If you're at all worried by damage to the environment...

(55 Posts)
PuzzledBear Sun 29-Sep-13 23:09:52

You might be interested in this campaign I've come across. They're trying to make the destruction of ecosystems a crime - ecocide - like genocide. If the proposal gets enough votes, it gets to be considered by the European Parliament. Have a look: [http://www.endecocide.eu/]

PuzzledBear Sun 29-Sep-13 23:11:24

Oh bugger, messed the link up. does this work?

WillPenn Mon 30-Sep-13 10:23:58

done!

Damnautocorrect Mon 30-Sep-13 10:28:15

Done

PuzzledBear Mon 30-Sep-13 11:52:23

Yay! Anyone else? I think this is a brilliant idea, could really transform the way people think.

flatpackhamster Mon 30-Sep-13 19:42:37

Have you actually read the act?

http://eradicatingecocide.com/overview/ecocide-act/

Just look at part 14. If you run a company, and someone who works for you does something that contravenes this act, you are guilty of the crime that the person who works for you carried out, regardless of whether or not you knew about it. How bonkers is that?

PuzzledBear Mon 30-Sep-13 20:02:06

As I understand it though, the signatures are just in order to have the idea discussed by the European Parliament, the next step is to try and make it law. The concept is new and so important, I think everyone should be trying to get this discussed seriously.

flatpackhamster Mon 30-Sep-13 20:05:19

I don't want it discussed by the European Parliament. It's a wicked plan.

Have you read the act? Did you know that it would be illegal to operate a nuclear power station under the act as it stands? It would also be illegal to operate many mining techniques and metal extraction techniques.

PuzzledBear Mon 30-Sep-13 20:11:03

A wicked plan? You don't want something even discussed? I am genuinely shocked. There are big problems with the way that we are currently exploiting the planet's resources, and unless people can intelligently discuss some alternative ways of approaching it, our children are basically fucked.

Slipshodsibyl Mon 30-Sep-13 20:15:03

Are there not already laws in place to deal with companies which pollute or otherwise break current environmental laws?

flatpackhamster Mon 30-Sep-13 20:22:15

PuzzledBear

A wicked plan?

Yes.

You don't want something even discussed? I am genuinely shocked.

No, I don't want this wicked 'act' discussed in parliament. I ask again, for a third time - have you read it? Please answer because I don't think you have.

There are big problems with the way that we are currently exploiting the planet's resources, and unless people can intelligently discuss some alternative ways of approaching it, our children are basically fucked.

This act wouldn't approach alternative ways of exploiting resources. It would essentially ban resource exploitation.

PuzzledBear Mon 30-Sep-13 20:24:20

Slipshodsibyl, I watched the clip of a talk given by the barrister spearheading this campaign, in which she raises this exact question. She points out that the existing legislation is clearly not working - you just have to look at what is happening to the Amazon to see that it is not working. We need a different approach, which is what this is intended to do.

flatpackhamster Mon 30-Sep-13 20:25:21

PuzzledBear

Slipshodsibyl, I watched the clip of a talk given by the barrister spearheading this campaign, in which she raises this exact question. She points out that the existing legislation is clearly not working - you just have to look at what is happening to the Amazon to see that it is not working. We need a different approach, which is what this is intended to do.

How do you propose to prosecute companies based outside the EU, operating outside the EU, under an EU law?

PuzzledBear Mon 30-Sep-13 20:26:59

Flatpackhamster, yes I have read it. The issue you raise about corporate liability is wrong I think - that clause states that the actions of a director or partner or person with senior responsibility may lead to liability. Not just any old employee.

PuzzledBear Mon 30-Sep-13 20:28:42

Flatpack, I think it's a reasonable example of how existing legislation is ineffective. Not an example of a situation which can be fixed by the limited remit of an EU law.

flatpackhamster Mon 30-Sep-13 20:33:10

PuzzledBear

Flatpackhamster, yes I have read it. The issue you raise about corporate liability is wrong I think - that clause states that the actions of a director or partner or person with senior responsibility may lead to liability. Not just any old employee.

So the act specifically makes ignorance of a crime carried out within your company a criminal offence.

If this act came in to law, who would run a company?

Flatpack, I think it's a reasonable example of how existing legislation is ineffective. Not an example of a situation which can be fixed by the limited remit of an EU law.

Then why bother the EU with such a stupid idea if it can't work?

PuzzledBear Mon 30-Sep-13 20:37:40

Because the problem is not limited to the Amazon, that's just a nice high profile example not requiring much explanation to help people understand the point.

BillyBanter Mon 30-Sep-13 20:50:24

Can you explain why you describe this as wicked rather than maybe misguided or unrealistic which would be terms I would think more likely to be used as criticism?

Talkinpeace Mon 30-Sep-13 21:27:49

sounds like a way for lawyers to earn lots of hefty fees rather than anything constructive to happen at all

pitterpaterfamilias Mon 30-Sep-13 21:37:57

Flatpack - the rate at which the world's resources are being destroyed is wicked. The complete disregard of many multinationals to any environmental responsibility is wicked. The wilful ignorance of those who support the unfettered free market that allows or condones this behaviour is wicked.

This proposal seeks to curtail this behaviour. The objections you have are absurd. You should be ashamed of yourself. We need aspirational proposals at this time, not self serving vested interests looking to block measures designed to safeguard our future and our children's future.

That is all.

Talkinpeace Mon 30-Sep-13 21:40:19

how will a court case in London save the Southern Ocean ?

PuzzledBear Mon 30-Sep-13 21:41:57

Doesn't a positive movement have to start somewhere, in some part of the world?

Talkinpeace Mon 30-Sep-13 21:43:34

probably, but lawyers in London is NOT the way.

BillyBanter Mon 30-Sep-13 21:44:15

According to that little video in the link they intend to take it to the UN.

Talkinpeace Mon 30-Sep-13 21:44:57

ah, even more people on sky high tax free salaries

PuzzledBear Mon 30-Sep-13 21:48:06

How can you change the law without lawyers? confused

pitterpaterfamilias Mon 30-Sep-13 21:49:56

Remember that many businesses operating globally are based in the EU or are listed on investment exchanges in the EU. Member states will therefore be able to enforce against, for example, the holding company of a trading company operating in the Amazon or Southern Ocean.

ScrewtapesOppositeNumber Mon 30-Sep-13 21:56:19

Never going to happen.

Governments don't run the world, businesses do. Businesses will bring all possible pressure to bear to make sure it doesn't happen, because it would decimate their profit.

Even if it did happen, it's only Europe. China, India and America are simply not going to give a flying fuck what Europe thinks. Imagine telling India 'Oh, we're all developed thanks so now we can afford to be green, but you've got to cut your emissions (i.e. cut your economic growth).' Don't see it going over too well...

If the hypotheses re climate change are true, then I do think we're fucked.

PuzzledBear Mon 30-Sep-13 21:59:40

I'm depressed at the idea that we should feel so defeated that it isn't even worth signing a petition so that more optimistic and energetic people can have a crack at protecting the world.

PuzzledBear Mon 30-Sep-13 22:00:45

Urgh, clearly I am so depressed by it that I can't even form sensible sentences.

Talkinpeace Mon 30-Sep-13 22:01:31

Petitions and marches have no impact.
Spending choices and direct complaints to companies DO work.

And actually places like India and China are cutting their emissions VVV quick as they want to reduce their smog levels

pitterpaterfamilias Mon 30-Sep-13 22:02:36

And on the tombstone of the earth, the words "killed by apathy" were carved.

I too am sceptical of the chances of this initiative ever getting anywhere, although I agree with the principle. Clearly very big changes are needed very soon if we're going to save the planet, and everyone is onboard until it becomes a NIMBY issue. But I think ultimately we're going to have to downsize or seriously re-invent our lifestyles.

So, despite my scepticism, I'm not going to let it be me who causes this initiative to fail before it even gets off the ground and I have signed.

And I have shared on Facebook.

PuzzledBear Mon 30-Sep-13 22:13:42

Annie I think I love you. My faith is a little restored.

grin

ScrewtapesOppositeNumber Mon 30-Sep-13 22:20:37

The only way you will ever get big companies/countries to change is if it results in a direct benefit to them (and sadly I don't think saving the planet in 50 years time is direct enough). So smog emissions, yes, for some governments. But this particular initiative is about protecting eco-systems rather than just dealing with emissions. I think there are a lot of powerful people who simple don't give a shit if forests are destroyed or species made extinct, and they never will. Profit is more important.

But surely, ultimately the population is just going to get bigger and bigger, and therefore more and more energy will be used. Unless greener forms of energy can be substituted almost entirely (and, really, unless they are cheaper than traditional forms) it's only a matter of time before the inevitable occurs.

PuzzledBear Mon 30-Sep-13 22:27:41

Screwtapes, yes exactly. That's why you should vote for this. To curb the activities of the people who don't care. Maybe this act won't get through. But the odds against it increase with every person who knows the earth is being irrevocably damaged and doesn't believe there is anything to be done.

pitterpaterfamilias Mon 30-Sep-13 22:39:36

Screwtapes, remember that while legislation usually reflects public opinion, occasionally the lawmakers can lead it. Much of the discrimination legislation, for instance, was met with scepticism but now most people understand that it's not "political correctness gone mad".

Although, as Stewart Lee said, if there's one thing political correctness has achieved, it's to make the Tories hide their inherent racism behind more creative language. wink

ScrewtapesOppositeNumber Mon 30-Sep-13 22:57:58

Yes but often the lawmakers are influenced or controlled by big business. That's my point.

specialsubject Tue 01-Oct-13 10:14:35

this is the same EU that hugely subsidises the useless on-shore windfarms?

yeah, right. That'll go well.

flatpackhamster Tue 01-Oct-13 10:41:04

pitterpaterfamilias

Flatpack - the rate at which the world's resources are being destroyed is wicked.

It would be if there weren't more resources to consume. There's no shortage, it's just down to the cost of getting it out of the ground. What're we supposed to do, just leave it in there to placate Gaia?

The complete disregard of many multinationals to any environmental responsibility is wicked.

That why we have laws to manage them. This law you propose would stop any kind of development. It would destroy the very basis of human progress. That's wicked.

The wilful ignorance of those who support the unfettered free market that allows or condones this behaviour is wicked.

You believe it's all down to evil big business that pollution happens, don't you? Have you ever been to Eastern Europe? Have you read about the pollution of the Danube under Communism? If you had seen the damage done by state-controlled markets, you wouldn't be so quick to condemn the free market. Talk about wilful ignorance. Take a jaunt to Russia and see what happens when the state has total control, why don't you? Why don't you go and look at the destruction of the environment in China, then come back and lecture me on the 'wicked' free market.

This proposal seeks to curtail this behaviour. The objections you have are absurd. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm ashamed to think that we share chromosomes. What's absurd is the self-loathing, the pathetic flagellation of the green movement, which so hates and despises the human race that it will do anything to curtail its progress,

We need aspirational proposals at this time, not self serving vested interests looking to block measures designed to safeguard our future and our children's future.

What does it aspire to, this proposal? It aspires to stagnation. No nuclear power. No mining. Where are you going to get your blessed wind turbines from without acid leaching for rare earths, without strip mining for steel, without quarrying for gravel for concrete, without deep mining for copper for the wires?

flatpackhamster Tue 01-Oct-13 10:49:11

Could those who think this law is a good idea answer a question for me.

Given that the law would forbid any kind of industry which might 'degrade the environment', please could you tell me which kinds of power generation and agriculture would be permitted under this law?

Slipshodsibyl Tue 01-Oct-13 12:47:15

Well I think at the very least we would all have to give up our cars...

flatpackhamster Fri 04-Oct-13 12:51:08

Isn't it amazing. Not a single reply from any of the supporters of the law, three days after I asked the question.

It's almost as though they were paid shills for the group pushing the law...

PuzzledBear Fri 04-Oct-13 13:49:08

Oh FGS. No actually I just thought I would share something I think is a positive initiative. Then you became aggressive and rude. I tried to discuss it and justify it a little but actually I can't be bothered to debate with you because you irritate me. So it's not that I am somehow corrupt, I just don't want to discuss with you. I don't have to and I'm not going to, and I am fed up with your attitude.

SilverOldie Fri 04-Oct-13 16:26:32

Interesting reply OP, were you stamping your foot and saying 'so there'! when you were typing your last post? Why start a thread when you have no desire to debate it with someone who has an opposing view?

Flatpackhamster's posts are eminently sensible IMO.

PuzzledBear Fri 04-Oct-13 17:03:17

Pretty much, oldie

flatpackhamster Mon 07-Oct-13 07:12:19

It isn't a positive initiative and I have outlined why. Perhaps before you leap on the next ecomentalist bandwagon you ought to try some critical thinking.

And don't debate me if you wish, but think on this - which kinds of power generation and agriculture would be permitted? Try to think of one, because I couldn't. No need to reply here, just mull over the consequences of a law that resets the human race to hunter-gatherers when there are 7 billion of us on the planet.

CoteDAzur Mon 07-Oct-13 07:23:27

"Remember that many businesses operating globally are based in the EU or are listed on investment exchanges in the EU."

You can't prosecute a company because it is listed in a European stock exchange.

And all legislation such as this would do is to make EU companies move out to other countries. Nonbrainer when the alternative is to close up shop.

SalisburyMummy Wed 06-Nov-13 21:42:24

Interesting debate. No protests probably don't work to effect direct change but they do raise awareness so the majority can do the things that definitely work...switching power suppliers to green energy for example.

I have started a group Mums against fracking check out my fb page if you want to do something about the planned ecocide that will happen before any law can be passed!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/249553771863223/

SalisburyMummy Tue 20-May-14 17:18:03

Couldn't agree with you more Pitterpatterfamilias. Its great that people are trying to do something to stop corporate greed from ruining the planet for all of us. well done to these lawyers..i bet they could have made waaay more money working towards less ethical pursuits so good on them!

CFSKate Wed 21-May-14 10:37:51
Squidstirfry Wed 21-May-14 17:23:11

Fantastic link, thanks for sharing.

I completely agree that the continuing destruction of the earth's ecosystem and finite resources need to be challenged.

Flatpackhamster on here, and other like-minded climate chage deniers will unfortuately be content to let things continue as they are, and even defend the position of capital over life. I'm not one of them.

sarahquilt Tue 27-May-14 03:08:20

I hate to be the voice of doom but it's too late. The destruction of the environment has already gone too far. In 100 years a lot of Europe will be under water.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now