Surprise! The mock “Ecocide Trial” about which I wrote the other day, found the CEO of the companies developing the tar sands of Alberta into usable oil to drive the world’s economy, was found guilty of “ecocide”–and in only 50 minutes. From the Eradicating Ecocide Blog:
On the 30th of September 2011, in the UK Supreme Court it took just 50 minutes for the jury to return with two unanimous guilty convictions of ecocide against the CEO’s of the oil companies operating in the Athabasca Tar Sands.
In other words, a necessary economic activity that would increase wealth, reduce our dependence on Mideast Oil craziness, and employ thousands of people, should land the CEOs in jail for life.
And don’t think that ecocide would only stifle fossil fuels and timber clearing. This is the definition of the proposed crime:
Ecocide is the extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.
Please pay very close attention: The word, “inhabitants,” does not necessarily–or even, primarily–mean human life. Rather, it mostly refers to flora and fauna–which means that the natural world is being elevated to equal (or greater) importance than human life and thriving.
In the following embedded clip, the Gaia Mother of the Ecocide Movement, Polly Higgens, says that existing international crimes–such as genocide and crimes against humanity–are intended to “protect and uphold the well-being of life.” Note, she doesn’t say “human” life. Why? Because she wants to extend the “well-being of life definition “to not just human life, but all life.” In other words, Ecocide is the sword of the “rights of nature” movement, against which I have warned repeatedly.
If the Ecocide Movement succeeds, it means that installing a large wind farm could become a “crime against peace” because the turbines kill tens of thousands of birds. It could become ecocide to clear wilderness for new agriculture because of the impact it would have on the indigenous animals and plants. It could become akin to Auschwitz to build new highways and develop new suburbs and cities. Commercial fishing enterprises could be criminalized–indeed, any large scale human activity to which radical no growthers object.
And think about the chilling effect on economic enterprise. As Higgens notes, the movement is aimed against corporations. What corporate CEO would risk his or her own freedom by even trying to develop any resources? You think the economy is bad today? We would grind to such a screeching economic halt we would get whiplash! Worse, developing nations would be unable to exploit their tremendous resource wealth to get out of the destitution horror in which most of their people live. Creating a crime of ecocide would be a moral crime against suffering humanity.
It can’t happen here, you say? That’s what Anheuser Busch thought before Prohibition. In fact, the UK Supreme Court lent its facilities for this mock trial. That not 0nly grants respectability to a “rights of nature” movement, but means that some among the ruling classes are sympathetic to the profoundly misanthropic Ecocide Movement.
Update: Commenter Raven, who lives in the UK, says the Supreme Court facility there is available for rent. That seems very odd to me, given the crucial role of the Supreme Court in society based on the rule of law (and would certainly never happen in the USA). But much about the UK is odd to me these days. Thanks to Raven for the info.
October 3rd, 2011 | 1:35 pm
It seems the ecocide movement is an injustice to conservation, and conservation efforts will be pigeon-holed into Mother Gaia foolishness by these people. On the other hand, there were large protests the other day in Brazil by indigenous peoples because of a highway that is proposed in the Amazon. The “corporate greed” that exists will only have to brush aside the ecocide to get it’s way and proceed with destructive development. John Muir was goofy but he did help set up the National Parks that WS just travelled through, if one wants to discuss job creation and wealth and all that. I’m sure there’s oil somewhere in Yellowstone.
October 3rd, 2011 | 1:42 pm
What is needed is a coherent argument highlighting the costs.
For every ecological change, there are consequences.
Those consequences are what people need to know about. It is easy to condemn environmental destruction – it is not as easy to reduce the real supplies of actual resources that people rely on to live. It is much more difficult to vote for something when you are forced to confront what will happen to people who will be forced to live without something precious as a result of that policy.
The environmentalists are not interested in solving problems. They are interested in “getting out the message” – that means venting rage until “someone else” figures out “hey I need to solve this problem”.
What needs to happen is that somehow, we need to redirect the argument onto what needs to be done to make things better – away from pure scapegoating.
Demonizing and blaming people for the past needs to be recognized as toxic and counterproductive.
If anyone wants the planet to get better, they need to stop angsting over how evil everyone else is, and start doing the work needed to figure out what needs to change. They need to get past their denial and understand that nobody “out there” is going to voluntarily die or do without essentials so that those of us “in here” can enjoy a more comfortable, secure life on a planet with less stress. The people are here, the stress is here, and it’s all about preserving resources – because if we’re going to actually solve the problem (instead of relying on pseudo-religious scapegoating rituals), things like ‘beauty’ and ‘biodiversity’ need to be treated as resources, not magical substances.
Anyone whose grand environmental plan involves simply proposing that it go away is not just harmless – they are an enemy of what is good: they are proposing that others be stripped of resources now to prevent a hypothetical lack of resources in the future.
October 3rd, 2011 | 1:43 pm
BTW did not mean to imply that YOUR argument was incoherent, Mr. Smith…only that your argument alone is not enough. (I am “thinking out loud” re: what can be done, I guess.)
October 3rd, 2011 | 3:47 pm
While I can agree that this would be a bad law, what is your solution to stopping the Corporations from raping the earth for profits? that are shared with those who have enough money to buy their stocks? –and those who will profit from the jobs provided–and those elected officials who approve the projects to begin with to get the jobs for their electorate so they can be re-elected.
The Corporations have a good record of over-development which is unsustainable in the long term and then leaving a mess behind for the “people” to clean up because they serve The God of Profits.
Certainly! there must be some way that the government we elect to serve all of the people can determine the “greater good” and work toward this greater good within the law. But, as it is now, the law is so often manipulated and perverted to serve the Greater God of Profits and to ignore the “greater good” for the people and coming generations.
Maybe the first step (as WS said) is to get rid of the lawyers and change or strike down the laws and policies that give a blank check to corporations to plunder the environment and then pay fines and walk away from the mess —with plenty of money in their pockets, of course!
Is there some other “ism” that the world hasn’t yet tested to solve these problems?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 3rd, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Carol: Shakespeare’s character wanted to kill all the lawyers to make it easier to impose tyranny. The corporations don’t have a “blank check.” Reasonable regulations are certainly necessary, and I believe in a more vigorous anti trust enforcement, but not the prevention of resource development. Or goodbye economy.
October 3rd, 2011 | 5:03 pm
While I can agree that this would be a bad law, what is your solution to stopping the Corporations from raping the earth for profits?
Do you really believe that passing laws will somehow stop corporations from amassing wealth?
Do you really believe that passing laws will transfer ownership and decision-making powers over resources (resources that I might add are not yours to allocate) away from the wealthy and toward – well, there’s a question: just whom do you imagine will have control over decision-making powers regarding the earth’s resources?
I’m open to new suggestions re: better ways to control the way Earth’s vulnerable resources are used. But not if all you’ve got is wild, hysterical ranting, blaming, and scapegoating. You don’t deserve be taken seriously if all you’re going to do is talk about punishing people who “rape” the Earth.
Especially since you’re doing it on a computer, and are therefore are as implicated in the “raping” of Mother Earth as anyone: you are the end user who pays money to those evil corporations. They are only the hit man; you are the one who contracts for their services.
You probably own cars, mp3 players, and clothes made from synthetic fibers, too.
There is no answer to be found in scapegoating. If you want a solution, you’re going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: by studying the problem and coming up with a realistic goal, using that goal to formulate an action plan, and analyzing and evaluating that action plan to make sure it will do the good things it promises and to make sure it will not do any bad things you aren’t expecting.
If you’re not willing to do that, then stop wailing about what someone else ought to do.
Harryhammer Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
@Blake,
Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House roof, and offered tax credits to anyone who purchased solar energy systems.
Ronald Reagan removed the solar panels from the White House and terminated the tax credits.
Many people in the solar industry went out of business.
It was a stupid move.
To this day, the government subsidizes oil and coal MUCH more than it does solar energy.
In fact, if solar got as much government funding as the oil and coal it would be cheap as chips.
Republicans are interested in protecting the status quo.
They want to continue to invest time, money and effort into the oil industry regardless of the substantial proof of its adverse effects on the environment.
Pauld Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:25 am
@Harryhammer, “Republicans are interested in protecting the status quo.”
You seem to want to imagine your ideological opponents conform to some cartoon characters that exist in your imagination. I consider myself a Republican, but I belong to the more “libertarian” wing of the party. As such, I agree with many of the policies promulgated by the Republican party but not everything. To the extent that the Republican and the Democratic parties pander to “crony” capitalist, I oppose such policies. For example, I am opposed to special tax breaks for oil industry that are not offerred equally to all industries or which are not designed to more accurately define “taxable income” within the unique environment of the fossil fuel industry.
I am a firm believer in the powers of competition and “creative destruction” that it one of the most amazing features of free markets. One important policy that helps unleash the powers of “creative destruction” and competition in the marketplace is free international trade. The Democratic party as a group tends to oppose free trade agreements to preserve the status quo for favored industries more so than the Republican party.
Notice, however, that I avoid blanket generalizations about either party. President Clinton was instrumental in passing the North American Free Trade agreement. I am sure that some Republicans have been instrumental in attempting to undo parts of NAFTA to protect the status quo for important constiutents whom they represent.
In the long-term, I am actually optimistic about the ability of “greedy” capitalists to revolutionize the energy industry by dramatically cutting the cost of energy and replacing fossil fuels with more renewable sources of energy. During my own lifetime, I have seen the power of “creative destruction” unleashed by competition do this in industry after industry. In the short-term, I do not see economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels. In the long-term, the possibilities are limited only by the imagination of inventors and entrepreneurs
Within my own lifetime, one aspect of technological innovation that I have observed is that it is very difficult to identify the emerging technologies that will change the world. I can recall when home computers first came on the market. In the earliest days, they were viewed as interesting toys that would appeal to a narrow niche market of “geek” hobbiests . I don’t think anyone, even the early innovators such as Steve Jobs, had any idea how completely they would change the world in which we live. Ditto for the internet.
It is quite possible that solar energy will be the vehicle that changes the energy market place. Before it does, however, many difficult technological problems will need to be solved. Just as likely, however, the innovations in the energy market that will change the world may not yet even exist in the imaginations of inventors.
Harryhammer Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:18 am
@Pauld,
Your words:
“For example, I am opposed to special tax breaks for oil industry that are not offered equally to all industries or which are not designed to more accurately define “taxable income” within the unique environment of the fossil fuel industry.”
Renewable energy sources like solar will always lose out in subsidy fights because the fossil fuel industry has become too powerful.
The Republican Party wants to lock in the dominance of traditional fossil fuels against their competitors.
Your words:
“I am a firm believer in the powers of competition and “creative destruction” that it one of the most amazing features of free markets.”
Are you a firm believer in competition laws that restrict monopolies?
The classical definition of “monopoly” suggests that pretty much every industry in the United States is now monopolized.
Barry C. Lynne describes what I’m talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YRx8RiMthA&feature=player_embedded#!
pauld Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
@Harryhammer,”The classical definition of “monopoly” suggests that pretty much every industry in the United States is now monopolized. Barry C. Lynne describes what I’m talking about.”
I am familiar the field of econmics. I can assure you that your statement does not reflect a consensus view among ecomists. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find one economist who agrees with Mr. Lynn and the nonsense he spouts off in his silly video, although, on secod thought one might find a few outliers in the academic world.
Harryhammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
@pauld,
pauld,
Monopoly:
A monopoly is when a company or group has exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
Newsflash:
“Recent Wall Street reform legislation was passed specifically to prevent the continued manipulation of oil prices.”
Pauld Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 8:34 am
@Harryhammer, “Renewable energy sources like solar will always lose out in subsidy fights because the fossil fuel industry has become too powerful.”
Why does solar require subsidies? In your view solar should acheive grid parity within several years and then eventually become almost free.
“Are you a firm believer in competition laws that restrict monopolies?”
I don’t have problems with anti-monopoly laws. How they are enforced is controversial. Existing anti-trust laws are extraordinary vague and can be misapplied to punish firms for doing a much better job than their competitors.
By the way, I listened to Barry Lynn’s Youtube video. Right off the bat, he is mistaken on the classical definition of a monopoly.
October 3rd, 2011 | 6:10 pm
I don’t mean to offend but certainly you aren’t denying that it is the attorneys and the CPAs who formulated and introduced laws that changed the bankruptcy and accounting laws to enable the mess of 2008! It sure looked to me like they had a blank check for many years.
But, of course, I realize that all of the “good” of he world and all of the “bad” of the world is influenced by law and the rule of law. But, just as the financial markets were unregulated and abuses occurred –so too, is environmental law subject to the same abuses –of lack of regulation or bad regulation, or too much regulation.
It’s a pity that our Congress can’t buy insurance for errors and omissions that bring grief to the people so that the people would be compensated. The last time I looked, it appears that the Banks and the Insurance Companies will again wind up with all of the money.
October 3rd, 2011 | 7:06 pm
“In fact, the UK Supreme Court lent its facilities for this mock trial. That not only grants respectability to a “rights of nature” movement, but means that some among the ruling classes are sympathetic to the profoundly misanthropic Ecocide Movement.”
Nonsense. The UK Supreme Court is a venue for hire and may be used by any organisation willing to pay the required fees and conduct themselves in “reputable, orderly and lawful manner”.
There also seems to be very little public support for (or interest in) the “Ecocide Movement”. A Google News search for “ecocide trial” produces a grand total of seven hits. The official youtube video announcing the trial has 222 views (at the time of writing) and 4 “likes”. Even the “Ecocide is a crime” video presentation linked to in this post has garnered only about a thousand views in the ten months it has been online. You’re paying far too much attention to a fringe movement.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 3rd, 2011 at 7:16 pm
That’s good to know, Raven. My aim is to keep it that way.
October 3rd, 2011 | 8:34 pm
Blake! I’m waiting to hear from you about this “realistic goal” and solution. I didn’t think I was “scapegoating” when I asked Mr. Wesley Smith for his recommendations for a solution to the existing realities.
But I see now that I shouldn’t have implied any criticism of corporations and attorneys and merely asked Wesley Smith and readers like you, Blake, to define “realistic goals.”
I’m waiting!
Harryhammer Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:11 am
@Carol Eblen,
Carol,
Mr. Smith is very selective as to which questions he answers.
If he answers with one-liner, it means that you are winning.
If he doesn’t answer at all, it means that you’ve checkmated him.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Oh please. If I answered every question everyone asks me, I would have no time for anything else. Often,. the answers are in my other articles and blog entries. Just do your research on your own time.
Harryhammer Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
Mr. Smith,
You seem to have plenty of time when it suits you.
Pauld Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:31 am
@Carol Eblen, Economist as diverse as Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman recognize there is a legitimate role for the government to play in regulating free markets to prevent environmental harm. Free markets left to themselves will result in too much harm to the environment because of the existence of negative externalities that are not accounted for in the price of producing goods that cause damage to the environment. Outlawing all environmental harm, however, is not an efficient solution because that could result in more damage to the economy than the harm to the environment that is thereby averted.
There are no objective answers to what are the proper types and mixes of environmental regulations because the question necessarily involves balancing the personal preferences of a diverse population. Not infrequently, the debates revolve around whose ox is being gored. For an example of the dilemma, ask the “pro-environment” Kennedy’s how they feel about wind farms off the coast of Cape Cod.
You are not going to get an answer from Mr. Smith or Blake about defining “realstic goals” because the issue is far too complex to answer in a comment to a blog post. As Mr. Smith indicates, you might get some overall sense of how he personally views the competing values by reading what he has written elsewhere.
October 5th, 2011 | 9:45 am
As usual, Wesley, you rail against a straw man. A reasonable interpretation of this ecocide proposal and similar proposal to improve environmental protection measures DOES NOT imply that human beings and other animals are to be given an equal moral weight. It DOES NOT equate environmental destruction to the horror of Nazi concentration camps, except perhaps in the most extreme of cases, orders of magnitude worse than the BP spill.
A reasonable interpretation simply allows for the interests of other sentient beings to be included into moral consideration, in addition to the intrinsically more weighty (from the moral point of view) interests of human beings. As things stand, the interests of the bird in the (second) video would not at all be taken into consideration when doing an ethical evaluation of actions that impact the environment and only human interests exclusively would be considered. The moral evaluation of the BP oil spill would be conducted with only human interests in mind. Science (of animal consciousness) tells us that this is a false evaluation – animals do have experiences that are relevant from the moral point of view. Animals suffer and it should matter that they do. However, it is a mistake to claim, as you do in your posts and on your podcast, that this should mean that animal suffering is equal to human suffering and that therefore humans and other animals are moral equals. Although there are animal liberationists who claim to hold this view, they are inconsistent in doing so and have no sound philosophical support for their views.
So no, tar sands development is not the same as Auschwitz, but it is similar in so far as the morally relevant interests of a group of sentient beings is being (effectively if not explicitly) ignored. Auschwitz is worse, orders of magnitude worse, but that does not make tar sand development (or similar developments) amoral.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Dmitri: You think the BP oil spill equals Auschwitz! One is a mess that killed some birds and fish, the other is pure evil and genocide. Don’t tell me I exaggerate.
October 5th, 2011 | 1:35 pm
Blake! I’m waiting to hear from you about this “realistic goal” and solution.
No, you mean, you can’t wait to get to work on the problem, now that you recognize how irrational it is for YOU to go around expecting EVERYONE ELSE to solve YOUR problem for you.
YOU are the one who is concerned about the “raping of the earth”. I am not the least bit concerned about the “raped earth”, because I don’t ascribe religious significance to the earth, and therefore don’t believe it can be “raped”.
Why do you go on hollering as if it’s someone else’s job to fix this? You’re the one who thinks it’s a problem. It’s not going to get solved by you stamping your little footsie and demanding that the grownups DO SOMETHING. You be the grownup. Youdo something.
Only please – if you’re going to bother, make it worthwhile. Nobody seriously intends to go back to the Dark Ages and live in primitive-land. It just isn’t going to happen. Scapegoating, blaming, and all of that doesn’t solve any problem – it does not even make me want to jump to do your bidding. It only makes me want to laugh at the hypocrisy – how you go on about the raping of the earth as you type from your computer made out of raped earth!!!
Solve the problem.
1. Figure out what a corrected problem would look like.
2. Figure out what would have to happen in order to do it.
3. Figure out what would have to happen in order to set (2) into motion.
4. Do it, or figure out how to get other people to do it.
Remember to do cost-benefit analysis and other analysis at every step – because people are quite rightfully weary of “great plans” that end up saving nothing and costing too much.
Good luck.
October 5th, 2011 | 4:39 pm
I am not really sure how the word “Auschwitz” got placed in this context but whoever has used it – think about that again, and please remove it for the sake of millions of people that perished there…nothing can be compared to that, no mather how emotionally attached you are to this topic. Please.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact