There's nothing totalitarian about holding people responsible for the long term damage they do to the environment. It should also be painfully obvious at this point that a more passive approach does very little.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-chan...
[2] https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c420386e4b027c3bbc1713f
That's not really true. We have seen reductions in many types of pollution in the last few decades. Not all of it is forced on people through laws. Much it of comes about as improvements in technology that provide efficiency and cost savings. You can see this is the use LEDs, better fuel milage (before the mandates), adoption of solar panel roofs (in areas that don't mandate it), siphonmatic toilets vs wash-down toilets, etc.
"There's nothing totalitarian about holding people responsible for the long term damage they do to the environment."
I generally agree. The issue us whether an international organization can hold other countries accountable. This could be a major sovereignty issue, especially when the law does not explicitly define what is legitimate consumption or use and what is ecocide. For example, does lithium mining constitute ecocide? It causes environmental damage, but is then used in some industries that might reduce impact in other areas (electric vehicles).
We aren’t fixing the problem. Now, you might look a such trends and say it’s fine everything is going to work out, but I think that’s hard to justify. Some local trends look promising, but advanced economies outsourcing manufacturing and thus CO2 emissions isn’t actually helpful.
"Some local trends look promising, but advanced economies outsourcing manufacturing and thus CO2 emissions isn’t actually helpful."
I completely agree. Much of it has been a shell game. Without true authority over those manufacturing countries, they will likely play a shell game. The real issue will be the lack of definition of what constitutes ecocide and putting that determination by an international body against the sovereignty of the offending country.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carb...
To the extent that long term thinking is a luxury, the U.S. is doing well because it can afford that luxury. An effective solution might be to make everyone else at least as wealthy so that they can afford to do the same.
This is very misleading, because US CO2 per capita numbers are (still) very high, and only surpassed by a few oil states and ultra-rich enclaves (picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...)
With over 15 tons/capita/year the US is doing FAR worse than e.g. EU or China (which are at ~9).
This suggests that "making everyone else at least as wealthy" is very ineffective in decreasing emissions.
It seems very clear to me that any effort spent on reducing domestic emissions will have MUCH higher ROI than e.g. sponsoring the rainforest, or supporting Indian green energy projects.
This is because cutting emissions from 15 to 10 tons seems (evidently?) much more feasible than e.g. getting from 10 to 5 (same gain).
Consumption is really at the heart of it all. It will continue to grow as the population does and as the world continues to develop.
“For a description of this method of greenhouse gas emissions accounting, see Production-based accounting of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Using consumption based metrics the US is still down slightly, though less than that Wikipedia article suggests. https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
Net per capita US CO2 emissions peaked in 2004. It is going down very recently, but not by all that much especially if you consider recent economic issues.
Honestly it's highly analogous to environmental protection. Instead of thinking about the external damage they're causing, groups of people just think about the fastest most effective way to make a buck.
And just like environmentally irresponsible corporations, societally irresponsible governance will result in environmental damage. If you say, "Give these guys all the power and they'll make the environment safe." then the result is going to be a safer environment until they get bored. Then they'll damage the environment because they have the power to do so and it's easier for the environment to be damaged. (Or people offer them bribes, or because they see ways to grab more power, or ... )
The concern to avoid totalitarianism is necessary to avoid long term environmental damage.
I find this part to be an unlikely scenario. A much more plausible scenario is that the group that gets the power realizes that if they fix the problem, then they will lose their power. Therefore, they decide not to fully fix it. They will perpetually work towards improving it to maintain power.
Every authoritarian measure in history was justified by something that sounded like good intentions. That you agree with a stated goal is orthogonal to whether a measure is totalitarian.
A: "The way we are implementing X is dangerous and should be discussed"
B: "X is imperative, we must do X. You may not question anything related to X"
It can be true that protecting the environment is good, but also true that the things that people in power do while claiming to protect the environment is not good.
I would not have minded a $2/liter petrol tax 30 years ago, when it was inconvenient for the incumbents.
What if I said the same thing about all oil powered ships and planes?
Because I feel the planet is worth saving, can I force you to abandon all fossil fuels despite the massive financial cost and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future?
Now, imagine I forced you to do all this but instead of being a hippie who lived environmentally but I was a politician who continued to be driven in cars and fly around the world and had armed security while banning guns for everyone else?
I'd personally be happy if we did that even now, but the longer we put it off, the larger the cost to be paid.
Your last point describes a corrupt government which can happen either way, and is not particularly relevant to environmental policy.
Some replacements are physically constrained (like lithium for batteries). There has been a lot of money already spent to find replacements like super capacitors, and for much longer than 10 years.
Do you think that invalidates my point?
[Edited in response to your edit: fuel and battery technology has improved significantly over the last decade, with little or no political pressure, and shows signs that it will continue to improve. I expect that it would have improved more quickly with political pressure, yes.]
This is a nonsense ad absurdum argument. It's self-evidently true that more devs will, in general, deliver projects more quickly - especially considering that we are talking about a system, not a single project.
Otherwise, we could have One True Dev delivering all of the world's software. Do you think that is reasonable?
Political pressure won't necessarily make a difference, as you say, but sustained and genuine political pressure will almost certainly make a difference.
You might want to look up Brooks's Law.
Look up Brooks's Law yourself. It begins with "under certain conditions", none of which apply here.
And do you have any points for why the exceptions to those circumstances would apply here? Or are you just stating that as fact, like the rest of your argument? It seems like you are relying on the fallacy fallacy (yes that's a real thing) - don't bother proving your own opinion, just say that mine is wrong because you think I have a fallacy.
The price reductions in all rare-earth based technologies come from governments and consumers alike turning a blind eye to the means with which they are extracted. Any political pressure to make those processes more environmentally friendly or less, umm, slavey, will make them more expensive.
Air pollution kills 7 million people a year[0]. That's not including other forms of pollution.
I also feel nobody is arguing to cancel everything immediately. They're arguing to stop building new coal power plants when there are alternatives. They're arguing for increased taxes on companies that produce pollution so that they have motivation to reduce their external effects. Etc.
What if I said the same thing about all toxic sewage dumping on peoples back yards?
Because I feel that the toxic sewage dumping on peoples backyards is a problem, can I force you to abandon all toxic sewage dumping despite the massive financial costs and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future?
The rest is non-sequitur.
Say you are a developing country. The US comes to you and says we're going to restrict trade until you get your carbon footprint in line.
This is, of course, being done for your own good (you're an agricultural nation after all--climate change will scorch your exports!) by countries who have dumped carbon into the atmosphere for centuries while they were industrializing.
https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/international...
2) You start a campaign to eliminate agricultural subsidies globally and also make them reforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States#D... so they must buy your agricultural products at a higher price.
3) They invade you.
IMO we need to recognise that the rhetoric of it being "our fault" doesn't sell well, right or wrong. We need to change to saying that it's in our interests to help the rest of the world change quickly. Better still would be to make it in everyone's financial interests to do so that incentives are back aligned with the best outcome for the planet.
We need to continue the R&D we're doing, and give away the research so that the nations currently industrialising can skip over that step. There are social issues as well, industrialisation of Britain was a major driver behind democratising the country and enabling social mobility, so it's hard to rush that as well.
Serously we should just pay for their solar panels, windfarms and reactors and be done with it.
I don't have a car, so that's fine. Also there's this thing called "an electric car". You should look it up :)
> What if I said the same thing about all oil powered ships and planes?
I'm not sure where this "it's either A or B" mindset comes from, but it's not a particular intelligent one.
Just because we need to stop destroying our environment doesn't mean we have to stop doing _everything_ that involves fossil fuels. Long term maybe, but not necessarily all at once.
> Because I feel the planet is worth saving, can I force you to abandon all fossil fuels despite the massive financial cost and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future?
When given the choice between no fossil fuels and no Earth, I think the choice is easy. Fortunately we're not quite there yet, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
The idea that we can both live in a modern world with all the benefits and have no impact on nature is ignoring the cold hard facts.
Nature didn't give us a safe and friendly place we made unsafe, it gave us a hostile and deadly environment we made safe through the use of energy and by transforming it into a safer environment for us.
Of course we should work on reducing the negative externalities but the positive far outweigh the negative EVEN with something as polluting as coal.