The "Climate-Made-Me-Do-It" Defense

First came the insanity defense. Then came the "Twinkie defense." That was followed by "the O.J. defense" -- "You must acquit if the glove doesn't fit." Now comes "the-climate-made-me-do-it" defense (also known as the "save-the-planet" defense).

Tim DeChristopher is a college student and monkey-wrencher who recently made a name for himself by making bogus bids on oil and gas leases in Utah, with no intention of paying, as a seemingly-clever way to protest drilling. But the prank went awry. Rather than laugh the stunt off, the federal government pressed charges, correctly arguing that this was an act of fraud. It was good the feds didn't just slap him on the wrist, because that would encourage copy cats and draw loud protest from energy companies, to whom this isn't a game. But the charges also mean the circus has a few acts to go before the big top can come down.

And a circus is exactly what the trial phase of this story will produce.

DeChristopher quite naturally became an Earth martyr, as gang green rallied to his side. He's gotten hero treatment by the green-leaning media. He retained the legal services of Pat Shea, a Utah lawyer and Democrat Party nabob who briefly ran the Bureau of Land Management in the Clinton years (a job for which he had no apparent qualifications). Celebrity-scientist James Hansen, the NASA employee who leads the Alarmist School in the climate science debate, even showed up for a pro-DeChristopher pep rally in April, turning this criminal case into a cause celebre.

Here's some backstory from The Salt Lake Tribune:

"Bogus bidder: I did it for good of the planet

Monkey-wrencher asks federal court to allow his climate-change defense. By Christopher Smart

In the court of public opinion, Tim DeChristopher always has argued that he monkey-wrenched an oil and gas lease auction to combat the global climate crisis. Now he wants to make that argument in federal court. Attorneys for the University of Utah economics major have filed papers in U.S. District Court contending a federal judge should reject a government motion and allow their client to use his battle against global warming as a defense against two felony charges . . .

. . . Defense lawyer Pat Shea, who oversaw the Bureau of Land Management during the Clinton administration, said Tuesday the Constitution guarantees his client a "full and complete defense, rather than a trimmed defense when the trimming is done by the government."

DeChristopher pleaded not guilty in April to a two-count federal indictment stemming from a Dec. 19, 2008, BLM oil and gas lease auction in which he offered a total of $1.8 million -- admittedly with no intention of paying the money -- to win bids on 14 parcels near Arches and Canyonlands national parks.

In May, U.S. Attorney for Utah Brett Tolman filed a 27-page motion in federal court, arguing that a civil-disobedience defense --- such as fighting the climate crisis -- would inflame a jury and serve only to urge those empaneled not to follow the law.

"Accordingly, at trial," the prosecutor's motion states, "defense counsel should focus the jury's attention on facts and not try to confuse it with appeals based on emotion, sympathy or other similar conclusions."

Some legal experts have said the government is trying to wipe out the civil-disobedience defense because it fears some jurors would side with DeChristopher -- despite his acknowledgement that he placed bogus bids on the parcels. At the same time, without that defense, experts have said the U. student may not stand a chance against the charges.

Shea said federal prosecutors have the burden to prove DeChristopher's guilt. "They want a straight rendition of the facts that transpired on Dec. 19, 2008," Shea said. "We want a contextual examination of those events within the parameters of global warming."

If Shea's "contextual examination" squeaks into federal court, this may become more than a sideshow. It could become the Scopes Monkey Trial of climate change -- a Scopes Climate Trial, if you will -- in which the validity of global warming theory becomes the center of debate, not the guilt or innocence of a monkey-wrencher. A jury of laypersons will be called on to settle the matter, not scientists.

Where this could lead, and what precedent a "not guilty" verdict would set, is anyone's guess. But it could be ominous.

We can imagine who the defendant's lawyers might call to the stand, in making the case that almost anything is justified, including criminal acts, in the name of "saving the planet." Hansen, of course. He can resist anything but the spotlight. Activist-Actor Robert Redford, one of the inspirations behind the anti-drilling protests in Utah, might be called. Maybe even a certain former Vice President would testify. How might that sway a jury? Talk about a circus!

But how tenacious would federal prosecutors be in making the case for the Cautiously Skeptical School of climate science, given that they work for an administration that's clearly sided with alarmists in the climate debate? Would prosecutors be tempted to pull punches, or rely on less-than-credible, C Team witnesses?

Shea probably already imagines himself in the role of Clarence Darrow (although given the attention this trial will attract, he may quickly be pushed aside by more established celebrity-lawyers -- Alan Dershowitz leaps to mind -- reaching for Darrow-like immortality). But who will do the lawyering, and play William Jennings Bryan, for the feds? Will they bring the A Team (such as it is)? Or will this fall to some second-string Justice Department stiff, with a cobweb in his ear, tossed into the maelstrom as a sacrificial offering to Gaia?

The imagination runs wild.

There's recently been talk in Washington -- link -- about the need for putting climate science on "trial." The idea is being pushed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in response to EPA plans to regulate so-called "greenhouse gases."

From The Los Angeles Times:

Chamber Threatens Lawsuit if EPA Rejects Climate Science 'Trial'

The nation's largest business group is asking U.S. EPA to hold a public debate on climate change science -- or face litigation -- as the agency prepares to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

In April, EPA said it planned to declare that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride from new automobiles and their engines contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. The proposal, which does not include any regulations, comes in response to the Supreme Court's 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA ruling.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a 21-page petition with EPA today, asking the agency to approve an on-the-record proceeding with an independent trier of fact who would allow EPA and environmental and business groups to engage in a "credible weighing" of the scientific evidence that global warming endangers human health. EPA has hosted two public hearings and received more than 300,000 public comments on the matter already.

"They don't have the science to support the endangerment finding," Bill Kovacs, the chamber's vice president for environment, regulatory and government affairs, said in an interview. "We can't just take their word for it."

Kovacs envisions the EPA proceeding as a modern-day "Scopes Monkey Trial," where the science of global warming -- rather than evolution versus creationism -- would be debated. The 1925 trial, which pitted prominent defense attorney Clarence Darrow against three-time presidential candidate Williams Jennings Bryan, centered on the prosecution of John Scopes for violating a Tennessee law by teaching evolution in a high school classroom.

But be careful what you wish for.

The Chamber's "trial" would take place in a controlled environment, before "an independent trier of fact." It would have the flavor of an academic exercise. And there might be some value in it. What's shaping up in Utah would be far different. There you could have a circus-atmosphere jury trail, in which grandstanding lawyers, celebrity witnesses, hyper-technical evidence and a likable, well-meaning defendant could produce an irrational verdict from a jury of scientific illiterates (if they're representative of typical Americans).

And what if, at the end of the day, the "climate-made-me-do-it defense" works for DeChristopher? Although it's doubtful such a verdict would permanently settle the science -- Darwinism still is being debated more than 80 years after the Scopes trial -- it would certainly embolden a whole new generation of monkey-wrenchers, who will feel licensed to break the law as long as it's for a good of the planet. Where might that lead us? Where does the rule of law stand then?

The implications are ominous.

Environmental Retardation

Tim DeChristopher succeeded in monkey-wrenching a controversial Utah oil and gas auction late last week, when he bid on $1.7 million in drilling leases with no intention of paying. He thus pioneered a new form of protest that's bound to breed copy-cats, and became an overnight folk hero to wackos the world over – ensuring that he’ll have a well paid position as a professional activist waiting for him after graduation, with Environmental Anxiety, Inc.

Whether he'll face criminal charges has yet to be determined. But he "tainted the entire auction," according to one official with the Bureau of Land Management. "We were hosed," added a bona fide bidder who lost out to DeChristopher. “It's very frustrating. I hope the guy is prosecuted."

I, too, would like to see him prosecuted. But that will only prolong his time in the limelight and make him a martyr, which is just what he wants. The coverage has been glowing: He couldn’t have scripted it better, had he written it himself. Check out the excerpt below, written by an obviously fan with The Salt Lake Tribune:

"Tim DeChristopher stood alone Friday when he placed bogus bids on drilling parcels near two Utah national parks, single-handedly sabotaging an oil- and gas-lease sale that caught the attention of Congress and the incoming Obama administration. Now, the 27-year-old University of Utah economics student stands with powerful new friends, including Pat Shea, former head of the Bureau of Land Management; Utah's most prominent defense attorney, Ron Yengich; and hundreds of supporters promising to contribute to his legal-defense fund.

Others led him to this point, inspiring DeChristopher to oppose a government he fears is leading the world to climate disaster. His mother, Christine, helped start the West Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club and took him as a small child to anti-coal rallies. Terry Root, a Stanford University scientist who worked with Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, put her hand on DeChristopher's shoulder and apologized for being too late to avert the worst effects of global warming. And Gore called on young people to commit acts of civil disobedience to stop greenhouse-gas belching coal-fired power plants."

Some who wrote responses to the story -- no kidding -- likened DeChristopher to the Rev. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. At least one mild rebuke could be found, on the editorial pages of The Grand Junction Sentinel:

"DeChristopher evidently considers himself a populist hero for his efforts Friday. But what he did wasn’t heroic. It was simply arrogant and thoughtless. Disagreement over a government decision is not a legitimate reason for dishonesty.

Here’s hoping the BLM goes after DeChristopher enthusiastically and forces him to pay with whatever assets he has, to show others such behavior won’t be accepted."

But the episode raises another question.

If Robert Redford and other drilling opponents place such high value on the lands in question, why don’t they put their money where their mouths are, become actual bidders and pay the fair market price for the minerals they want to deny the rest of us? It’s not as if the organizations who reflexively oppose drilling are lacking in resources – environmentalism is today an “industry” as big and powerful as those it uses as foils -- or lack supporters with deep pockets (like Redford). If Americans place a higher value on protecting "pristine" landscapes than they do on making productive uses of what’s underneath, the market is one way of determining that.

But greens can obstruct on the cheap simply by protesting, litigating and monkey-wrenching a process that’s supposed to serve the general welfare, by balancing economic and ecological ends, but which is too frequently hijacked by radicals. At present, all the costs of their knee-jerk obstructionism are borne by the rest of us, in a false scarcity of energy supplies, which leads to higher prices; in our growing dependence on foreign energy imports; in the limited utility of public lands that belong to energy consumers as much as they do to nature worshipers.

Having to pay for the oil and gas leases they want to idle would make them a little more discriminating -- at present, they simply oppose everything, everywhere, all the time, so they're blithely unaware of the need to make trade-offs, or of the economic hardships they are causing the rest of us.

Yes, I know these are environmentalists -- making them ignorant of, if not hostile to, economic concepts like markets, trade-offs and opportunity costs. Such utilitarian concepts don't compute in their simplistic world, where you're either a "saver" or a "destroyer" of the planet, and where the end ("saving the planet") justifies any means. They're suffering from a syndrome that might be called Environmental Retardation (or Enviro-mental Retardation). But if we could inject a little realism into their world, and a little economic awareness, the chances that reason might prevail over emotion in the energy debate might be improved, at least just a bit.