35 ms·

Vulnerable Nations Call for Ecocide to Be Recognized as an International Crime

162 points by ciconia 7y ago

Porthos9K 7y ago
Sounds good to me, as long as ecocide is punished by guillotine.
ISL 7y ago
The key is finding pragmatic ways to react to a finding of harm that will result in positive change. After WWI, the League of Nations was formed, in large part to mitigate the risk of war. Unfortunately, the primary known way to punish a warring nation is with a war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations
- steve19 7y ago
  The primary means is sanctions. War is a often a last resort.
  - ISL 7y ago
    That hasn't worked out well as one might have hoped in Eastern Ukraine/Crimea nor South Ossetia.
    - meiraleal 7y ago
      That's because you can't expect every country to submit. Russia will not, China will not. The same way the US would not stop bombing the middle east and Africa or overthrow legitimate governments in Latin America if them, China and Russia decided to sanction America.
      - ISL 7y ago
        Exactly -- and the trick is finding a viable way to get even large countries to hold themselves to account for their share in ecological catastrophes.
    - FpUser 7y ago
      No worries. It worked so well in Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada, etc. etc.
daenz 7y ago
Here's the definition they're working with[0]: >Ecocide is loss, damage or destruction of ecosystem(s) of a given territory(ies)… such that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants has been or will be severely diminished – definition submitted by Polly Higgins to the UN Law Commission in 2010 0. https://ecocidelaw.com/ecocide-law-2/ https://ecocidelaw.com/ecocide-law-2/
- mlindner 7y ago
  Thanks. I think it's pretty crazy to make something internationally illegal that most people don't even know the definition of.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    You get the general idea from the name anyway.
- mc32 7y ago
  It would seem that development of natural resources as well as population growth could result in “ecocide”. Whom do they sue?
  - larnmar 7y ago
    Whoever has deep pockets but is politically weak enough.
    - outside1234 7y ago
      Norway and their oil fund is my guess for the first target.
- voldacar 7y ago
  It seems like the sort of thing that should already be covered under existing property laws then. I'm not really sure what the need is to create an entirely new concept called "ecocide" when you could just consider it destruction of property/theft/vandalism/whatever
ripvanwinkle 7y ago
This is an idea whose time is just around the corner.
lazyjones 7y ago
Tuvalu has been trying to sue countries and corporations over their imagined doom for decades. This seems to be an attempt to lobby for similar ways to extort money from richer countries.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Of course it’s a money grab. I don’t think any of these countries are interested in retribution so much as wanting to preserve their current lifestyles. Increased flooding and storms means those lifestyles become more expensive.
  - namirez 7y ago
    > wanting to preserve their current lifestyles You know the GDP per capita in Vanuato and Tuvalu is about $3000, or roughly one tenth of the poorest US state, Mississippi? Source: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:VUT:FJI:TUV&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:VUT:TUV&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...
    - siquick 7y ago
      What does the GDP matter?
      - roenxi 7y ago
        Without putting too fine a point on it; if their way of life was being preserved in a large first-world community it might be a reason for government get involved or declaring a national emergency or somesuch. It isn't a very impressive standard. People can go and live in a very basic way if they like; that is on them. There are communities that do it here and there. It just doesn't look like the Tuvaluvians have made that choice, and we know the vast majority of people prefer having luxury and comfort. Tuvaluvians are probably a lot like everyone else in the world in that they want to improve their living standard by an order of magnitude rather than keep on living with basically nothing on some island somewhere. It is easy to romanticise subsistence lifestyles but very few people voluntarily choose them when they see an alternative. The consensus position is wealth and infrastructure is the right choice. It is reasonable to assume they also want this and that their actions are generally aligned to improving their position rather than holding steady.
kortilla 7y ago
So would this mean that people with beach homes in Miami could make the Chinese pay to replace their homes each time they are wiped out by a hurricane exacerbated by climate change (i.e. all of them according to current thinking)?
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
> “criminalize acts that amount to ecocide. We believe this radical idea merits serious discussion.” Destruction of the environment creates a huge threat for the whole humanity. It's appalling that suggesting to treat it as a crime it is considered "radical".
- salty_biscuits 7y ago
  Interpret in the sense "radical" == "fundamental", as per original meaning of the word.
- larnmar 7y ago
  If it’s a crime, it is a crime of which we are all guilty. Have you heard of the concept of anarcho-tyranny? When everyone is guilty of a crime, always, then prosecutorial discretion becomes absolute power.
dane-pgp 7y ago
I have a plot idea for a movie set in the near future, about a team of UN special forces who hunt down prominent early 21st century climate change deniers and other "eco-criminals". The movie starts in medias res with a captured eco-criminal being transported by boat to the international criminal court at The Hague, and flashes back to tell the story of their capture, and how the climate has changed over the decades since their crimes started. Eventually the narrative catches up to the point where the movie starts, revealing the climax of the story. The captain of the boat announces they have reached their destination, and the guards bring the handcuffed eco-criminal from the brig to the deck. After a short speech by a judge, the eco-criminal is lifted up, revealing concrete boots, then dropped into the water. As the credits play, the camera tracks the eco-criminal, their body twisting frantically before becoming lifeless, sink down through the North Sea to the abandoned Dutch streets below. Yes, this is a sickening and dystopian vision, and I don't endorse it as a model for society to follow, but I think it would make for a powerful story at least.
- lurker213 7y ago
  sounds like a shit movie. Would most likely flop like all the other 'woke' films coming out of Hollywood these days. Pitch it to Netflix though, they'll most likely accept it.
- virmundi 7y ago
  Could be interesting with a twist: none of the eco doom came true, but the adherents gained power in the run up years. So climate deniers are hunted down because they break a provably wrong orthodoxy. Much like the journalist who use to work for Newsweek but left because of he’s not allowed to publish evidence that the gas attack in Syria never happened will commit suicidal next week by two gunshots to the back of the head.
  - meiraleal 7y ago
    this plot Netflix would not publish.
  - megous 7y ago
    > Much like the journalist who use to work for Newsweek but left because of he’s not allowed to publish evidence that the gas attack in Syria never happened... That's not what happened. Newsweek did not publish his story about a dissenting opinion/analysis that was leaked from OPCW. Just because someone has a dissenting opinion, doesn't make it "an evidence the gas attack never happened". The gas attack happened. At most people are disputing who did it.
quotemstr 7y ago
No chance. The only real rule of international affairs comes from the Melian Dialogue: the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Read the whole thing [1]. All these arguments about fairness and principles are ancient. The exchange between the Athenians and the Melians could be the exchange between any two nations today. Nothing has changed. [1] https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm
Proven 7y ago
They can’t prove any such charges against the Rest of World, so it’s be useless. Having said that, I’d be happy to pay my fair share of “damages” if that meant I could avoid having to be plundered by in-country eco-thieves. I would surely save a lot of money that way.
spodek 7y ago
Guilt would seem to depend on per capita emissions, not total emissions. I don't see why the size of the nation would permit its citizens to pollute more per capita. If so, many vulnerable nations would probably be guilty, which is probably how the law should work, but might not be how they expect. Many small, vulnerable nations emit more per capita than IPCC recommendations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous.... Eventually, nations will probably make laws against people polluting like they have now against littering. One of the purposes of laws is to regulate behavior that affects others.
- disordinary 7y ago
  A lot of it is out of their control as well as there being a scale issue - for instance if you're a country like Niue which has a population of 1,000 and a total GDP of $10 million and you're thousands of kilometres from the nearest country that gives aid rather than relies on it, then you have limited options with what you can do. Getting goods to the country means it has to come from NZ which is almost 3,000 killometres away, that's a lot of oil for the ships. There's limited ability to use green power as it has a high up front cost and isn't going to be able to provide consistent enough power (relying on wind, or tides, or daylight). It's not economic to ship trash off shore to recycle so it's burnt. Things will change as the west advances, for instance a single wind turbine and batteries could power a country like Niue completely renewably, couple that with solar powered shipping and you start to see a change. But, these countries have very limited natural resources, technical expertise, and are constantly at the mercy of the elements. Any change to make them greener will have to be paid for and be driven from wealthier countries and it makes more sense, environmentally, to spend that money on those wealthier countries where it can go further to reduce more emissions.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Guilt should be based on total emissions if the entire country is being considered because that’s what matters to the planet.
  - spodek 7y ago
ageofwant 7y ago
Zoom in on any place on earth where agriculture is happening, like here https://www.google.com/maps/place/Narrogin+WA+6312/@-33.4993604,117.5214949,37310m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x2a31532b54842baf:0x400f6382479fb20!8m2!3d-32.9311967!4d117.1785277 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Narrogin+WA+6312/@-33.4993... and tell me that is not grand scale ecocide.
caseysoftware 7y ago
I think this should start with a simple question: How many square miles (or square meters) of territory have they lost due to sea level rising? This should probably exclude erosion but could be an interesting additional point/counter. That would establish a) that they've suffered damages and b) the scope of said damages. Identifying the guilty parties would be the next challenge but it's a starting point.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  Also, will they pay us if it turns out they actually gained territory? https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html
- majewsky 7y ago
  This question already quite complicated. Under your definition, is a territory lost if it's still above sea level, but is not arable anymore e.g. because of desertification? What if it's still arable, but the region's traditional crops produce less yield because of a temperature rise?

162 points by ciconia 7y ago

Sounds good to me, as long as ecocide is punished by guillotine.

ISL 7y ago

The key is finding pragmatic ways to react to a finding of harm that will result in positive change. After WWI, the League of Nations was formed, in large part to mitigate the risk of war. Unfortunately, the primary known way to punish a warring nation is with a war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

steve19 7y ago
The primary means is sanctions. War is a often a last resort.
- ISL 7y ago
  That hasn't worked out well as one might have hoped in Eastern Ukraine/Crimea nor South Ossetia.
  - meiraleal 7y ago
    That's because you can't expect every country to submit. Russia will not, China will not. The same way the US would not stop bombing the middle east and Africa or overthrow legitimate governments in Latin America if them, China and Russia decided to sanction America.
    - ISL 7y ago
      Exactly -- and the trick is finding a viable way to get even large countries to hold themselves to account for their share in ecological catastrophes.
  - FpUser 7y ago
    No worries. It worked so well in Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada, etc. etc.

daenz 7y ago

Here's the definition they're working with[0]: >Ecocide is loss, damage or destruction of ecosystem(s) of a given territory(ies)… such that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants has been or will be severely diminished – definition submitted by Polly Higgins to the UN Law Commission in 2010 0. https://ecocidelaw.com/ecocide-law-2/ https://ecocidelaw.com/ecocide-law-2/

mlindner 7y ago
Thanks. I think it's pretty crazy to make something internationally illegal that most people don't even know the definition of.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  You get the general idea from the name anyway.
mc32 7y ago
It would seem that development of natural resources as well as population growth could result in “ecocide”. Whom do they sue?
- larnmar 7y ago
  Whoever has deep pockets but is politically weak enough.
  - outside1234 7y ago
    Norway and their oil fund is my guess for the first target.
voldacar 7y ago
It seems like the sort of thing that should already be covered under existing property laws then. I'm not really sure what the need is to create an entirely new concept called "ecocide" when you could just consider it destruction of property/theft/vandalism/whatever

ripvanwinkle 7y ago

This is an idea whose time is just around the corner.

lazyjones 7y ago

Tuvalu has been trying to sue countries and corporations over their imagined doom for decades. This seems to be an attempt to lobby for similar ways to extort money from richer countries.

kortilla 7y ago
Of course it’s a money grab. I don’t think any of these countries are interested in retribution so much as wanting to preserve their current lifestyles. Increased flooding and storms means those lifestyles become more expensive.
- namirez 7y ago
  > wanting to preserve their current lifestyles You know the GDP per capita in Vanuato and Tuvalu is about $3000, or roughly one tenth of the poorest US state, Mississippi? Source: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:VUT:FJI:TUV&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:VUT:TUV&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...
  - siquick 7y ago
    What does the GDP matter?
    - roenxi 7y ago
      Without putting too fine a point on it; if their way of life was being preserved in a large first-world community it might be a reason for government get involved or declaring a national emergency or somesuch. It isn't a very impressive standard. People can go and live in a very basic way if they like; that is on them. There are communities that do it here and there. It just doesn't look like the Tuvaluvians have made that choice, and we know the vast majority of people prefer having luxury and comfort. Tuvaluvians are probably a lot like everyone else in the world in that they want to improve their living standard by an order of magnitude rather than keep on living with basically nothing on some island somewhere. It is easy to romanticise subsistence lifestyles but very few people voluntarily choose them when they see an alternative. The consensus position is wealth and infrastructure is the right choice. It is reasonable to assume they also want this and that their actions are generally aligned to improving their position rather than holding steady.

kortilla 7y ago

So would this mean that people with beach homes in Miami could make the Chinese pay to replace their homes each time they are wiped out by a hurricane exacerbated by climate change (i.e. all of them according to current thinking)?

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

> “criminalize acts that amount to ecocide. We believe this radical idea merits serious discussion.” Destruction of the environment creates a huge threat for the whole humanity. It's appalling that suggesting to treat it as a crime it is considered "radical".

salty_biscuits 7y ago
Interpret in the sense "radical" == "fundamental", as per original meaning of the word.
larnmar 7y ago
If it’s a crime, it is a crime of which we are all guilty. Have you heard of the concept of anarcho-tyranny? When everyone is guilty of a crime, always, then prosecutorial discretion becomes absolute power.

dane-pgp 7y ago

I have a plot idea for a movie set in the near future, about a team of UN special forces who hunt down prominent early 21st century climate change deniers and other "eco-criminals". The movie starts in medias res with a captured eco-criminal being transported by boat to the international criminal court at The Hague, and flashes back to tell the story of their capture, and how the climate has changed over the decades since their crimes started. Eventually the narrative catches up to the point where the movie starts, revealing the climax of the story. The captain of the boat announces they have reached their destination, and the guards bring the handcuffed eco-criminal from the brig to the deck. After a short speech by a judge, the eco-criminal is lifted up, revealing concrete boots, then dropped into the water. As the credits play, the camera tracks the eco-criminal, their body twisting frantically before becoming lifeless, sink down through the North Sea to the abandoned Dutch streets below. Yes, this is a sickening and dystopian vision, and I don't endorse it as a model for society to follow, but I think it would make for a powerful story at least.

lurker213 7y ago
sounds like a shit movie. Would most likely flop like all the other 'woke' films coming out of Hollywood these days. Pitch it to Netflix though, they'll most likely accept it.
virmundi 7y ago
Could be interesting with a twist: none of the eco doom came true, but the adherents gained power in the run up years. So climate deniers are hunted down because they break a provably wrong orthodoxy. Much like the journalist who use to work for Newsweek but left because of he’s not allowed to publish evidence that the gas attack in Syria never happened will commit suicidal next week by two gunshots to the back of the head.
- meiraleal 7y ago
  this plot Netflix would not publish.
- megous 7y ago
  > Much like the journalist who use to work for Newsweek but left because of he’s not allowed to publish evidence that the gas attack in Syria never happened... That's not what happened. Newsweek did not publish his story about a dissenting opinion/analysis that was leaked from OPCW. Just because someone has a dissenting opinion, doesn't make it "an evidence the gas attack never happened". The gas attack happened. At most people are disputing who did it.

quotemstr 7y ago

No chance. The only real rule of international affairs comes from the Melian Dialogue: the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Read the whole thing [1]. All these arguments about fairness and principles are ancient. The exchange between the Athenians and the Melians could be the exchange between any two nations today. Nothing has changed. [1] https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm

Proven 7y ago

They can’t prove any such charges against the Rest of World, so it’s be useless. Having said that, I’d be happy to pay my fair share of “damages” if that meant I could avoid having to be plundered by in-country eco-thieves. I would surely save a lot of money that way.

spodek 7y ago

Guilt would seem to depend on per capita emissions, not total emissions. I don't see why the size of the nation would permit its citizens to pollute more per capita. If so, many vulnerable nations would probably be guilty, which is probably how the law should work, but might not be how they expect. Many small, vulnerable nations emit more per capita than IPCC recommendations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous.... Eventually, nations will probably make laws against people polluting like they have now against littering. One of the purposes of laws is to regulate behavior that affects others.

disordinary 7y ago
A lot of it is out of their control as well as there being a scale issue - for instance if you're a country like Niue which has a population of 1,000 and a total GDP of $10 million and you're thousands of kilometres from the nearest country that gives aid rather than relies on it, then you have limited options with what you can do. Getting goods to the country means it has to come from NZ which is almost 3,000 killometres away, that's a lot of oil for the ships. There's limited ability to use green power as it has a high up front cost and isn't going to be able to provide consistent enough power (relying on wind, or tides, or daylight). It's not economic to ship trash off shore to recycle so it's burnt. Things will change as the west advances, for instance a single wind turbine and batteries could power a country like Niue completely renewably, couple that with solar powered shipping and you start to see a change. But, these countries have very limited natural resources, technical expertise, and are constantly at the mercy of the elements. Any change to make them greener will have to be paid for and be driven from wealthier countries and it makes more sense, environmentally, to spend that money on those wealthier countries where it can go further to reduce more emissions.
kortilla 7y ago
Guilt should be based on total emissions if the entire country is being considered because that’s what matters to the planet.
- spodek 7y ago

ageofwant 7y ago

Zoom in on any place on earth where agriculture is happening, like here https://www.google.com/maps/place/Narrogin+WA+6312/@-33.4993604,117.5214949,37310m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x2a31532b54842baf:0x400f6382479fb20!8m2!3d-32.9311967!4d117.1785277 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Narrogin+WA+6312/@-33.4993... and tell me that is not grand scale ecocide.

caseysoftware 7y ago

I think this should start with a simple question: How many square miles (or square meters) of territory have they lost due to sea level rising? This should probably exclude erosion but could be an interesting additional point/counter. That would establish a) that they've suffered damages and b) the scope of said damages. Identifying the guilty parties would be the next challenge but it's a starting point.

lazyjones 7y ago
Also, will they pay us if it turns out they actually gained territory? https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html
majewsky 7y ago
This question already quite complicated. Under your definition, is a territory lost if it's still above sea level, but is not arable anymore e.g. because of desertification? What if it's still arable, but the region's traditional crops produce less yield because of a temperature rise?