Greenpeace UK Blog

Just say Nobu

Willie — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:48:16 +0100

The Sunday Telegraph reports this morning that, thanks to Greenpeace investigative work*, we now know that London’s Nobu restaurants, among the capital’s favourite celebrity hangouts, are serving up endangered bluefin tuna as sushi.

Not only is this a scandal in itself – like serving up rhino burgers or tiger chops – but it is not even clear to diners what they are eating. The menu certainly doesn't say 'cut of endangered bluefin', nor even for that matter does it even tell you what the species is! It would be like being sold something as just 'a steak' and finding out afterwards that you have just eaten some gorilla. From our own trips to the restaurant the staff seemed at best confused and ignorant about what species they were serving up.

The official response from Nobu on whether they sell bluefin has been a repeated, resounding ‘no comment’. But now we know clearly that they are serving bluefin, it is not labelled as such, and the fish can be traced back to endangered Atlantic and Mediterranean stocks, through their supply chain and the DNA evidence.

What does this mean? It means that the celebrity diners at Nobu, the likes of Madonna, David Beckham and Lily Allen, are unwittingly pushing a species toward extinction. It means that Robert De Niro, co-owner of the restaurant chain seems to be angling for the title of ‘Godfather of ocean destruction’. And it shows that whether you eat tuna from a tin in your supermarket or at the most prestigious London sushi restaurant – you might have cause for concern.

Other restaurateurs have already stopped using bluefin because of threats to the species – even Gordon Ramsay has dropped it from his menu, along with sushi restaurant Moshi Moshi. Greenpeace has even been told by Eat-Japan, organisers of the London Sushi Awards (the world's only sushi championships, due to be held in London on Oct 6th) that they have taken bluefin off the menu this year.

It's high time that Nobu stopped selling bluefin, and let's hope that their celebrity diners let them know that.

* Our researchers obtained two samples from all three of Nobu's London restaurants, along with the retail outlets of their suppliers Atari-Ya. The DNA analysis of these samples was conducted with the assistance of the conservation organisation WWF, and clearly showed that all of the samples which were tested which yielded results were Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thymus). On Nobu's restaurants the tuna sushi is not identified by species, but merely cuts of meat such as 'o-toro', 'chu-toro' and 'akimi'.

Amazon deforestation gets the Panorama treatment

jamie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:10:59 +0100

If you haven't had your fill of news from the Amazon lately (we've recently had live webcasts and slideshows from regions where fires have swept through), Monday's edition of Panorama is dedicated to the largest rainforest on Earth, and Greenpeace will featured.

Called Can Money Grow On Trees?, it will examine how the rising cost of food is threatening the Amazon as more forest is converted into farmland for cattle ranching - the current dry season provides an excellent opportunity for a bit of fire-based forest clearance. Also included will be the question of whether financial mechanisms (like our own proposal) can be brought in to make forests more valuable if they're left standing.

We haven't seen the final programme, but it's on BBC1 at 8.30pm, with a repeat on Friday 12 September at 12.45am. Of course, you can watch it at anytime on the wondrous iPlayer after transmission (although only if you're in the UK).

Meeting with the makers of palm oil

jamie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:56:59 +0100

Oil palm saplings waiting to be planted © Behring/Greenpeace

Last week, campaigners from Greenpeace South-East Asia met with palm oil producers and traders to discuss the challenges faced by the industry if it's going to get a grip on the problem of deforestation. The seminar was designed to get these companies thinking about the impact their trade is having on forests in the region, and working groups brought together industry reps and campaigners to discuss the issues involved, particularly our demand for a moratorium on clearing forest areas for palm oil plantations.

From what I've heard from the campaigners involved, there was plenty of constructive debate even if not everyone agreed on what needs to be done (or even, in some cases, that there is a problem). Representatives from Unilever called for a moratorium as soon as possible, and a union of smallholders talked about the long list of problems and conflicts between companies and local communities. The union wants the brakes put on palm oil expansion until these issues are resolved and talked about increasing productivity in existing plantations as an alternative to clearing new areas. But Derom Bangun from Indonesian Palm Oil Producers Association (Gapki) was clearly not in favour of a moratorium.

Bangun threw up the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) as proof that the industry was already doing everything it could to be environmentally responsible, but we know that RSPO members are still involved in clearing large areas of forest and seizing land for local owners without their consent. He also claimed that Gapki members haven't touched areas of valuable rainforest since 2005, but again that's not true. Palm oil trader Sinar Mas is a Gapki member but was picked out by us last year for devastating areas of Sumatra to grow palm oil.

However, Bangun was right to say that the West needs to do its bit as well - climate change, which is in part being fuelled by the felling of Indonesia's rainforests, is a global problem. His suggestion was that countries like the UK use their agricultural land to grow plant trees and create carbon sinks, but however appealing a landscape full of trees might be it's not very practical.

Apart from recent research which indicates that mature forests store up to 60 per cent more carbon than plantations and the general questions over offsetting emissions by planting trees, the priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rather than soak up the excess. For developed nations, that includes ramping up energy efficiency, shifting to renewable energy sources and backing financial mechanisms to ensure forests in other parts of the world are protected. Indonesia is one of those forest nations and deforestation is helping to make it the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide.

But the main thrust of Gapki's objection to an immediate moratorium was that it would harm Indonesia's economy and as one of the largest producers of palm oil in the world. As the smallholders pointed out, however, there is a good deal that could be done to increase yields in existing plantations that would allow the palm oil industry to grow without expanding into rainforest and peatland areas.

So while individual players like Unilever are on board, there's still a lot of work to do to get the industry as a whole behind us. But coming up in November is the annual RSPO meeting when hopefully we'll see some major developments. Along with the interim moratorium on deforestation discussed recently in the Sumatran province of Riau, there's a lot going on in Indonesia right now.

Kingsnorth trial day five: a short update

bex — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:20:57 +0100

The Kingsnorth Six outside Maidstone Crown Court © Rezac/Greenpeace

See all trial updates or sign up to get them by email.

We were expecting to hear evidence from Inuit leader Aqqaluk Lynge today but, because a juror fell ill, that's been postponed until Monday. Instead, the court held a legal discussion, none of which I can write about.

We're tentatively expecting a verdict early next week but, of course, nobody really knows. At the moment though, we're on the train back to London; the defendants are tired but in good spirits, and looking forward to a short window of normality before the case resumes next week. More on Monday.

Stansted: how you can help to stop BAA's expansion plans

jossc — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:21:50 +0100

News just in from Carol of the Airportwatch/Stop Stansted Expansion group of skullduggery afoot by airport owners BAA to influence their application to build a second runway there. Apparently BAA has recently resorted to 'encouraging' not only its own staff members, but also those of its many suppliers, to write in to the local Uttlesford District Council in support of its new runway proposal.

And their efforts seem to be bearing fruit, as our information is that UDC is currently receiving as many pro-expansion as anti-expansion letters. A bit worrying, given that a business as big as BAA has a huge number of staff and supplying companies to lean on if it comes to the crunch. Which, let's face it, it probably will.

So, in the spirit of inter-group cooperation which has been such a positive feature of the amazing opposition to BAA's expansion plans for Heathrow, let's all give Carol and Stop Stansted Expansion as much help as possible by sending in letters and emails to the council. Making it crystal clear to them, of course, that a second runway at Stansted would not only be bad news for the climate (in terms of a dramatic increase in the amount of greenhouse gases released as flight numbers grow from 190,000 to 490,000 per year), but also for local quality of life as noise pollution, air quality, health, road congestion and rail overcrowding all take a turn for the worse.

Please send your letter by 26 September saying why you are opposed to the plans to:

Uttlesford District Council
London Road
Saffron Walden
CB11 4ER

Emails should be sent to planning@uttlesford.gov.uk

Make sure that either the subject line of the email or the front of the letter is marked 'Second Runway'. If you need a reminder of the detailed arguments against the expansion plan please click here for guidance.

Two lines (if that's all you have time for) or two hundred – it's up to you. But please try and write, especially if you live locally, because every letter of objection helps demonstrate opposition to the plans and numbers will be counted and quoted at next year's public inquiry.

Find out more »

Brass neck or corporate suicide? BAA goes for Stansted expansion

Read BAA's planning application documents for yourself (be warned, though, they run into hundreds of pages)

Kingsnorth trial day four: Zac Goldsmith appears for the defence

bex — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:20:23 +0100

Zac Goldsmith outside Maidstone Crown Court © Rezac/Greenpeace

See all trial updates or sign up to get them by email.

First, a quick announcement: following Jim Hansen (the world's leading climate scientist) yesterday and Zac Goldsmith (environmental advisor to the Conservatives and former Ecologist editor) today, tomorrow Inuit leader Aqqaluk Lynge will be appearing court by videolink from Greenland, as a witness for the defence in the Kingsnorth Six trial. Having seen him speak before, I'm looking forward to it.

Back to today though, when Zac Goldsmith took the stand along with the last two defendants: Will and Huw.

Goldsmith was there to give a political context to the defendants' actions and, almost immediately, he told the court that there was "a staggering mismatch between what we've heard from government and what we've seen from government in terms of policy". The key points of his evidence were:

Despite the rhetoric, emissions have increased since 1997 - and they continue to rise. They're doing so disproportionately within the energy sector.
On the international stage, coal is the defining challenge. Building new coal plants here in Britain will make it much harder for us to exert influence internationally, especially with China and India. There is an "obvious hypocrisy" here.
One third of the 30 most polluting coal plants in Europe are in the UK - and the combined emissions from these 10 plants have increased by nearly 30 per cent since 1999. A new coal plant at Kingsnorth "can only exacerbate these problems".
Power companies have received an enormous windfall of billions - one widely accepted report said that E.ON alone got £466 million - from permits to pollute (the Emissions Trading Scheme, or ETS). This cost is passed onto customers. Consumers are actually paying power companies for polluting more (my emphasis).
There's been a "profound lack of imagination in government" when it comes to looking at energy solutions.

After Goldsmith's evidence, Will was called to the stand. Will is a photographer (Kingsnorth was "the hardest day's work I've ever done in my life," he told the jury) from a mining family in Northumberland. Taking action at Kingsnorth was a "hard option for me", he said, for pretty obvious reasons. But burning coal in the face of climate change "is absolute insanity".

Will - like most of the defendants - was questioned about what other routes he'd used to try to stop climate change, apart from nonviolent direct action. Quite a few, it turned out. He'd petitioned politicians, written to MPs, campaigned locally around Kingsnorth and been to the Climate Clinic (a fringe party conference event) several times.

After hearing Malcolm Wicks, David Miliband, Hilary Benn, John Hutton and other politicians in positions of influence speaking at various events and then watching their actual policies, Will said he became convinced that "politicians aren't brave enough to take action... We have all the technology ready to go", he said, yet the government is letting British people and British businesses down.

The last of the defendants to take the stand was Huw, who's been volunteering for Greenpeace for around 15 years and has a background in agriculture, caving, cave rescue, mountain rescue and climb training (among other things).

When asked about his motives for taking action on climate change, Huw said that, having spent a lot of time there and personally witnessing progressive climate changes like encroaching deserts, the pressure on water supplies and flooding, he was especially interested sub-Saharan Africa.

"I've witnessed people suffering starvation," he said. Huw talked about Kenyan pastoralists who lose over 90 per cent of their cattle after a succession of droughts that have been directly attributed to climate change. He'd personally seen people lose cattle, homes, crops and livelihoods after severe floods in Africa. Every tonne of CO2, he said, increases the damage globally.

So all of the defendants have now taken the stand. Tomorrow, it's the turn of the Inuit leader, Aqqaluk Lynge. More from Maidstone then.

Sorry, commenting is turned off for legal reasons.

Kingsnorth trial day three: world's leading climate scientist gives evidence

bex — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:45:32 +0100

James Hansen in conversation outside Maidstone Crown Court © Rezac/Greenpeace

See all trial updates or sign up to get them by email.

This is a difficult blog to write - mostly because I'm not sure what to leave out. Today, at the Kingsnorth trial, the world's leading climate scientist told the court that emissions from Kingsnorth led to damage to property worldwide, as well as the extinction of species and the creation of climate change refugees. Gordon Brown, he said, should announce a moratorium on all new coal plants without carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Another witness - an authority on climate change impacts in the UK - said all citizens and governments needed to "act with urgency". And two of the defendants, Emily and Kevin, gave impressive testimonies about why they took the action they did. And there's nowhere near enough space to write about it all.

The talk over the morning tea and toast though was all about Jim Hansen. To give you a sense of what his appearance as a defence witness means to the defendants, I should explain that Hansen is a bit of a hero to climate campaigners. This is the man who introduced much of the world to the idea of climate change 20 years ago, when he famously stood up in front of Congress and warned them about it. He's spent much of his time since warning a succession of US Vice Presidents, including Al Gore, about the same thing. Like I said, a bit of a hero - and he didn't disappoint today.

More on that in a bit. First up was Dr Geoffrey Meaden, an eloquent defence witness with so many letters after his name that I lost track after BSc, BEd, MSc and Phd. In the course of his evidence (via video link from Brazil), he confirmed that the examples of climate change impacts given by the defendants are 'true circumstances'.

"It is overwhelmingly perceived," he said, "by the defendants, the scientific community and myself" that the causes of climate change are caused by humans. There's an increasing urgency, he said, for all citizens and governments to take action.

Within five years, said Dr Meaden, there could be no summer ice left in the Arctic. Ironically, he said, Kingsnorth will be 'extremely vulnerable' to flooding due to climate change.

"The situation is so urgent that unless we act immediately to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, by the next century we may have to abandon up to 20 per cent of Kent to the sea... It behoves us to act with urgency."

A lot of the evidence today - from both Dr Meaden and Professor Hansen - was quite technical, looking at the parts per million of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, tipping points and feedback mechanisms. After explaining tipping points in a scientific context, Dr Meaden told the jury that some have suggested that "the most urgent tipping point is a change in human behaviours and actions."

Then Emily took the stand, and introduced herself and how she'd come to be involved with Greenpeace. Emily explained that whatever emissions are in the atmosphere now will have impacts for years to come. When asked why she climbed down the chimney, she said, "I felt very strongly that I wanted to do that". And when the pictures of her hanging off the top of Kingsnorth's smokestack were handed out, I noticed at least a couple of jurors drawing breath.

Kevin was next and introduced himself as a rope access worker from Wiltshire who'd become concerned about climate change back in the '80s. Kevin's questions focused mostly on the safety aspects of the direct action.

Just after 2pm, it was Professor James Hansen's turn. The public gallery and press area were packed, and news crews were waiting outside. I'd had the slightly surreal experience of walking down Maidstone High Street with Hansen on the way to the trial and, while he seemed gentle and self-effacing in person, on the stand he had a lot of gravitas. Not surprising, I suppose, for someone who's testified multiple times to the US Senate and House of Representatives.

Hansen has been studying the climatology of various planets for over 30 years, and has spent the last 20 specialising in the Earth's climate. He managed to say such a huge amount worth repeating in his hour and a half on the stand that I'm going to resort to putting his main points in a list, in the hope you'll read them:

Out of every country on earth, the UK bears the most responsibility for historical CO2 emissions in the atmosphere per person (followed by the US, then Germany).
We've already passed a safe proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and we need to roll it back. It can still be done but only if we get coal out of the system as quickly as possible - by putting a moratorium on all new plants without carbon capture and storage and phasing out old ones.
If we carry on with business as usual, we'll cause the extinction of one million  species. Proportionately, several hundred of these species extinctions could be associated directly with Kingsnorth power station.
He agreed with Al Gore's statement: "I can't understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power stations".
Somebody - the leader of the UK, Germany or the US - needs to "step up", take leadership and announce a moratorium on new coal plants.
The atmosphere currently contains around 385 parts per million (ppm) of CO2, rising by 2ppm per year. Most targets to stop climate change suggest a target of 450ppm, and a two degree rise in temperature as safe upper limits. To meet those targets will require our world to change dramatically.
But the safe level is no more than 350ppm - and may be less. And a rise of two degrees is "a recipe for global disaster and not salvation". The last time the earth was more than two degrees warmer than it is now, there was a 25 metre sea level rise.
"The simple but shocking truth is we have gone too far. We place our planetary system, inhabitants and future generations in grave peril... If we are to preserve the planet that civilisation has grown on, we have to go back."
"Humans are now in charge of atmospheric CO2 and the global climate... It's up to those of us alive today to take the bold steps needed."
If we carry on as we are at the moment, the Greenland ice sheets will melt, leading to a sea level rise of at least two metres this century. Hundreds of millions of people will be come refugees. There will be mass species extinction and ecosystem collapse.
If the ice in the (vulnerable) Western Arctic* West Antarctic ice sheet melts, the sea levels would rise by around six metres.
The complete loss of Arctic sea ice in the summer is now inevitable. The impacts on China, Kent, Bangladesh and the polar regions are enormous.

(* Sorry, my error in typing up my notes.)

It was at this point that I started to feel really sorry for the jury. They're getting, essentially, a crash course in climate change and its impacts from some of the most knowledgeable minds on the subject (Hansen and Meaden) in the world, and some of the most passionate (the defendants). I'd imagine, to some of the jurors, the evidence must seem pretty terrifying. It is terrifying.

Thankfully though, Hansen went on to talk about what could still be done. He was invited to go on stage with Al Gore at Live Earth, he said, and took his grandchildren along. How many species do we need to save, he asked them. "All of them," said his grand-daughter. ("Me too," said his grand-son.)

We can't save all of them but we can still save most, he said. If we continue with business-as-usual our descendants will be "left with a much more desolate planet and much less biodiversity". But, although "there's just barely still time", we need an immediate moratorium on the construction of all new coal fired power plants (without CCS) and the phasing out of existing coal plants to get back to 350ppm. And somebody - whether it's the UK, US or Germany - needs "to stand up".

If you've made it this far, you're obviously pretty interested, so I'll tell you that I had the good fortune to interview Hansen today - and that interview will be featuring in our next podcast. I'll also tell you that tomorrow, our last two defendants, Huw and Will, will be taking the stand, along with Conservative advisor and former Ecologist editor Zac Goldsmith.

For now, I'm off to raise a glass to Meaden, Hansen, the defendants and everyone else who is (ahem) taking a stand.

Rainforest timber shipment blocked in Papua New Guinea

jamie — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:49:12 +0100

A Greenpeace team occupies the Harbour Gemini, carrying illegal timber from Papua New Guinea and bound for China
© Sutton-Hibbert/Greenpeace

As we wait for the European Commission to consider legislation to prevent illegal timber from entering Europe, a Greenpeace team in Papua New Guinea have stepped in to prevent a ship from loading up with wood of dubious provenance.

The ship, Harbour Gemini, was loading timber at Paia Inlet in Gulf Province, when four activists from our ship the Esperanza climbed a loading crane to hang a huge banner reading 'Protect Forests, Save Our Climate'. Looking on were groups of local people in boats, while others held their own peaceful protests at the port and nearby logging camps.

The action is part of a tour by the Esperanza of Papua New Guinea which began in the capital Port Moresby last week. The aim is to draw attention to the frightening rate at which the country's pristine forests are being decimated and the impact this will have on climate change.

The timber being loaded onto the Harbour Gemini was bound for China, where one in every four tropical hardwood logs imported started life in Papua New Guinea. As we've detailed in the past, most of these are processed into plywood and re-exported to other parts of the world, particularly Europe which was China's second biggest customer for plywood in 2006.

To combat the problem of rampant deforestation, Papua New Guinea has been asking for financial assistance to protect its forests but the government has a very poor forest management record, wrapped in accusations of corruption and misappropriation of funds.

So action needs to be taken on both sides of the globe - improving forest management and policing in Papua New Guinea, and controlling imports of illegally logged timber in Europe and elsewhere. It's an international problem which requires international solutions, not least because climate change affects everyone, so if you want to help out, write to José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, and explain why we need to make illegal timber, well, illegal. Or make your own Forest Love video.

There'll be more from the Esperanza in the coming weeks but if you can't wait, take a look at the webcam beaming images of the East Indies live from the ship. I'll be keeping a particularly close eye on how events progress as I'm off to join the ship for a spell next month

Update: A fantastic video from the action has come through via the Greenpeace Australia Pacific website.

Update 2, 6 September 2008: After 55 hours, on Friday evening the climbers on top of the crane were removed peacefully by armed police but no arrests were made. However, the logging company involved - Turama Forest Industries, part of the Rimbunan Hijau group - have finally agreed to conduct a review of their logging agreement which local resource owners have been requesting for 13 years.

As always, it's a step in the right direction and the Greenpeace team in Papua New Guinea will be watching developments closely, but big improvements need to be made in forest management at a national level (plus that EU legislation) if these rainforests are going to be protected.

Fires raging through the Amazon

jamie — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:19:15 +0100

It's currently the dry season in the Amazon and, as the live webcast last week demonstrated, fires have been decimating large areas. The video crew weren't the only ones documenting the fires and last week we received images from another Greenpeace team who took to the air to photograph them and the devastated areas they leave behind. We've put together some of the most striking (not to say depressing) images into the slideshow below.

You'd be forgiven for thinking the images seem familiar, as this happens with depressing regularity. Fires are a natural feature in the lifecycle of many forests and some species even rely on regular firestorms to reproduce. But many of the fires in the Amazon have been started deliberately: a forest isn't really conducive to growing crops or raising cattle so this is the time of year when matches are put to the dry wood to open up new areas for cultivation.

While there's a certain stark beauty in some of Daniel Beltra's photos, it's one that comes at a very high price.

Kingsnorth trial day two

bex — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:05:53 +0100

Defendent Ben Stewart

See all trial updates or sign up to get them by email.

It's hard to say whether there were more or fewer nerves on the way to court today. On the one hand all the defendants now feel - visibly - more comfortable with the court surroundings than they were at the start of the proceedings yesterday.

On the other hand, today was the day some of them were going to take the stand for the first time. Either way, listening to the Star Wars theme tune blaring over the radio as we made our way to Maidstone in the minibus could only be a good thing for morale.

We filed into the court room at around 11am. By 11.30 - after circulating some documents to the jurors - the prosecution had closed; it was the turn of the defence.

The defendant's QC, Michael Wolkind, is a pleasure to watch at work. He started by introducing six "of the nicest people... accused of saving the planet". By midday, he'd introduced Greenpeace, climate change and the extent of Kingsnorth's emissions, explained some of the impacts climate change is having worldwide, announced four of the expert witnesses (Professor Jim Hansen - Al Gore's science adviser and the world's leading climate scientist, Zac Goldsmith, Professor Meaden and Jennifer Morgan), worked in a Sesame Street reference (Jim Hansen-related, obviously) and used no less than three Frank Zappa quotes to support his case.

From just after midday, Greenpeace defendants and witnesses took the stand. First was Ben Stewart (defendant), a video of whom had already been played to the jury. He was followed by Greenpeace executive director John Sauven (witness) and then by Tim Hewke (defendant).

To save your reading (and my typing), I'll stick to Ben's testimony. When questioned about his motives for taking direct action, Ben explained that half of the man-made emissions in the atmosphere come from coal. According to scientists, he said, now is the critical time. "We've got 100 months to do something about it."

His personal encounters with Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Bill Clinton, Ben said, hadn't done much to persuade him that the UK's politicians were taking the "climate emergency" in any way seriously, despite their rhetoric.

"Climate change," he said, "is the biggest thing that's ever happened to humanity - I'm not going to sit on the sofa."

During the evidence on climate change impacts - when both defendants explained what had motivated them to act - I did find myself wondering what the jurors were thinking. Working for Greenpeace, or reading particular newspapers and scientific magazines, you're exposed to the news of fresh climate change impacts every day. At least, it feels depressingly like it's every day.

If you've never really stopped to consider the melting of ice caps and glaciers, the impacts on lives and livelihoods around the world, the extinction of species as a result of manmade actions like burning coal, what must it feel like to be suddenly exposed to the information? I've no idea what the jurors were thinking - but they were certainly rapt by the defendants' statements.

The cross-examination from the prosecution tended to focus on whether or not the defendants' actions had a 'lawful excuse' (explained here). As the prosecution isn't challenging the science of climate change and its impacts, the questions were aimed at establishing whether the painting of Kingsnorth's chimney contributed to preventing emissions, and whether the defendants had any other recourse to action.

Tomorrow, Professor Jim Hansen takes the stand - and we'll be hearing more from the defendants. As usual, you can follow the latest on our blog or on Twitter (where we'll also be breaking the verdict immediately after it happens).