photo: Uncle Kick-Kick via flickr/Creative Commons
DCL
Back in December I had a chance to sit down with British lawyer-turned-activist Polly Higgins to talk about a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights--basically a legal recognition that the planet itself and all of existence, rather than just humans, have intrinsic right to existence. An idea I'm quite sympathetic to and which I think would address a fundamental problem with the modern, utilitarian view of the world.
Now The Guardian is highlighting another of Higgins' efforts: The establishment of the international crime of 'Ecocide'.
The legal definition proposed by Higgins is this:
The extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.
Keep in mind that "peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory" would include all forms of life, human and non-human. A can of worms that definitely deserves to be opened, but a messy one nevertheless.
Right Question, More Definition Needed
Personally, I think a bit of clarification is needed concerning the length and extent of damage, whether the damage is permanent, what defines that?
Research shows that the damage to streams caused by mountaintop removal coal mining (let alone the mountaintops themselves...) lasts thousands of years, well beyond the lifespan of all animal forms of life and all but a few trees, none of which live there, but there's a wide grey gulf between that and many other forms of human-induced ecosystem changes that could potentially fall under the ecocide definition.
I like the idea, but some stronger definition and soul searching is needed--basically recognizing that some level of creation-preservation-destruction is natural and that human activity is part of that, even if grossly out of what is ecologically sustainable.
Massive Practical and Philosophical Changes Required
But back to Higgins. She told The Guardian she's "only beginning to get to terms with how enormous that change will be."
Under an ecocide law, which would be more potent because prosecutions would be against individuals such as directors rather than the companies, traditional energy companies could have to become largely clean energy companies, much extractive mining would have to be scaled back or stopped, chemicals which contaminate soil and water and kill wildlife would have to be abandoned and large-scale deforestation would not be possible.
Which again, comes back to definitions... And clearly at this point there are far more questions than answers, but ultimately the questions Higgins raises are the base existential ones needed to define what an ecologically sustainable future would look like, indeed the central ones of forming a comprehensive eco-philosophy.
I really encourage everyone to check out This is Ecocide, and the 10 reason why need ecocide as the 5th international Crime Against Peace. If we want to go beyond the quick-fix, simple steps solutions to our environmental problems, we need to start considering the questions Higgins raises.
