ICL may be a normative good (like "human rights"). But it isn't really law. There's no significant force behind it and participation is voluntary.

Compare that to the law of a sovereign state.

A believer in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relatio... would say prosecution for war crimes is merely a side-effect of being on the losing side.

At least if you ask whether Xi Jinping will be put on trial - or whether the outcome of Saddam Hussein's trial was ever in doubt.

Why would anyone care what Einstein had to say about governance?

The UN is a proto-world government but there is no “UN force”, only member states who agree to provide forces (and are free to withdrawal at any time as we saw in Rwanda when the genocide kicked off). So in essence it’s not World government but rather a collection of member states who sometimes collaborate under the UN banner (with enhanced legitimacy) to do what states do anyways - use force against other states to get their way. And if you notice, the superpowers often use it that way - vetoing things they disagree with (usually in a self-serving way), abstaining for things they are neutral about and wholehearted backing strategically advantageous UN missions.

It’s a big reason why the UN just isn’t that effective.

Of course the UN is a proto world government. And the history of the UN is a history of impotence. The UN couldn't stop a genocide in Rwanda committed with fucking machetes.

Is the UN a good thing? It's good that states talk to each other. But as a government, as a law-making and law-keeping entity, the UN is a joke.

European/American environmental activists get a bit frothy when they hear of damage to rainforests. Nevermind that most of these people have never been to one and don't investigate reports more thoroughly than reading a headline on Facebook from half a world away.

I believe GP was imagining these types gaining control and trying to force the world to comply instead of actually helping the world to care about protecting the environment.

> It's a good thing as it stands today, it is not a good thing for the future of humanity IMO because just one bad action can ruin it for everyone.

Leaving aside the sheer arrogance of thinking you can say with confidence what's going to "ruin the world for everyone," it's very clear to me that any world government that could make judgements like this for everyone would be by definition a tyranny.

Governments do bad things, sometimes backed by popular opinion. You assume a world government would be concerned with global warming or humanitarian issues and would not make bad choices. Why do you assume that? What would stop a world government from committing actual genocide? If it was truly a world government, nothing could stop it.

Hannah Arendt:

> The crimes against human rights, which have become a specialty of totalitarian regimes, can always be justified by the pretext that right is equivalent to being good or useful for the whole in distinction to its parts. A conception of law which identifies what is right with the notion of what is good for—for the individual, or the family, or the people, or the largest number—becomes inevitable once the absolute and transcendent measurements of religion or the law of nature have lost their authority. And this predicament is by no means solved if the unit to which the "good for" applies is as large as mankind itself. For it is quite conceivable, and even within the realm of practical political possibilities, that one fine day a highly organized and mechanized humanity will conclude quite democratically—namely by majority decision—that for humanity as a whole it would be better to liquidate certain parts thereof.

And, if you want to find where such "bad apples" come from, look no further than the UN, or any other international legal or military apparatus.

> States [of the USA] selectively comply with federal law all the time - an obvious example is Colorado legalising marijuana.

states can play this game in limited circumstances where the federal government makes only a half-hearted effort at enforcement. if the national opinion were more united against recreational marijuana, there are plenty of ways the federal government could force colorado to comply (eg, withholding highway funds).

> You seem to think it's reasonable that there is some oversight body for federal law, so why not an oversight body for international law?

Because such a body would require a world government, no such government exists, and its existence would be a bad thing.

This is how federalism works. The federal government could step in and force all states to do something, but in many cases allows the states to self-govern.

You ask two interesting questions.

One: Is the only alternative war? No. Sanctions work. Two: Is it already too late (assumes some tipping point and some amount of waiting)? Sanctions take a while; if a tipping point exists (defer to science), then maybe yes. If no tipping point exists, then no (in the absolute as your question implies) but maybe yes in a localized harm sort of way.

War is can address the problem of permanent environmental destruction. It has human costs and is certainly not environmentally neutral. Wouldn't it be nice if there was any other solution?

You're kidding, right? South American countries have much bigger problems to deal with than the Amazon. Nobody is gonna go to war over this. I'm not even sure there's enough strategic value in the Amazon to justify dying over it.

"That's the entire point of governments."

In theory, maybe. It seems most governments are full of people just wanting to hold onto power for themselves. They do what they want and don't truly care about the people or rule of law (ie nobody holds them accountable because the system looks out for itself).

The International Criminal Court is not “a government” and isn’t really representative of the people of a particular country in any direct way.

You 100% missed the point.

There's something totalitarian about setting vague rules to hold people responsible when you deem fit to prosecute. As an example of how this is going to be politically misused, if you actual read the Paris Accord, you'll know that this ecocide law set is going to be a shitshow. In the Paris Accord, it literally summed up, "You need to sign this agreement, pay the commission $100m, and then we'll setup a commission to figure out what the commission should look like that'll setup the various commissions that'll determine the environmental laws that you have now agreed to." I'm not kidding, what so ever. There were no targets or plans in the original accord that countries had to sign, which preemptively had them agree to whatever the hell the commission would decide YEARS later. Why is anyone to think more of these harsh "environment laws" are going to be precise or even effective if we're to be honest.

I guarantee you that these ecocide rules are going to be just as vague as anti-mercenary international laws. However, ecocide is going to be a political tool to bully countries to toe a line or face severe penalties. Other countries performing ecocide, as long as playing ball, won't face charges.

This is a case of helping make sure that, "everyone is guilty of something". Toss in the public impression of, "That political figure is committing ecocide!", even when they're not, you now have yourself the ultimate political weapon.

Just because someone claims they want to save the world, doesn't mean they actually intend to. There's this thing called lying for personal gains. Fairly new invention, but you should be aware of it. A very small amount of politicians do it and only recently.

"It should also be painfully obvious at this point that a more passive approach does very little."

That's not really true. We have seen reductions in many types of pollution in the last few decades. Not all of it is forced on people through laws. Much it of comes about as improvements in technology that provide efficiency and cost savings. You can see this is the use LEDs, better fuel milage (before the mandates), adoption of solar panel roofs (in areas that don't mandate it), siphonmatic toilets vs wash-down toilets, etc.

"There's nothing totalitarian about holding people responsible for the long term damage they do to the environment."

I generally agree. The issue us whether an international organization can hold other countries accountable. This could be a major sovereignty issue, especially when the law does not explicitly define what is legitimate consumption or use and what is ecocide. For example, does lithium mining constitute ecocide? It causes environmental damage, but is then used in some industries that might reduce impact in other areas (electric vehicles).

The thing is though, that given the choice between effective and totalitarian people like to choose totalitarianism because it's just so much easier to just do whatever they want vs actually thinking about how to build a sustainable system.

Honestly it's highly analogous to environmental protection. Instead of thinking about the external damage they're causing, groups of people just think about the fastest most effective way to make a buck.

And just like environmentally irresponsible corporations, societally irresponsible governance will result in environmental damage. If you say, "Give these guys all the power and they'll make the environment safe." then the result is going to be a safer environment until they get bored. Then they'll damage the environment because they have the power to do so and it's easier for the environment to be damaged. (Or people offer them bribes, or because they see ways to grab more power, or ... )

The concern to avoid totalitarianism is necessary to avoid long term environmental damage.

People seem to think that if they approve of a goal, actions taking in the name of that goal can't be totalitarian, or fascist, or bad in any way.

Every authoritarian measure in history was justified by something that sounded like good intentions. That you agree with a stated goal is orthogonal to whether a measure is totalitarian.

This is a very common pattern of miscommunication I see, particularly when criticizing traditionally left-leaning policy.

A: "The way we are implementing X is dangerous and should be discussed"

B: "X is imperative, we must do X. You may not question anything related to X"

It can be true that protecting the environment is good, but also true that the things that people in power do while claiming to protect the environment is not good.

It is totalitarian when the measures come at a time when it is convenient for large corporations to jump on the eko-bandwagon and entrench their positions against new competitors.

I would not have minded a $2/liter petrol tax 30 years ago, when it was inconvenient for the incumbents.

One of the most damaging acts that most people do to the environment is having children. Controlling that would greatly improve the environment. While any single person is far smaller than the scale you want enforced, you could have standards pushing for reduced population that would penalize countries that don't implement those standards or large corporations that engage in actions that promote population increases.

What if I told you, you can’t have a gas powered car anymore because it’s killing the planet and humans?

What if I said the same thing about all oil powered ships and planes?

Because I feel the planet is worth saving, can I force you to abandon all fossil fuels despite the massive financial cost and the limits on things and experiences you can enjoy in the future?

Now, imagine I forced you to do all this but instead of being a hippie who lived environmentally but I was a politician who continued to be driven in cars and fly around the world and had armed security while banning guns for everyone else?

There is, as often its the cost of improving and saving our lives.

The idea that we can both live in a modern world with all the benefits and have no impact on nature is ignoring the cold hard facts.

Nature didn't give us a safe and friendly place we made unsafe, it gave us a hostile and deadly environment we made safe through the use of energy and by transforming it into a safer environment for us.

Of course we should work on reducing the negative externalities but the positive far outweigh the negative EVEN with something as polluting as coal.

Forbidding incandescent light bulbs while forcing inferior expensive replacements on consumers to prop up the light bulb cartel.

All while you can burn 100l of petrol per day, no questions asked.

Forbidding new construction sites lest the yellow speckled violet frog's breeding habits are disturbed in order to prop up the rental extraction by oligarchs.

We have this idea that ownership of land and natural resources is total. After I buy a patch of land, I can absolutely obliterate everything that lives there, on a whim. If I somehow manage to make money by doing that, people consider that moral, since hey, money is great for everyone, right!? Growth growth growth! Rabbits be damned. Suck it, frogs! Trees, you're mine! Oh, there's gold in them hills? Ah, a toxic sludge lake would go so nice right there. Welp, gold's finished. Time to sell of this hunk o junk and retire to the Carribean!

Compared to what?

That doesn't indicate disbelief in the concept of the environment. It is a comment on the usage of the terms 'protection of the environment' / 'the environment' in the laws and advocacy that concern thepangolino.

Similarly, if I characterized some legislation as being 'for "the children"', I would not be expressing disbelief in the concept of children. I would be expressing disbelief in the honesty of the description 'for the children'.

Normally I don't get bent out of shape if someone makes their point with poorly chosen words. But seriously:

> A bit more totalitarianism is not a bad thing.

No, what you want is increased government effectiveness with respect to environmental responsibility.

This can be achieved without totalitarianism AND IN FACT must be achieved without totalitarianism if it is to be effective at all.

Can we stop or change a totalitarian government? Well, by definition no we can't. Only the totalitarian government can do that. If we have a totalitarian government that decides to protect the environment today, then we also have a totalitarian government that can decide to trash the environment completely tomorrow. And given how many assholes seem to like to grab for the reins of power within totalitarian governments, I don't like our chances of maintaining a benevolent, environmentally responsible totalitarian government for long enough for us to actually protect the environment.

The global totalitarian government doesn't help the environment. We need global consensus that humanity would like to live on a non-garbage fire earth and then governments that are able to enact the will of the people. Anything else is going to quickly result in greater, long term environmental damage.

> Currently, mainly outside of the US, companies have too much of a free rein to do whatever they like - in Brazil and China it's even government mandated.

Huh?

China is not known for its laissez-faire business environment, or for being uninterested in environmental quality. Reality is pretty much the exact opposite on both dimensions.

And obviously there is no location in the world in which environmental destruction is mandated. You must have meant something else (?), but I can't figure out what it is.

Maybe a bit more isn't terrible, but how do you limit it to a bit? History seems to describe that slope as slippery.

Hot take: If something is a good idea, you don't need a totalitarianism to convince people to value them and change their behavior.

If people don't change their behavior, it isn't either that good idea, or the person is not good in convincing others to change their behavior.

Of course, there are multiple factors, like shortterm vs longterm vision; competition with someone who is less ethical, ecologic, etc. But overall, totalitarian regimes don't have a good track record of longterm & ethical success, quite the opposite.

As many things as possible should be handled on individual level and volutarily and as little as possible on centralized level with using force. This is an approach, that allows cohabiting of people of different opinions, cultures, etc.

Government is mostly the problem it tries to solve. Increasing dictatorial power just increases corruption. That's a terrible gamble to make that the people in charge would just based on random chance agree with you that the climate problem needs drastic measures. You will never know what kind of a dirt-bag manages to climb to the top. It never seems to be the people you actually want.

Anybody presnting totalitarianism as a neccessary alternative is either a fool or a bastard to be disposed of at the earliest convenience. The object of power is power and not even loyalty keeps you safe from totalitarians.

In a few words you both praise totalitarianism and pretend that it's mainly outside of the US that companies have too free rein to do what they like! Wow, the world is a crazy place but this....

And the USA would go all the way to block this. Otherwise a lot of current and former government is at risk of prison if they leave the US.

The article mentions the ICC would prosecute heads of state. The American Service Members' Protection Act[0] authorizes the president to us "any and all means" to rescue a government official that is tried by a foreign court. It was specifically written with the ICC in mind.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

How legal is it to hold a trial without the accused present?

I used to think like this, but eventually I had the realization that

1. right now, we have norms against murdering people

2. if my team starts murdering people, we could probably get what we want

3. however, this breaks the norm against murdering people, and will encourage the other team to start murdering people to get what they want.

All of a sudden, people are murdering each other left and right. This is sometimes called "war". It is very bad.

Don’t ever create power you would not like your enemy to wield against you.

The problem there is that nobody especially likes being assassinated.

I won’t criticize you because your ideas. Still, I’d like you to know how a society would work if we were more aligned to think like that.

There is a government philosophy called utilitarianism. It’s based on the premise that a policy is good if and only if it increases overall happiness in a society thus, ends justify the means.

It’s totally valid to be an utilitarian. Nonetheless, you have to accept two premises.

1. There is no individual rights. 2. Measuring happiness is a trivialization of human experience (ex. How many people would need to be given an iPhone in order to justify the torturing an assassination of a child?).

Try reading Justice by Michael Sandel if you want to learn more.

It is a fucking stupid one. It hasn't worked on dictators and drug cartels. Hell it isn't even a guarantee against unarmed protestors. It is a sin Hollywood shares a good deal of blame for perpetuating, the bloodyminded stupid idea that you can just kill your way out of complex problems.

You select for more ruthless, selfish, and paranoid targets that way. Hell it is terrible for your ideology's image as you marry the image of crazed gunman/bomber to cause. The anarchists trid that and the term is still synonymous with depraved lunatics with bombs two centuries later.

That opens up even more questions in my mind. They want to hold people accountable for things they have no agency over? "...whether by human agency or by other causes..."

The definition is still very vague and subjective. The people running the court in Europe might see deforestation in Brazil as severely diminishing peaceful enjoyment. I would say the farmers clearing that land for agricultural use would argue that they are peacefully enjoying the land now that they modified the ecosystem to be more hospitable to their way of life, crops, and animals. We could even go as far as to say that every city meets this definition as nature has been replaced with buildings and many of the animals have been greatly reduced or eliminated.

That's still not very clear. Almost anything is reversible on a long enough timeline. Coal can be replenished on a long timeline, and the CO2 can be scrubbed. Until it can't, but it's rather spurious to try to assign blame to a single point. The coal plant is emitting CO2, but they'll say "well, it would have been fine except for trans-oceanic shipping". The shippers will point to the coal people.

Likewise, the Amazon can be reforested. Maybe not at the rate were cutting it down, but it's not as though trees will never be able to grow there again.

There needs to be a more nuanced decision around these. I'm with you, those things are bad and they should stop, but I would prefer to have a coherent framework we decide based on. I don't want to arbitrarily decide based on who can sway public opinion.

Yes. In fact, it might even be seen 20 years from now as being more damaging than the others. If that's the case, would we want 2021 world leaders to be hauled in front of such of a tribunal in 2040 for not doing enough to curtail beef production?

That seems capricious, impractical, and therefore undesirable.

I'm saying that once you build up systems like this that they rarely self-dismantle once the important job is done, but rather grow, self-perpetuate, and consume whatever resources are available in an attempt to do whatever is next most appealing.

No one wants 100 Chernobyl, Deepwater Horizon, Bhopal events or generalized global warming. Lots of people want their food, energy, and modern conveniences at affordable prices. Those things are inherently in tension and creating an international tribunal which can, with the benefit of hindsight and evolving viewpoints, make judgments about whether someone violated an inherently and intentionally unspecified level of environmental care 20 years previously is more than a small amount troubling to me.

(a) There could be a slippery slope to a lower quality of life - like curtailing meat production; (b) the threat of that would prevent governments from signing up; and (c) without governments signing up, the scheme won't work.

I think step one of anybody using the "i" or "e" words (imperialism/exploitation) should be to define what the they actually mean before expecting to be taken seriously. There are far too many very /very creative/ sinisterizing definitions out there for both deliberately conflated with other definitions. Are we talking "residental schools to deliberately and actively wipe out their language" imperialism or "selling blue jeans outside your borders is imperialism because you are destroying indigenous cultures even though the actual people in them want it" imperialism?

Thus far almost none of the models have accurately predicted the climate change or the outcomes there of. There’s a great clip of John Kerry in 2009 saying in 5 years there will be no year-round ice in the ice caps. Or earlier when al gore claimed everyone on the coast would be under water (he still has several beach front properties btw).

Lets assume they were arguing from a position of good faith (imo unlikely). Then it’s too late to impact the outcome, we should instead invest in mitigation tactics. None of those include going to war or launching air strikes on farmers clear cutting their land. It wouldn’t reduce or improve carbon emissions in any way.

Climate change should increase crop yields by most models. Depopulation and migration is more likely to happen when you stop a 3rd world countries ability to produce food or generate electricity (from coal or oil).

These policies are going to explicitly cause what their intended to stop.

Further, we’re exiting an ice age, by default the earth is 2-4 degrees celsius warmer. The original argument is still potentially valid that off gases can create a poor environment. It is however unclear how and what would cause this and how to mitigate. Just reacting by handing over all production capacity to China and india (which have exceptions to much of the Paris climate accords) is not going to help - it’ll just move the pollution there (and wealth to those who invested there).

"on par with" : at the same level or standard as (someone or something else)

Given the definition of that phrase, your admonishment seems misguided at best.

I think asking if an alternative implied by the previous comment makes sense. But criticizing their reading comprehension by gaslighting them is wrong.

Sure, take away their only income and walk away knowing you didn't kill them, starvation did. Very different.

We use stuff, yes, but now we overuse stuff. There is a difference between using and overusing. If it is difficult to calculate how to find the sweet spot of consumption without destruction at huge scale. At a smaller scale, it is easier, everyone of us knows that if you are living in a forest, you should use the wood in an intelligent manner. And not cut big chunks of the forest for having the luxury to overheat and over-shelter. The economic system that solves it is the one that does not use Usury or in other modern words Interest. Lending with interest should be prohibited.