Toni Moriarty--Global Warming

The aim is to convince the reader that international environmental laws should be passed in order to prevent the further elimination of the earth’s creatures.

Keywords: ‘Green Criminology’, ‘Species Justice’, ‘Global Warming’, ‘Animal Rights’, ‘Abolitionism’

Abolitionism is a term by which, in order to accomplish a goal, one must give up that which obstructs its ability to be completed. Therefore, it appears as though abolitionism and green criminology go hand in hand; if one is to rid the world of animal cruelty, we must first abolish the use of animal goods. If one is to rid the world of global warming, we must first abolish greenhouse gases and limit our carbon footprint. But I think a key reason for doing the latter is to help the former. Surely, by diminishing our effect on global warming, we will in turn protect wildlife habitats such as those so thoroughly destroyed in the recent 2019-2020 Australian bwwwwwwwsgushfires and furthermore protect the wildlife that depends upon those habitats? With this reasoning, doesn’t the human contribution to global warming also contribute towards animal cruelty?

In ‘An Introduction to Green Criminology et Environmental Justice’ (2016), Angus Nurse describes Species Justice as the responsibility that man, as the dominant species on the planet, owes to nonhuman animals and to ensure this protection through the use of law. It is an unfortunate fact that the evolution of humans has led to the extinction of multiple different species of animals and I believe that through the mistreatment of not only animals but also the planet, we may be on our way to eradicating many more.

A staple of the Australian culture is the Koala bear; this along with the kangaroo are two of the most common features that non-Australians recognise about the country. The massive bushfires that raged through Australia in late 2019-early 2020 have claimed the lives of over 25,000 koala bears and there are reports that they may have to be put on the endangered animals list. I think it is without a doubt that the bushfires are a result of the intensely hot climate that has been produced by global warming to which humans have contributed.

Over the last 30 years, more and more research and interest has gathered around global warming with the majority of findings pointing towards humanity as the source for its continued rise. The impact that this has had on the planet is undeniable. The gelada baboon is a species that can only survive in low temperatures which are diminishing and forcing them into an unsurvivable environment. Seabirds in the west of North and South America are affected by a large warming of ocean currents that lead to a lack of fish and, in turn, leave the birds either unable to breed or dead. A similar effect can be seen amongst polar bears as their food source disappears due to the melting of ice caps in the summer months.

The Animal Welfare Act in the UK places responsibility on owners to take care of their animals needs. The Act applies to all animals and specifically aims to prevent their suffering. However, it only applies if the animal is domesticated. The problem with this and many of the laws focused on the protection of animals is that they treat animals as if they are property or a commodity. They do not have rights of their own.

Species justice is a study in the field of green criminology which argues that the justice system should give rights to nonhuman animals. If this is to be accepted, we must consider all animals and prevent all their suffering. As proven in many of the examples referenced above, animal suffering is also caused by global warming and so we must try to limit our effect on it. This utilitarian approach not only benefits animals.

We need to also consider the dangerous effect global warming has on humans who don’t contribute much to it at all. Those in third world countries don’t have the same environmentally destructive capabilities of those in the west due to a lack of technology and advancements and yet they tend to suffer from the effects of global warming the most because of their lack of technology. The World Health Organization predicts that by the year 2030, over 300,000 deaths will occur per year, most of which in developing countries. Should this not be considered a crime against humanity and a violation of human rights that we, in first world countries, have such an influence over populations who neither contribute to nor can protect themselves from the damage we do to the environment?

If we, as humanity, do not even look after our own kind, how do we look after those who depend on us as the dominant species on the planet? As Skinnider put it in 2013, “Environmental crime… can have detrimental consequences on the economies and security of a country.” There needs to be an overhaul on the laws we have to protect the environment in order to properly follow the rights we have as humans and the rights animals have as living beings.

As the research of many scientists points out, the blame for global warmings current state can be placed entirely upon humanities shoulders so the question is no longer whether we are accountable for the destruction of animal habitats, but how we can prevent it from happening any further.

Many countries have already started introducing environmentally and animal friendly laws. Since the 1960’s, many steps in more developed parts of the world have already been taken to consider species justice (Beirne, 2007). The amount of meat consumed around the world has fallen, more ethical approaches have been made to the slaughter of animals and the use of animals for entertainment purposes such as in zoo’s and movies have been made to be more morally acceptable. There are also many charities that raise money for the protection of endangered animals throughout the world.

All the evidence shows that over the last 50+ years, the awareness of the need for more environmental and animal protection has grown and changed and it is likely that it will change more in the coming years with the outspoken voices of activists, animal rights groups, and charities that are influencing the views of those with the power to create change.

In order to further the protection of animals and their rights, laws need to be put in place to limit the over-exploitation of animals being used like goods for entertainment or food. As suggested by Wyckoff (2014), a complete abolitionist approach needs to be taken towards the use of animals. Items such as meat, dairy, and fur should be outlawed if humanity is to take animal rights seriously.

One approach to this is suggested by Donaldson and Kymlicka (2011) who argue that domestic animals (those that depend on humans to survive) should have citizenship rights, wild animals (who avoid humanity where possible) should have the rights we offer to sovereign communities and animals who live in close proximity to humans without depending on them (such as rats, foxes, etc) should be considered to have denizens rights. This approach provides every animal with rights and protection instead of just the standard Animal Welfare Act that addresses only animals owned by humans.

The next step to take would be an abolitionist approach to environmental welfare. Humanity should limit its carbon emissions in order to ultimately protect the wildlife habitats that we are putting at risk through global warming.

Some of the biggest contributors to global warming are corporations. Those who manufacture chemicals or drill for oil can contribute to water pollution. The biggest oil spill in history was during the Gulf War when Iraqi forces dropped gallons of oil into the sea. The most famous was BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Over both of these instances and many more, millions of gallons of oil entered the ocean and the ecosystems within it and destroyed millions of sea life.

Large companies are also the biggest contributors to landfills and many fail to properly dispose of their waste materials. Landfills produce the biggest amount of man-made methane which contributes to the rising temperature of global warming. Cattle farms are also a large contributor to the amount of methane in the environment.

Finally, energy companies are some of the biggest contributors to air pollution in the world and Carbon Monitoring for Action has collected data from over 50,000 power plants around the world that generates 10 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions each year.

In order to deter corporations from emitting so much pollution, Stretesky and Lynch (2014) suggested that the pollution caused should be considered as a form of assault on the communities that lived close to the source. Although they based their research on minority groups in America, I believe some of their findings can carry over into the animal rights movement. Many animals are affected by pollution (most obviously seen in the BP oil spill given as an example above) and if we are to theorise that pollution is a form of assault, we can conclude that it is also a form of animal harm.

One of the main reasons it is hard for governments and law enforcers to gain any kind of control over global warming is that large, international scale companies aren’t the only ones to blame for the abuse of the planet; individuals are too. One could argue that many of the people with any kind of power over the problem are also contributors to it (Agnew, 2013).

Many of those in power have meetings all over the globe which can take them on flights (of which, worldwide, produced 895 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2018), in cars (which, amongst all types of transportations, produces the most carbon dioxide) and by boat which contribute similar amounts of carbon dioxide as air travel. For every 1.7 people in Europe, there is one car. If anything is to be done about global warming, rules should be put in place for both corporations and individuals.

If one considers the theory from Stretesky and Lynch that pollution should be considered assault and come to the conclusion that this means by contributing to global warming (both individually and collectively) one is effectively assaulting animals by destroying their habitats, the current Animal Welfare Act should be consulted and the necessary punishment should be carried out.

The RSPCA aims to imprison, fine, and prevent the ownership of animals to any person to assaults them but currently they report that the level of sentencing to the level of assault doesn’t quite add up. This needs to be better enforced and perhaps longer sentences need to be considered to stop the abuse of animals.

In terms of how pollution affects animals, companies that produce extraordinary amounts of waste pollution should be fined for their actions and held responsible for the damage they are causing the planet. Laws need to be passed to put a limit on how much pollution corporations are allowed to produce and this needs to be properly regulated so that it can’t be abused. Due to the amount of pollution that is regularly produced by these large, global corporations, sentencing them to jail time for environmental harm seems appropriate.

There are some potential solutions to the emissions currently produced; cattle farms can feed their cattle seaweed which research has shown to lower gas production; solar energy can replace gas; more affordable electric cars can be produced. While many developed countries are on their way to lowering their emissions and finding solutions to the pollution they’re causing, they are still producing a dangerous and destructive amount of pollution.

On an individual level, enforcement is more difficult. Methods such as fines for littering are largely ignored by law enforcement and more and more animals are found dead either trapped in litter or with plastic in their stomachs. A better approach might be to sentence litterers to community work such as litter picking, and a better attempt needs to be made to catch them in the act.

The ultimate goal around the world should be an abolitionist approach. As an example, the use of cars in place of what could simply be a 20 minute walk or a 5 minute bike ride should be abolished and should only be deemed reasonable if the individual in question has a disability that requires the use of a car. The consumption of meat and the use of animal skins or fur should be limited to the absolute minimum. This can be regulated through the sale of meat from farm to store or completely outlawing meat altogether.

The enforcement of animal rights usually occurs through umbrella agencies such as WWF, TRAFFICS, and Birdlife International instead of using a single international environmental law system. This becomes a problem when one considers the difference in the cultural approaches to animal harm across the globe. In some places, it is legal to hunt animals, to use them for experimentation or to kill them for the use in medicines. In almost all countries, they are treated as a commodity or property instead of living creatures with their own rights. Law enforcement across the world needs to take this into consideration and start using a more abolitionist approach towards animal rights and the right they have to their homes, thereby a more abolitionist approach to laws regarding global warming.

Most jurisdictions have laws that protect wildlife, but they usually only come into play when the wildlife in question has reached a point of unsustainable exploitation. If cows or sheep for example were suddenly to become endangered, it is likely that we would no longer be eating beef or lamb. It shouldn’t have to get to a point where a whole species is almost extinct for them to have the right to live.

Because of this, governments should be thinking of ways to prevent the endangerment of animals, no matter how unlikely it may seem. Outlawing meat and animal products would help with this (as well as the methane problem). A ban on fishing would help fish to thrive and provide a better source of food to birds and animals.

The animal welfare act should be changed to include all different types of animals as mentioned above including fish and birds.

However, abolitionism isn’t always the best way to approach the issue due to its extreme nature. For example, if one were to completely get rid of cars that use gas, where would all of the waste that are the cars themselves be stored? There are parts of the cars that cannot be recycled. There needs to be a place to store the conserves of petrol and diesel. What would happen to petrol stations? The answer of just getting rid of everything isn’t so simple and needs to be thought through in more detail, perhaps with smaller approaches first before trying to achieve something so grand.

As well as the problems with an abolitionist approach, one must also consider the possible extremes that animal and environmental activists can go to; sometimes to dangerous lengths. There are many examples of environmental activists going too far and committing acts of ecoterrorism in order to further their environmentalist goals.

There is also a case against a lot of environmental criminology considering global warming as in very many cases there isn’t a clear perpetrator.

In the case of the 2019-2020 Australian bushfire that led to the writing of this paper, there is no clear suspect to persecute. No individual corporation was responsible nor was any individual person. In order to prevent such things from occurring to such as extent in the future, there should be a worldwide movement to protect the environment and, if such a situation were to occur again, measures such as training firemen for extreme conditions and funding for the ability to pump enough water to the affected areas should be considered.

To conclude, the argument of this paper is that it may be necessary to take an abolitionist approach to global warming and environmental harm in order to save the habitats of animals that are endangered or at risk of becoming so. In order to enforce more environmentally friendly policies, stricter punishments need to be taken for polluting.

Corporate pollution should be deterred with fines and possibly jail time to those in power. Individual pollution should be deterred with fines and, in the obvious cases of littering, with community service. However, for humanity to completely allow rights to animals, we must have an abolitionist approach to both the use of animal goods such as meat and fur and to the environment such as the use of gas or littering.

Due to the fact that there will never be a clear individual corporation or person for the destruction of wildlife through global warming, it is necessary for a global enforcement of new environmental laws in order to prevent large scale destruction such as that seen in the 2019-2020 Australian bushfire. An abolitionist and preventative approach are the only paths to save wildlife habitats from the effects of global warming and one should hope humanity continues moving in this direction.

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans. (2019, March 6). Retrieved from https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

Animal Welfare Act. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/changingthelaw/whatwechanged/animalwelfareact

Beirne, P., & South, N. (2012). Issues in green criminology: confronting harms against environments, humanity and other animals. London: Routledge.

Boukli, A., & Kotzé, J. (2018). Zemiology: reconnecting crime and social harm. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Carbon Monitoring for Action. (2012, August 23). Retrieved from https://www.cgdev.org/topics/carbon-monitoring-action

CO2 emissions from cars: facts and figures (infographics): News: European Parliament. (2019, April 18). Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20190313STO31218/co2-emissions-from-cars-facts-and-figures-infographics

Crick, H. Q. P. (2004, September 23). The impact of climate change on birds. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00327.x

Donaldson, S., Kymlicka, W., Yıldırım, M., & Küçükislamoğlu Ümran. (2016). Zoopolis: hayvan hakları siyaseti teorisi. İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi.

Dunbar, R. I. M. (2002, January 4). Impact of global warming on the distribution and survival of the gelada baboon: a modelling approach. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00156.x

Irving, C. (2019, March 2). The Effects of Littering on the Environment & Animals. Retrieved from https://sciencing.com/effects-littering-environment-animals-8634413.html

Lynch, M. J., Burns, R. G., & Stretesky, P. (2014). Environmental law, crime, and justice. El Paso: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

Maia, M. R. G., Fonseca, A. J. M., Oliveira, H. M., Mendonça, C., & Cabrita, A. R. J. (2016, August 30). The Potential Role of Seaweeds in the Natural Manipulation of Rumen Fermentation and Methane Production. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/srep32321

Mardell, M. (2011, January 6). US oil spill: 'Bad management' led to BP disaster. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12124830

Nurse, A. (2016). An introduction to green criminology et environmental justice. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Participation, E. (n.d.). Animal Welfare Act 2006. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents

Revkin, A. (2018, June 21). Climate Change First Became News 30 Years Ago. Why Haven't We Fixed It? Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/07/embark-essay-climate-change-pollution-revkin/

South, N., & Beirne, P. (2006). Green criminology. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Story Map Journal. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=52819f84ca87493bb96898faa90c79c7

The Gulf War Oil Spill: A Man-made Disaster. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.environmentandsociety.org/tools/keywords/gulf-war-oil-spill-man-made-disaster

The Health Effects Of Global Warming: Developing Countries Are The Most Vulnerable. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/health-effects-global-warming-developing-countries-are-most-vulnerable

Torre, G. (2020, January 6). Survival of iconic species now in danger as deadly Australian fires kill 25,000 koalas. Retrieved from https://www.independent.ie/world-news/australasia/survival-of-iconic-species-now-in-danger-as-deadly-australian-fires-kill-25000-koalas-38836452.html

International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy. (2011). Victims of environmental crime - mapping the issues. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

White, R. (2012). Crimes against nature: environmental criminology and ecological justice. London ; New York: Routledge.

Wyckoff, J. (2014, December 3). Toward Justice for Animals. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/josp.12077

I am a warehouse operative who used to study English literature and creative writing at Aberystwyth University. I haven’t written anything properly in years and am looking to get back into the hobby.

(Unless you type the author's name
in the subject line of the message
we won't know where to send it.)