Zoe Cohen’s Post

Thank you Zoe Cohen for sharing the harrowing climate activism imprisonment story of Dr Pat Heart! As if Dana R. Fisher and Hajar Yazdiha wrote ' Why climate activists are becoming more radicalized (and why that’s not a bad thing) ' about him: "Research documents show it was the violence against nonviolent activists that generated the necessary public attention, which sparked the moral outrage among the general public that mobilized sympathizers; it led to broader public discussions about the struggle for civil rights in America and held up an unflattering mirror to American society. Leveraging moments of violence and state repression are opportunities rather than threats to the movement. Mass social change requires persistence in a long game. It requires risks. It requires being willing to give something up. When Tim Martin is sentenced for his climate activism, it should remind us of the messy realities, internal conflicts and ever-present dangers of movements to individuals and communities that are working to achieve deep systemic changes. As the civil rights and other social movements that have been successful in achieving their goals will remind us: saving the world is not for the faint of heart. " in ' Why climate activists are becoming more radicalized (and why that’s not a bad thing) - -> https://lnkd.in/eYxFZ_wD

WHEN THE JUDICIARY DOES THE WRONG THING WHAT SHOULD WE DO? What prevents the judiciary from keeping up with the urgent needs of society? In the situation where law needs to step up to the plate of society and set good example WHY does the judiciary lag FAR behind the societal and scientific zeitgeist? Judges aren't ignorant people. They aren't stupid. So why do they behave as if they are ignorant and stupid? Do they regard bluntly idiotic sentencing of peaceful citizens to long jail terms at great cost to the state and harm to the need to rapidly decarbonise the economy as an intellectual and moral obligation to uphold and apply force of law which manifestly is now anachronistic and unfit for purpose? Do they fear setting precedent which could be seen as a green light to millions of ordinary people who depend on the rule of law for the stability of their civic lives to step up action with more disruption against Business As Usual? Do they fear judicial review by oil and gas corporate sociopaths? What's wrong with the judges? Is it just that UKGovPlc's become so morally corrupt and intellectually bankrupt because of #FossilFuelShill lobbying the neoliberal mind virus disease is running the society show instead of following the obvious needs of human progress?

I was musing on what people a century from now may think or know (if anything) about the sentences handed down today in the JSO cases of four and five years imprisonment. Apparently the longest prison sentences for civil disobedience in the UK. My thoughts go first, to M.K. Gandhi, awarded slightly longer - six years in 1922 - by a British judge, though not in the UK, and for seditious writing rather than conspiratorial Zooming, and on a guilty plea - https://lnkd.in/eJTACqeR second, to the publicity and energisation for his cause which this generated, third, to the current UK plans to release prisoners early because of over-crowding, fourth, to the fact that Gandhi was released on medical grounds after a little under two years, in 1924, fifth, to the fact that JSO's core demand, an end to new O&G exploration in the North Sea, is essentially going to be met by the new Labour government, perhaps with minor wrinkles - https://lnkd.in/e48e5ubA sixth, to the advice of the Climate Change Committee (independent UK statutory body) to the UK government in its report today that only a third of the UK's climate change objectives are covered by credible plans - https://lnkd.in/eFCe2-BU I wonder what happens next in terms of - government policy on CC - such protests - how harshly or otherwise they're prosecuted - whether these people will serve the usual %s of their sentences or not Image from https://lnkd.in/eeCX7Npb

This is big time: California is suing big oil. And it could work because cities like SF and oakland sued and set precedent first. And because it’s being tried in California supreme court (not federal). During SF Climate Week, I attended California Attorney General Rob Bonta in convo at The Commonwealth Club, who shared about the state's lawsuit against five major oil companies for willfully misleading the public about climate change. Bonta emphasized the importance of holding polluters accountable, drawing parallels to successful litigation against tobacco, opioid, and lead paint companies. 🚨 Key takeaways: 1️⃣ Polluters must be held responsible, just like tobacco & opioid companies 2️⃣ More states and govts around the world expected to join the litigation once CA paves the way 🌍 3️⃣ Abatement fund will help the most impacted communities 💸 4️⃣ it’s critical to Ensure a just transition for FF workers moving to clean energy jobs ⚖️ 📹 Bonus: Captured a retro Shell video proving scientists knew about climate change for years. I feel so old knowing I was alive in 1991 but the footage looks like it was from the 60s. #ClimateAction #HoldPollutersAccountable #SFClimateWeek #JustTransition

After years of legal appeals and delays, some oil companies are set to stand trial in lawsuits brought by state and local governments over the damages caused by climate change. Meanwhile, dozens more governments large and small have brought new claims against the fossil fuel industry as those initial cases, filed up to a half-dozen years ago, inch closer to the courtroom. It’s all building toward more cases in more places using more legal theories to hold these companies accountable. Given the massive price tag of climate disasters and governments’ adaptation costs, experts say the lawsuits could put the oil industry on the hook for many billions of dollars. Two of those lawsuits, filed by the state of Massachusetts and the city of Honolulu, have moved past oil companies’ motions for dismissal and reached the pretrial discovery phase. The Massachusetts case against Exxon Mobil could reach trial as soon as next year. If the Massachusetts suit wins a ruling that fossil fuel companies can be held liable for climate damages, it would prompt a “flood” of cases. #insurance #underwriting #insuranceindustry #reinsurance https://lnkd.in/e4FRtqej

Did you know that courts have given billions of taxpayer $$ to fossil fuel companies/investors suing over environmental actions? Called Investor-State Dispute Settlements, these courts settled $114BILLION because fossil fuel companies lost potential profits. That's right. They charge us to destroy the planet, and charge us to not destroy the planet. This is a fascinating read. #stopfossilfuels #environmentaljustice

LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION!!! The Bureaucrats and Govt off's are duty bound to reply/ respond to the representations or complaints sent by the citizens to them, but this never happens, which is contrary to law and rights of the citizens. WHAT IS DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION. It simply means that the citizens have a right to seek remedy/ accountability from the Govt off's, whenever they have a concern or a complaint. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a principle of reasonableness and fairness that governs the relationship between a person and a public authority. It states that a person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by a public authority, even if they don't have a legal right to do so. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is based on the principles of Non Arbitrariness, Equality before law and Judicial Review. SHOULD THERE A SPECIAL LAW ON RIGHT TO REDRESSAL & REPLY? Like RTI, it's time that there should be a specific law that provides for time bound reply to the citizens by the Govt/ Public Authorities, when ever they send a representation or complaint. The reply by the Govt should be detailed, reasoned and lawful. CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECTS, WHEN THE GOVT DOESN'T RESPOND/ REPLY. Most of India's challenges concerning internal strife, Naxalism, Insurgencies etc can be addressed if the Govt starts responding to the concerns of the people. When people donot get any response from the Govt's, there's helplessness and frustration, which is the breeding ground for violence and turmoil. STORY:- Here the Govt of India has eventually responded to the concerns of the people of Ladhak, who want to save their region from unscientific industrialisation, predatory mining and environmental catastrophe. Dr Sonam Wangchuk has found a new way to ensure that the talks between the people of Ladhak and the Government results in fulfilling the promises which were made to them regarding regional autonomy.

🌍 The Just Stop Oil Movement: Intentions vs. Actions 🌍 The recent 5-year prison sentences handed down to peaceful protesters in the UK have sparked a significant debate around the Just Stop Oil Movement. While the movement undoubtedly has the planet's best interests at heart, the methods employed often lead to polarised opinions. The Just Stop Oil Movement aims to raise awareness about the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels and towards sustainable energy solutions. Their mission is crucial, as climate change poses an existential threat to our planet. However, the way this mission is executed is often contentious. Here are a few points to consider: 🌱 Noble Intentions: At its core, the Just Stop Oil Movement seeks to protect the environment and ensure a sustainable future for generations to come. Their commitment to raising awareness about the detrimental effects of fossil fuels is commendable. ⚠️ Questionable Methods: Despite their good intentions, the tactics used by some Just Stop Oil activists, such as disrupting public infrastructure or engaging in civil disobedience, can create more division than unity. These actions sometimes alienate potential supporters and distract from the essential message they aim to convey. ⚖️ Legal Consequences: The recent sentencing of peaceful protesters raises questions about the balance between civil disobedience and the rule of law. While activism is a vital part of democratic societies, it is crucial to find ways to protest that do not lead to severe legal repercussions. 🤝 Constructive Engagement: To truly make an impact, the movement could benefit from focusing on constructive engagement with policymakers, industry leaders, and the general public. Building coalitions and fostering dialogue can often lead to more sustainable and long-lasting change. 🗣️ Public Perception: Effective communication is key. By presenting their cause in a way that resonates with a broader audience, Just Stop Oil can garner more support and drive meaningful action without resorting to controversial methods. The fight against climate change is a collective responsibility, and movements like Just Stop Oil play a critical role in this battle. However, it is essential to strike a balance between passionate advocacy and practical, impactful actions. Let's work towards a future where we can protect our planet while respecting the laws and norms that bind us together. 🌿🌎 #JuststopOil #ClimateChange #Sustainability #Activism #EnvironmentalProtection #RenewableEnergy #PublicPolicy

The Hon. James Allsop AC will deliver an evening talk at 6.30pm on Wednesday 19th June for the Ciarb (East Asia Branch). Taking place in Hong Kong, the talk, titled ‘Climate Change, Policy and Arbitrability’ will focus on legal liability in sovereign courts for emissions of carbon and related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. One issue of some importance in those cases has been the justiciability in courts of complex government policy for GHG emission control. The question arises as to how responsibility for GHG emissions will filter down into arbitrations. In that context questions of arbitrability may arise as questions of justiciability arise in sovereign courts. This and the nature of the claims for legal responsibility will be discussed. In-person places are limited and free for CIArb members. Click ⬇ for further details and to register. #internationalarbitration #arbitrators

As a signatory, Canada may be held to account if cases are brought in Federal Court citing this judgement. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I do know that underwriters and large emitters will likely be in the cross-hairs, in addition to jurisdictions that have large emitters.