GET ACTIVE
Watch Coalfinger
Watch our 007 spoof Coalfinger and share it with your friends to spread the word about the menace of coal.
Swimming towards a coal ship - Greenpeace campaigners block coal delivery to Kingsnorth
Posted by christian on 22 June 2009.
Around midnight three of my colleagues eased themselves off one of the Greenpeace inflatable speedboats and into the cold water of the river Medway in Kent.
It's difficult to imagine what must be going through your mind in that situation - in the dark, in the cold water, with the looming lights of a large ship getting closer. But however difficult to imagine it is, it must have been even more difficult to do, because Cathy, Emma and Hannah knew that they were swimming out into the channel to block a coal freighter carrying twenty thousand tonnes of coal from docking at the Kingsnorth jetty.
Audio interview: Sarah, one of the activists aboard the coal freighter gives us an update on what's been going on (apologies for the poor sound quality) - just click the play button below.
Video: Watch the video highlights from the ship boarding and an interview with volunteer Sarah Shoraka from the mast of the E.on ship.
As they made their swim - on one of the shortest nights of the year - more Greenpeace volunteers flagged the ship down with flares and banners, pulled alongside and clambered up the steep metal sides, across the deck, and on up the mast and funnel. They secured themselves in place and waited for the calls from the morning news shows.
Looking down from the mast of the ship.
The funnel carries the logo of E.ON, the German energy company who operate the power station at Kingsnorth. E.ON would like to build another coal-fired power station on the site, and the place should be a building site by now. But the plans have been opposed by environmental experts and campaigners, met with indecision from government, and been delayed again and again.
Despite recent government assurances that any new coal fired power stations will capture the carbon they release into the atmosphere, the devil in the detail means that a new plant at Kingsnorth would still pump three quarters of its carbon into the atmosphere - six million tonnes of CO2 a year, a phenomenal amount.
Does this explain why someone would voluntarily swim into the path of a coal ship? My colleague Emma, one of the swimmers who lives in nearby Whitstable, explained what was going through her mind before the action: "There's no way we can stop climate change if power companies are allowed to keep on burning so much coal. I'm terrified by the scale of the problem my children will have to deal with. We have to give the next generation a chance of beating global warming, and that's why I'm putting my body in the way of that ship."
In terms of greenhouse gases, coal is the dirtiest fuel there is. Coal plants lead to carbon emissions which drive climate change - which threatens people and property around the world from increased risk of flooding, drought, water shortage and extreme weather events. We want to see strong government leadership on energy policy in the run up to the Copenhagen climate summit in December. All of this is why we intervene to stop dirty coal power from becoming the future of Britain's energy.
But while this might explain why Greenpeace campaigns on coal, I'm not sure if it can explain how you put yourself in a place where you're floating in front of an oncoming ship because you've realised that a time comes when this is what the reality of coal's role in driving climate change demands of you.
Who on earth sanctioned this disaster?
What do you think you are doing? With that oaf Ross Kemp on TV pontificating about piracy Greenpace decide to behave like pirates!
And what has been archived?
Greenpeace sate the ship will not dock - The ship docked - Greenpeace sate they will occupy the ship for a considerable period - all are arrested by 6.30!
This is not the sort of direct action that works.
Does this help?
From our statement of principles:
"We exist to expose environmental criminals, and to challenge government and corporations when they fail to live up to their mandate to safeguard our environment and our future... We promote open, informed debate about society's environmental choices. We use research, lobbying, and quiet diplomacy to pursue our goals, as well as high-profile, non-violent conflict to raise the level and quality of public debate."
What about anyone else? Do you think this was a 'disaster'? Do you think 'this is not the sort of direct action that works'?
Disaster?
No, not really a disaster. The action works quite well for really, against Greenpeace. When the lights start going out see how public opinion will really start to turn against this kind of terrorism.
Lights going out?
a) Tarring everything with the 'terrorism' brush didn't work for George Bush, it ain't gonna work for you. Feel free to read up on the tradition of non-violent direct action here.
b) Lights going out? Weak. Our energy security will be overwhelmingly threatened by more constrained access to fossil fuel resources in a wamring world. The answer to that is to meet our energy needs using smart energy efficiency measures and renewables - which don't need fuel to be shipped halfway around the world. So actually, the 'lights going out' argument really argues against coal power, not for it.
Cheers,
Christian @ GPUK
A reasonable and measured response
Given that this time last year the government was about to give the go-ahead for Kingsnorth (and a whole new generation of dirty coal plants with no carbon capure capability), and the guys who climbed the Kingsnorth chimney were expected to be jailed (but ended up being found 'not guilty')- I'd say public appreciation of the need to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere has risen dramatically in recent months.
From the coverage I've seen of this particular event both in the press and on TV I'd say reaction was pretty favourable - more and more people are starting to get the fact that we can't go on as we are without facing serious consequences not much further down the road - direct action in the face of impending climate meltdown now looks like a measured response from informed and concerned citizens - a lot more reasonable than pretending it doesn't exist while pursuing 'business as usual' in search of a quick profit.
As for the 'terrorism' jibe levelled at Greenpeace by thickies like Verpeas above - it's always been a cheap shot designed to change the debate from what we should be talking about - how to deal with climate change - to some supposedly threatened concept of 'national security'. Doesn't wash, never has - terrorism is essentially perverted nationalism (as in "give us a state or we'll blow you/ourselves up") - not remotely connected to non-violent direct environmentalism in any way, shape or form. The motivation (and outcomes) are obviously entirely different.
Coal is on trial for damaging the climate - which given what we now know, is entirely appropriate. People get this fact, and appreciate the need for action.
We should all be thanking these guys for doing what most of us know needs to be done, but are too lazy or apathetic to do ourselves.
Terrorism?
Well, at least some debate here, although "reasonable and measured" then proceeds to call me a "thickie". Very measured!
My argument is not for or against coal, but against the actions of young idealistic people who are guided and manipulated into, albeit exciting, actions. It feels good, they will remember their experience later as they mature and realise that whatever, there is a planet to run here.
Do you not think that underneath all the blustering politicians, there is in fact action going on to move forward? There is plenty of research into solar, microwave download, nuclear fusion and so on which is where the future is and that progress is not going to be helped if we interfere with short-term current meaasures to keep things ticking over for now.
So my premise is, if you really wanted to take action, get working on the energy research programmes and help develop it instead of interfering with ordinary people trying to get on with their lives.
False premise
Hey Verpeas,
I'd take issue with the challenge that in halting the unloading of coal from a freighter we were interfering with ordinary people getting on with their lives. Who would those have been, exactly?
Anyway, as you may (or may not) know, we work on a whole range of approaches to effecting change. One way is to take action to stop polluters at the point of pollution - the coal ship action is a good example of this.
Another way is the extensive lobbying work we do with government. Greenpeace are recognised as one of the most effective lobbying organisations by parliamentarians themselves, and we have some considerable success in pushing and persuading policy in more sustainable direction.
Another way is in the research we fund and promote into alternative methods of generating energy cleanly, cheaply, and to the economic benefit of the country.
Now I'm not saying all of this because I want to crow about how great we are. I'm saying it because it shows that 'taking action' for us, and for other groups that employ direct action and peaceful protest, is something wider than the high-profile events and actions which raise the prominence of the issue, and directly stop the pollution.
At the end of the day, we're convinced that direct action has played a significant role in moving forward the debate on coal in the UK. A year ago, construction was about to begin on an entirely unabated coal fired power station at Kingsnorth. Now, for example, the debate is around whether existing coal fired power stations should close because too dirty. That's a huge shift - and to a certain extent our connection to the policy process allows us to see what an important role direct action has had in facilitating it.
As to the 'guiding and manipulating idealistic young people' - I'm sure that our campaigners and volunteers would be delighted to be described as young and idealistic, but the suggestion that there's a bunch of svengalis sitting in our office sending naive youngsters into the fray is pretty funny if you know how obstinate, bloody minded and intelligent those who were on the coal ship actually are.
It's difficult enough persuading people to go to a different pub for a change round here, let alone manipulating anyone into dangling off the side of a freighter!
Yours,
Christian @ GPUK
Direct action on coal
I think you need to be careful. Greenpeace is a widely (but not universally) respected "brand", and that gives you a lot of capital; but you need to spend it wisely. There are plenty of people in the media (I suspect), and certainly in the police, who would like to stick the label "terrorist" on you, and it is a very emotive word that people respond to often in a muddle-headed way.
My perception is that the main problem we face in this country is not so much the politicians - I am not sure about Brown, and still less about Mandelson, but I do think that eg Ed Miliband and John Prescott "get it" - as the general public, and the mass media that continue to encourage their scepticism about the reality of global warming and the need for urgent action to prevent it. I think we are in the equivalent of 1939's "phoney war" - we are told that a state of hostilities exists between us and the Earth, but we can't see any real evidence of it. (I know all the arguments, but the fact that global average temperatures have still not exceeded those of 1998 is very effectively deployed by the deniers to encourage complacency.)
In one sense, this suggests that the public *need* to see climate activists taking extreme action. (I was delighted, and even relieved, today to see a video of Jim Hansen getting arrested at a protest against coal-mining in the US. When is Sir John Houghton or Sir David King going to do something similar?) They may think: "If the threat really were as real and urgent as you make out, you wouldn't just be going on marches and writing letters to the papers!"
On the other hand, I would really want to know what action the politicians who get it would (unofficially!) like to see Greenpeace and others taking. I mean, they must be as concerned as anyone at the level of public scepticism and complacency. Didn't Obama recently send his senior aides to *encourage* the US climate activists who were planning to shut down the Capitol Hill power plant?
Perhaps instead of trying to prevent the ship docking, you could have painted the word "Stupid" in 20-foot high letters along the side...
I really think this is a difficult issue - but I admire Greenpeace very much and am grateful for all you do. Somehow you have to steer a course between conveying the sense of urgency you feel (in discreet conjunction, perhaps, with "onside" politicians) and allowing the hostile media and the police to rebrand you as irresponsible eco-terrorists. You have my very best wishes!
Kingsnorth
Interesting to read the different points on view on whether this was a good action or not. And thanks for calling us Greenpeacers 'young & idealistic'! It's been a while since I was called that.
But seriously, it has always got to be a choice to take non-violent direct action, when the government (or whoever) does not seem to be listening. It raises public awareness of the issue very quickly and often results in public support and modification of plans and behaviours.
People in positions of power do care about public opinion; they spend thousands trying to find out what the public think about them. So if this type of action by a brave few can galvanise others into speaking out and it has any result on helping resolve the issue, then it has to be good.
What is the alternative? To stand by and let it happen? What will we say to future generations when climate change has really started to bite?
'Well, we did not want to rock the boat - people have to be allowed to get on with their lives.'
I for one hope to carry on standing up for what I believe in.
Cathy Greenall
Young and idealistic
I'm pleased you like the description! No, not Svengalis but hard-headed professional organisers who have a salary to maintain. If its a long time since you were called that Cathy, its usually my experience that people shift their views as the years pass, he said treading very carefully.
1. There is a need now to provide electricity. Dirty methods are the only thing around just now while other stuff comes on stream. So coal is used as a means to an end.
2. There is a need to stop this maybe. Power boats containing protestors and using fossil fuels are used to do this. The use of these fossil fuels is seen as a means to an end.
Compare and contrast.
Smart and savvy people take action
Greenpeace activists, whether staff or volunteers, are without exception smart, committed, well trained, informed and hyper-aware of what they're doing. That's just how we do it.
The need is to provide energy (not just electricity - heat as well), cleanly. That means without further contributing to climate change. 'Cleanly' is not a nice extra if we can afford it, it's the bottom line.
It's clearly not true to say that dirty methods are the only options available at the moment. Rather, they are the things that are prioritised by government and business. Renewables are becoming cheaper than fossil fuels, and as economies of scale increase and fossil fuel supplies become more contested, that's only going to become more pronounced. This is the new reality. Now we have to deal with it.
Comparing building coal power stations, which burn the fossil fuel that has released half the CO2 in the atmosphere, with running a small number of boats on diesel, is pretty silly. But it's an argument that keeps coming up, even though it's daft.
Luckily, we do everything we can to reduce our impact on the planet. Which includes running our boats and vehicles on sustainably sourced biodiesel. We need to make the same principle - reducing our impact on the planet - a key principle of how we power and heat our lives.
Idealistic and Savvy
This seems to be getting to you Christian. All Greenpeace activists? I never met a bunch of people to whom you could ascribe the words "without exception" to and I'm sure your bunch are much the same, individual human beings with their own dreams and aspirations. Otherwise they would be a bunch of brainwashed robots . . . but hang on. No, I'll not go there!
And you are missing the point. I don't think there is any argument about seeking clean energy. But despite what you say there is at present no viable alternative. Alternatives are being sought and this is not as you may think brought about by the actions of "environmentalists", it is the natural flow of science and technology. In fact I argue that environmentalists are counter-productive in this, in that they divert real research into short-term measures. In the case of Greenpeace direct actions, I certainly argue that.
For thousands of years humans struggled along at subsistence levels until their science began to make breakthroughs on the ways of applying energy to help their unaided efforts. Luckily, there was this great reserve of stored energy that easily could be tapped and technological society evolved with amazing rapidity as a direct result. People in technological societies moved off the breadline. Incidentally it is this very affluence that provides the society support in which organisations like Greenpeace can exist. The progress has been so swift that the focus on future energy sources has caught up on us as the demand on energy requirements while not quite exponential, certainly takes your breath away.
Stored energy helped us get going, the next phase is going to be more difficult and stretch our minds. Clamour for more research certainly, perhaps you'd even fund it, but it is not helped by young and idealistic people taking direct action.
Yo, It's pretty difficult to
Yo,
It's pretty difficult to get to me about this stuff. I enjoy thinking about these issues and I get paid for doing it, so I'm pretty happy to spend time sharing my views.
Perhaps you've spent a lot of time with GP activists, I don't know. We take our heritage as an organisation that takes direct action safely and responsibly very seriously, as I'm sure you can imagine. Our volunteers and staff come from across a wide age spectrum, so 'young and idealistic' is inaccurate in at least one sense.
It's certainly not true to say that there's no viable alternative to fossil fuels. Indeed, continuing with fossil fuels as the way we do things is itself not viable. I don't think you're wrong in some of your analysis of the situation, but I guess that beyond this, it feels to me like you just don't agree with what we do, and so we're just going to disagree some more. But it's been interesting debating with you, and thanks for taking the time to contribute to our site!
Cheers,
Christian @ GPUK
I Agree
I agree that this isnt the best of ideas for publicity but it takes an extreme amount of courage determination and commitment to decide to do this and these brave people did this for you and me and the entire planet. so a round of aplause please.
Do you understand?
Verpeas let's face it, you have no concept of what is going on. Do you have children? Do you care about the ecosystems that provide you with your lavish meals every night? Well if you don't have the first, you'll definitely be benefiting from the last. Give these people a chance to save what they can of a planet that is here to feed us and give us shelter, not to abuse for our amusement.
The planet is part of our ecosystem, we've forgotten that. Things need to move along much much quicker than they are. Let's just make laws and force people to take notice of climate change. Climate change may be a normal process of the planet but the current Co2 levels are higher now then they have been since the last interglacial period. The industrial revolution in the 1800's didn't do us any favours and it's not getting any better. I have children and I wonder whether there will be a future for them. So don't be a fool and look at what's in your fridge and your cupboards, one day they may be empty because you thought there was no viable alternative.
Understanding
I think I probably have a better idea of what is going on than you do Bagnally. No, we don't have children having decided not to help overpopulate the world (like you). We do not eat lavish meals but live fairly frugally and I cycle several thousand miles a year and do lots of the other things.
However, I am a physicict too and my actions are realistic and not idealistic.
Maybe there's another way??....
Erm, I'm not the kinda of person who wouldn flinch to do something like that, but really, is it helping, or disturbing and outraging and pushing Gp's repuation down the drain? I don't really mind if you break the law when it was needed, if they had a reason for it and a point to put forward, a message; but did this honestly do anything but annoy E.On and the government?
Maybe a change of tactics is needed, direct confrontation etc, and more of a clever, less wreckless approach to protests. I'm twelve for god sake, and i know that if your going to do a protest, it has to be either:
1.A Big thing to do with a few people e.g climbing kingsnorth
2.A Small thing to do with LOTS of people e.g the miliband
Swimming in front o a ship needed to be Bigger in one of those ways if it were to be done AT ALL, surely. It's a message, but not one that is the first thought put in your head, you know?.