Global warming and the law

Lawyer David T at Harry's Place rather breathlessly titled his post about the recent acquittal of Greenpeace activists: Criminal Damage now Legal . But that isn't what has happened.

The defence argued that the protesters had "lawful excuse" because they were seeking to prevent a greater harm - the apocalypse that will be caused by human carbon emissions.

I haven't seen an account of the proceedings, but wonder how the government, or any state prosecutor, could have countered this argument. After all, a great deal of government policy is built on the same, probably untrue, idea.

This makes global warming, or more broadly the re-brand as climate change, the perfect legal argument. A prosecution could not counter it, as a matter of political policy.