Green Crime Flashcards
Definition
Green crime refers to crimes and/or harms done to the environment, including to non human animals.
Green Crime is linked to globalisation
Regardless of the division of the world into separate nation states, the planet is a single ecosystem. For example, an incident in the nuclear power industry at Chernobyl power plant in the Ukraine had widespread effects; radioactive fallout from the incident were found to have been dumped by atmospheric winds in parts of Wales.
‘Global risk society’ and the environment
Beck argues that most threats to human well being and the eco system are now human made rather than natural disasters. In late modern society, the massive increase in productivity and technology has created new ‘manufactured risks’. Many of these involve harm to the environment and have serious consequences for humanity, e.g. climate change. These risks are increasingly on a global scale, so Beck describes late modern society as ‘global risk society’
There are different approaches to the issue of environmental crime:
TRADITIONAL CRIMINOLOGY
e.g. in the Bhopal disaster, no law was broken so not criminal
Situ and Emmons define green crime as ‘an unauthorised act that violates the law’. It investigates the patterns and causes of law breaking. The advantage is that its subject matter is clearly defined (by the law), but it is criticised for accepting official definitions of environmental problems which are shaped by powerful groups, such as businesses to solve their own interests.
GREEN CRIMINOLOGY
e.g. the Bhopal disaster was a criminal act due to the infliction of harm
takes a more radical approach. It starts from the notion of harm rather than criminal law. For example, Rob White argues that the real subject of criminology is any action that harms the physical environment, even if no law has been broken. In fact, many of the worse environmental harms are not illegal and so the subject matter of green criminology is much wider than traditional criminology. For this reason, it is a form of ‘transgressive criminology’. Furthermore, different countries have different laws thus legal definitions cannot provide a consistent standard of harm. This approach is similar to that of Marxists who argue the Capitalist class can shape the law so that their own exploitative activities are not criminalised.
Rob White- two views of harm:
ANTHROPOCENTRIC VIEW
(human based view) This view assumes that humans have a right to dominate nature for their own ends, and puts economic growth before the environment. Harm is only inflicted if it doesn’t benefit humans. This is how green crimes go unchallenged as they’re seen to benefit humans (justifies humans)
ECOCENTRIC VIEW
(environment based view) This view sees humans and the environment as interdependent, so that environmental harm hurts humans also. This view sees both humans and the environment as liable to exploitation, particularly by global capitalism. In general, green criminology adopts the ecocentric view as the basis for judging environmental harm.
South
PRIMARY CR|MES
Crimes that result directly from the destruction of the earth’s resources. South defines four main types:
- Crimes of air pollution
- Crimes of deforestation
- Crimes of species decline and animal rights
- Crimes of water pollution
South
SECONDARY CRIMES
Crimes that are generated by ignoring rules aimed at preventing or regulating environmental disasters.
State violence against oppositional groups
States condemn terrorism but they have been prepared to resort to similar illegal methods themselves.
Toxic waste dumping
Legal disposal of toxic industrial waste is expensive so businesses may dispose of it by using ‘eco-mafias’ who profit from illegal dumping
Illegal waste dumping is often globalised. Western businesses ship their waste for processing in third world countries where costs are lower and safety standards non existent
In some cases, dumping is not even illegal, since less develop countries may lack the necessary obligation outlawing it.
Evaluation- STRENGTHS
Green criminology is transgressive- it considers acts and issues which are not defined as crimes but which cause enormous harm. It recognises the growing importance of environmental issues and the needs to address the harms and risks of environmental change.
WEAKNESSES
By focussing on the much broader concept of harm rather than simply on legally defined crimes, it is hard to define the boundaries of its field of study clearly. Defining these boundaries involves making moral or political statements about which actions ought to be regarded as wrong. Critics argue that this is a matter of values and cannot be studied objectively.
