10 ms·

A campaign to make environmental destruction an international crime

274 points by Quanttek 5y ago

hypefi 5y ago
The current environmental crisis is systemic. The economic system is rigged against Nature. Unless the economic system is fixed, the incentives to destroy Nature for quick profits will remain, at the expense of long term profits that come from having stable and thriving ecosystems.
- jiriknesl 5y ago
  Humankind itself is the reason. Since bronze age, we mine, use the nature and lower diversity of species. There is nothing you can do about it. People cannot live without using scarce resources, if they aren't in "stone age" stage. People don't want back to stone age. It is nice we have drugs, energy, cars, etc. But it consumes things. There is no possible economic system that can fix it. We need either downgrade to the point of not even using tools made from metals, or we need to scale up and get other planets as a resources.
  - hypefi 5y ago
    We use stuff, yes, but now we overuse stuff. There is a difference between using and overusing. If it is difficult to calculate how to find the sweet spot of consumption without destruction at huge scale. At a smaller scale, it is easier, everyone of us knows that if you are living in a forest, you should use the wood in an intelligent manner. And not cut big chunks of the forest for having the luxury to overheat and over-shelter. The economic system that solves it is the one that does not use Usury or in other modern words Interest. Lending with interest should be prohibited.
    - jiriknesl 5y ago
      Any cutoff between use and overuse is artificial. It is still use. If it is use, and if it is with billions of people, one day, some resources will be consumed. Maybe sooner, maybe later, but on million-years-scale, it doesn't make any sense anyway. Overheating, oversheltering, both seems very artificial to me. Ok, you can have a wood cabin in forests, but what's next? Are antibiotics use or overuse? Is internet use or overuse? And who is supposed to decide? Using nonrenevables/using renevables is nice in a thing it is black/white, it has no value component in it. I don't know how removing interest could help except making some operations nonviable. Without interest, all ventures would have to use different sources of financing. I think a demand for risky lending (where risk is compensated in a form of interest) is natural and would exist in some way anyway.
lettergram 5y ago
> into an international crime on par with genocide and crimes against humanity is gaining momentum in the EU. Honestly, this sounds like a global totalitarian state. No, clearing land is not the same as a genocide. Are we going to execute some poor farmer in Kenya? Particularly, this is detrimental to the poorer countries which may not even have the central authority or resources to impose their will by potentially starving their population. I understand the concern, but I don’t think this is a reasonable position to take.
- skrebbel 5y ago
  > Are we going to execute That sounds excessive even for actual genocide perpetrators. I strongly doubt many of the proponents of this campaign want to sentence anybody to death.
  - Tyr42 5y ago
    Sure, take away their only income and walk away knowing you didn't kill them, starvation did. Very different.
    - skrebbel 5y ago
      GGP mischaracterises the campaign by suggesting that the people behind it want to have perpetrators executed. This is not true. I did not say anything about the other pros and cons of the idea at all, you're jumping to conclusions. You wouldn't use the word "execute" when discussing other measures that put people's livelihoods at risk, even if they're terrible measures.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  They did not say it was the same, they said it is "on par with". Please read instead of interpret. That said, the current policies or lack thereof will lead to climate change, famine, depopulation and mass migration globally. Is that preferable?
  - Verdex 5y ago
thepangolino 5y ago
The rise in totalitarian measures justified by protection of 'the environment" is striking me as a great cause for concern. The legal actions undertaken to force climate legislation are setting a dangerous precedent that can be used by any other group wanting to force their own pieces of legislation through.
- arkitaip 5y ago
  What are these totalitarian measures you speak of?
  - nlqp 5y ago
    Forbidding incandescent light bulbs while forcing inferior expensive replacements on consumers to prop up the light bulb cartel. All while you can burn 100l of petrol per day, no questions asked. Forbidding new construction sites lest the yellow speckled violet frog's breeding habits are disturbed in order to prop up the rental extraction by oligarchs.
    - rozab 5y ago
      Why are incandescent light bulbs inferior, exactly?
      - nlqp 5y ago
        The comment says no such thing.
        rozab 5y ago
        Ah, I meant to type the opposite
      - Narishma 5y ago
        They said the opposite.
    - yladiz 5y ago
estaseuropano 5y ago
Finally. There are too many unaccountable destructions, from Deep water Horizon or that Bopal chemical to all the abuse inflicted on the ocean. Sadly I doubt there is much of a chance that the main abusers (China, US) join in...
docdeek 5y ago
The ICC is a terrible place to try such a crime if the goal is to have a real impact on carbon emissions. Four states that aren’t members: China, India, Russia, and the US. Four states with the largest carbon emissions? China, India, Russia, and the US - on 2020 figures (0), these four states account for more than half of the world’s carbon emissions. (0): https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...
- Glavnokoman 5y ago
  This has nothing to do with carbon emissions.
- skrebbel 5y ago
  Not knowing anything about the subject, I'm not so sure. Eg if someone's actions or gross negligence causes, say, a big oil spill and the ICC wants to try them, won't that pretty much remove that person's ability to travel to any country that recognizes the ICC? Assuming they'd primarily target businesspeople (eg BP CEO etc), wouldn't act as a pretty decent deterrent?
  - dj_mc_merlin 5y ago
    The article mentions the ICC would prosecute heads of state. The American Service Members' Protection Act[0] authorizes the president to us "any and all means" to rescue a government official that is tried by a foreign court. It was specifically written with the ICC in mind. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
    - Daho0n 5y ago
      That shouldn't hold them back. Let the US throw the first stone.
  - gruez 5y ago
    How legal is it to hold a trial without the accused present?
sokoloff 5y ago
We have Deepwater Horizon/BP oil well disasters, companies raising foods crops using fertilizers and herbicides, and people eating hamburgers. All of those impose environmental destruction at some (very different) magnitudes. Which of those must a world leader prevent in order to avoid running afoul of the tribunal? If everyone avoids Deepwater Horizon scale events, are we done, or do we start to go after cow farts next?
- StavrosK 5y ago
  I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Are you saying "drawing a line for crimes is hard"? Yes, lawmakers are intensely aware of that. Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't try to fix any problems because we can't fix all the problems?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I'm saying that once you build up systems like this that they rarely self-dismantle once the important job is done, but rather grow, self-perpetuate, and consume whatever resources are available in an attempt to do whatever is next most appealing. No one wants 100 Chernobyl, Deepwater Horizon, Bhopal events or generalized global warming. Lots of people want their food, energy, and modern conveniences at affordable prices. Those things are inherently in tension and creating an international tribunal which can, with the benefit of hindsight and evolving viewpoints, make judgments about whether someone violated an inherently and intentionally unspecified level of environmental care 20 years previously is more than a small amount troubling to me.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    (a) There could be a slippery slope to a lower quality of life - like curtailing meat production; (b) the threat of that would prevent governments from signing up; and (c) without governments signing up, the scheme won't work.
- stinos 5y ago
  do we start to go after cow farts next Is this not actually roughly of the same order as the other events you mention? The impact of all livestock being bread globally is not exactly neglectable when it comes to global warming, land use, nitrouse oxide deposition.
scythe 5y ago
The problem with globalized environmentalism is that you eventually run out of other countries' police officers. We can barely enforce the three international laws that exist today: "don't wipe out groups of people (genocide)", "don't build nuclear weapons", and "don't just start wars". We've seen all three threatened in the past year (Ethiopia, Iran, Azerbaijan respectively). The more "international law" you tack on, the less legitimacy any international law has in the first place. And the account balance doesn't look good.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  There's international law enough but there are no consequences. And that's because countries still have sovereignty. At best, they can be hurt financially, for example by sanctions or even denial of aid (NK comes to mind, they fire up their nuclear tests whenever they need more money). The alternative would be that rich and strong countries like the US start to play international police again. You could of course point to the UN, but honestly if they were to take action, they would have to penalize the US as well for their blatant disregard of human rights and sovereignty.
- Glavnokoman 5y ago
  So what is the problem? Just drop 2 of those 3 and you have a room for something probably more important.
jboynyc 5y ago
I really liked Kim Stanley Robinson's Ministry for the Future as a guide to think through the effectiveness of various carrots and sticks in staving off the climate catastrophe. It's a work of fiction set in the very near future. The carrots include a carbon coin that is paid out to those who sequester carbon emissions, for instance by leaving oil in the ground. I don't recall courts being one of the sticks, but notably targeted assassinations of the worst climate perps are.
- wetpaws 5y ago
  Targeted assassinations as a driver of progress is a very underrated idea, I wish it would become more mainstream.
  - StavrosK 5y ago
    The problem there is that nobody especially likes being assassinated.
    - 0-_-0 5y ago
      Is that a feature or a bug?
  - roflc0ptic 5y ago
    I used to think like this, but eventually I had the realization that 1. right now, we have norms against murdering people 2. if my team starts murdering people, we could probably get what we want 3. however, this breaks the norm against murdering people, and will encourage the other team to start murdering people to get what they want. All of a sudden, people are murdering each other left and right. This is sometimes called "war". It is very bad.
    - akudha 5y ago
      Aren't the killings already happening though? For example, the logging industry murdering tribal leaders and activists.
idownvoted 5y ago
Nice, going to be handy as a post-imperialistic imperialism-tool: Hey China, your actions are going to have consequences. Wether it's the plastic you're dumping in the onceans by the dozens of fleets, or adding more coal energy plants last year than all existing coal plants of Europe combined. Of course it all depends who is the accuser (e.g. US accusing Europe of burning too much (Russian) gas or garbage exports from the first to the third world). And if this rant isn't getting me downvoted enough: It's also not good for Cryptocurrencies.
- krageon 5y ago
  For my personal enjoyment of your post it would help if you explained why you think this is an imperialism-tool, as currently this just reads as you claiming this will be abused. There's not a lot of substance and that makes me sad.
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    I think step one of anybody using the "i" or "e" words (imperialism/exploitation) should be to define what the they actually mean before expecting to be taken seriously. There are far too many very /very creative/ sinisterizing definitions out there for both deliberately conflated with other definitions. Are we talking "residental schools to deliberately and actively wipe out their language" imperialism or "selling blue jeans outside your borders is imperialism because you are destroying indigenous cultures even though the actual people in them want it" imperialism?
    - krageon 5y ago
      If you replace blue jeans with opium suddenly everyone understands why it is imperialism. For me, the example you have with jeans is also unquestionably imperialist. For word definitions we have a dictionary and I think in this case that is sufficient.
giantg2 5y ago
I guess the two real questions are... Where is the line between ecocide and legitimate consumption of resources? Do other human rights or ecocide take precedent when they conflict?
- OgAstorga 5y ago
  I’d start with the ones that are clearly doing irreversible harm. Think of a coal burning plant to produce electricity or deforestation of hundreds of acres in the Amazon to build more IKEA furniture.
  - curryst 5y ago
    That's still not very clear. Almost anything is reversible on a long enough timeline. Coal can be replenished on a long timeline, and the CO2 can be scrubbed. Until it can't, but it's rather spurious to try to assign blame to a single point. The coal plant is emitting CO2, but they'll say "well, it would have been fine except for trans-oceanic shipping". The shippers will point to the coal people. Likewise, the Amazon can be reforested. Maybe not at the rate were cutting it down, but it's not as though trees will never be able to grow there again. There needs to be a more nuanced decision around these. I'm with you, those things are bad and they should stop, but I would prefer to have a coherent framework we decide based on. I don't want to arbitrarily decide based on who can sway public opinion.
- Quanttek 5y ago
  Polly Higgins proposed the following definition to the International Law Commission: "Ecocide is the extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished” [1] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257552825_Protecting_the_planet_A_proposal_for_a_law_of_ecocide https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257552825_Protectin...
  - giantg2 5y ago
    That opens up even more questions in my mind. They want to hold people accountable for things they have no agency over? "...whether by human agency or by other causes..." The definition is still very vague and subjective. The people running the court in Europe might see deforestation in Brazil as severely diminishing peaceful enjoyment. I would say the farmers clearing that land for agricultural use would argue that they are peacefully enjoying the land now that they modified the ecosystem to be more hospitable to their way of life, crops, and animals. We could even go as far as to say that every city meets this definition as nature has been replaced with buildings and many of the animals have been greatly reduced or eliminated.
calltrak 5y ago
Welcome to the New World Order. That and this bullshit scamdemic. ⁣⁣Two rats arguing about if they should get the kill shot vax or not. ⁣https://picc.io/p/tq2sFHU.png https://picc.io/p/tq2sFHU.png . Please kindly share on social media!
ceilingcorner 5y ago
This is a great plan to make China, India and other non-EU countries stop caring about international cooperation entirely. The EU needs remade as a coalition of European states, not a proxy for a centralized world government. Solutions to environmental problems will be decentralized and economic in nature.
tuyguntn 5y ago
Speaking out loud. We failed as human beings to support each other. We have an idea what is good what is bad, but we are not fixing issues. * We know child abuse is bad, but we can't stop child slavery and theft in India, because we like cheap products coming from there and local governments like getting bribes for being silent * We know genocide is bad, but we can't stop China what it is doing to Uyghurs, because we like cheap products coming from China. * We know people should have equal rights, but we can't do anything when it comes Palestinian people, you can boycott any product from any country, but not from Israel (legally) * We know man and woman should have equal opportunities and rights, we are hiring more woman because we need to fill diversity forms, in the meantime others are seeking job for months. * We know racism is bad. But we are discussing if Git repo's should be named master or main. And we are trying to fix environmental issues for years already. This is unfortunate, but Nature kind of healed some parts of it already, in just one year (because of quarantine measures and less transportation)
- galangalalgol 5y ago
  It isn't illegal to boycott Israel, it is illegal for some states to contract labor from people that boycott Israel. Still not good, but an important distinction. On Git, are you saying we should obviously do away with the term master? Or that we are arguing about unimportant nonsense when we should be talking about what measures would decrease racially motivated violence and the opportunity gap? I agree with the latter.
tobr 5y ago
Like with almost everything, I’m sure there are problems with these proposals, but I also feel like this approach is necessary. I’ve often found myself thinking why, exactly, the worst climate offenders imagine near-future generations will be forgiving of what they have done.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Seeing how economy is going, later generations aren't doing much... Don't see why climate would be any different...
amadeuspagel 5y ago
This is an outrageous attack on national sovereignity.
coliveira 5y ago
The problem is not determining that something is a crime, but who is determining this. If this is a determination made by the US, we can be 100% sure that it will be used as another weapon in their war against foreign non-aligned economies, i.e., another tool for imperialism.
mendelmaleh 5y ago
Ah, can't wait to be an international criminal for using plastic straws /s
AzzieElbab 5y ago
Haven’t we learned anything about merits of enforcement when it comes to global campaigns?
SuaveSteve 5y ago
Good lord, there's so much international crime that goes unpunished already. What a waste of time.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  I know that "One World Government" is a conspiracy theory, but if such a government were democratic - it might actually be a good thing as it could tackle these global issues - not to mention, prevent war.
fny 5y ago
Real world trolley problem! You're a developing country. You can either choose to industrialize with your native energy resources and commit ecocide or you can hamper your economic growth and isntead spending money you don't have on flakey renewables from the West and save the environment. In all seriousness, this is kicking away the ladder at its finest, and I've seen tons of policy suggestions even going as far as to suggest global carbon trading schemes, carbon tarrifs, and carbon taxes. Some even have the paternal gall to suggest that this would be good for developing countries since it would help them transition to green sooner. Crimes against humanity? Let me guess, they're going to take the 12 oil producing countries in Africa and send their leadership to the Hague while every wealthy country's leaders get to chill and watch with impunity. (How dare they drill new wells!)
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  The likely scenario is that said developing countries say, “Forget you” to the West and align with China or Russia.
- SkyBelow 5y ago
  I think you are leaving out a large scale prisoner's dilemma as well, because if your country goes from green energy but is surrounded by those going for the cheap dirty energy then you still get the environment damage anyways.
williesleg 5y ago
Hacker News at its finest! Glad to see it's run by a bunch of liberal elite globalists and not techies.
enriquto 5y ago
That would make sense if the environmental destruction was counted from its beginning. The only penalty would be in terms of the gains that a nation has obtained thanks to its destruction. This should be used to finance green development on developing nations. The first ones to pay would be the inventors of agriculture (the largest source of environmental destruction). Then European explorers who cut all their trees to conquer the world. And so on.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
cybert00th 5y ago
Anyone on here lauding the virtues of totalitarianism - no matter how tangentially, will discover in time that the price of actual liberty really is eternal vigilance. I think it's fair to say that, if those who gave their lives in the two world wars, and all other conflicts since that defended freedom from tyranny, could come back now and hear you speak; the rest of us who do actually understand what is going on here, would be hardpressed to prevent you being set upon. And don't misunderstand me, I will never condone violence. But the very high price that was paid still leaves an acrid taste in the mouths of so many - even to this day. Indeed, it should do in all of us! And it's too ours and our children's peril, that we forget this simple truth.
slibhb 5y ago
International law operates in terms of reciprocal agreements and treaties between sovereign states. If a sovereign state agrees to be part of some international tribunal or treaty, it reserves the right to leave or to selectively comply. This is exactly what we see in practice. We do not consider this to be a crime because a state has the right to withdraw from a treaty. Compare this to the government of a state, which does not have the right to violate its own law. This situation implies that there is no authority above and beyond the sovereign state on which true international law could be based. This is a good thing. True international law requires a world government which would be an unbearable restriction of freedom. Where could Edward Snowden run if there was a world government? How about Chinese and Russian dissidents, past and present, who have escaped to the West? Attempts, however noble, to solve problems by enacting some international law will fail, just as they have in the past. For the foreseeable future, we're stuck with the sovereign state. If the EU cares about the environment, it can pay developing countries not to clear forests. Or it could offer to install renewables for free. The only other option involves war and the idea of the EU invading Brazil is comical.
- brendoelfrendo 5y ago
  Ok, but what's the alternative? How long until Brazil's neighbors, feeling the impact of increasing desertification from the clear cutting of the Amazon in the name of beef production, declare war to stop it? And at that point, is it already too late?
  - xbar 5y ago
    You ask two interesting questions. One: Is the only alternative war? No. Sanctions work. Two: Is it already too late (assumes some tipping point and some amount of waiting)? Sanctions take a while; if a tipping point exists (defer to science), then maybe yes. If no tipping point exists, then no (in the absolute as your question implies) but maybe yes in a localized harm sort of way. War is can address the problem of permanent environmental destruction. It has human costs and is certainly not environmentally neutral. Wouldn't it be nice if there was any other solution?
neves 5y ago
Very nice, hope this will be another to send Bolsonaro and Duterte to jail, but what will it do to curb the greatest poluters: USA and China? Looks like just another regulamentation to contain the development of poor countries.
jiriknesl 5y ago
My problem is that human activity for thousands of years is focused on using resources and basically consuming the planet. We take for example iron ore in a places rich with iron, we turn them into the product and spread them across the world, so it is harder to reuse them. We take crude oil and transform some part to plastic, which is harder to reuse and we burn another part, which is irreversible. And we do it on a huge scale, we need to do it to have drugs, houses, cars, energy, whatever. You can't make a solar panel without mining. You cannot feed 7 bln of people without tractors, etc. So humankind somehow consumes the Earth. In 1 million of years, we may no longer have any crude oil left. But we are supposed to be here for much longer than 1 million of years. As I know this, it seems to me, that these things are artificial cutoff. This is bad and that is ok, even when both things consume nature and are unsustainable for millions of years. A problem is, as long as we are bound to the Earth, there are only two options. Either some form of primitivism, return back to the stone age (not to bronze age, it is mining) and reduce a population to <1% of today. Or to colonize space and "use" Earth (pollution, mining, reduction of diversity is all consumation) and everything so little we will be able to improve enough to colonize space and then start this consumation on much wider scale, that is unlimited (humankind isn't probably able to spread over the whole universe). A problem with the second is that we are just in the beginning and we don't even have a smallest experience in things like making planets habitable, changing their trajectories, etc. To get there, we need highly speculative science. To get there, we need funds to support it. To have funds, we need profits. To have profits, we need efficient markets. To have efficient markets, we need freedom. And you probably know, anything starting with "The global campaign..." of any kind is definitely going to lower freedom.
- m4rtink 5y ago
  You don't necessarily need to start with planet scale terraforming let alone planet orbit modification. Large scale space habitats (like the Oneil island 3 cylinder) are possible with 1980s technology. And if you really want to use planetary bodies then incremental covering its surface with a worldhouse is much more cost effective than a full scale terraformation where you need to invest huge resources for hundreds of years to only get the benefit at the very end of the whole project.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
Sounds great. Let’s prosecute Angela Merkel for prematurely shutting down Germany’s nuclear power plants and increasing German CO2 production.
jl2718 5y ago
Not going to work. The only effective mechanism of international control is with debt. You can stop buying debt, or you can stop allowing others to buy your debt, or you can reduce interest rates on existing debt, or you can freeze accounts. The great thing is that international consensus happens automatically because operating outside of consensus will be very expensive.
49531 5y ago
The opposite of this _sort of_ exists in the ICSID[1] where investors or companies can sue governments for losses caused by those governments enforcement of their laws. For example when tobacco major Philip Morris sued Uruguay for alleged breaches to the Uruguay-Swiss BIT for requiring cigarette packs to display graphic health warnings and sued Australia under the Australia-Hong Kong BITS for requiring plain packaging for its cigarettes. The company claimed that the packaging requirements in both countries violate its investment.[2] 1. https://icsid.worldbank.org/ https://icsid.worldbank.org/ 2. https://archive.globalpolicy.org/globalization/globalization-of-the-economy-2-1/trade-agreements-2-4/52113-the-emerging-crisis-of-investment-treaties.html https://archive.globalpolicy.org/globalization/globalization...
fithisux 5y ago
It was time.
dirtyid 5y ago
There are relative winners and outright beneficiaries of climate change. There was study/map projecting mortality per 100k, with some countries gaining life. Same with GDP/development. And with geopolitics, someone benefits from neighbors water wars, destabilizing regions with climate refugees etc. Or that global south projected to be most vulnerable but are also least developed and most incentivized to pollute their way into development. There are too many competing interests and contradictions for global warming to be taken universally seriously, or at least seriously as scientists thinks it needs to be.

274 points by Quanttek 5y ago

The current environmental crisis is systemic. The economic system is rigged against Nature. Unless the economic system is fixed, the incentives to destroy Nature for quick profits will remain, at the expense of long term profits that come from having stable and thriving ecosystems.

jiriknesl 5y ago
Humankind itself is the reason. Since bronze age, we mine, use the nature and lower diversity of species. There is nothing you can do about it. People cannot live without using scarce resources, if they aren't in "stone age" stage. People don't want back to stone age. It is nice we have drugs, energy, cars, etc. But it consumes things. There is no possible economic system that can fix it. We need either downgrade to the point of not even using tools made from metals, or we need to scale up and get other planets as a resources.
- hypefi 5y ago
  We use stuff, yes, but now we overuse stuff. There is a difference between using and overusing. If it is difficult to calculate how to find the sweet spot of consumption without destruction at huge scale. At a smaller scale, it is easier, everyone of us knows that if you are living in a forest, you should use the wood in an intelligent manner. And not cut big chunks of the forest for having the luxury to overheat and over-shelter. The economic system that solves it is the one that does not use Usury or in other modern words Interest. Lending with interest should be prohibited.
  - jiriknesl 5y ago
    Any cutoff between use and overuse is artificial. It is still use. If it is use, and if it is with billions of people, one day, some resources will be consumed. Maybe sooner, maybe later, but on million-years-scale, it doesn't make any sense anyway. Overheating, oversheltering, both seems very artificial to me. Ok, you can have a wood cabin in forests, but what's next? Are antibiotics use or overuse? Is internet use or overuse? And who is supposed to decide? Using nonrenevables/using renevables is nice in a thing it is black/white, it has no value component in it. I don't know how removing interest could help except making some operations nonviable. Without interest, all ventures would have to use different sources of financing. I think a demand for risky lending (where risk is compensated in a form of interest) is natural and would exist in some way anyway.

lettergram 5y ago

> into an international crime on par with genocide and crimes against humanity is gaining momentum in the EU. Honestly, this sounds like a global totalitarian state. No, clearing land is not the same as a genocide. Are we going to execute some poor farmer in Kenya? Particularly, this is detrimental to the poorer countries which may not even have the central authority or resources to impose their will by potentially starving their population. I understand the concern, but I don’t think this is a reasonable position to take.

skrebbel 5y ago
> Are we going to execute That sounds excessive even for actual genocide perpetrators. I strongly doubt many of the proponents of this campaign want to sentence anybody to death.
- Tyr42 5y ago
  Sure, take away their only income and walk away knowing you didn't kill them, starvation did. Very different.
  - skrebbel 5y ago
    GGP mischaracterises the campaign by suggesting that the people behind it want to have perpetrators executed. This is not true. I did not say anything about the other pros and cons of the idea at all, you're jumping to conclusions. You wouldn't use the word "execute" when discussing other measures that put people's livelihoods at risk, even if they're terrible measures.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
They did not say it was the same, they said it is "on par with". Please read instead of interpret. That said, the current policies or lack thereof will lead to climate change, famine, depopulation and mass migration globally. Is that preferable?
- Verdex 5y ago

thepangolino 5y ago

The rise in totalitarian measures justified by protection of 'the environment" is striking me as a great cause for concern. The legal actions undertaken to force climate legislation are setting a dangerous precedent that can be used by any other group wanting to force their own pieces of legislation through.

arkitaip 5y ago
What are these totalitarian measures you speak of?
- nlqp 5y ago
  Forbidding incandescent light bulbs while forcing inferior expensive replacements on consumers to prop up the light bulb cartel. All while you can burn 100l of petrol per day, no questions asked. Forbidding new construction sites lest the yellow speckled violet frog's breeding habits are disturbed in order to prop up the rental extraction by oligarchs.
  - rozab 5y ago
    Why are incandescent light bulbs inferior, exactly?
    - nlqp 5y ago
      The comment says no such thing.
      - rozab 5y ago
        Ah, I meant to type the opposite
    - Narishma 5y ago
      They said the opposite.
  - yladiz 5y ago

estaseuropano 5y ago

Finally. There are too many unaccountable destructions, from Deep water Horizon or that Bopal chemical to all the abuse inflicted on the ocean. Sadly I doubt there is much of a chance that the main abusers (China, US) join in...

docdeek 5y ago

The ICC is a terrible place to try such a crime if the goal is to have a real impact on carbon emissions. Four states that aren’t members: China, India, Russia, and the US. Four states with the largest carbon emissions? China, India, Russia, and the US - on 2020 figures (0), these four states account for more than half of the world’s carbon emissions. (0): https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...

Glavnokoman 5y ago
This has nothing to do with carbon emissions.
skrebbel 5y ago
Not knowing anything about the subject, I'm not so sure. Eg if someone's actions or gross negligence causes, say, a big oil spill and the ICC wants to try them, won't that pretty much remove that person's ability to travel to any country that recognizes the ICC? Assuming they'd primarily target businesspeople (eg BP CEO etc), wouldn't act as a pretty decent deterrent?
- dj_mc_merlin 5y ago
  The article mentions the ICC would prosecute heads of state. The American Service Members' Protection Act[0] authorizes the president to us "any and all means" to rescue a government official that is tried by a foreign court. It was specifically written with the ICC in mind. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
  - Daho0n 5y ago
    That shouldn't hold them back. Let the US throw the first stone.
- gruez 5y ago
  How legal is it to hold a trial without the accused present?

sokoloff 5y ago

We have Deepwater Horizon/BP oil well disasters, companies raising foods crops using fertilizers and herbicides, and people eating hamburgers. All of those impose environmental destruction at some (very different) magnitudes. Which of those must a world leader prevent in order to avoid running afoul of the tribunal? If everyone avoids Deepwater Horizon scale events, are we done, or do we start to go after cow farts next?

StavrosK 5y ago
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Are you saying "drawing a line for crimes is hard"? Yes, lawmakers are intensely aware of that. Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't try to fix any problems because we can't fix all the problems?
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I'm saying that once you build up systems like this that they rarely self-dismantle once the important job is done, but rather grow, self-perpetuate, and consume whatever resources are available in an attempt to do whatever is next most appealing. No one wants 100 Chernobyl, Deepwater Horizon, Bhopal events or generalized global warming. Lots of people want their food, energy, and modern conveniences at affordable prices. Those things are inherently in tension and creating an international tribunal which can, with the benefit of hindsight and evolving viewpoints, make judgments about whether someone violated an inherently and intentionally unspecified level of environmental care 20 years previously is more than a small amount troubling to me.
- michaelt 5y ago
  (a) There could be a slippery slope to a lower quality of life - like curtailing meat production; (b) the threat of that would prevent governments from signing up; and (c) without governments signing up, the scheme won't work.
stinos 5y ago
do we start to go after cow farts next Is this not actually roughly of the same order as the other events you mention? The impact of all livestock being bread globally is not exactly neglectable when it comes to global warming, land use, nitrouse oxide deposition.

scythe 5y ago

The problem with globalized environmentalism is that you eventually run out of other countries' police officers. We can barely enforce the three international laws that exist today: "don't wipe out groups of people (genocide)", "don't build nuclear weapons", and "don't just start wars". We've seen all three threatened in the past year (Ethiopia, Iran, Azerbaijan respectively). The more "international law" you tack on, the less legitimacy any international law has in the first place. And the account balance doesn't look good.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
There's international law enough but there are no consequences. And that's because countries still have sovereignty. At best, they can be hurt financially, for example by sanctions or even denial of aid (NK comes to mind, they fire up their nuclear tests whenever they need more money). The alternative would be that rich and strong countries like the US start to play international police again. You could of course point to the UN, but honestly if they were to take action, they would have to penalize the US as well for their blatant disregard of human rights and sovereignty.
Glavnokoman 5y ago
So what is the problem? Just drop 2 of those 3 and you have a room for something probably more important.

jboynyc 5y ago

I really liked Kim Stanley Robinson's Ministry for the Future as a guide to think through the effectiveness of various carrots and sticks in staving off the climate catastrophe. It's a work of fiction set in the very near future. The carrots include a carbon coin that is paid out to those who sequester carbon emissions, for instance by leaving oil in the ground. I don't recall courts being one of the sticks, but notably targeted assassinations of the worst climate perps are.

wetpaws 5y ago
Targeted assassinations as a driver of progress is a very underrated idea, I wish it would become more mainstream.
- StavrosK 5y ago
  The problem there is that nobody especially likes being assassinated.
  - 0-_-0 5y ago
    Is that a feature or a bug?
- roflc0ptic 5y ago
  I used to think like this, but eventually I had the realization that 1. right now, we have norms against murdering people 2. if my team starts murdering people, we could probably get what we want 3. however, this breaks the norm against murdering people, and will encourage the other team to start murdering people to get what they want. All of a sudden, people are murdering each other left and right. This is sometimes called "war". It is very bad.
  - akudha 5y ago
    Aren't the killings already happening though? For example, the logging industry murdering tribal leaders and activists.

idownvoted 5y ago

Nice, going to be handy as a post-imperialistic imperialism-tool: Hey China, your actions are going to have consequences. Wether it's the plastic you're dumping in the onceans by the dozens of fleets, or adding more coal energy plants last year than all existing coal plants of Europe combined. Of course it all depends who is the accuser (e.g. US accusing Europe of burning too much (Russian) gas or garbage exports from the first to the third world). And if this rant isn't getting me downvoted enough: It's also not good for Cryptocurrencies.

krageon 5y ago
For my personal enjoyment of your post it would help if you explained why you think this is an imperialism-tool, as currently this just reads as you claiming this will be abused. There's not a lot of substance and that makes me sad.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  I think step one of anybody using the "i" or "e" words (imperialism/exploitation) should be to define what the they actually mean before expecting to be taken seriously. There are far too many very /very creative/ sinisterizing definitions out there for both deliberately conflated with other definitions. Are we talking "residental schools to deliberately and actively wipe out their language" imperialism or "selling blue jeans outside your borders is imperialism because you are destroying indigenous cultures even though the actual people in them want it" imperialism?
  - krageon 5y ago
    If you replace blue jeans with opium suddenly everyone understands why it is imperialism. For me, the example you have with jeans is also unquestionably imperialist. For word definitions we have a dictionary and I think in this case that is sufficient.

giantg2 5y ago

I guess the two real questions are... Where is the line between ecocide and legitimate consumption of resources? Do other human rights or ecocide take precedent when they conflict?

OgAstorga 5y ago
I’d start with the ones that are clearly doing irreversible harm. Think of a coal burning plant to produce electricity or deforestation of hundreds of acres in the Amazon to build more IKEA furniture.
- curryst 5y ago
  That's still not very clear. Almost anything is reversible on a long enough timeline. Coal can be replenished on a long timeline, and the CO2 can be scrubbed. Until it can't, but it's rather spurious to try to assign blame to a single point. The coal plant is emitting CO2, but they'll say "well, it would have been fine except for trans-oceanic shipping". The shippers will point to the coal people. Likewise, the Amazon can be reforested. Maybe not at the rate were cutting it down, but it's not as though trees will never be able to grow there again. There needs to be a more nuanced decision around these. I'm with you, those things are bad and they should stop, but I would prefer to have a coherent framework we decide based on. I don't want to arbitrarily decide based on who can sway public opinion.
Quanttek 5y ago
Polly Higgins proposed the following definition to the International Law Commission: "Ecocide is the extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished” [1] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257552825_Protecting_the_planet_A_proposal_for_a_law_of_ecocide https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257552825_Protectin...
- giantg2 5y ago
  That opens up even more questions in my mind. They want to hold people accountable for things they have no agency over? "...whether by human agency or by other causes..." The definition is still very vague and subjective. The people running the court in Europe might see deforestation in Brazil as severely diminishing peaceful enjoyment. I would say the farmers clearing that land for agricultural use would argue that they are peacefully enjoying the land now that they modified the ecosystem to be more hospitable to their way of life, crops, and animals. We could even go as far as to say that every city meets this definition as nature has been replaced with buildings and many of the animals have been greatly reduced or eliminated.

calltrak 5y ago

Welcome to the New World Order. That and this bullshit scamdemic. ⁣⁣Two rats arguing about if they should get the kill shot vax or not. ⁣https://picc.io/p/tq2sFHU.png https://picc.io/p/tq2sFHU.png . Please kindly share on social media!

ceilingcorner 5y ago

This is a great plan to make China, India and other non-EU countries stop caring about international cooperation entirely. The EU needs remade as a coalition of European states, not a proxy for a centralized world government. Solutions to environmental problems will be decentralized and economic in nature.

tuyguntn 5y ago

Speaking out loud. We failed as human beings to support each other. We have an idea what is good what is bad, but we are not fixing issues. * We know child abuse is bad, but we can't stop child slavery and theft in India, because we like cheap products coming from there and local governments like getting bribes for being silent * We know genocide is bad, but we can't stop China what it is doing to Uyghurs, because we like cheap products coming from China. * We know people should have equal rights, but we can't do anything when it comes Palestinian people, you can boycott any product from any country, but not from Israel (legally) * We know man and woman should have equal opportunities and rights, we are hiring more woman because we need to fill diversity forms, in the meantime others are seeking job for months. * We know racism is bad. But we are discussing if Git repo's should be named master or main. And we are trying to fix environmental issues for years already. This is unfortunate, but Nature kind of healed some parts of it already, in just one year (because of quarantine measures and less transportation)

galangalalgol 5y ago
It isn't illegal to boycott Israel, it is illegal for some states to contract labor from people that boycott Israel. Still not good, but an important distinction. On Git, are you saying we should obviously do away with the term master? Or that we are arguing about unimportant nonsense when we should be talking about what measures would decrease racially motivated violence and the opportunity gap? I agree with the latter.

tobr 5y ago

Like with almost everything, I’m sure there are problems with these proposals, but I also feel like this approach is necessary. I’ve often found myself thinking why, exactly, the worst climate offenders imagine near-future generations will be forgiving of what they have done.

Ekaros 5y ago
Seeing how economy is going, later generations aren't doing much... Don't see why climate would be any different...

amadeuspagel 5y ago

This is an outrageous attack on national sovereignity.

coliveira 5y ago

The problem is not determining that something is a crime, but who is determining this. If this is a determination made by the US, we can be 100% sure that it will be used as another weapon in their war against foreign non-aligned economies, i.e., another tool for imperialism.

mendelmaleh 5y ago

Ah, can't wait to be an international criminal for using plastic straws /s

AzzieElbab 5y ago

Haven’t we learned anything about merits of enforcement when it comes to global campaigns?

SuaveSteve 5y ago

Good lord, there's so much international crime that goes unpunished already. What a waste of time.

koheripbal 5y ago
I know that "One World Government" is a conspiracy theory, but if such a government were democratic - it might actually be a good thing as it could tackle these global issues - not to mention, prevent war.

fny 5y ago

Real world trolley problem! You're a developing country. You can either choose to industrialize with your native energy resources and commit ecocide or you can hamper your economic growth and isntead spending money you don't have on flakey renewables from the West and save the environment. In all seriousness, this is kicking away the ladder at its finest, and I've seen tons of policy suggestions even going as far as to suggest global carbon trading schemes, carbon tarrifs, and carbon taxes. Some even have the paternal gall to suggest that this would be good for developing countries since it would help them transition to green sooner. Crimes against humanity? Let me guess, they're going to take the 12 oil producing countries in Africa and send their leadership to the Hague while every wealthy country's leaders get to chill and watch with impunity. (How dare they drill new wells!)

ceilingcorner 5y ago
The likely scenario is that said developing countries say, “Forget you” to the West and align with China or Russia.
SkyBelow 5y ago
I think you are leaving out a large scale prisoner's dilemma as well, because if your country goes from green energy but is surrounded by those going for the cheap dirty energy then you still get the environment damage anyways.

williesleg 5y ago

Hacker News at its finest! Glad to see it's run by a bunch of liberal elite globalists and not techies.

enriquto 5y ago

That would make sense if the environmental destruction was counted from its beginning. The only penalty would be in terms of the gains that a nation has obtained thanks to its destruction. This should be used to finance green development on developing nations. The first ones to pay would be the inventors of agriculture (the largest source of environmental destruction). Then European explorers who cut all their trees to conquer the world. And so on.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

cybert00th 5y ago

Anyone on here lauding the virtues of totalitarianism - no matter how tangentially, will discover in time that the price of actual liberty really is eternal vigilance. I think it's fair to say that, if those who gave their lives in the two world wars, and all other conflicts since that defended freedom from tyranny, could come back now and hear you speak; the rest of us who do actually understand what is going on here, would be hardpressed to prevent you being set upon. And don't misunderstand me, I will never condone violence. But the very high price that was paid still leaves an acrid taste in the mouths of so many - even to this day. Indeed, it should do in all of us! And it's too ours and our children's peril, that we forget this simple truth.

slibhb 5y ago

International law operates in terms of reciprocal agreements and treaties between sovereign states. If a sovereign state agrees to be part of some international tribunal or treaty, it reserves the right to leave or to selectively comply. This is exactly what we see in practice. We do not consider this to be a crime because a state has the right to withdraw from a treaty. Compare this to the government of a state, which does not have the right to violate its own law. This situation implies that there is no authority above and beyond the sovereign state on which true international law could be based. This is a good thing. True international law requires a world government which would be an unbearable restriction of freedom. Where could Edward Snowden run if there was a world government? How about Chinese and Russian dissidents, past and present, who have escaped to the West? Attempts, however noble, to solve problems by enacting some international law will fail, just as they have in the past. For the foreseeable future, we're stuck with the sovereign state. If the EU cares about the environment, it can pay developing countries not to clear forests. Or it could offer to install renewables for free. The only other option involves war and the idea of the EU invading Brazil is comical.

brendoelfrendo 5y ago
Ok, but what's the alternative? How long until Brazil's neighbors, feeling the impact of increasing desertification from the clear cutting of the Amazon in the name of beef production, declare war to stop it? And at that point, is it already too late?
- xbar 5y ago
  You ask two interesting questions. One: Is the only alternative war? No. Sanctions work. Two: Is it already too late (assumes some tipping point and some amount of waiting)? Sanctions take a while; if a tipping point exists (defer to science), then maybe yes. If no tipping point exists, then no (in the absolute as your question implies) but maybe yes in a localized harm sort of way. War is can address the problem of permanent environmental destruction. It has human costs and is certainly not environmentally neutral. Wouldn't it be nice if there was any other solution?

neves 5y ago

Very nice, hope this will be another to send Bolsonaro and Duterte to jail, but what will it do to curb the greatest poluters: USA and China? Looks like just another regulamentation to contain the development of poor countries.

jiriknesl 5y ago

My problem is that human activity for thousands of years is focused on using resources and basically consuming the planet. We take for example iron ore in a places rich with iron, we turn them into the product and spread them across the world, so it is harder to reuse them. We take crude oil and transform some part to plastic, which is harder to reuse and we burn another part, which is irreversible. And we do it on a huge scale, we need to do it to have drugs, houses, cars, energy, whatever. You can't make a solar panel without mining. You cannot feed 7 bln of people without tractors, etc. So humankind somehow consumes the Earth. In 1 million of years, we may no longer have any crude oil left. But we are supposed to be here for much longer than 1 million of years. As I know this, it seems to me, that these things are artificial cutoff. This is bad and that is ok, even when both things consume nature and are unsustainable for millions of years. A problem is, as long as we are bound to the Earth, there are only two options. Either some form of primitivism, return back to the stone age (not to bronze age, it is mining) and reduce a population to <1% of today. Or to colonize space and "use" Earth (pollution, mining, reduction of diversity is all consumation) and everything so little we will be able to improve enough to colonize space and then start this consumation on much wider scale, that is unlimited (humankind isn't probably able to spread over the whole universe). A problem with the second is that we are just in the beginning and we don't even have a smallest experience in things like making planets habitable, changing their trajectories, etc. To get there, we need highly speculative science. To get there, we need funds to support it. To have funds, we need profits. To have profits, we need efficient markets. To have efficient markets, we need freedom. And you probably know, anything starting with "The global campaign..." of any kind is definitely going to lower freedom.

m4rtink 5y ago
You don't necessarily need to start with planet scale terraforming let alone planet orbit modification. Large scale space habitats (like the Oneil island 3 cylinder) are possible with 1980s technology. And if you really want to use planetary bodies then incremental covering its surface with a worldhouse is much more cost effective than a full scale terraformation where you need to invest huge resources for hundreds of years to only get the benefit at the very end of the whole project.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

Sounds great. Let’s prosecute Angela Merkel for prematurely shutting down Germany’s nuclear power plants and increasing German CO2 production.

jl2718 5y ago

Not going to work. The only effective mechanism of international control is with debt. You can stop buying debt, or you can stop allowing others to buy your debt, or you can reduce interest rates on existing debt, or you can freeze accounts. The great thing is that international consensus happens automatically because operating outside of consensus will be very expensive.

49531 5y ago

The opposite of this _sort of_ exists in the ICSID[1] where investors or companies can sue governments for losses caused by those governments enforcement of their laws. For example when tobacco major Philip Morris sued Uruguay for alleged breaches to the Uruguay-Swiss BIT for requiring cigarette packs to display graphic health warnings and sued Australia under the Australia-Hong Kong BITS for requiring plain packaging for its cigarettes. The company claimed that the packaging requirements in both countries violate its investment.[2] 1. https://icsid.worldbank.org/ https://icsid.worldbank.org/ 2. https://archive.globalpolicy.org/globalization/globalization-of-the-economy-2-1/trade-agreements-2-4/52113-the-emerging-crisis-of-investment-treaties.html https://archive.globalpolicy.org/globalization/globalization...

fithisux 5y ago

It was time.

dirtyid 5y ago

There are relative winners and outright beneficiaries of climate change. There was study/map projecting mortality per 100k, with some countries gaining life. Same with GDP/development. And with geopolitics, someone benefits from neighbors water wars, destabilizing regions with climate refugees etc. Or that global south projected to be most vulnerable but are also least developed and most incentivized to pollute their way into development. There are too many competing interests and contradictions for global warming to be taken universally seriously, or at least seriously as scientists thinks it needs to be.