4 ms·

You 100% missed the point. There's something totalitarian about setting vague rules to hold people responsible when you deem fit to prosecute. As an example of

You 100% missed the point. There's something totalitarian about setting vague rules to hold people responsible when you deem fit to prosecute. As an example of how this is going to be politically misused, if you actual read the Paris Accord, you'll know that this ecocide law set is going to be a shitshow. In the Paris Accord, it literally summed up, "You need to sign this agreement, pay the commission $100m, and then we'll setup a commission to figure out what the commission should look like that'll setup the various commissions that'll determine the environmental laws that you have now agreed to." I'm not kidding, what so ever. There were no targets or plans in the original accord that countries had to sign, which preemptively had them agree to whatever the hell the commission would decide YEARS later. Why is anyone to think more of these harsh "environment laws" are going to be precise or even effective if we're to be honest. I guarantee you that these ecocide rules are going to be just as vague as anti-mercenary international laws. However, ecocide is going to be a political tool to bully countries to toe a line or face severe penalties. Other countries performing ecocide, as long as playing ball, won't face charges. This is a case of helping make sure that, "everyone is guilty of something". Toss in the public impression of, "That political figure is committing ecocide!", even when they're not, you now have yourself the ultimate political weapon. Just because someone claims they want to save the world, doesn't mean they actually intend to. There's this thing called lying for personal gains. Fairly new invention, but you should be aware of it. A very small amount of politicians do it and only recently.

cool_dude85 6y ago
We have already seen the seeds of this type of thing in the US media. When Morales was couped, there was plenty of hand-wringing about how he was developing extractive industry (i.e., nationalized lithium), and how Bolivia was burning the rain forest, etc. and in general a lot of noise from "green" "activists" about how good the coup was. Just look at who gets prosecuted by the ICC to get an idea of how an EU-led international agreement will wind up.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  For the last time just because somebody you like is removed from office for crikws is not a coup. Hell it is blatant projection given one of his last actions was to try to remove the term limit.
  - heterodoxxed 6y ago
    It was a coup. I don't particularly like Morales (like Áñez even less though) and it was absolutely a coup.
giantg2 6y ago
"...setting vague rules to hold people responsible when you deem fit to prosecute." I agree. The rules don't even have to be vague. The people in power have "prosecutorial" discretion, so they can charge one person and let another go, "just because". If you file any complaints against someone in the system, the system will ignore you. When laws are enforced unevenly, you end up with the unaffected people saying it's a good law and the unlucky ones who were biasly subjected to it thinking it's a bad law. If everyone was subjected to the laws equally, then there would be support to change the "bad" laws. Instead, the system wants to hold onto as much discretion as it can so that it wields more power.
- Fern_Blossom 6y ago
  Yes. In general, I'm not against "eco laws". If they are hard set rules and if they are applied evenly amongst all countries and politicians, I'm for them. I really am. But we all live in the real world and recent history shows environmentalism based laws and policies are political tools... mostly political weapons. Not about actual environmentalism.
batty_alex 6y ago
> However, ecocide is going to be a political tool to bully countries to toe a line or face severe penalties. Other countries performing ecocide, as long as playing ball, won't face charges. This is an incredibly pessimistic view you've got. How would you go about making sure that large companies poisoning their environment get brought to some form of justice? Right now, we're back to lead in drinking water being a problem. Who's going to hold water companies accountable? Right now, it seems like no-one and, before I left Florida, water utilities were frequently getting sub-contracted out to save the state money (and increase resident's expenses). I'll tell you what, once people stop dying from industrial run-off - I'll agree with you Let's be clear here: people are dying from companies and countries that don't give a shit about anything but profit. So, where do we all draw the line? The international community seems to be thinking it's right here and we need to start holding companies accountable - at-large, they're not doing it themselves
- Fern_Blossom 6y ago
  And you totally didn't argue against the point I'm making. Just stating that, "It's about saving the world maaaaaaan." I'm for environmental protection. I'm the guy that will gladly vote for implementing policy that lets gov hire PMCs to hostile takeover GUILTY polluting companies. I'm fine with that. Especially if they stream it live. Watching teams sweep buildings is always fun. That's not what these ecocide laws are going to be. These will have less to do with environmentalism and more to do with creating an extra-judicial force bullying politicians and governments. Another commenter mentioned this. If these politicians actually cared about these environmental policies, they would implement it on their own. They might need to rework some of the laws they already have at worst case scenario. Like, you don't get it, most 1st world countries and the EU already have enforceable environmental protection laws. Damn strict ones too. Most of which can be implemented right now to stop a lot of current companies doing current bad deeds. Here's the sticklier, THEY'RE NOT PUBLICLY USEFUL POLITICAL WEAPONS. There's no extra vote potential from using those laws. Most politicians are looking for an endorsement from Greta than actually doing anything meaningful, which again was the point to my rant about the Paris Accord. Hell, when Trump backed out of it, USA companies then decided to start implementing their own environmental policies as a "reaction". Dude, they all should have started doing that beforehand. If they really cared, they would be doing something pre-Paris Accord. They don't actually care. They want the headline spotlight for "caring about the environment". When people get bored a week later and turn away, the policies and efforts magically disappear. This again, is my point. You care. I believe that. You thinking that the ecocide idealism policies will make a difference, you're being lied to. An extra-judicial international force made up of whom? With what limitations of power? Because it already seems like they want the ability to hammer and hammer hard at their own discretion. Because power never corrupts, right? What are we supposed to do? Real accountability. Call out political lip service. Shut them down for political rhetoric and force real answers to real questions. Show records of how ineffective politicians have been in their votes and endorsements. Don't allow vague rulings to persist. Push hard and fast when uneven judicial actions are taken. Actually read the fucking law proposals/bills of your country. Everyone keeps thinking that Paris Accord was some mantra of greatness. It was a fucking blank check for career international politicians. The original document is there for everyone to read, but no one read it. Don't take any media or anyone else's take on something. Not even mine. Go read the docs yourself! Please! Do so! Those are the first lines to draw and the most powerful. Until those are done by the general public of most countries, everything else is moot. We don't need extra enforcement agencies oversight our every move. We need people to be accountable for themselves and hold their government accountable. But I'm sorry, what I mentioned requires effort. It's easier just to agree when someone says, "Old people bad. I care about the environment. Big evil corporations are hiding in your closest. Vote for me because I care about the poors. Don't worry about my lavish lifestyle." That's pretty much every eco-politician in a nutshell. Gets old when they're just as bad as the previous set of politicians.
YorickPeterse 6y ago
Your argument as a whole seems to come down to "Some _may_ abuse it, so we shouldn't do it". Frankly that's about as weak as an argument as it gets. Somebody could use a spoon to murder people. That doesn't mean we should stop making spoons. Similarly, some countries or individual politicians may try to abuse environmental related policies to further their personal agenda. That doesn't mean we shouldn't call for more strict regulation. Simply sitting around doing nothing out of fear of doing _something_ (but wrong) isn't going to get us anywhere.
- Fern_Blossom 6y ago
  Except there are already laws that exist in these countries that need to be enforced. An extra-judiciary force for something that should be taken care of in-house is just unnecessarily power wielding that will be abused. If it was an investigative force that questioned and pushed why certain countries were unevenly utilizing certain laws already enacted, awesome. Sort of like oversights for elections. That I can hesitantly get behind. All this current concept of political environmentalism does is give another law enforcement and judicial system in the hands of a political few. Also, don't think I'm for dawdling. You know the best way to get people to stop kicking dogs? Bounce their heads off pavement. I take a very rash and violent viewpoint on how to curb purposeful misdeeds. My biggest thing, make sure you uphold a systematic process of judicial proceedings. Fair trials. Rules and procedures are clear and easy to follow. Evidence based. Ability to fully defend yourself in a court of law. Context. Even legal handedness. The most guilty piece of shit still deserves a fair trial and to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This whole ecocide thing smells of "guilty because we say so". There's a system already in place to deal with the problems. The issue is, average people aren't educating themselves on it and how to utilize it. I can't speak for every country obviously, but I'm pretty sure most 1st world countries have some similar functions that allow petitioning and suing corps and gov like we can in the USA. The ability to sue is a dangerous tool as well, that is obviously abused. But it's useful as hell too.
vegetablepotpie 6y ago
Any move by an institution can be interpreted as totalitarian. Rather than focusing on hypotheticals, I am more concerned with are totalitarian acts that we know are occurring, for example: police militarization and restricting citizen access to vote in a democracy. I’m sure you can think of many more your self. Regardless, while it is healthy to be skeptical of moves by institutions, skepticism shall be balanced by appreciation of threats to our way of life. Western civilization has been built within, and is dependent upon, a very specific and temperate climate. The activities of our civilization are very quickly perturbing the climate. This will lead to threats such as submerged industrial and commercial centers, reduced agricultural output, and mass migration of people into the borders of northern nations. We have seen historically liberal tree hugging institutions such as BlackRock and The US Defense Department, identify and begin to respond to this reality [1][2]. There are two choices, we can react to this issue, or we can be proactive about it. According to the article the legal mechanism to be proactive is insufficient >Climate litigation is important to raise awareness, shame companies and gather evidence, said Jojo Mehta, the head of the Stop Ecocide campaign. “But, what they don’t do is stop the practice” The question I have for you is, if not for the proposed introduction of law, if not for the Paris agreement, or perhaps not even for international agreements, what would you like to see be done about the issue of climate instead? To say that nothing should be done, or to deny that this is an issue at all is an implicit decision to be reactive. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/blackrock-makes-climate-change-central-to-investment-strategy-for-2021.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/blackrock-makes-climate-chan... [2] https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c420386e4b027c3bbc1713f https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c420386e4b027c3bbc1713f

cool_dude85 6y ago

We have already seen the seeds of this type of thing in the US media. When Morales was couped, there was plenty of hand-wringing about how he was developing extractive industry (i.e., nationalized lithium), and how Bolivia was burning the rain forest, etc. and in general a lot of noise from "green" "activists" about how good the coup was. Just look at who gets prosecuted by the ICC to get an idea of how an EU-led international agreement will wind up.

Nasrudith 6y ago
For the last time just because somebody you like is removed from office for crikws is not a coup. Hell it is blatant projection given one of his last actions was to try to remove the term limit.
- heterodoxxed 6y ago
  It was a coup. I don't particularly like Morales (like Áñez even less though) and it was absolutely a coup.

giantg2 6y ago

"...setting vague rules to hold people responsible when you deem fit to prosecute." I agree. The rules don't even have to be vague. The people in power have "prosecutorial" discretion, so they can charge one person and let another go, "just because". If you file any complaints against someone in the system, the system will ignore you. When laws are enforced unevenly, you end up with the unaffected people saying it's a good law and the unlucky ones who were biasly subjected to it thinking it's a bad law. If everyone was subjected to the laws equally, then there would be support to change the "bad" laws. Instead, the system wants to hold onto as much discretion as it can so that it wields more power.

Fern_Blossom 6y ago
Yes. In general, I'm not against "eco laws". If they are hard set rules and if they are applied evenly amongst all countries and politicians, I'm for them. I really am. But we all live in the real world and recent history shows environmentalism based laws and policies are political tools... mostly political weapons. Not about actual environmentalism.

batty_alex 6y ago

> However, ecocide is going to be a political tool to bully countries to toe a line or face severe penalties. Other countries performing ecocide, as long as playing ball, won't face charges. This is an incredibly pessimistic view you've got. How would you go about making sure that large companies poisoning their environment get brought to some form of justice? Right now, we're back to lead in drinking water being a problem. Who's going to hold water companies accountable? Right now, it seems like no-one and, before I left Florida, water utilities were frequently getting sub-contracted out to save the state money (and increase resident's expenses). I'll tell you what, once people stop dying from industrial run-off - I'll agree with you Let's be clear here: people are dying from companies and countries that don't give a shit about anything but profit. So, where do we all draw the line? The international community seems to be thinking it's right here and we need to start holding companies accountable - at-large, they're not doing it themselves

Fern_Blossom 6y ago
And you totally didn't argue against the point I'm making. Just stating that, "It's about saving the world maaaaaaan." I'm for environmental protection. I'm the guy that will gladly vote for implementing policy that lets gov hire PMCs to hostile takeover GUILTY polluting companies. I'm fine with that. Especially if they stream it live. Watching teams sweep buildings is always fun. That's not what these ecocide laws are going to be. These will have less to do with environmentalism and more to do with creating an extra-judicial force bullying politicians and governments. Another commenter mentioned this. If these politicians actually cared about these environmental policies, they would implement it on their own. They might need to rework some of the laws they already have at worst case scenario. Like, you don't get it, most 1st world countries and the EU already have enforceable environmental protection laws. Damn strict ones too. Most of which can be implemented right now to stop a lot of current companies doing current bad deeds. Here's the sticklier, THEY'RE NOT PUBLICLY USEFUL POLITICAL WEAPONS. There's no extra vote potential from using those laws. Most politicians are looking for an endorsement from Greta than actually doing anything meaningful, which again was the point to my rant about the Paris Accord. Hell, when Trump backed out of it, USA companies then decided to start implementing their own environmental policies as a "reaction". Dude, they all should have started doing that beforehand. If they really cared, they would be doing something pre-Paris Accord. They don't actually care. They want the headline spotlight for "caring about the environment". When people get bored a week later and turn away, the policies and efforts magically disappear. This again, is my point. You care. I believe that. You thinking that the ecocide idealism policies will make a difference, you're being lied to. An extra-judicial international force made up of whom? With what limitations of power? Because it already seems like they want the ability to hammer and hammer hard at their own discretion. Because power never corrupts, right? What are we supposed to do? Real accountability. Call out political lip service. Shut them down for political rhetoric and force real answers to real questions. Show records of how ineffective politicians have been in their votes and endorsements. Don't allow vague rulings to persist. Push hard and fast when uneven judicial actions are taken. Actually read the fucking law proposals/bills of your country. Everyone keeps thinking that Paris Accord was some mantra of greatness. It was a fucking blank check for career international politicians. The original document is there for everyone to read, but no one read it. Don't take any media or anyone else's take on something. Not even mine. Go read the docs yourself! Please! Do so! Those are the first lines to draw and the most powerful. Until those are done by the general public of most countries, everything else is moot. We don't need extra enforcement agencies oversight our every move. We need people to be accountable for themselves and hold their government accountable. But I'm sorry, what I mentioned requires effort. It's easier just to agree when someone says, "Old people bad. I care about the environment. Big evil corporations are hiding in your closest. Vote for me because I care about the poors. Don't worry about my lavish lifestyle." That's pretty much every eco-politician in a nutshell. Gets old when they're just as bad as the previous set of politicians.

YorickPeterse 6y ago

Your argument as a whole seems to come down to "Some _may_ abuse it, so we shouldn't do it". Frankly that's about as weak as an argument as it gets. Somebody could use a spoon to murder people. That doesn't mean we should stop making spoons. Similarly, some countries or individual politicians may try to abuse environmental related policies to further their personal agenda. That doesn't mean we shouldn't call for more strict regulation. Simply sitting around doing nothing out of fear of doing _something_ (but wrong) isn't going to get us anywhere.

Fern_Blossom 6y ago
Except there are already laws that exist in these countries that need to be enforced. An extra-judiciary force for something that should be taken care of in-house is just unnecessarily power wielding that will be abused. If it was an investigative force that questioned and pushed why certain countries were unevenly utilizing certain laws already enacted, awesome. Sort of like oversights for elections. That I can hesitantly get behind. All this current concept of political environmentalism does is give another law enforcement and judicial system in the hands of a political few. Also, don't think I'm for dawdling. You know the best way to get people to stop kicking dogs? Bounce their heads off pavement. I take a very rash and violent viewpoint on how to curb purposeful misdeeds. My biggest thing, make sure you uphold a systematic process of judicial proceedings. Fair trials. Rules and procedures are clear and easy to follow. Evidence based. Ability to fully defend yourself in a court of law. Context. Even legal handedness. The most guilty piece of shit still deserves a fair trial and to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This whole ecocide thing smells of "guilty because we say so". There's a system already in place to deal with the problems. The issue is, average people aren't educating themselves on it and how to utilize it. I can't speak for every country obviously, but I'm pretty sure most 1st world countries have some similar functions that allow petitioning and suing corps and gov like we can in the USA. The ability to sue is a dangerous tool as well, that is obviously abused. But it's useful as hell too.

vegetablepotpie 6y ago

Any move by an institution can be interpreted as totalitarian. Rather than focusing on hypotheticals, I am more concerned with are totalitarian acts that we know are occurring, for example: police militarization and restricting citizen access to vote in a democracy. I’m sure you can think of many more your self. Regardless, while it is healthy to be skeptical of moves by institutions, skepticism shall be balanced by appreciation of threats to our way of life. Western civilization has been built within, and is dependent upon, a very specific and temperate climate. The activities of our civilization are very quickly perturbing the climate. This will lead to threats such as submerged industrial and commercial centers, reduced agricultural output, and mass migration of people into the borders of northern nations. We have seen historically liberal tree hugging institutions such as BlackRock and The US Defense Department, identify and begin to respond to this reality [1][2]. There are two choices, we can react to this issue, or we can be proactive about it. According to the article the legal mechanism to be proactive is insufficient >Climate litigation is important to raise awareness, shame companies and gather evidence, said Jojo Mehta, the head of the Stop Ecocide campaign. “But, what they don’t do is stop the practice” The question I have for you is, if not for the proposed introduction of law, if not for the Paris agreement, or perhaps not even for international agreements, what would you like to see be done about the issue of climate instead? To say that nothing should be done, or to deny that this is an issue at all is an implicit decision to be reactive. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/blackrock-makes-climate-change-central-to-investment-strategy-for-2021.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/blackrock-makes-climate-chan... [2] https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c420386e4b027c3bbc1713f https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c420386e4b027c3bbc1713f