Green crime is a form of crime caused by globalization. As item A suggests, there is a central debate running throughout green crime as to whether crimes against the environment should be treated as illegal despite legislation not being in place. As White (2008) suggests, green crime create more damage than much other crime, for example the Bhopal disaster in India, 1984 caused thousands of deaths due to chemical gas poisoning, yet the companies involved have never taken corporate responsibility due to the pinning down of transnational and environmental laws.
As Beck states (1992) most threats to human well-being are no longer natural but are in fact human made. The types of green crime support this view. Primary green crime is that where action directly causes the destruction of the earth’s resources – for example air and water pollution. Primary green crime is more explicitly criminal than secondary green crime, meaning that it is easier to pin liability on those responsible, for example the dropping of toxic waste by BP in the Gulf of Mexico.
Secondary green crime is more difficult to pin down as it is defined as a failure of governments to act as opposed to directly acting irresponsibly. As South notes, the sinking of the Greenpeace ship in 1985 still has no accountable or prosecuted party, similarly to the Bhopal incident already cited.
These two types of green crime carry with them a sociological debate amongst criminologists – Traditional vs green. Traditional criminology is more concerned with primary green crime as traditional criminologists are only concerned with specifically illegal acts. Therefore, traditional criminologists do not agree with the argument presented in item A or White’s ecocentric view of crime.
However green criminology contrasts this as it is transgressive – aiming to broaden society’s perception of what we consider crime to be.