1. Is ‘green criminology’ just the study of ‘crimes of the powerful’ by another name?
  2. In March 2022, speaking about climate change, the Secretary General of the United Nations has stated that ‘Nearly half of humanity now lives in the danger zone. Many ecosystems have reached the point of no return’ and the failure of world leaders to act on this is an ‘abdication of leadership’ that is ‘criminal’. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
  3. Can animals have rights? If so, should animals have rights?
  4. ‘Mainstream’ criminology has been criticised for marginalising green criminology as a ‘soft’ topic when its objects of concern are just as injurious and violent as street crime, if not more so.  Why are phenomena such as animal abuse, deforestation and wildlife poaching largely ignored by criminologists? 
  5. What can the study of environmental crimes and harms teach us about more ‘traditional’ criminological themes?
  6. How does a green criminology reflect developments related to ‘globalization’?
  7. To what extent is the illegal trade in flora and fauna an issue of environmental justice?.​
  8. Discuss how the political economy of consumption contributes to the problems of climate change, food crime, and pollution and waste.
  9. How might environmental crime and environmental harm, more generally, be prevented? What avenues are available for responding to environmental crime and environmental harm, more generally? (NB: You might wish to consider the difference between various ‘events’ or ‘disasters’ and ongoing habitual acts and omissions.)
  10. The famous historian, Arnold Toynbee, has suggested that ‘civilizations die from suicide, not by murder’. Assess this statement in light of your understanding of environmental crime, harm disaster and risk.
Back to top