Climate change, environmental violence and genocide

Zimmerer, Jürgen

doi:10.1080/13642987.2014.914701

Cited by 21 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From the perspective of Fridays for Future allowing the climate crisis to unfold is deliberately facilitating atrocities (e.g., genocide through famines). This builds on arguments made by ONHCR [20] and Zimmerer [115] but also by scholars such as Caney [116], who established that human-made climate change threatens multiple human rights, including the most fundamental human right to life, as well as the human right to health, to subsistence (in particular food), to development and not to be forcibly evicted. According to Caney [116] a human rights perspective on climate change has important implications as it invalidates cost-benefit approaches to climate change, where the utility of some (usually those contributing to climate change) is weighted against the disutility of others (usually those suffering the consequences of climate change).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“How dare you?”—The normative challenge posed by Fridays for Future

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meeting the Paris Agreement will require unprecedented social change that goes hand in hand with technological and economic innovations. Research suggests that normative change, the change in what is perceived as normal or morally acceptable, can drive wider large-scale social change, i.e., change in legislation, policy, and behaviour. Normative change often starts with a normative challenge, i.e., practices considered normal, come to be seen as morally repugnant. In this paper we explore the normative challenge posed by Fridays for Future, analysing computationally a large data set of tweets in the context of this protest movement to understand the normative framework that challenges business as usual. We show that Friday for Future’s normative framework makes the shared, unjust casualty experience of young people because of the unmitigated climate crisis accessible to the public. The victims are now in spatial, temporal, and social proximity, they are our children and grandchildren, and this makes the normative challenge of the status quo (continuation of fossil-fuel based economy) so potent. The normative framework references human rights and duty of care when establishing an anti-fossil-fuel norm and prescribes solidarity with climate victims in the Global South, activism and seeking solutions that are based in science.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“How dare you?”—The normative challenge posed by Fridays for Future

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Zimmerer (2014: 268) points out that environmental violence is "a generic term" that "group together a multitude of factors, all of which have serious effects on the earth as a human habitat." Both Narchi (2015) and Zimmerer (2014) describe environmental violence as both structural and direct and identify economic interests or neoliberal ideologies as common causes for its occurrence. Slow violence, coined by Nixon (2011: 2), is described as violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as violence at all.…”

Section: Extractivism Environmental Violence and Slow Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further expanding the concept of violence, I see extractive violence as building on Galtung's direct violence but focussing on a specific type of direct violence, one related to Nixon's (2011) slow violence as well as concepts of environmental violence (Narchi 2015;Zimmerer 2014). Galtung also discussed aspects of violence against nature, however not as a specific type of violence different to the other three (see for example Galtung 1990: 294;Galtung & Fischer 2013: 36).…”

Section: Introducing Extractive Violence To Complement Galtung's Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Let’s Name It

Sehlin MacNeil

2019

J North Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article on conflict and power relations between extractive industries and Indigenous groups in Sweden and Australia draws on two case studies to compare situations for Laevas reindeer herding Sami community in Northern Sweden and Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners in South Australia. In this international comparison the analysis, based on the research participants’ narratives, employs Johan Galtung’s concepts of cultural and structural violence as analytical tools to further explore and contrast the participants’ experiences of interactions with extractive industries and industrial proponents. In addition, this study introduces extractive violence—defined as a form of direct violence but relating specifically to extractivism and Indigenous peoples—as a complement to Galtung’s model, known as the violence triangle. The results show that although the expressions of cultural, structural and extractive violence experienced by the two Indigenous communities varied, the impacts were strikingly similar. Both communities identified extractive violence, supported by structural and cultural violence, as threats to the continuation of their entire cultures. The study also shows that in order to address violence against Indigenous peoples, Indigenous and decolonising perspectives must be taken into account.

show abstract

“…It is this shift from considering human crime alone to harm against the environment through both legal and illegal means that has distinguished green criminology from other branches of criminology. More recently legislative attention is being given to the criminological aspects of climate change, from the point of view of human contribution to global warming, greenhouse emissions and sea-level rise (Shearing 2015;Zimmerer 2014). At a planetary scale the destruction of the environment is evidence of ecocide.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proof of Ecocide: Towards a Forensic Practice for the Proposed International Crime Against the Environment

Ahmed

2018

AEFS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses developments in international environmental justice alongside contemporary environmental forensics techniques. The article begins by providing an introduction to ecocide, the proposed international crime for the protection of the environment under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the concept of the legal threshold of harm. It argues that forensic awareness has a role to play in developing new legal frameworks for the protection of the environment. It describes one particular approach to the practice of environmental investigations, using the example of remote sensing. From an international justice perspective, the concern of the present article is a discussion of how innovations in remote sensing technologies have allowed non court actors, civil society groups and nongovernmental organizations access to scientific evidence. It concludes by making recommending towards establishing forensic standards for admissible evidence of ecocide crime.

show abstract

Climate change, environmental violence and genocide

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

“How dare you?”—The normative challenge posed by Fridays for Future

“How dare you?”—The normative challenge posed by Fridays for Future

Let’s Name It

Proof of Ecocide: Towards a Forensic Practice for the Proposed International Crime Against the Environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About