This interview by an utterly clueless interlocutor, illustrates why the proposed “international crime against peace” of “ecocide” would be so harmful to humanity. Polly Higgens, the earth mother of the movement, would put the CEO of the tar sands development company, executives in charge of fracking for natural gas, etc. in jail for life–because she considers large scale development to be morally akin to genocide. (I wonder what a Holocaust victim would say if her suffering were compared morally to caribou being displaced by oil drilling in the tundra?)
Note, Higgins is not necessarily talking about actual environmental disasters, but currently-legal large scale human resource development activities that disturb the natural flora and fauna of the area in which the human activity occurs.
And also note, Higgins says, “Genocide is a crime of intent. Ecocide is a crime of consequence…It is about closing the door to certain activities.” Yup. She says that development can only be permitted if there is “zero risk.” And she talks about the “earth’s right to life.” That is a prescription for continuing destitution in poor countries and imposing poverty on the rest of us who have benefitted so greatly from the wealth created by the kind of resource development that Higgins and her supporters would criminalize. Radical environmentalists are anti human.
Higgens flew to Durban to pitch the anti humanism, contributing to “ecocide” by using resources obtained from mass development to get there: The warming allegedly caused by the jet she flew; the oil drilled to make the fuel burned by the engines; the large scale mining required to obtain the metal used in the aircraft, made useable by CO2 burning processes; the field mice and snakes displaced by the mass agriculture that produced the food she ate in the long flight she took to S. Africa; the rare earth stripped from the earth to build her high-tech phone and laptop computer. She’s an accessory before and after the fact. Throw away the keys!
December 12th, 2011 | 6:27 pm
Personifying the earth in order to justify criminal prosecution is a form of pantheism. It is a pagan religion.
The creation of this kind of crime in the international law system is a step toward empowering prosecutors in Country A with ability to attack persons in Country B, without regard to notmal standards of jurisdiction, or even fair notice.
The other aspect of this law that violates fundamental concepts of “due process of law” is that it is so vague that most people will have no idea what conduct is prohibited until they are indicted.
The Federal and state laws in the US that are intended to protect the environment are implemented through detailed regulations that spell out in considerable detail precisely what conduct is prohibited. Even then, there are many cases where the definition of the violation may be ambiguous. One way US law resolves the problem is by placing the burden on proof on the prosecutor, and requiring that a criminal violation be proved by evidence that is ” beyond a reasonable doubt”. A second bulwark against prosecutorial abuse in US law is the requirement that defendants in a serious criminal case have the right to have the evidence heard by a jury, not just a judge by him or her self.
The assertion made in this interview that large corporations were supporting the idea of an Ecocide crime is consistent with one aspect of environmental regulation. the largest corporations are often supportive of intense environmental regulation, because they have the resources to cope with it, while their smaller and more innovative competitors do not. One way large companies cope is having political clout that deters prosecutors from coming after them. This process eliminates much of the competition for the largest companies, and bolsters their profits.
It should also be noted that one way to increase a company’s profit margin is to decrease the supply of the goods they sell, so that the price for what is left is bid up. All the price increase goes directly into profit. That is why Harley-Davidson limits the number of motorcyles its sells, maximizing the per-unit profit. If it expanded beyond the demand for higher priced machines, the profit margin on each unit would shrink. So a company that can create a near monopoly within a market is able to increase its profits much more by restricting the total goods sold, rather than increasing sales of goods that would have to be cheaper and cheaper in order to find purchasers.
This kind of phenomenon in which companies demand more regulation, in order to increase their profits, is the classic response to environmental regulation. Government leaders get to brag about their efforts to protect “Mother Earth”, and the losers are the less powerful members of society.
“Fracking” has very minor impacts on the land surface, and in most areas the impact on underground water is at such depths (1,000 to 2,000 feet) that it has no effect on aquifers that are shallow enough to be pumped for water supplies (100 to 200 feet). The “crime” of fracking is that it allows humanity to find abundant fossil fuels, rather than force us to rely on alleged “green energy”, which has OTHER impacts on the environment, such as killing birds with windmills or devouring huge amounts of undeveloped habitat for animals and birds to create solar farms.
Strictly speakinig, the best candidate for “Ecocide” is President Obama, who cancelled the planned Yucca Mountain Repository for used nuclear power plant fuel, a half mile down in the Nevada desert, and instead is forcing nuclear plants near population centers, rivers and oceans to store the nuclear fuel in vulnerable containers or swimming pools (as in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plants). but he will nebver be idicted because his politics are in agreement with those of the international prosecutors.
Turning every complex environmental question into a simplistic criminal prosecutiion based on vague generalities and emotion is to enable a kind of ecological totalitarianism.
Harryhammer Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:30 am
@Raymond Takashi Swenson,
Read your Bible.
The Bible is full of explicit ecological motivation.
The early Hebrews maintained a high degree of ecological sustainability.
The Law of Moses regulated fruit crops, and prohibited certain mixed crops and the non-cultivation of the land in the seventh year.
Later Biblical books show the same concerns.
It goes much further.
“The prohibition of harvesting any fruits for three years means simply that the entire organic matter produced by a tree during this time returns to the carbon cycle of that very soil.
Not only the leaves but also the fruits, which can amount to up to 40% of the net production of organic matter, are not removed from the plot of land where the tree grows.
This is a significant contribution to the humus fraction of the soil and has a positive impact on several soil parameters, as outlined above.
In view of this background, the blessing at the end of this pericope, which promises higher yields after the fifth year, is understandable. Due to an input of organic matter equivalent to three consecutive sabbatical years, the fruit trees had a much better start and were bound to grant a higher yield.”
Hütterman, ‘Ecology in Ancient Judaism’, in Neusner, ‘Encyclopaedia of Judaism’, volume 4, p. 1727 (2000).
December 12th, 2011 | 8:19 pm
(((She’s an accessory before and after the fact. Throw away the keys!)))
Wesley tell me, is this your way of saying that if you sleep with dogs, you might come out of “IT” agreeing with some of the flees that you’ve be-friended? :)
Peace
December 13th, 2011 | 10:02 am
Personifying the earth in order to justify criminal prosecution is a form of pantheism. It is a pagan religion.
Yep.
And the ones who aren’t religious are just in it for the power grab.
Whenever you hear about “saving the planet”, always take a minute to look at just who would gain the power to tell other people what to do with the resources.
Harryhammer Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:35 am
@Blake,
That’s crap.
You sound like a fundamentalist turning Christianity on its head.
Read your Bible.
Don’t take your fundamentalist preacher’s word for what it says.
The Bible, without which Western civilization is inexplicable, has powerful ecological teachings that support an ecological worldview.
December 15th, 2011 | 3:37 pm
@Blake,
That’s crap.
You sound like a fundamentalist turning Christianity on its head.
Read your Bible.
Don’t take your fundamentalist preacher’s word for what it says.
The Bible, without which Western civilization is inexplicable, has powerful ecological teachings that support an ecological worldview.
What are you babbling about now? We aren’t even talking about the Christian religion, we’re talking about the religion of the people who fantasize about primitivism as they watch Avatar on their cutting-edge techno-toys.
Harryhammer Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 8:25 am
@Blake,
What I’m suggesting is that you aren’t a good Christian and that you don’t know much about what it says in the Bible.
Jeremiah 2:7 – I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable. (NIV)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact