On the surface this doesn’t appear to be all that bad an idea. Why shouldn’t ecocide be a crime in international law, be classified as a crime against humanity? Then we do a modest amount of thinking and it becomes clear why this would be a very bad idea indeed, for it would outlaw civilisation. Sure, there are those who think that the coming down out of the trees thing was a bad idea but most of us don’t share that view.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] She is a barrister who has devoted her life to creating an international crime of ecocide. This means serious damage to, or destruction of, the natural world and the Earth’s systems. It would make the people who commission it – such as chief executives and government ministers – criminally liable for the harm they do to others, while creating a legal duty of care for life on Earth. I believe it would change everything. It would radically shift the balance of power, forcing anyone contemplating large-scale vandalism to ask themselves: “Will I end up in the international criminal court for this?” It could make the difference between a habitable and an uninhabitable planet. [/perfectpullquote]Hmm:
But then look at the examples being given:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]In West Papua, which is illegally occupied by Indonesia, the environmental group Mongabay reports that an international consortium intends, without the consent of indigenous peoples, to clear an area the size of Somerset of stunning rainforest to plant oil palm. Its Tanah Merah project is ripping a hole in an enormous expanse of pristine forest, swarming with species found nowhere else. According to Mongabay, if the scheme continues, it will produce as much greenhouse gas every year as the state of Virginia.[/perfectpullquote]But equally clearing Somerset to grow lentils would be the destruction of the extant environment. Draining the Somerset Levels in order to grow crops has been so derided that the Environment Agency is deliberately stopping people from maintaining that drainage. Clearing the banks of the Thames to build London destroyed that extant whatever it was 3,000 years back.
That is, anything that humans do at all is destructive of some part of the environment. And 7 billion of us trying to live as hunter gatherers would destroy all of it near immediately too. We therefore can’t make killing some part of the environment a crime for that would mean that we’re all criminals just through the very act of existing.
Sure, it would mean that Heinz Kiosk was finally right, we’re all guilty, but do recall that he was satire.
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
I believe it would change everything. Yep, which is why virtually nobody wants it.
"....Why shouldn’t ecocide be a crime in international law, be classified as a crime against humanity?..."
I have concreted my front drive. Since I am a natural animal, and concrete is therefore a product made in a natural way, I anticipate no problem with the eco-fascists.
However, I am starting a group to gas water voles and beavers, which cause immense damage to natural rivers. And I am hoping to eradicate all termites, who put out so much methane that they change the climate.... and do you know how much innocent bamboo a panda eats per day..?
As far as I can see, the eco-fascists would like it on the Moon, where there is very little change or erosion. But they would probably want to put sun-shades up to stop rocks fragmenting under heat stress...
String up Jonas Salk and Edward Jenner!
And Fleming!
Moonbat's heroine is a rich barrister/author/media personality who is supposed to have made a massive sacrifice by selling her house when she knew that she was dying of cancer so wouldn't need it for long and spent some of the money on funding her eco obsession and some, quite reasonably, on her creature comforts in her final couple of years. Her PR blog says that her father (is that a typo for grandfather) was a meteorologist during WWII but she was born in 1968.
How much greenhouse gas does an oil palm plantation generate? In normal conditions its net generation is way below zero.
"Oh the Grauniad and arithmetic, never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgement seat, But there is neither Grauniad nor arithmetic, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, when two lefty twats talk ear to ear, tho' they come from the ends of the earth! "
According to Dr. Patrick Moore, one of Green Peace's founders, there are more trees today than was the case 100 years ago.
Entirely true, the US has been reforesting since around 1920. New England is near all new growth since then.