Why Not Crimes Against Nature?

Added on by PS Cat02.

Bunny and I just watched a documentary called Oil on Ice. It's about the controversy surrounding whether or not to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. [mini-review here] One of the most disturbing things in the film for me was how the oil companies would hire scientists to provide 'expert' analyses testifying that oil spills have minimal lasting environmental impact (such as, for example, after the catastrophic Exxon Valdez spill in 1989). These experts are used in the oil corporations' public relations reports and videos to enable them to continue engaging in devastating environmental exploitation.

I guess because I'm actually a big fan of science, it hurts me to see scientists acting like academic mercenaries. I really wonder if they'd act this way if they could be held accountable for their role in the systematic harming of the environment. They are, after all, providing a key element of the necessary propaganda required to sway public and governmental opinion.

We already have the concept of 'crimes against humanity' to protect human beings from particularly odious crimes, systematically committed. Why don't human beings apply the same logic to protect the environment against, say, 'crimes against nature'? (and I'm not talking about people doing it with swans, okay?)

~ pinky