On January 24 2017, five years ago, a judge in the United States caused controversy when he decided to frame climate change as a matter of opinion, rather than settled scientific fact
A Washington state judge has sparked outrage for remarks questioning the existence of climate change and the role of humans in global warming. During the high-profile trial of Ken Ward, a climate activist facing 30 years in prison for shutting down an oil pipeline, Judge Michael E Rickert said: “I don’t know what everybody’s beliefs are on [climate change], but I know that there’s tremendous controversy over the fact whether it even exists. And even if people believe that it does or it doesn’t, the extent of what we’re doing to ourselves and our climate and our planet, there’s great controversy over that.” The Skagit County judge made the comments on 24 January while addressing Ward’s request to present a “necessity defense” in court, meaning he would argue that the grave threat of climate change justified civil disobedience. [link]
We have to remember the very successful campaigns in the early 90s. To shift public opinion, especially among older white guys from climate science as a thing to climate science as part of a culture war.
Why this matters: Yes, you can use the legal system as one means by which to try to ‘shift the dial.’ But it’s by no means the only one. Most of the people using the law know that, they don’t need telling from me.
Just days before this post went up, activists fighting the supine “regulator” of oil and gas extraction from the North Sea lost their case, because the judge said, well, read it and weep.
What happened next.
Bless him, Ken Ward fought it to the Washington State Supreme Court, and won on the necessity defence…