4 ms·

> 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 pla

> 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.
zo1 6y ago
I think a good start is to enforce existing laws/regulations 100% before going further. Adding yet more laws and an even higher "court" won't solve the fact that we're not even properly implementing the laws we have at the moment. I bet you every single country that is a top polluter, already has existing laws that say said pollution should not be happening and is a crime. My theory is that governments/politicians simply don't want to spend the money necessary on enforcement. Just like they are unwilling to spend money to solve crime properly, or hunger or starvation or lack of healthcare, etc.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  >My theory is that governments/politicians simply don't want to spend the money necessary on enforcement. Just like they are unwilling to spend money to solve crime properly, or hunger or starvation or lack of healthcare, etc. I don't think it's necessarily about the money. It's one component, but I think political capital is a bigger deal. Any policy that actually fixes that issues will uproot entrenched industries. Many companies will falter, jobs will be lost and they will dig up everything that shows the new way is a bad idea. Even if the incumbents do get replaced the new organizations will likely, over time, tend towards similar behaviors as the old ones. To solve societal problems you need to either find a new niche or to heavily and suddenly disrupt an existing industry. Both of them are usually the result of technological or social advancements.

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.

zo1 6y ago

I think a good start is to enforce existing laws/regulations 100% before going further. Adding yet more laws and an even higher "court" won't solve the fact that we're not even properly implementing the laws we have at the moment. I bet you every single country that is a top polluter, already has existing laws that say said pollution should not be happening and is a crime. My theory is that governments/politicians simply don't want to spend the money necessary on enforcement. Just like they are unwilling to spend money to solve crime properly, or hunger or starvation or lack of healthcare, etc.

Aerroon 6y ago
>My theory is that governments/politicians simply don't want to spend the money necessary on enforcement. Just like they are unwilling to spend money to solve crime properly, or hunger or starvation or lack of healthcare, etc. I don't think it's necessarily about the money. It's one component, but I think political capital is a bigger deal. Any policy that actually fixes that issues will uproot entrenched industries. Many companies will falter, jobs will be lost and they will dig up everything that shows the new way is a bad idea. Even if the incumbents do get replaced the new organizations will likely, over time, tend towards similar behaviors as the old ones. To solve societal problems you need to either find a new niche or to heavily and suddenly disrupt an existing industry. Both of them are usually the result of technological or social advancements.