Policy, not protesters, should be on trial

Unlike the jury in Maidstone, policy-makers seem unable to grasp that unabated coal burning will lead to climate disaster

The Greenpeace campaigners claimed their action had a lawful basis, because their intention was to help avoid the costs and damages that would arise from future climate changes. That seems to me utterly consistent with the policy implications of the Stern Review, and I hope that Gordon Brown will signal his support for the protesters, while at the same time telling the cocky executives at E.ON UK that the days when companies could make applications to build unabated coal stations are finished, and that they need to get out of that technology and into cleaner power sources, especially renewables.
The simple realty we face is that we cannot keep climate changes at levels we can cope with, while at the same time continuing to use conventional coal technologies to meet our power needs. While policy makers and the planning process still seem unable to grasp this inconvenient truth, the jury in Maidstone, in considering the facts of the matter, could reach no other conclusion.