When you read, watch, or listen to the news, you’re almost certain to come across stories of violence and murder. As a criminal psychologist, I’m often asked to analyze these cases and explain the motives behind them. People seek these insights because murder is both terrifying and strangely compelling. There’s a certain fascination with these crimes, and how they’re covered shapes our view of society’s most pressing issues.
It occurred to me one day that the world would be very different if environmental crimes were treated with the same seriousness as murders. So why aren’t they? And should they be?
Right now, environmental crimes can seem distant and abstract. But imagine if someone broke into your home, set your furniture on fire, stole your valuables, killed your pet, or poisoned your water. You’d be terrified. You’d call the police, possibly seek revenge, and certainly demand justice. You’d know without a doubt that a crime had been committed.
In reality, environmental crime is just like that—only worse, because it happens on a massive scale. The problem is, it doesn’t always feel that way. Yet when criminals release toxic gases into the air, cut down protected forests, fish illegally, or pollute rivers, they harm us in real, tangible ways. And that’s without even considering the broader effects on biodiversity and climate change.
Part of the challenge is that we often lump all kinds of environmental harm together, unlike how we treat more familiar crimes. People instinctively understand the difference between hate speech and murder—both are aggressive acts, but no one sees them as the same. Yet with environmental crime, we tend to mix minor offenses, like not recycling or flying frequently, with serious acts of destruction. We need to stop equating everyday carelessness with major ecological crimes and focus on the environmental equivalent of serial killers.
So, what exactly is environmental crime? Simply put, it occurs when someone breaks the law—through negligence, recklessness, or intent—and causes harm to the environment. This can involve violating specific environmental laws by releasing high levels of toxins into the air, water, or soil, destroying protected plants, or killing endangered animals. There are also related crimes, such as fraud to bypass fishing permits, money laundering to hide profits from illegal mining, or corruption to enable wildlife trafficking.
It’s tempting to fall back on the familiar image of evil corporations profiting from exploitation while the world suffers. And while corporate wrongdoing is part of the issue, organized crime groups are often the ones doing the dirty work. These syndicates operate more like drug traffickers than greedy executives in suits.
For instance, in wildlife trafficking, crime bosses in China with money and connections might hire middlemen in Mozambique to recruit desperate locals to poach elephants or pangolins. Guards and customs officials are bribed to ignore smuggled ivory and pangolin scales crossing borders. Paperwork is forged, and financial experts set up shell companies to launder money, pretending the syndicate deals in “plastic pellets.” The same structure applies to illegally mined minerals, toxic waste, or timber from protected areas.
These mafia-style operations make it easier to see environmental crime as serious wrongdoing, unlike the vague image we might have had before. And while money is often the motive, it isn’t the only factor.Just as “power” isn’t the only reason people commit murder, there isn’t a single motivator for environmental crimes either. When we ask offenders why they did it, their answers can be just as revealing as those given for other types of crime. Generally, six psychological drivers come into play: ease, impunity, greed, rationalization, conformity, and desperation.
If you’re inclined to argue that environmental crimes aren’t caused by individuals but by “the system,” I understand your point. Social structures, ideologies, and politics do deeply influence human behavior. Using the term “the system” can feel like a meaningful contribution to a complex discussion, reflecting a desire to avoid oversimplification. But who or what exactly is this system?
A serial killer also exists within society, and we could blame society for any hardships they’ve endured. Yet if I were to simply cite “the system” as a motive for murder on a true-crime show, people would expect more specificity. We recognize that choices are involved and that motives are personal, not solely systemic. Otherwise, wouldn’t we all be criminals? The same applies to those who break environmental laws—they are neither just victims of the system nor driven purely by greed.
I’ve tried to highlight a peculiar double standard in how we discuss and write about environmental crime, which in turn shapes our broader thinking. Imagine if it received as much coverage in news and podcasts as gang violence and murders do. We’d hear about the harm caused and the efforts to apprehend and punish those responsible. This would bring several benefits: it would deter potential offenders, ease the eco-anxiety we feel when it seems like nothing is being done, and help establish new social norms, clarifying that crimes harming our life-sustaining ecosystems are as serious as personal crimes. By placing them in the same psychological category as murder, we could better grasp what’s truly at stake.
Dr. Julia Shaw is a criminal psychologist at University College London and author of “Green Crime: Inside the Minds of the People Destroying the Planet and How to Stop Them.”
Further reading:
– “How to Save the Amazon” by Dom Phillips (Bonnier, £22)
– “The Petroleum Papers” by Geoff Dembicki (Greystone, £10.99)
– “Cobalt Red” by Siddharth Kara (St Martin’s Press, £24.99)
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about whether we should approach environmental crimes with the same seriousness as murder with clear and direct answers
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What exactly is an environmental crime
An environmental crime is an illegal act that directly harms the environment This includes largescale dumping of toxic waste illegal logging poaching endangered species and major oil spills
2 How can polluting the environment be as bad as taking a human life
The argument is that severe environmental crimes can lead to widespread death and suffering For example poisoning a communitys water supply can cause cancer birth defects and premature death for hundreds or thousands of people over many years which is a form of mass harm
3 Isnt calling it murder a bit of an exaggeration
Its a strong comparison but its used to highlight the severity of the consequences While not a single premeditated act against one person its seen by many as a form of reckless disregard for human life on a large scale
4 Whats a realworld example of an environmental crime that had murderlike consequences
The Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984 is a key example A pesticide plant released toxic gas immediately killing thousands of people and causing longterm health problems for hundreds of thousands more The corporate negligence behind it is often compared to a massive slowmotion violent crime
5 Wouldnt this mean putting company executives in prison for life
For the most extreme and intentional cases where actions are proven to knowingly cause widespread death proponents argue that severe prison sentences including life imprisonment should be on the table just as they are for corporate executives in rare cases of homicide
AdvancedLevel Questions
6 Dont we already have laws and agencies like the EPA for this
Yes but the penalties are often treated as regulatory fines or minor offenses Treating it with the seriousness of murder would mean shifting it from a regulatory issue to a toptier criminal one handled by the justice system with much harsher penalties
7 How would we prove intent in an environmental crime which is crucial for a murder charge
This is a major legal challenge For a murder charge you often need to prove intent For environmental crimes prosecutors would likely rely on charges like depravedheart murder or
