Scotland could become one of the first countries to establish a specific crime for mass environmental destruction as championed by late Scots barrister Polly Higgins.
    • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.worldEnglish
      44·
      2 years ago

      conservatism

      Consevationism, there’s so many other aspects of conservativism than conservationism, the capitalists/right wingers aren’t going to hurt themselves by outlawing all of conservativism.

      Conservativism also touches on race, religion, economics, and others that are unique or spawned by the main tenets of conservativism.

  • MeanEYE@lemmy.worldEnglish
    36·
    2 years ago

    Start by taking away private jets and private flights from rich people. As all laws do, this one will also apply only to regular and poor people, not even big companies and certainly not for rich. Just look at what Musk is doing to nature reserve nears his launch pad. He was warned, didn’t get launch permissions, doesn’t have permission for letting untreated water into ground from cooling… and yet he does all that and no one bats and eye. Just look at the main page of Lemmy and you’ll see news of some dude flying alone in 747 because he can. Royal family has been known to fly across the ocean to get lunch.

    I meant you can live as carefully as possible, walk everywhere, never fly a plane and live only on solar for multiple lives and you couldn’t offset what they fuck up in a day.

    • ThisIsMyLemmyLogin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      211·
      2 years ago

      No, they’d be able to afford the best lawyers. It’s the poor who would be punished the most. We already have fines for not recycling properly, even though the rubbish all gets mixed back together in Turkey or China and burned anyway. We have to use soggy paper straws with our drinks while the rich blanket the atmosphere in burned fuel from the private jets.

    • Yokana@lemmy.worldEnglish
      147·
      2 years ago

      Thats a true revolutionary cry. But since being “rich” is quite a relative term, you might wake up in the realization that most of the world considers you rich and your lifestyle complicit in the mass destruction of the global environment.

      • Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        2 years ago

        This is a form of slippery slope fallacy. Rich in this context refers to portion of society contributing to pollution on a massively higher scale than even an upper middle class American. How many ‘rich’ Americans regularly fly private jets or take yachts? How many average joes own and operate a cruise line or a refinery?

        I think with regards to poorer people in other countries, they’d be on the same page with 99.99% of Americans about who’s considered so rich that they alone pose a threat to global health.

  • adamth0@lemmy.worldEnglish
    14·
    2 years ago

    I think we need to address this not just at individuals or corporations, but at nation states in which those individuals reside and are licensed.
    We need to kick them in the wallet. Allowing rampant pollution? Extra trade tariffs, and exclusion from various international groups/events. Complicit in rampant pollution? Punitive economic Sanctions, and loss of access to certain technologies, financial networks, etc.

    • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 years ago

      Trade tariffs hurt both countries and now is not really the time to be shooting your economy in the foot.

      Targeted sanctions would be referable but are a much more serious form of leverage and will damage credibility.

    • orrk@lemmy.worldEnglish
      61·
      2 years ago

      not really, civilization for a long time was perfectly fine living alongside nature. this problem is only really become a thing since the later industrial revolution