Literature Review

Abstract: The protection of the environment and above all the climate and energy crisis that destroys human life is a topic of debate at an international level for the protection of ecocide. However, so far we do not have a concrete and perfect notion, given that the term ecocide was born from biological science and not from jurists. International criminal law and especially the International Criminal Court (ICC) once again takes on the leading role. A new article is needed to introduce ecocide to the other crimes already punished by the Court. The time is right and now ripe and the international necessity demands, with the help of international criminal law, to further evolve this branch of international law, to protect peoples, to punish those who destroy the environment both in the period of peace and war and above all the large companies and multinationals that are protagonists of this crime. The case is clear enough, the conduct is broad in our day but it certainly includes the mens rea a ignorance to be punished as a crime. Of course we also speak of restorative or restorative international justice for this crime because we have an ethical need and demand towards future generations to take clear positions for the protection and human life.

Popular interest in a new crime of ‘ecocide’ has recently surged. The proposed crime seeks to repudiate and stigmatize the most egregious environmental wrongdoing and would complement other efforts to curb the ongoing destruction. In June 2021, an international panel proposed a definition of the crime. Initial academic commentaries, many of them critical, reflect entirely understandable first reactions. However, combining international criminal law (ICL) and environmental law raises fascinating new issues that are not initially obvious. In this article, I survey the main issues in defining ecocide. For example, is a crime of ecocide a worthy idea? Is the best approach to amend the ICC Statute or to start with a smaller group of supportive states? I also introduce the main drafting options and controversies. The hardest puzzle, by far, is how to align ecocide with environmental law. Some seemingly simple solutions would entail rejecting environmental law; I argue that there are principled, normative, and strategic reasons why a crime of ecocide should reflect environmental law, not reject it. I show that each available solution invites plausible concerns. Thus, a conversation about defining ecocide must be a nuanced one about which options are least problematic. I outline possible future directions for exploration; with further deliberation, more elegant criteria may yet be found.

This thesis lies at the intersection between international environmental law andinternational criminal law. International environmental law (IEL) aims at protecting and regulating the environment and natural resources in a multitude of ways. However, the question of responsibility and accountability is a missing attributable link between the protection offered by IEL principles, and the conduct prohibited. In this regard, the purpose of international criminal law (ICL) is to contribute to ending impunity and hold perpetrators of the most serious crimes of international concern accountable for their conduct. For this reason, this thesis will be centered around the following question: To what extent can individuals be held criminally liable for environmental destruction under the proposed ecocide crime (definition) under the Rome Statute; and what are the benefits and shortcomings of prosecuting environmental destruction under the proposed definition?

The increasing severity of extreme weather events, consistent with predictions made by climate scientists, is already having a dramatic impact on healthcare. In Europe’s heatwave of summer 2003, for example, more than 70,000 excess deaths were recorded. While climate change is affecting healthcare, however, healthcare is also affecting climate change.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced today that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) will invest at least $21.7 million in several key programs to help agricultural producers manage the impacts of climate change on their lands and production. NIFA awarded $6.3 million for 14 Soil Health grants and $5.4 million for seven Signals in the Soil grants through its Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). NIFA also is investing at least $10 million this year in a new AFRI program area priority called, “Extension, Education, and USDA Climate Hub Partnerships,” to train the next generation of agriculturalists and foresters to incorporate climate change research into their management practices.

Technology is fundamentally changing the way we live, work, relate to one another and to the external world. The speed, breadth and depth of current breakthroughs has no historical precedent and is disrupting almost every sector in every country. Now more than ever, the advent of new technology has the potential to transform environmental protection.

Rapid diffusion of solutions to a changing climate is paramount if the US is to mitigate carbon emissions. A timely response depends on how people perceive and understand innovations such as new practices, programs, policies, and technologies that promise to reduce emissions. This article explores multisolving innovations in the context of interventions that can be targeted to community leaders and decision makers. We focus on examples led by policy staff; directors of municipal offices and departments of transportation, housing, sustainability, urban planning, and public health; and elected county and city officials where there may be mixed support for efforts to reduce carbon emissions, to show that some innovations can be accurately framed solely in terms of community health benefits. When communicating with stakeholders who are dismissive or skeptical of climate change, we suggest using messages that describe the benefits of mitigation innovations in terms of human health, rather than climate, to achieve broader acceptability.

Climate change poses many threats to the health and well-being of Americans, from increasing the risk of extreme heat events and heavy storms to increasing the risk of asthma attacks and changing the spread of certain diseases carried by ticks and mosquitoes. Some of these health impacts are already happening in the United States.

The Clean Air Act has a proven record of public health and environmental protection since 1970. For more than forty-five years the Clean Air Act has cut pollution as the U.S. economy has grown.

The adaptation strategies provided therein are illustrative of possible ways communities can address anticipated, current, and future climate threats to public health.These strategies use a five-step process from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) program that allows health officials to develop strategies and programs to help communities prepare for the health effects of climate change.

Decades of research have shown that air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter (PM) increase the amount and seriousness of lung and heart disease and other health problems. More investigation is needed to further understand the role poor air quality plays in causing detrimental effects to health and increased disease, especially in vulnerable populations. Children, the elderly, and people living in areas with high levels of air pollution are especially susceptible.

Federal and state officials and the Norfolk Southern Railroad have sought to counter public criticism about their efforts to mitigate public health and environmental damage from the Feb. 3 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.