expert witness for the defense was Professor Richard Hanson of NASA fame.  Professor Hansen is credited with first alerting the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington.  He testified that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.

 

16 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 16
Page 1 of 1
KRix view my photos
Sep 18, 2008 | 5:04 PM

1) Cows should be killed - I like eating the meat.
2) Bushes take up too much space anyway. The more roads, the better!
3) I can't find anything obnoxious to say to that. I would hate it if my car was smashed.
4) Smoking is bad for you so I think that was the best advice you've given yet, Kevin.
tem123 read my blog
Sep 19, 2008 | 5:59 AM

Hmmm...guess Greenpeace will now think that they are above the law as they got away with this, they will do more damage.
Mr_Ozone read my blog view my photos
Sep 19, 2008 | 2:10 PM

I think I will take a sledge hammer to people's chimneys because there are no local by-laws restricting smoke from fireplaces...nor will there be. This is what you get when heating oil gets expensive and people would rather burn wood in highly inefficient fireplaces than lower their thermostats and wear sweaters indoors and municipalities choose not to regulate a pollutant. It's going to be a smelly unhealthy winter. It's the end of society as we know it, and I feel like coughing. And to think I used to like winter for its fresh, invigorating air. I can already smell smoke! Must be the paranoia over global cooling.
Mr_Ozone read my blog view my photos
Sep 19, 2008 | 2:17 PM

Kev,

Do you have a bias? The decision is based on the premise that continued co2 buildup is harmful. I'm not sure this harm has been demonstrated so I agree the decision was flawed. I would not go as far as destroying peoperty because of co2 emission. Harm has not been proven. But if my lungs burn from smoke this winter I will make it apoint to wack a few chimneys. I'd probably do it even if this precedent werent set.
SouthernMan46 read my blog view my photos
Sep 19, 2008 | 3:39 PM

Mr_Ozone it would seem that you are prejudiced against burning wood to supplement the heating of homes. At well over $3 a gallon for heating oil I certainly understand the need for supplemental heating. Of the alternatives wood is probably the healthiest choice.
Graham_Cracker read my blog view my photos
Sep 19, 2008 | 4:56 PM

SO MUCH IGNORANCE.

I just love the new "pick a side" ignorance prevailing in this country brought to us by "think-tanks" and Exxon/Mobil.
The above wants you to believe that if you have any common sense thinking in terms of our environment, then you're automatically a sandal-wearing hippie who supports Al Gore. They've accomplished so much destruction because of this fear-mongering.
One thing so many people are conveniently ignoring; the disappearance of BEES.
We're pigging out on so much land and polluting it so much, that we're taking away the necessary quantity of wildflowers bees need to survive.
No bees--no food.
I hope you're all happy when you're starving to death. Fools.
Mr_Ozone read my blog view my photos
Sep 19, 2008 | 8:32 PM

Prejudice? Prejudice has to do with racial animus, bigotry, not in defense of clean air.
SouthernMan46 read my blog view my photos
Sep 20, 2008 | 10:28 AM

The word prejudice refers to prejudgment: making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case or event.
Mr_Ozone read my blog view my photos
Sep 20, 2008 | 2:27 PM

Correct SouthernMan, but its application is most often with race. I am aware of the facts, in that people can't afford to heat their homes with oil or gas. But a lot of wood burning is just for looks and not to keep a comfortable temperature. In any event, most of the heat goes up the chimney.
Kevin_Lemanowicz read my blog view my photos
Sep 21, 2008 | 6:03 PM

Just back from the weekend, and happy to see some of you are blogging in.

Ozone, I can't figure you out. You call me out on global cooling all the time, yet you agree this this decision is flawed. Where do you stand? Also, I have no problem with what SouthernMan said. My fireplace warms the part of my house it is in. If used properly, you can harness the heat from a fire.

Finally, GC, good to hear from you. I'm not sure what to make of what you wrote. You typically write intelligent commentary, so perhaps I am just not thinking. Am I to surmise you agree with this decision and legal precedent? It seems no matter what side you are on in this debate, you can't belive that we should stop warming by any means necessary, legal or not. Or do you? Also, wanted to note that I actually did the bees story last summer (2007). I visited a local cranberry bog worried about the bees that were to come and pollinate the crop. I checked back at the end of the summer, and they had no problems. The bees were fine. That is not the case across the country, and you correctly point out this is a catastrophe in the making. Problem is, what can we do about dying bees. We can't even do anything illegal to help them like Greenpeace did. Our stingers are tied.
herbdaniels read my blog
Sep 21, 2008 | 6:58 PM

Of course it is flawed Kev, but some of the nutty politically correct stuff we've seen out of the UK recently make it less of a surprise.....by the way, have any of Hansen's predictions actually come true....it's been a long time.
Happyg read my blog
Sep 22, 2008 | 10:24 PM

No doubt an Obama presidency would lead to a Supreme court that defers to European laws like this. That alone is reason enough to just say Nobama.
Kevin_Lemanowicz read my blog view my photos
Sep 22, 2008 | 11:06 PM

Not yet, Herb... still waiting.

Happyg... doubt ANY presidency would do that, but you got your point out there. Now we know where you stand politically.
Graham_Cracker read my blog view my photos
Sep 23, 2008 | 9:49 AM

Kev,

My commentary was mostly on the divisiveness on issues like these.
I really don't know what to think about the legal precedent set here. I see both sides of the argument. I appreciate the passion of those trying to protect the environment, and it doesn't anger me the way it does you, Kevin. But I also think it's a slippery slope, and we can't allow environmentalists to simply go nuts.
I saw your story on bees, Kevin. Please read my blog, "No Nonsense Nature" for more details on this.
Kevin_Lemanowicz read my blog view my photos
Sep 23, 2008 | 7:05 PM

Not really angered by it, GC. Disbelief is how I feel. I am pretty sure smoking killed both my grandparents (grandmother had lung cancer, grandfather refused to go to a doctor), but I can't go to Connecticut and destroy a tobacco field without repercussions. You get my point. There has to be some control.
I'll check out your bee blog, GC. Thanks.
Mr_Ozone read my blog view my photos
Oct 2, 2008 | 4:03 PM

This is a simple matter to judge. If there are laws that prohibit co2 burning then destruction of someone else's property is defensible. However, since there are no such laws, what Greenpeace did was indefensible. That European court made a big boo-boo in their ruling.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




Kevin_Lemanowicz

I'm the Chief Meteorologist at FOX25, and have been since we began in September, 1996. You can catch my forecasts Sunday-Thursday at 10 and 11 p.m, as well as Monday through Thursday at 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.

Member Since: 2/14/2007


 

View All Photos


RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?