Ecocide law - A proposed definition of 'ecocide'

 Homicide is to genocide as ____ is to ecocide.

??

We might define as a crime any impact on the environment that exceeds what most people think is acceptable. But if the crime occurred after 10,000 actors contributed some small portion of the overall impact, then the 10,001st contributor put the total over the limit that most people would say is acceptable, how might justice be done?

Maybe that last contributor to the overall burden of impact on the environment was using best-practices of the industry, but there were also 37 among the 10,000 who were following bad practice (making no serious effort to hold down harmful impacts).

Any economic actor can show they were, in fact, making a good-faith effort to minimize impacts if they can show that they paid a hefty fee in proportion to every unit of impact they caused. Those actors who cannot show that they paid a similar fee are culpable.

The effect of many economic actors causing some impact (light pollution, e.g.) can be equal in its harm to wildlife as is the effect of one or two actors causing much harm. Any ecocide law should deter each quantum of adverse impact as strongly as it deters any other quantum of impact.

A fee charged to industry in proportion to how much pollution is put, resources are depleted or habitat is disturbed or destroyed will achieve this general and equal level of deterrence. Fees set high enough to bring impacts into line with what most people think is acceptable would be set at an amount appropriate for a democratic society. The policy would manifest in reality the idea that we have a shared right to decide limits to impacts. A system of random polls could ask citizens what amount of impact is acceptable (whether more or less of X should be allowed).

* Homicide is to genocide as failure to put appropriate effort toward reducing harmful impact is to ecocide.

Payment of a pollution fee when polluting vouches for corporations operating in good faith that they are trying to reduce the harm they cause. (It can be assumed that they do not want to pay the fee, so they are taking steps to minimize harm, they are avoiding what is avoidable.)

Global governance without centralized control

indemnify