Green Criminology

An Introduction to the Study of Environmental Harm

Rob White, Diane Heckenberg

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781136216923
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Over the past ten years, the study of environmental harm and 'crimes against nature' has become an increasingly popular area of research amongst criminologists. This book represents the first international, comprehensive and introductory text for green criminology, offering a concise exposition of theory and concepts and providing extensive geographical coverage, diversity and depth to the many issues pertaining to environmental harm and crime.Divided into three sections, the book draws on a range of international case studies and examples, and looks at the conceptual and methodological foundations of green criminology, before examining in detail areas of environmental crime and harm, and how they are addressed, including:

• climate change and social conflict;
• abuse and harm to animals;
• threats to bio-diversity;
• pollution and toxic waste;
• environmental victims;
• environmental regulation, law enforcement and courts;
• environmental forensic studies;
• environmental crime prevention.

Green Criminology is packed with pedagogical features, including dialogue boxes, case examples, discussion questions and lists of further reading and is perfect for students around the world engaged with green criminology and crime against the environment.

Part I

Conceptual and methodological foundations

Chapter 1

Green criminology and environmental crime

Introduction

This chapter will discuss the following topics:

• what green criminology is;
• studying environmental harm;
• environmental crime and environmental harm;
• perspectives within green criminology;
• the systemic causes of environmental harm.

The term ‘green criminology’ first emerged in the early 1990s to describe a critical and sustained approach to the study of environmental crime (Lynch, 1990; South, 1998a and b). This chapter introduces the reader to green criminology and the different ways in which researchers and scholars examine issues pertaining to environmental crimes and harms. It outlines the distinctive features of green criminology, the main concepts and foci of analysis and the ongoing debates that mark its further and continuing development as a bona fide perspective within criminology.

A series of intriguing questions arise about precisely what it is that we are talking about when we invoke the name ‘green criminology’. The term can refer to a specific focus on environmental crimes or harms: that is, a particular topic for sustained criminological analysis (such as poaching of parrots). Alternatively, it may refer to a conceptual approach premised upon certain notions of justice and particular moral frameworks, such as environmental justice or species justice. It may involve ‘old’ (that is, conventional) theories and perspectives (general strain theory, for example) applied to new areas (such as climate change), as well as ‘new’ methods and approaches (such as horizon-scanning) applied to old areas (e.g. illegal waste disposal). For some, green criminology is defined by networks and collaborations between scholars and researchers; for others, it is the objective content of the research that defines this field of enquiry.

Our view is that the field of green criminology ought to be defined as widely as possible, thereby allowing for diverse conceptual and empirical insights into the nature and dynamics of environmental wrongdoing. For the purposes of this textbook, therefore, a wide spectrum of approaches, methods and perspectives are canvassed, accommodated and utilized under the broad canopy of green criminology.

What is green criminology?

Green criminology refers to the study by criminologists of environmental harms (that may incorporate wider definitions of crime than are provided by strictly legal definitions); environmental laws (including enforcement, prosecution and sentencing practices); and environmental regulation (systems of criminal, civil and administrative law designed to manage, protect and preserve specified environments and species, and to manage the negative consequences of particular industrial processes) (White 2008a, 2011a).

In general, green criminology takes as its focus issues relating to the environment (in the widest possible sense) and harm (as defined in ecological as well as strictly legal terms). Much of this work has been directed at exposing different instances of substantive social and ecological injustice. It has also involved critique of the actions of nation-states and transnational companies for fostering particular types of harm, and for failing to adequately address or regulate harmful activity.

The key focus of green criminology is environmental crime but green criminologists also study environmentally harmful activities not currently defined as crimes. Environmental crime is conceptualized in several different ways within the broad framework of green criminology. For some scholars, environmental crime is defined narrowly within strict legal definitions – it is what the law says it is. For others, environmental harm is itself deemed to be a social and ecological crime, regardless of legal status – if harm is done to environments or animals, then from the point of view of the critical green criminologist, it is argued that such harms ought to be considered a ‘crime’.

The interface of criminology with environmental issues, as a discrete field of study, and in a manner that involves increased and concerted professional attention and hands-on intervention has been forcefully advocated by Lynch and Stretesky (2003: 231):

In general, criminologists have often left the study of environmental harm, environmental laws and environmental regulations to researchers in other disciplines. This has allowed little room for critical examination of individuals or entities who/which kill, injure and assault other life forms (human, animal or plant) by poisoning the earth. In this light, a green criminology is needed to awaken criminologists to the types of major environmental harm and damage that can result from environmental harms; the conflicts that arise from attempts at defining environmental crime and deviance; and the controversies still raging over possible solutions, given extensive environmental regulations already in place.

From a criminological perspective, taking up the challenge offered here will require rigorous and sophisticated analysis of the social dynamics that shape and allow certain types of activities harmful to the environment (including to human and non-human species) to take place over time. This approach demands that environmental issues be framed within the context of a sociological and socio-criminological imagination (see Wright Mills 1959, White 2003, Young 2011). That is, study must appreciate the importance of situating environmental harm within its social and historical context. It is context (the economic, social and political conditions in which environmental transgressions occur) that gives a study specificity. Interpretation and analysis need to take into account how current trends reflect the make-up of global and local societies, the overall direction in which those societies are heading, and the ways in which diverse groups of people are being affected by particular social, economic and political processes.

The kinds of harm and crime studied within green criminology include illegal trade in endangered species, such as the trade in exotic birds or the killing of elephants for their ivory tusks; illegal harvesting of ‘natural resources’, such as illegal fishing and logging; and illegal disposal of toxic substances and the resultant pollution of air, land and water. Wider definitions of environmental crime extend the scope of analysis to consider harms associated with legal activities (such as the clear felling of old-growth forests) and the negative ecological consequences of new technologies – such as use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture (e.g. reduction of biodiversity through extensive planting of GMO corn). More recent considerations include the criminological aspects of climate change, from the point of view of human contributions to global warming (e.g. carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants) and the criminality associated with the aftermath of natural disasters (e.g. incidents of theft and rape in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans).

Environmental crime and environmental harm

The study of environmental crime is not new, although green criminology as a distinctive perspective within criminology is. Environmental crime frequently embodies a certain ambiguity. This is because it is not only located in models of risk (e.g. the precautionary principle) or evaluated in terms of actual harms (e.g. polluter pays), but is also judged in the context of cost-benefit analysis (e.g. license to trade or to pollute or to kill or capture). This goes to the heart of why environmental crime itself is consistently undervalued in law. The label of environmental crime tends to be applied to specific activities that are otherwise lawful or licensed (e.g. cutting down trees, pulling fish from the ocean), since these are viewed as not being intrinsically criminal or ‘bad’. It is the context that makes something allowable or problematic. To take another example, harm to the environment is, in many situations, considered to be acceptable (for instance in certain circumstances we are prepared to allow pollution under licence or authorization) because it is an inherent consequence of many industrial activities which are seen to provide significant benefits.

The ‘wrongdoing’ studied within green criminology is initially informed by legal conceptions and constructions of harm. The nature and seriousness of harm – what makes something ‘criminal’ or not – is captured in the distinction between illegality (malumprohibitum) and serious harm (malum in se).

Illegality – malum prohibitum

This area of law refers to conduct that is prohibited by law but generally considered less serious than other types of social harms (homicide for example). In many situations harm to the environment is considered to be acceptable because it is an inherent consequence of industrial activities linked to significant economic benefits. Cutting down trees and pulling species out of the ocean are thus NOT intrinsically criminal or ‘bad’ activities from the point of view of the law. So the main issue here is ‘managing the problem’ (usually framed in terms of catch limits and allowable levels of pollution or toxicity); this is essentially a matter of regulation. Examples include the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal – the first, designed to regulate the international movement of species, and the second, to control the transfer of hazardous substances between countries. Within this framework, it is the illegal aspects of ordinary legitimate practices that are problematic. A key practical focus is developing the best tools and strategies possible to ensure compliance with licensing provisions and specific environmental regulations.

Serious harm – malum in se

This area of law refers to conduct inherently wrong by nature, and which is considered serious. The main issue here is ‘eradicating the problem’ (usually framed in terms of banning of specific substances and/or activities). The intent of the law is to prevent and abolish harmful practices, as seen for example in the application of public interest law in India to stop polluting industries from destroying sites of national significance (Mehta 2009). Another example of this approach is the Montreal Protocol, which effectively bans the use of ozone-depleting substances. An emergent demand, aligned to some extent with calls for recognition of Earth Rights (already manifest in some country’s constitutions) is for a new international law on ‘ecocide’ (Higgins 2010). This would make extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory an international crime (the fifth crime against peace).

Environmental crime is typically defined on a continuum ranging from strict legal definitions through to broader harm perspectives (see also Bricknell 2010). For example: ‘an unauthorized act or omission that violates the law and is therefore subject to criminal prosecution and criminal sanction’ (Situ and Emmons 2000: 3); ‘an act committed with the intent to harm or with a potential to cause harm to ecological and/or biological systems and for the purpose of securing business or personal advantage’ (Clifford and Edwards 1998: 26); ‘criminal conduct that may have negative consequences for the environment’ (UNODC 2011: 95); ‘environmental harm is a crime’ (White 2011a: 1).

The matter of legality does not prevent criminologists from critiquing certain types of ecologically harmful activities that happen to be legal, such as the clear felling of forests. From a criminal justice perspective, however, the issue of legality goes much deeper, to the heart of why environmental crime itself is consistently under-valued in law:

Of note is the consistent use of the preface ‘illegal’ in the listed activities constituting environmental crime, a preface not regularly employed when describing other categories of crime. This reflects the fact that some component or level of these activities is still condoned and that it only becomes illegal once a set boundary has been passed. The tipping point of illegality contrasts environmental crimes with other established criminal offences

(Bricknell 2010: 4)

Specific types of environmental harm as described in law include things such as illegal transport and dumping of toxic waste, the illegal transfer of hazardous materials (e.g. ozone-depleting substances), the illegal traffic in radioactive or nuclear substances, the illegal trade in flora and fauna, and illegal fishing and logging. However, within green criminology there is a more expansive definition of environmental crime or harm that includes (White 2011a):

• transgressions that are harmful to humans, environments and non-human animals, regardless of legality per se; and
• environmental-related harms facilitated by the state, as well as corporations and other powerful actors, insofar as these institutions ha...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of boxes
• List of case vignettes
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I Conceptual and methodological foundations
• Part II Transgression and victimization
• Part III Intervention and prevention
• Glossary
• References
• Index