There is a push to have “ecocide” made illegal as a fifth crime against peace. I am at a loss to figure out how harming the environment could be constituted as such, unless you consider nature to be the equivalent of a sovereign nation that the horrible corporate world is waging war against.
Lawyer Polly Higgins likens ecocide to slavery:
To get there, Higgins needs to borrow one more detail from the slavery story: to find a modern Charles Grant willing to stand up among his or her business peers and urge them to support the abolition of ecocide. So who might that be?
The journalist, Juliette Jowit throws out several examples before coming to Richard Branson.
Richard Branson too has a long history of supporting good causes, despite the sometimes startling gap between his business interests (Virgin Atlantic) and professed interests (climate change).
That’s also called hypocrisy. Why does the left continue to love Richard Branson despite this? If they were being consistent, we would hear them question why he puts his business interests over a cause he claims to really care for.
Upon coming across such green craziness, a few quick links led me to even crazier green realms.
This is the definition given for “ecocide” by an environmental organisation. I’m wondering, do they consider natural environmental destruction (the “other causes”) also to be a crime against peace? Do environmentalists really want to charge mother nature for turning once-lush forests into barren deserts? Also, does putting up ugly wind turbines count? I find that diminishes my enjoyment of the landscape.
The folks at Eradicating Ecocide describe the ecocide going on in the world.
Each day 100 living species become extinct, 1,000 acres of peat bogs are excavated and 150,000 acres of tropical rainforest are destroyed. Each day, 2 million tons of toxic waste is dumped in to our rivers and seas, 22 million tons of oil are extracted and 100 million tons of greenhouse gases are released.
While human activity has definitely increased to rate of extinctions worldwide, we must remember that extinctions occur naturally and that we can’t get worried about every little species of frog, bug and plant, especially if they prevent $2.6 billion of housing developments. Certainly we should try to protect endangered species, and it would be a tragedy if something like the bilby went extinct, but what makes every species worth preserving?
The next part I think is funny:
Today large scale habitat destruction, massive soil depletion, extensive deforestation lead to worldwide disruption of natural cycles and the irreversibility of extinction.
I’m sorry, was extinction previously reversible?
A link from this site led me to an anti-capitalist website that proposed a disturbing ultimatum; “Ecosocialism or Barbarism: There is no third way”. So if you’re not an ecosocialist, you’re a barbarian? I guess that makes the majority of people (who are politically moderate or apolitical) barbarians. So if you’re not with these people and their naive socialist ideas, you are against the environment and by extension peace? What a choice!