Hugh Wilson, MSN Environment Contributor

Is It Worth Protesting?

The 1,500 people who took part in a day of direct action against the building of a new coal-fired power plant at Kingsnorth in Kent joined a long and distinguished history of environmental protest.

Global warming may be a new concern, but environmental causes were as central to the protest movements of the 1960s and 70s as civil rights and the Vietnam War. Back then, air pollution, oil spills and the burgeoning nuclear power industry were major issues.

Video: The Eco Protestor Speaks Out

The first World Earth Day in 1970 saw 20 million Americans take to the streets to demonstrate for a sustainable and healthy environment, and the deteriorating state of the natural world was forced onto front pages for the very first time.

Two years later, a new and little known organisation registered its first environmental victory. On the back of Greenpeace action the US abandoned nuclear testing grounds in Alaska. A few years later, the grey seal slaughter in the Orkney Islands was halted after Greenpeace campaigning.

In fact, the 1970s were halcyon days for environmental protest. Victories came thick and fast. The first Earth Day led directly to the Clean Air Act in America and the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

In the US and Europe, meanwhile, big business polluters faced trial by public opinion for the first time. In the 1970s, it really did seem that protest could change the world, or even save it.

Take Action

Famous failures

Fast forward three decades and nobody is quite so sure. Environmental protests are frequent and widespread, but governments still refuse to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, 4x4s fly from showrooms, and the world gets warmer. The Kingsnorth protest has made headlines, but both Government and business are keen to press ahead with a new breed of coal-fired power stations anyway.

In fact, modern environment protestors are used to failure. The most famous British environmental campaigns of the 1990s were focused on road building projects, and sought to highlight and halt the destruction of large swathes of ancient countryside. The Newbury bypass protest of 1996 is perhaps the most celebrated, and has gone down in green folklore as the Third Battle of Newbury.

Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of determined campaigners, the road got built anyway.

Which begs the question, in the cynical noughties, as opposed to the idealistic 70s, do protests really make a difference? Can the environment really be protected by ordinary people with placards and packed lunches?

Protests make waves

The answer, despite defeats, setbacks, and the seemingly unstoppable onward march of destructive forces, is a resounding yes, at least as far as organisations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are concerned.

Protesting, they say, is a right, and one environmentalists should be prepared to use. "Friends of the Earth supports people’s right to take part in peaceful protest as a vital part of a living in a democratic society," said a spokesperson, adding that protests like Climate Camp at Kingsnorth galvanise public opinion in a way that less direct action rarely can.

Video: The Eco Protestor Speaks Out

Greenpeace agrees. A spokesman says that non violent protest, "is central to the work that Greenpeace does. A successful action will be creative, well timed and carefully targeted, but most of all peaceful. The idea of non violence is a powerful agent of change, and by sticking to this principle we have been able to expose, confront and transform by bearing witness to many environmental crimes through the years."

Greenpeace can certainly point to a catalogue of successful campaigns that made a real difference. Natural habitats remain pristine and animals survive because of direct action by Greenpeace campaigners in particular. One of the organisation’s most resounding victories was over a piece of rusting marine hardware called The Brent Spar.

In 1995 Shell was planning to dump the obsolete 14,500 ton oil storage facility at the bottom of the North Sea, with the full support of the British Government. When Greenpeace activists boarded the facility, the publicity led to a consumer boycott and Shell was forced to backtrack. The Brent Spar was dismantled and recycled on land, and the case led to a total ban on the dumping of oilrigs at sea.

Kingsnorth: Join the message board debate

Politicians listen

Brent Spar was a brilliantly co-ordinated campaign by a well-funded international organisation, but research suggests that even less celebrated environmental protests have had tangible effects. A study of past environmental legislation by researchers at the University of Washington found that US politicians were far more likely to act on an environmental issue if it had been the subject of public protests.

"Most people say they are for the environment and lawmakers say, 'Yeah, yeah,' but they don't do anything unless people start protesting," said researcher Jon Agnone. "Protests amplify public opinion by directing politicians' attention to the public's interest."

At the very least, protests raise awareness and force politicians to acknowledge issues. But even campaigners without the clout and influence of Greenpeace have forced real change. They do it by canny use of the media, and with an acute awareness that public opinion is every company’s Achilles heal.

The most successful have focused their energies on a single issue, or a single perceived enemy. In the States, the Catalogue Cutdown campaign tries to shame retailers into using recycled paper for their publicity material. Victoria’s Secrets is one of a number of companies ‘persuaded’ of the benefits of greener catalogues.

The Washington research also found that most environmental laws are passed during election years, at least in America. Politicians are certainly more persuadable when votes are at stake. In 2007, campaigners staged a week-long protest against Heathrow expansion plans. In June this year, Conservative leader David Cameron, in the midst of repainting his party with a green tinge, vowed to block any plans for a third runway at the airport.

Deaf ears

All the evidence suggest that well targeted and well timed protests can have an effect. Or at least, they can in the West, where politicians face regular public votes and company profits rely on public goodwill. Unfortunately, the governments of the most polluting nations in future may have no such considerations.

Even in this Olympic year, with China the focus of world attention, protests about the treatment of Tibet have fallen on deaf ears. Meanwhile, efforts to green Beijing for the Games are considered a smokescreen. When the athletes go home, China will still have 16 of the world’s 20 filthiest cities, and 190 million Chinese will still be sick from drinking contaminated water.

The Chinese people protest against these conditions, but largely in vain. There are about 1,000 demonstrations a week against the effects of pollution, but 80 percent of the sewage dumped into the Yangtze river is still untreated.

Media savvy protesters focusing on single issues can make waves in the West. In the emerging super economies of Asia, they go largely unnoticed.

Further related links: