Proposal to declare mass destruction of ecosystems a crime on a par with genocide launched by lawyer. Read the full Guardian article here
Buy the book
Follow Ecocide on Twitter
#coal Alpha, Patriot announce coal production cuts: Charleston Gazette http://t.co/UqL4LXIk *beginning of end for coal ecocide
1 hour ago from EcoInternet
#forest Alpha, Patriot announce coal production cuts: Charleston Gazette http://t.co/gJ3dvWdn *beginning of end for coal ecocide
1 hour ago from EcoInternet
Amazon USA #11709 Where I Stood: Missy Higgins $0.99 Reprise http://t.co/0vqCe0vB
3 hours ago from twitterfeed
La barra de O'Higgins en el Monumental http://t.co/HrztxUIh
3 hours ago from Twitter for BlackBerry®
Great idea. Christians demonized the Olympian Pan by adding Poseidon’s pitch-fork, colouring Him red and calling him Satan.
Since then scant attention has also been paid to the Earth Goddess Gaia by the pious people of the Book, even now as their beloved Israel is enveloped by DU spread in Gaza.
But recently I believe Pope Benedict XVI has made pollution a sin but we hear nothing about this.
I guess you guys need a place to vent, but I think your purpose is insane.
So, this plan would include prosecuting people who deny AGW?
I’m one of them. So bring it, woman.
I like the breadth and audacity of it all. But why stop at ecocide? Why not stupidocide? Crimes against human intelligence. The warmist movement has a very nasty and authoritarian base. I bags being packed off to one of the re-education camps on one of the “sinking” tropical isles. Marvellous way to spend the retirement.
Just another reason the U.N. should be de-funded by the U.S. and other member nations. Orwell and Huxley saw the future all right, and it was led by the U.N.
Awesome. Wonderful. I can’t imagine why anyone would oppose holding those accountable for destroying life on the planet responsible. Even if you deny global warming, there is no denying that destroying the ecosystems that support all of life on the planet (including human) is a crime.
A living planet is more imporant than markets, profits, or our over-consumptive lifestyle, and it’s fine if you disagree, just do it on your own planet and don’t ruin mine. It’s ridiculous to hear about the “authoritarian enrvironmentalist movement” when no one ever asked before clear-cutting a forest, blowing up a mountain, or pushing species to extinction.
Ok, before we start creating new laws, when are the current ones going to be enforced. When is George W Bush going to be prosecuted for invading IRAQ? It was supposed to be about WoMD, but where were they?
If you want to start prosecuting people and organisations for environmental destruction, lets start with the radical green movements. These groups oppose hazard reduction burns in our forests. They are directly responsible for the loss of over 170 lives in the recent Victorian bushfires. Regular hazard reduction burns keeps forrest fuel loads to a minimum, they are small slow fires that allow most wildlife the opportunity to hide or escape. When the forrest fuel is allowed to accumulate for 20 or 30 years when a fire starts an inferno follows that kill most of the widlife, does terrible damage to the forrests and in this case killed scores of people.
It’s astonishing that so many deniers still bother to raise their ugly heads. I think that some of you are similar to the 30 cents army. Shame on you.
AGW/Global Warming has become an issue obfuscated by science. A handy tool for the bodies that benefit from the continuance of ecocide. To me and hundreds of thousands like me in this country, there is no science needed. The fact that there is an economic system that is based on infinite growth which relies on a resource that is finite, is clearly a disastrous situation. That needs no specialist knowledge to get your head round. The fact that if you pump toxins into the earth, air and oceans constantly is clearly disastrous, likewise, needs no scientific expertise to know that in the long term, that will have turned out to be very, very stupid indeed. (Very like smoking)
I think that the generation in power currently are reprehensible, greedy, blind and sad as hell. Leaving a filthy mess caused by their avarice, ignorance, narcissism and bitter, pinched mediocrity of vision.
It’s a terrible mess to leave to the next generations. All of you who support or deny the cause that Polly Higgins represents should be ashamed of yourselves.
I am fifteen but to you bitter deniers up here, I would like to say one thing:
Grow up.
Sorry, I meant to say:
“It’s a terrible mess to leave to the next generations. All of you who deny the cause that Polly Higgins represents should be ashamed of yourselves.”
I’d like to add, good luck to Ms Higgins and to all those who are fighting the industries that profit from the rape of the planet. This is no different to the battle against slavery.
green arrow this is not about sustainability. this is about the new marxism. control of the masses not only using junk science but aided and abetted by a university research systems corrupted to the eyeballs with politically motivated grant money. you are advocating a religion not science. just the very nature of the argument over belief and denial? and the notion of arresting those who dare doubt? what year is this? 1492? Are Ferdinand and Isabella on the throne? or beware the spanish inquisition.
Well, I am for the implementation of this law.
“Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute “climate deniers” [...]” the article states.
I would never agree with the prosecution of people for what they say about climate change. But that doesn’t seem to be part of the solution proposed. Maybe I overlooked some part of this site? Can you help me find it? Do I smell a smear campaign?
And destruction of the environment kills people, destroys peoples ways of living, causes diseases, hunger, displacement, war and much suffering. Who denies it? Raise your hand.
Jose, thank you for picking up on this point. You are quite right – it is not part of the solution. Ecocide as proposed (ie. as a 5th Crime Against Peace under the Rome Statute, which governs the International Criminal Court) could not be used to prosecute climate deniers. What is proposed is a crime based on fact, not opinion. Everyone is free to believe what they wish re: climate change. The creation of a crime to prevent damage, destruction or loss of ecosystems is what is being addressed here.
RonP 123, I would like to know where the ‘junk science’ is in this:
1. An economic system based on infinite growth but relying on finite resources is just a recipe for disaster (And that’s my disaster to deal with by the way, I assume you aren’t a teenager right?)
2. Continually spewing toxins into the air, the earth and the oceans will eventually poison everything.
Okay, I’m a teenager, maybe I have been fooled. But how can you really say that these two points are Marxist junk science?
I suspect you and these other voices up here aren’t ‘independent’ thinkers. Like I said before, I think you are similar to the 30 Cent army in China. Paid to talk rubbish. Meat Puppets or Astroturfers.
You talk about politically motivated grant money. The Koch brothers oil conglomerate have spent £16 million on paying people to astroturf sites like this, to deny AGW and to undermine organizations threatening the fossil fuel industry. Exxon/Chevron have allegedly spent even more.
Green Arrow thinks that you and the other deniers up here not only speak with forked tongue but will be the source of great shame to their children in the future for having taken part in a grand scheme like the PR companies who worked for the Tobacco industries in the 1950s to reassure customers that smoking was not harmful after all and the science that said it was
was ‘junk science’.
Damn right Jose, ‘smear campaign’ it is.
All power to you Ms Higgins!
Incidentally, I helped shut down a BP station last week. Does that make me one of the “dirty, tree huggers who should just get a job”? Was I wrong, is Tar Sands in Alberta a healthy development for the earth I will inherit?
I’m not a Marxist. I’m not stupid. I’m just young and disgusted at what your generations are leaving for mine.
Oh yes, and ‘-42-’, you say that cutting trees is not the same as killing people. But it’s exactly what it is! The rape of the planet is already causing death, the Cree Indians in the tar sands regions are already dropping like flies, millions of people are going to die because of this senseless squandering of our resources and the pollution caused by an energy industry that is literally lethal.
Go back to the drawing boards you flimsy astro turfing losers. Get a proper job as you are rubbish at this one!
Myself and hundreds of thousands of others like me are very aware of your crap game. Just like in China, it’s easy to identify who you are.
Green Arrow: How much time do you spend using electricity, light, heat, the internet etc? How do you think your computer was made? Aren’t you part of the problem wasting resources? Maybe when you’re old enough you will have to travel to work and use even more evil oil. I bet you’re like a champagne socialist that doesn’t see the wrong in your consumer goods but just engage in politics of envy…
Hello Winston
Don’t you think we aren’t used to the classic: “Where do you think the energy comes from to power your laptop?” You need to get a new manual.
Champagne socialist is a bit weird, I’m fifteen and don’t drink or smoke or take drugs. And my only politics is the hope that your generation’s greedy, self-obsessed, utterly short sighted behavior gets taken out the back and shot.
By the way, you sound like the kind of paid commentator who will wheel out things like “They all should have a bath/get hosed down” and “Why don’t they all just get a job?” when we have actions like the one I mentioned before. We are used to you and I hope that anyone reading this realise that your voice and the other deniers up here are part of a pathetic astroturf army.
Of course I see a great deal wrong with buying in to the consumerist nightmare your generation have created and got rich from. Almost everything in my bedroom has been got from second hand shops, my computer actually came from Freegle, I ride a bike everywhere and I don’t eat meat. All of my friends are the same. You just don’t have a clue about us do you Winston?
Your judgements are ill thought out, knee jerk and boring.
Whoever pay people like you to do this crap form of astroturfing should sack you.
You’re too old. Your generation means nothing to us. You are mean, bitter, greedy, short sighted and withering as I speak. You have left this world in a mess for us to clean up. Your comments mean nothing as you mean nothing.
Ever get the feeling you spent your life chasing self-interested dreams that have no currency in what it ever meant to be actually ALIVE?
I am the future and we will not ever forget how little you ever did for us. Other than the generation who fought and won the war, who I have massive respect for, what did your lot ever do that was good for us? You just took, took, took and now look at what you have left us with.
If ‘champagne socialist’ is me, what are you? ‘Good scotch drinking Daily Hate reader’?
Pathetic.
Hell, greenarrow, I WISH someone would pay me to “astroturf” my view of AGW. As it is, I feel strongly enough about it that I’d pay someone myself to print it, if that’s what it took.
Look, no one disputes that the consumerist lifestyle has led to ecological damage. It’s how we deal with it that — and linking it to the bogus “AGW” scare — that is drawing a line in the sand.
I have spent extensive time researching the science — or lack thereof — behind AGW. Aiding me has been one of my brothers-in-law, who is chairman of the organic chemistry department at a major university. The mechanics of climate get quite involved, but he says it all comes down to a basic fundamental — carbon levels FOLLOW temperature, not the other way around. Four or five volcanos like the one that just erupted in Iceland have more impact on the climate (generally for the COOLER, by the way) than the entire history of industrial development.
Furthermore, Bob says computer models — on which AGW “science” is predicated — are inherently flawed. It’s all about source code — which is only as good as its developer. The climate models’ source code to date is frighteningly bad for ANY application, much less climate prediction.
I could go on — but the point is, too many people see how very wrong the underlying premises of AGW are, and are unwilling to part with their hard-earned money to fund what is essentially a fraud. Cap and trade is a surefire mechanism not only to coalesce power in the hands of a few, but also to colossally line the pockets of same — and yes, I’ll “astroturf” against that to the death. No one has to pay me a nickel.
Congratulations on your second-hand computer — but remember, it, as do all other computers, relies on a cheap, steady source of power to run. Until other sources are developed that can handle the load, it’s going to have to be that good old coal, oil and gas. (Me, I favor nukes — but greenies seem to think it’s always, eventually, going to be Chernobyl on a global scale. Sigh.)
Sock me for taxes to pay for environmental cleanup; I’ll pay willingly. Propose legislation that gives big incentives to alternative energy research, and I’ll vote for it.
But get the corrupt-beyond-saving Untied Nations OUT of the picture.
And DON’T threaten me with prosecution for speaking the truth about AGW (paragraph 4 of the “Guardian” article, by the way).
Hey Eowyn
I respect your opinions completely and where you are coming from.
Please understand that to us, we believe that AGW is a scam in another way to you in that it is a distraction from something that is basically very clear to us:
Continually poisoning the earth, air and oceans has to lead on to serious trouble for us in the future.
In the same way, the way resources are being depleted for this insane consumerist society is just stupid.
Despite what you say, I am not convinced that AGW is not a fact as for every expert that says it’s not caused by human activity there seem to be so many that say it is a fact. They become more and more convincing/frightening all the time! Yes, there’s a lot of question about why people say that and what business they may make from that but at the end of the day, we don’t really think it makes any difference.
Our natural world is being devastated by the greed of transnationals and they seem to be allowed to get away with this even though the damage they are causing will really kick in long after they are dead. That’s what gets me so much.
Whatever the science, tar sands, flaring, more coal stations just seems a disaster to us.
You seem to be on our side in so many ways though. Cap and Trade is just another way of making money as far as we can see.
Nuclear may be a solution but when we were in Copenhagen we attended a number of debates about that subject and the fact is that nuclear stations take a very long time to build and the average age of the experts in the field is in their late fifties. Despite this, there is a tiny amount of new experts being trained.
I’m not a kid mouthing off, I’ve put a lot of time in to this. I have participated in so many actions/debates/workshops that it makes my head reel (And have you any idea what it was like to be in Bishopsgate and watch my friend smashed to bits by the police when she was sitting, with her hands in the air shouting this is not a riot?)
I am sorry that I don’t have a more sophisticated argument yet. More importantly, I don’t have that many solutions yet either but a good start would be to consider enforcing massive investment into renewables. I agree with you and wish more people came on to the streets with us and made the kinds of demands that you have been.
All we see is that greed is destroying our future. And people who mouth off against any attempts to stop that greed make me angry.
Thanks for making your points and wish you all the best!
And thank you, greenarrow, as well, for debating civilly and rationally. Far too little of THAT going on these days, more’s the pity.
I completely agree with you that corporate greed is the direct culprit of all environmental destruction, coupled with consumer complacency. However, there exists as well too eager a willingness on the part of governments to grab power under the guise of “doing good for the collective.”
So the challenge is how to protect corporate freedom to produce the most at the cheapest cost, and at the same time regulate the disposal of waste. I like what the Sun Chips company has begun doing: Biodegradable bags. An elegantly simple way to produce, at protect, at the same time. Why haven’t more companies done the same with their products? No one has held their feet to the fire — until now.
And if this were “Ecocide’s” main mission, I’m all for it. The trouble lies in the application. KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT, to the extent possible. Our world is drifting too close to Marxist/socialist control. The Untied Nations is a bigger danger, AND the European Union, to our way of life even than ecocide — because centralized control will NOT clean up our world, rather the reverse. With individual liberty, there is a far better chance to innovate and put in place the necessary remedies.
Hence mine, and others’, seemingly ~knee-jerk~ reaction to the threat of making speech a crime. It’s happening too much, all over the world, in the name of “political correctness,” not to be alarmed and angered over it.
I hope we all arrive at a common-sense consensus — and soon — over what the REAL threats we face, and how to solve them.
I like the fact that at 15, you’ve already begun considering these things in a reasoned and compassionate way — and it gives this member of the “gimme” generation hope for the future
I see what Ms Higgins is doing being like the anti-slavery movement. Slaves were seen as units of energy. Not people. The planet’s resources are being seen as units of energy/profit. I don’t think it’s Marxist to think about it like that. But then I have never read Karl Marx’s stuff.
I think what a lot of people up here got upset about was the idea of people being prosecuted for denying AGW. But it says “could be” and really, I don’t think that’s the main idea here. It’s just creating some kind of laws to stop the abuse and pollution of this planet/our future. However, people paid to lie and mislead was exactly how the tobacco industries survived for a long time after smoking and cancer were linked. And sometimes I wouldn’t mind the idea of the people who have been paid highly and are directly linked to lying for the oil companies being locked up.
I think that the companies like Sun Chip are great but I also think that there’s a lot of ground to cover for the world to have a better future and it takes a lot more than companies doing what they can to get the green pound. In the long run, we’ve got to change more than our light bulbs.
That’s why I am going to support the direct action groups and continue to listen to debates and experts and keep open to any ideas for change better than the ones I can see being offered so far. And if you agree, I urge you to actually come on to the streets or camp near the power stations or picket outside BP and voice your opinions with us. That’s where this dialogue should be because at the end of the day, what anyone says on the web means nothing to what they say in the streets.
All the best Eowyn!
“In the long run, we’ve got to change more than our light bulbs.”
Right you are. But no change can take place without the motivation for change, and I do see a paradigm shift toward “greener” practices among lots of different companies because, basically, people want it. And I give all credit toward environmental activists (except the nuts, who do more to set back a cleaner world than all the complacent everymen combined).
True change, by its nature, is always incremental. We may be impatient for a quicker pace, but that the desired change is happening should be cause for encouragement.
And in the process, we must never, EVER give up our individual liberties. Truly, I’d rather see the world end than humanity end up governed by a small, Marxist/socialist elite. And make no mistake, there are efforts from the UN on down to move toward this outcome. It has always been a fundamental human conflict, between the collective and the individual — but it’s my belief that the preservation of individual liberty GUARANTEES the best outcome for the collective, rather than the other way around. Judeo-Christian principles have underpinned this throughout modern history, but they seem to be despised and “out of date,” anymore. A topic for another discussion.
Believe me, I’ve put my person where my mouth is, protest-wise. Not specifically pro-environment, but for what I believe in, just the same. And I encourage everyone else to follow suit.
Must go for a while, but will check back here for more give-and-take. I very much enjoy sharing points of view with you, greenarrow — maybe if more of us did the same, without shouting labels at each other, change might take place quicker.
Cheers
Ecocide sure is a crime..Think about the fact, the kind of planet we’re going to leave to our future generations if this exploitation keeps growing..and the way we’re affecting the other species that have equal rights on this planet..Its time we took serious measures to control these power and money greed exploiters..And a law on this is just great!!
greenarrow:
I am an absolute believer in clean energy and renewables. I work in the field, specifically how to desalinate water in a sustainable fashion. the biggest problem that the cleantech industry has, unfortunately are individuals like you and ms. higgins. just by virtue of the use of the word “belief” and “deny” put’s you in the same realm as snake handlers. that coupled with the hideous notion of making “war criminals” out of those who do not agree with a position in a not settled area of science only makes the progress of moving forward on real sustainable technologies all that much harder. It also gives cover to the snake oil salesmen of all stripes who are pitching non-sustainable “green” technologies like ethanol and carbon credit services that cannot verified for efficacy. The problem with AGW and climate change is that in order to diagnose any malfunctioning system we must no what the “normal” baseline is. please define normal when it comes to weather.
Time to get this straight. Ecocide is not a crime for prosecuting climate deniers. Belief or denial of whether climate change exists is a matter of opinion that each of us is entitled to conclude. Only history will tell us who is right on this score.
The proposal of the crime of ecocide, however, is the commission of a crime where extensive damage, destruction or loss of ecosystems has been caused. Thus, it is a crime based on fact – not opinion. So, the question is, ‘has extensive damage, destruction or loss of ecosystems been caused?” Where the answer is yes, then ecocide is prima facie made out.
For further explanations, see our Questions page.
Perhaps the real problem here is those who believe Mann is the sole cause of global warming ™ and want to impose THEIR beliefs on those who do not believe in mann made global warming ™.
I think what is also troubling is that an unelected and unaccountable body (the UN) will impose their will without thought or care for the real impact. Look at how the IPCC has handled itself in the last year…it has literally made itself above the “law” and unreproachable…even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the slapshod science that went in to AR4.
I do not believe the UN is the appropriate body for such an important law because the UN is corrupt (look at its human rights body!!!).
Also, the reality is that a law like this will only inhibit human growth and commercial enterprise because suddenly everything will be a crime against humanity. Look at California where the common smelt takes precidence over farmers who need water (in an arid landscape!).
Its fine to have socialist/marxist tendancies but I fear that the required common sense will be lost on those who will be only too happy to impose THEIR desires upon everyone else.
Regards
Mailman
What is this with socialist/marxist tendencies? What on earth are you talking about?
I haven’t a clue what that has to do with anything. Is is Marxist to decide to put a control on a system that is going to exhaust all the resources on this planet and poison it?
You really are using such bendy arguments when the truth is right in front of you:
The industries that are allowed to prosper at the cost of a safe future for the planet must be controlled.
What’s with the marxist plot business? I think you’re clutching at straws. Stop this Marxist crap. It’s just not the issue at all.
You are going back to the anti-AGW argument when there is no reason to. Whether AGW is true or not, you – Mr Mailman – are suggesting that human growth and commercial enterprise are somehow good things even when they destroy any chance of a decent future for me and my children (If I get to have any).
What’s wrong with you? Pollution on these scales just can’t be good for the world, wherever you live. Wasting our precious resources is wrong. How is that human growth? To line the pockets of your generation at the cost of a decent life for mine. That’s not human growth, that’s human descent into madness. Evil in fact.
Just utter rubbish.
I had returned here because there was someone who gave me a decent and reasoned argument, which I was grateful for. I want to learn. But I have nothing to learn from your comments. It just seems that you have returned to the original comments, slagging AGW, slagging the attempts to stop the onward rush of a filthily greedy generation who would rather make profits for themselves now at such horrific costs to the future.
A sickening, short sighted, self-obsessed generation. Apart from Eowyn, why can’t any of you see things from my perspective? I’ve certainly considered your arguments and have heard them in many workshops/debates/books/articles/films.
Ronp123- how can I be part of the problem? Do you really think that I’m stupid or something? What on earth is all the stuff about snake oil salesmen? There are some alternative technologies that do work. For sure, there has to be huge investment in them and naturally some people will try and jump on that gravy train. You work in that world. Why on earth do you then turn around and say that they are snake oil salesmen? Do you sell snake oil?
We draw attention to the damage to the environment caused by fossil fuels and risk a lot to bring that to the public mind. How can that make me part of the problem? I do not care about you, as with so many others up here, going on about the prosecution of deniers, to me, that’s not what the article was drawing attention to or going on about. It’s what astroturfers want to jump on to bad mouth a great idea.
I am not a Marxist. I am a fifteen year old hoping for a change that would give my generation hope. That’s something that should be much more threatening to you. We’ve got nothing to lose but our future. Marx and socialism has nothing to do with any of the movements I have joined. It’s never once been mentioned. What is mentioned though, is all the ways that paid up ‘voices’ will try to discredit us. And most of you tick all the boxes.
I came here to make a point and learn. I learned from the article, I learned from Eowyn but all else I learned was what I already had worked out:
1. There are astroturfers up here.
2. Legalized greed goes on.
3. Your generation (almost entirely) are a disgrace for having done nothing to help preserve the earth and the future, except get rich and disappear up yourselves.
green arrow:
Do we think you are stupid? No, you are obviously not stupid. But, just as obviously, you are ignorant.
You are ignorant because you have latched onto simple explanations of cause and effect about complex systems that no one understands. The explanations you have chosen to believe also happen (not by accident) to be the ones that make you feel morally superior to others. (BTY, do some due diligence on those trying to sell you these beliefs — appealing to the mark’s ego is the oldest con method there is.)
Until and unless you gain enough maturity to get your ego out of your beliefs about the world, you ARE part of the problem — if only because you raise the noise level of the discussion without adding any value.
You’re a smart kid. You could grow up to be a politician (who convinces the public that you are right), a scientist (who convinces other scientists — your peers — that you are right), or an engineer (who has to make things work — in other words, be right).
You’re on track for the first two, but you would have to pick up some humility along the way to becoming a successful engineer.
I’m a smart kid and at the same time I’m ignorant?
Okay, where is the complex system that I am missing here?
1. If we continue to spew filth into our oceans, skies and the earth we are going to be screwed in the future.
2. If we continue to exist using a system that functions on infinite growth but is tied to a pool of resources that is finite and running out quickly, then we are going to be screwed in the future.
That is as complex as any of us need to get. It doesn’t make me ignorant to stand by it and if it does, would you tell me what I am getting wrong? The other people who criticized me also couldn’t say anything against that totally non-complex statement that I have said since my first post. Why do you think that is?
You say I have a big ego and should have some humility. There’s nothing humble in the early posts in this site. Just a load of stuck-up/knee-jerk/astroturfing opinions. And I’m just angry. Maybe anger is a very egotistical emotion. Maybe when anti-slavery activists were angry at people saying slavery was integral to ‘the way life is’, they were just being egotistical? Maybe when the people who caught on to the paid-for-lies and paid-for-science ‘voices’ defending tobacco use got angry, they were being egotistical? If that’s the case, then yes, I’m lacking in humility. What do you want me to do? Bow down and say, yes, you probably know better, poisoning our earth and wasting our resources has a complex but brilliant reason behind it?
Am I ignorant/egotist/stupid to think that’s wrong?
If I am just making a noise without “raising the level of the discussion” then someone just tell me to slow my roll little feller…
On the other hand. If anyone is reading this and thinks I’m actually not making a fool of myself, then say something, please.
By the way, engineers (who are “right”) made: cluster bombs, military drones, gas chambers, ways of extracting the oil from the Tar Sands at the cost of the worst industrial devastation of the environment the world has ever seen, cheap ways of dealing with offshoot gas from oil that destroys the immediate environment (flaring), GM ‘suicide genes’, Bhopal, Chernobyl…
Look Bobc, Greenarrow – We are ultimately all on the same side, but aren’t we getting a bit off-line here? The commonality is we all care, otherwise we wouldn’t be engaging in the debate, but hey, can’t we get the best out of each other rather than lobbing grenades all the time? We are after-all in this together. Go on, I dare you to spread the ecocide word. Even if you think I’m nuts, I’m proffering a solution. Happy that you do/do not agree, we all are entitled to our own opinion – so go tell others, no point keeping such energy focused merely on a heated debate between you both.
btw – i want to congratulate the site owner on allowing an unfettered discussion to take place on their site. both pro and con. even though many have posted counter to the position of the site (me included) there has been no blocking of opinion. thanks.
Can’t help but think this is going to fail, it addresses they symptoms, rather than the disease.
The world’s population is growing, and those people want food, water, TVs and all the things that make up their vision of society.
This cannot go on, it is unsustainable.
The problem is population growth. This will be solved one way or another, with or without humankind’s involvement.
Evolution continues.
We will replace you.
The planet can support 1.1 billion, without fossil fuel.
Goodbye H.Sap.
Locust.
Spartan, precisely. Scaremongering will not work.
The fact is — at least here, in the U.S. — the air, land and water are much cleaner than they were in the 1970s. I credit the eco-aware. (NOT scaremongers.)
Once people are shown that toxic recklessness is dangerous, they respond. But tell them we’ll all be wearing triple-thickness down coats (or starving) by 1985, whatever, the Reason Meter switches off.
Here in my neck of the Pennsylvania woods, Superfund monies have been designated to try and mitigate the horrible damage done by acid mine drainage done by coal mining. It’s done nothing but line EPA officials’ pockets. The real culprits — mine owners, and their families — somehow miraculously escape responsibility.
My point? Damage is/has been done, and needs to be corrected. But don’t resort to simplistic and intelligence-insulting scaremongering. You’re going to set your mission back at least 100 years. Guaranteed.
And don’t, don’t, DON’T allow the Untied Nations to get involved. Talk about a corrupt organization!
GreenArrow, when people worry about Marxism, it’s centralized government efforts they fear above all, myself included. I do NOT want a U.S. “effort” to make laws limiting my personal freedoms in the cause of environmental cleanliness. Focus on the individual states, instead. State governments can wield much more power (and SHOULD) in such an effort.
But the minute you centralize anything — whether at a national or an international level — you invite Marxist-style tyranny. (Or, perhaps, more closely, Leninist/Stalinist. Do study the way the governments I mentioned conducted their business. And the hundreds of millions they killed in the process.)
That fear of centralization is what fuels many reactions, “ecocide”-wise.
P.S. And yes, I agree that civil debate is sorely lacking. Sigh.
The UN? … you must live in cloud cuckooland if you believe in them. Never has there been such an inept and useless organisation. Just do some reasearch of your own. Look for ” How the USSR/Russia used it’s veto in UN”, or the USA, or China and you’ll see how pathetic the UN is.
The majority of people’s knowledge is garnered from press releases and not journalism. Real journalism is all but dead. All you read and hear in the news is the press release which is regurgitated by all the MSM.
lf you want to know something you have to do the reasearch otherwise you end up as just a mouthpiece and nothing more. Take ‘green arrow’, he spouts the anti-smoking line but has no real knowledge at all about the issue. lf he went somewhat further in the quest for factual evidence he would find that groups such as ASH are nothing more than government sponsored pr groups operating as charities albeit fake ones. They are also sponsored by pharmaceutical companies selling addictive ‘quit smoking’ products. lf a product surfaces like electronic cigarettes that challenge the profits of these pharmaceutical companies, ASH then starts a campaign to have them banned based on nothing more than hearsay and speculation.
Do your homework people and stop being indoctrined. Believe me, l do know about indoctrination having been under USSR rule for the first 13 years of my life. The UN did nothing about my country being annexed. They are useless and yet cost a fortune that could be spent on on real deserving issues that would make a difference.
The UN are a farce!
I think I saw greenarrow at a “young socialists” get together yesterday at a local pub.
Unfortunately it was a short affair as they expected the publican and everyone else to buy pints for them!
Mailman
“I think I saw greenarrow at a “young socialists” get together yesterday at a local pub.”
You just don’t get it do you? Any of you.
I’m not a Marxist, I am a concerned young person. I had repeated the two main points I had to make every time I wrote and all you could come back with is strange accusations, predictable criticisms and tired and empty arguments.
None have you have had the sense or reason to counter my two points:
1. An economy based on infinite growth that relies on finite resources is doomed.
2. To continually spew filth into the atmosphere, poisons into the seas and toxins into the earth will eventually result in a damaged environment that can no longer sustain us.
You have all avoided addressing these very simple points.
It’s my future that your generation is threatening. You have sold your compassion, vision and humanity to satisfy your own greedy lives and armchair politics.
Instead, you sit there tapping away making jokes about me being a socialist or stating that perhaps I have been away from the site as your old and hackneyed views are somehow more ‘agile’?
Pathetic.
I came, I listened and I was disgusted.
Green Arrow – i salute you!
You make excellent points that i think most right minded individuals would agree with.
Don’t let the cynicism of the world weary elders stem your passion. The world needs people like you.
“Time to get this straight. Ecocide is not a crime for prosecuting climate deniers. Belief or denial of whether climate change exists is a matter of opinion that each of us is entitled to conclude. Only history will tell us who is right on this score.”
Nevertheless this is the first rung of the ladder to hell. We all know how new legislation is made as palatable as possible before the real intentions become clear.
Even if socialist lawyer Polly Higgings intentions are not to use the law to stifle the AGW climate debate (which I seriously doubt) there are plenty of others to take up the sword.
If anything recent history has shown is that there are a lot of powerful eco campaign groups around with a lot invested with a lot to gain financially in driving forward the AGW lies, and they will go to any length to achieve these aims. Al Gore and his pals, as well as oil companies, all making millions out of carbon trading schemes, Ted Turner and his close relationship with the UN influencing policy, and the climategate e-mails that illustrate the extent to which certain scientists will go to make their dreams come true.
So in short there is a real chance that the ecocide laws would eventually be abused, adapted to cater for those wanting to silence AGW sceptics.
This is a great step towards sustainability.
And people that are against this proposal are just selfish, deniers and are just preoccupied about their own little trivial pleasures.
People that are against global warming do not even put their skepticism into question. You have just unhealthy skepticism.
Population growth is not really the major problem, I am not saying it is not. But its overconsumption the problem. You people should revise what you are saying, in USA a child will consume 10000 times more than a child in Bangladesh( hamilton 2010)
I am from Belgium and studying Environmental science in Australia. I have worked in Madagascar, Indonesia and Mexico and I saw the incredible destruction that foreign companies are doing to those countries and are leaving poverty behind
You deniers, you should swallow your pride and sometimes accept the facts that you are wrong.
If you were directly impacted by pollution you will see the problem on another side. And learn a bit about other cultures and languages as well if you want to understand environmental issues in other countries. We live all on a blue bubble lost in an unlimited space!
Go on Polly !
I couldn’t agree more.
Because I am worry about that .
I feel relieved to hear that.