A climate campaigner, who has opposed onshore oil and gas projects, has been given three days to leave a tunnel he dug near a new aviation fuel pipeline.
Scott Breen, also known as Digger, was named in an interim High Court injunction, issued on Tuesday (16 August 2022) over protests against Esso’s 105km pipeline from Southampton to London.
The injunction order said he should “remove his person and possessions within 72 hours of service of this order from any and every excavation” he had made in the area of the pipeline.
Notices about the injunction, also issued against persons unknown, were posted this morning.
Scott Breen had previously been named in an injunction aimed at preventing trespass and obstruction at UKOG’s oil production site near Gatwick airport.
His current protest, now in its 19th day, has disrupted work on the pipeline, which will take fuel from Boorley Green in Hampshire to storage at the West London Terminal in Hounslow.
The tunnel was dug on land, near the M25 at Chertsey in Surrey, used by contractors for access to the pipeline work.
|Mr Breen has been asked to leave but has refused.
He said Esso’s owner, ExxonMobil, “continued to plan for growth in climate-destroying fossil fuel use” as the UK experienced record-breaking temperatures. He said:
“Our world is on fire and ExxonMobil is pouring fuel onto the flames.”
The new pipeline will replace an original pipe from 1972. Mr Breen said:
“The current pipeline still has at least twenty years of useful life left, time which could be used to scale back air travel and develop zero carbon alternatives.”
Esso said the new pipeline would help to keep 100 tankers a day off the road. It was a safe, low-impact method of transporting fuel, the company said.
Essos’s court submissions said the injunction had been sought to prevent people from “conspiring to injure” its business “by unlawful means”.
It said activities by some protesters went “far beyond lawful and peaceful protest and give rise to serious health and safety concerns”.
It described Scott Breen, who was not represented at the injunction hearing, as “a known tunneller”.
The judge at the injunction hearing, Mr Justice Eyre, noted that the protest was against a background of “strongly held beliefs and concerns about the effect of air travel” and said he considered the “legitimate public interest in the changes to the climate”.
He said he was “just about persuaded” to order an injunction against Scott Breen.
He concluded that an injunction was “proportionate and necessary” to ensure that Esso was “permitted to carry on its lawful activities”.
Extinction Rebellion South East has said the new pipeline would increase fuel supply to Heathrow airport 40%.
“The multi-million dollar investment in the new pipe will bake in the increased burning of fossil fuels for many decades beyond the timeframe required to take action to prevent climate breakdown.”
It added:
“Flying is the fastest way we can burn fossil fuels and produce greenhouse gas emissions. It is unjust that a tiny number of very rich people, just 1%, are emitting half of commercial aviation’s carbon emissions, whilst the poorest suffer and die because of climate breakdown.”
The High Court will reconsider the injunction at another hearing on 7 September 2022.
DRILL OR DROP? 
What a disgrace. 72minutes would be more appropriate. And then prison.
You are funny 😄
You obviously have no idea of the planet you will leave behind for your kids/ grandkids once these fossil fuels increase with this extra pipe line
People like Digger care so much about our planet they give up their lives to help stop these atrocities….
You however , are the real disgrace for supporting the 1% who fly their private jets to the detriment of our planet …
Dee, the issue is supply and demand. No demand, no supply. Oil companies supply what consumers want.
LONDON, June 15 (Reuters) – World oil demand will rise more than 2% to a record high of 101.6 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2023, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday, although sky-high oil prices and weakening economic forecasts dimmed the future outlook.
The Paris-based IEA also said in its monthly report that supply was being constrained because of sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.
“Economic fears persist, as various international institutions have recently released downbeat outlooks,” the IEA said, forecasting demand would rise 2.2 million bpd, or 2.2%, in 2023 compared to 2022 and would exceed pre-pandemic levels.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/global-oil-demand-set-rise-2-new-high-2023-says-iea-2022-06-15/
“We estimate that 98.8 million b/d of petroleum and liquid fuels was consumed globally in July 2022, an increase of 0.9 million b/d from July 2021. We forecast that global consumption of petroleum and liquid fuels will average 99.4 million b/d for all of 2022, which is a 2.1 million b/d increase from 2021. We forecast that global consumption of petroleum and liquid fuels will increase by another 2.1 million b/d in 2023 to average 101.5 million b/d.”
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php
Please explain how a swampy digger breaking the law in the UK is going to change the global increase in demand for oil which will have an impact on the climate?
Antis in the UK don’t have any impact on global climate change. The UK could stop the use of all fossil fuels tomorrow and it would make zero difference to global climate change. However our economy would be destroyed and our excess deaths would increase exponentially.
Is that what you want?
An oversimplification Paul. The U.K. has put a huge amount of global warming gasses into the atmosphere over the centuries. Far more than China and some of the current larger emitters. Most of the world is now signed up to net zero and almost half of global GDP is targeted or invested at achieving net zero. There is global commitment to achieving net zero and although most are committed to achieve net zero around 2050, some countries aim to achieve net zero before 2050.
This is not about the U.K. acting in isolation and if the UK were to row back on net zero it would not only do huge damage to our international reputation but would put us at the back of technological change rather than the forefront. I am sure going forwards a country’s net zero status will be a consideration in major trade deals. And what about the cost to our economy of not achieving net zero? Respected economists and organisations, such as Deloitte, have repeatedly found the costs of not achieving net zero will be far greater.
I object to the term “antis” as though to support the transition away from fossil fuels and oppose fracking places you in some sort of unscientific, factually ignorant grouping. But if you look at the science and the facts it is in fact the complete opposite.
https://eciu.net/media/press-releases/2020/almost-half-of-global-gdp-under-actual-or-intended-net-zero-emissions-targets
Crowdfunder;
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-t-climate-emergency-fart-chertsey-tunnel
Well, my grandchild has just enjoyed his holiday to Spain to see his granny, Dee. At 20 months he is a bit young to attempt the swim.
Both were pretty pleased with the ability being provided to get there! And, this am against a nice blue sky there are numerous vapor trails of good folk doing the same sort of thing. Perhaps a lot more Ryanair (others are available) than capitalist swine. (Wonder how all those people got to COP26? One was US President. Returns to US and is very quickly threatening the drillers for oil and gas they have to drill more, then flying off to Saudi to beg them to do the same.)
Was this the same fuel company that was processing during the pandemic, supplying to the chemicals plant next door, that increased it’s output of artificial rubber for medical devices such as ventilators? Yep, same one.
There are plenty of people who care so much about their financial position, and that of their children and grandchildren that they rob banks. Then the law steps in.
Perhaps Digger could get a job-sorry, had to pause to let the laughter subside-and help to lay some water pipes? His skills should not be wasted. (I lived in Newbury. What an improvement to the environment there since Swampy and his friends were removed and the project was completed. Better air quality, no need to wash curtains after every Bank Holiday, and more trees. Red kites using the A34 as a corridor to move south.)
Exxon will destroy the planet along with your offspring Martin, they don’t care , a bit like some on here .
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Okay, Jono. Who will do it first?
UK importing vast quantities of diesel as there is insufficient refining capacity in UK for diesel, or Russia where some of that diesel comes from and UK pays Putin to modernize Russian military! Then asks the tax payer for money to spend more on defence, in order to keep up!
And who submitted a large investment program to increase UK refining capacity for diesel? Oh yes, it was. And ever observed the vehicles used by some who protest, Jono??
Exxon also knew how the use of fossil fuels was extending life expectancy across the globe, Jono. So, you want those in desperate need of a ventilator to perish in order to make your one sided equation work? Those who need fertilizer to make crops produce, can starve, whilst others decide crops should be translated into fuel for motor vehicles to placate a few?
I have not been on a ‘plane since I retired, but I respect others may wish to, and those ‘planes are using the fuel that they need, until new fuels are available. Those new fuels will likely come from the same oil/gas companies as they have the scientists and finance to produce them. And, whilst they attempt that, you will be busy checking though the handbook to see at what point you shout “greenwashing!” Just my opinion, but I see one party looking to make progress, whilst the other has a lifestyle of looking to protest. But, don’t look too far, Jono, otherwise you may find some who have adopted that lifestyle have already done more than their own share of destroying the planet. And, many who will put forward alternatives that will do no better.
But, I will leave you with a positive suggestion. How about getting the Finnish PM to give Liz Truss some dancing lessons? That could even liven up the doomsters in the UK.
He was also named as defendant number 28 in the HS2 injunction, it would appear that Digger is also against people using low carbon alternatives for travelling.
Or possibly against the destruction of ancient woodlands and valuable habitat that HS2 will destroy?
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/shoulda-gone-fracking-to-beat-fuel-poverty
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/15/hs2-will-destroy-or-damage-hundreds-of-uk-wildlife-sites-report
KatT, one of the longer term ecological benefits of HS2 is the 30% increase in woodland and wildlife habitat over what’s already there.
7 million new trees and shrubs will be planted along the route between London and Birmingham.
Many mitigation measures have been implemented to limit the impact on existing woodlands, such as building the Long Itchington Wood Tunnel in Warwickshire, a mile-long twin bore tunnel which routes the project underneath ancient woodland, which is more than four centuries old and is a Site of Special Scientific interest.
In addition, through the HS2 Woodland Fund, a total of £7m is available to support projects throughout England to help landowners create new native, broadleaf woodlands and restore existing ancient woodland sites.
The end result will be a modern sustainable method of transport for future generations inline with Net Zero policies and targets..
A passenger kilometre on HS2 will emit 8g of carbon and will be 17 times less carbon intensive than domestic air travel, 7 times less than road, and half as carbon intensive as the current rail system.
Click to access 24136_HS2_GreenCorridor_v43_CS1469_Interactive.pdf
Whilst I note in France as they invested in TGV they are now able to place strict controls on internal flights!! How ironic. I see that as progress-apart from those who need something to protest about.
Yes, woodland is important. So, why cut it down for wood burners and wood pellets? Replace the woodland, KatT-simples. Woodland is not a permanent structure. Trees grow and die. Some are taken before they die. If trees are important, and I agree they are, make sure those trees are replaced. I do so, and others should be able to manage that equally.
Was done for the Newbury by-pass and the rare snails that were relocated, at great expense, were subsequently found to be as common as muck.
OMG, KatT. You have become a “we”!!! So, you are a follower, that figures. Yet, you dislike being referred to as an anti-and then quote denier. Sorry, KatT, you post about manipulation, and then try and use all the tricks in the “book” to do just that. Trouble is, most know the book by now.
Meanwhile, are you delaying progress by using plastic? Are you a criminal? Or, do you have exemption?
Suicide bombers are protesting, KatT. An author was stabbed in USA recently, as a form of protest. It does not follow that all protestors are right in what they do.
I had my heat pump serviced yesterday. The engineer turned up in a diesel van. An energy mix in action, as displayed by you, Jono, Dee and Dorkinian, doing their bit to “manipulate” demand. Unknowing of course and beyond their control? Nope, knowingly and what they want to do. Welcome to the human race folks, where it is okay to call others who do just the same “deniers”, but more hypocritical than effective.
Science is good, in some cases, also KatT, but there is a lot of science. Some is not very good, and some contradicts what other scientists have stated, so maybe being a follower is not always what it is cracked up to be by those who want others to follow? There have been scientists who have supported that parts of the human race were inferior, and then supported how to eliminate them and achieved their followers, and those that didn’t follow were deniers of the “truth”.
Good article about where Group Think has got us, in the Times on Thursday. Author will probably now be labelled a denier for having stated the bl**ding obvious, but still worth a read, KatT. Must go-to water my replacement trees from my plastic water butts. Symbiosis, in action.
A couple of points I missed with regards to HS2 and woodlands.
Ancient wood classification applies to areas of woodland that have persisted since 1600 in England and Wales, and 1750 in Scotland.
Since they may have been cut over many times in the past for fuel and building material, ancient woodland classification does not necessarily mean that the wood contains very old trees.
There is as much ancient woodland being lost to the entire 350 mile HS2 route as there is with the 14 mile Lower Thames Road Crossing.
All the excuses people write to justify continued, extensive use of fossil fuels. You only have to watch the recent “Big Oil” documentary to understand why we find ourselves in the situation we are in. Supply and demand has been manipulated for 30 or 40 years, ever since the fossil fuel industry’s own scientists warned them about global warming. Progress away from fossil fuels has been delayed. Science was buried and intentionally discredited by the big fossil fuel majors to shamefully preserve their product and profit. Now the fossil fuel industry accept climate change but continue to lobby to delay, rather than deny and continue to greenwash. And climate change deniers likewise. We could have been far more advanced in green energy technology had they not behaved in this way. What planet do we intend to leave to our children and grandchildren if we carry on as we are? One thing is for sure, those that have delayed change will most definitely be on the wrong side of history and their acts likely considered criminal. It won’t be the people that took a stand against climate change that will be judged harshly by future generations, just as the Chartists, Suffragettes etc are judged differently today than they were judged at the time by those with vested interests that benefited from keeping the status quo.
No excuses, just facts KatT. In case you missed it:
“We estimate that 98.8 million b/d of petroleum and liquid fuels was consumed globally in July 2022, an increase of 0.9 million b/d from July 2021. We forecast that global consumption of petroleum and liquid fuels will average 99.4 million b/d for all of 2022, which is a 2.1 million b/d increase from 2021. We forecast that global consumption of petroleum and liquid fuels will increase by another 2.1 million b/d in 2023 to average 101.5 million b/d.”
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php
Please explain how a swampy digger breaking the law in the UK is going to change the global increase in demand for oil which will have an impact on the climate?
The answer of course is that he is not going to change it.
You may not like it, you can go on and on about Big Oil, missed opportunities, the BBC (morphing into a green lobby group, half their scientists have left because they didn’t want to move to Wales…) etc but it doesn’t change the increasing global demand for hydrocarbons.
Well said, KatT. Sorry to leave you to the mercy of the rabid anti-planet lobby. It’s been a tricky day.
There’s truth in the proverb, as there is in most, “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
It’s worse than that, though, KatT. Thinking about the implications of the anti- planet stance, forces one to reflect, as you have, on the culpability of that position.
It’s difficult to escape the fact that to stay entrenched in one’s anti position when confronted by an overwhelming mass of scientific and empirical evidence that we are rushing headlong and knowingly towards human extinction and that we are the cause, is a clear sign either of malignancy (or criminality) or of stupidity.
It matters little that statistics can be produced by them which point to the obvious – that FF fuel demand is on the rise and is likely, sadly, to remain so. They use this fact to inhibit the massive development of renewables. They know that our de iure embrace of FFs, if it happens, will deprive of hope those likely to suffer the the first and most because of their anti-planet stance. They know that men, deprived of a transcendental horizon, are persuaded by imminence and immediacy where it comes to desires and wishes, and they, like Hitler, Trump, Oban and the rest exploit this. They know that to throw labels like ‘deniers’ back at their sources – ( no clarification will be provided of course) – will confuse and mislead.
The real,deniers of course are those who deny anthropogenic climate change and some of us give credence to the content of their postings. Why?
The gullible of course are those who are played by the FF industry. Some still give respect to their postings.
Don’t be deterred KatT because these antis try and shift the blame to those pro the planet and humanity. This is to be expected: take the gibes as a badge of pride.
It matters little that Digger, and on a much less worthy level, you, Joni, Ms Finch and many, many others, prepared to stand up and be counted, are pilloried by these antis. You at least are true to yourselves in the face of the collapse of integrity on the part of those who know – yes, they know alright – where truth is to be found. So stand firm in the face of Thursday carry-outs, family get togethers, arithmetic and science are good, indispensable no less, (save when I disagree with their findings, then they’re bad, very bad), vegetables in season, TGVs, one-off ?scientific?opinions, oil and gas prices, premier league results, appeals to ‘reality’, denigration of ‘we’ users and those users of plastics, FFs and aviation, for example, to perform essential tasks, (there being no alternatives), etc., etc. Those are all intended, KatT, to misdirect and divert attention from the real question:
given catastrophic, man-made global heating, how can I pursue or support .a FF policy to the further detriment of my fellow human beings and their planet on the grounds that such policies will benefit many here and now, a few disproportionately, notwithstanding the price to be paid?
Any comments not immediately relevant as an answer to this question are “merely vans to beat the air.”
No, (or Nope for those enslaved by all things American), the Diggers of this world appear aligned with the best of us – the Martin Luther Kings, the Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s, the Gandhis, etc., those prepared to make a stand against evil no matter how slim their chances of making an immediate difference. Without such, we are doomed.
And meanwhile the planet……….. .
Do they care?
Within all that nonsense was another incorrect and often misused comment.
Renewables are not inhibited by fossil fuel. They are not inhibited by some pointing out the problems with some renewables. What inhibits renewables are either the cost or the usefulness of some renewables, and that is evident in such schemes as Cash for Ash. Whilst the antis are so keen to camouflage this issue with renewables, more discerning individuals will scrutinize a little more and note all is not so simple. Even now, when the situation has been put into stark and costly reality what do the antis do? Just denial. It could have been so much better if the mistakes had been doubled. LOL.
Good job the Group Think is challenged. For those who see their wish to take part in Group Think and belong to the collective, good luck. It has been rolled out many times in history, but should not be mistaken for the truth. It is usually not required if something is the truth. Perhaps start with facts and you get to truth? If you have a brick wall at the fact stage your journey is doomed, Grasshopper, or Gandhi or Martin Luther King, or a number within the collective. (Note the attempt to Group with other individuals to claim credibility. One of the oldest tricks in the marketing book-testimonials. However, usually there has to be agreement with the individuals first.)
“There being no alternatives” was admitted. In which case why so concerned that people note that and act accordingly? Why praise Digger, when “there being no alternatives”? “Aviation to perform essential tasks”. So, agreement with what Exxon are doing, but wanting objection and interference against it!
Just words plonked together without coherence. That’s Group Think for you, and if no more takers than KatT then suddenly Gandhi and Martin Luther King are roped in.
Someone is attempting to play you, folks.
QED
Yes, QED, as there has been no denial of anthropogenic climate change. Indeed, there has been debate on the very subject. Several times. No denial. What was the result?
Oh yes, someone found it a tad too difficult and had to withdraw-again! The same someone who wanted the discussion. Definitely incoherent.
So, when facts are an issue, they have to be denied, or definition of fact messed about with, or interpretation used.
Yes, someone is attempting to play you folks, and you are deemed incapable of observing that. I have seen little evidence of that, so will still try and give the facts without all the playing about with the definition.