Will/should the denial of human contribution to climate change ever become a criminal offence?

Question

Given that human life on a large scale may be at stake is this a moral issue? Assuming that reputable science continues to whittle away at the already small degree of uncertainty. We have seen legislation on things like racism, ageism, sexism which would not have seemed conceivable 50 years ago. Does junk science need to added to the list?

Interesting answer Tam, however the argument that it does not exist is used as a delaying/subversion tactic to action of any kind.

As Michael W says there may be two sides to a question, one is on the side of the law, the other may not be.

Thanks J H , I think I see your point. It takes the fact of human contribution as read and could act against anyone who promotes irresponsible behaviour.

Further comment to J H. There are many countries that do not have the constitutional requirements of the US and could tackle the problem at the source 'denial' stage.

Wise Kai - unfortunately the scientific evidence is complex and there are large vested interests muddying the water

meow, see - we now (at least in Britain) have laws on expressing opinions on terrorism (for example the glorification of terrorism is an offence. Climate change is arguably a much more important and pressing problem

earl - thanks for your answer. There are people who make money out of war and no doubt there are people who make, or are positioning themselves, to make money out of green technology. I don't think it adds anything to the argument.

Sara c - at the moment law makers are to a significant degree stymied because of popular resistance to measures which would affect peoples lifestyle or pockets. This resistance is fed by junk science in denial. There is technology ready, or in the reasearch and development phase but it is more than just efficiency, much of it comes with a price tag.

Answer 1

Altho its not really an offence yet, there are examples of people being prosecuted, at least on a small level. Companies whose emissions are to high, people using coal in a smoke free zone, carbon emissions from cars that are too high, toxic waste dumping etc etc all of these things are sort of controlled at least in Western Countries, unfortunatly not enough, But untill the whole world comes on board these small efforts are really not enough.

I think it is a very moral issue, and that people really need to at least try to contribute in a small way if they can, and I really do beleive that the laws should be a lot tougher.

Answer 2

Making the denial of any human contribution to climate change would be unconstitutional. Remember the following?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (US Constitution; Bill of Rights)
If you notice, about half way through that little blurb there is something about making no law abridging the freedom of speech. Denial is not against the law. Think about it like this for a second, "Will/should the [promotion] of [a] human contribution to climate change ever become a criminal offence?"
Remember, sometimes if you look outside the box you can answer your own questions.

Answer 3

No, I don't think it should.
Dumping toxic waste is and should be a criminal offence.
Believing that toxic waste is harmless and the problem is not that serious is a different issue. You can believe its not a problem and still obey the law and not dump it.
You can't force someone to believe that a chemical causes cancer, or mutated babies. You can only offer the scientific evidence.

So it should be for climate change.
It is ridiculous to be energy inefficient, its not good for business. Germany and Japan have efficient industries and they're not poverty ridden.

Instead of creating a blame and punishment culture, fix the problem. Come up with constructive, practical solutions.

Answer 4

Yes it is already a criminal offense and we are all guilty as charged! The only sad thing about it is nobody realizes that we have already been sentenced to death for our crimes that we have and still are committing towards our mother earth
And junk science should be right up top even though it is a little
late for that now in order to recover everything would have to stop
for at least a couple hundred years and we know that's not going to happen!

Answer 5

It might become law - in left-centre continental European countries (+ Turkey) who already ban expressing all sorts of views & dispalying all sorts of symbols.

But ideally, no such bans would exist, and such claims would cease to exist, in a world where everybody knew the evidence that supports the facts and makes counter-claims ridiculous.

Answer 6

Fortunately, there are always two sides to a story and this one is no exception. If you want to believe that global warming is man-made, that's fine. If you don't, that's also fine in my book since scientists disagree convincingly about this subject. Frankly, buying a hybrid car is a total no-no. What energy is used to produce one? What energy is used to re-charge it? Making such intangible actions a criminal offence is utter nonsense.

Answer 7

Yes it should. It's ridiculous that people should not ever feel that this is a man made problem and think that the sun is getting hotter or something. I believe it should be made illegal to buy a non hybrid car so if you do, you risk time in prison.

Answer 8

It would be a great idea to make this a crime.
that way, we could all argue about what caused the problem, and whose fault it might or might not be,
instead of discussing what we should be doing...
a master stroke

Answer 9

unless you live in l.a. humans dont contribute to climate control , it only depends on who is running (or lost) for presidency

Answer 10

Opinions should never be a criminal offense.