I think this could be filed under ‘Mission Creep’ for the climate alarmists who find ever more ingenious ways of inflicting their madness upon us.
Nothing to do with BBC bias but an astonishing illustration of how the lunacy is taking over every aspect of life……they now want to measure the carbon footprint of criminals….putting an environmental cost on crime…and they speculate that perhaps police could respond not to the seriousness of the crime but to the amount of carbon emitted by the perp….no seriously…via Bishop Hill:
From one of our illustrious MPs (Labour):
In terms of crime itself, I think what they are getting at in the carbon cost of particular crimes is that murder is by far the top of the list, serious wounding second. Serious wounding there is a lot more of so it generates a much bigger carbon footprint. Do you think we will ever get to the day, for instance, where police response times will be analysed not just on the physical and emotional nature of the crime but the carbon nature of the crime? What I am thinking is that the analysis showed that the carbon footprint of crime by non-dwelling is higher than crime by dwelling itself. Do you think we would ever make crime in a non-dwelling a higher response?
“…murder is by far the top of the list, ”
But murder removes from the planet a fossil fuel consuming, CO2 exhaler. In terms of Global Warming/ Climate Change, that has to be a benefit, surely?
This is why I’m such a big fan of Anders Breivik.
Vote Green!
Perhaps the lawyers are the biggest Carbon Criminals?
“The volume of papers prepared by the Financial Conduct Authority in order to prosecute Mr Crawley and his fellow defendants amounts to some 46,030 pages.
There are 194 excel spreadsheets with a combined total of 864,200 lines of entry. The Case Summary alone covers 55 pages.”
[Cotton Pickin’: R – v – Crawley and Ors. by Anna Raccoon]
It is rumoured that BBC CECUTT can often generate hundreds of pages of denial of will to live attrition (mostly cut and pasting what has been written before and/or their own vast screeds of guideline) to make any complaint that gets beyond ECU go away.
China Mieville played with a similar idea in one of his fantasy novels(!) with an ultra-individualist culture which defined all crimes by their degree of ‘choice theft’. I wondered for a while what an antithetical system — wherein all crime is defined by degree of harm to ‘the public good’ — might look like. Now I know: utilitarian and utterly dystopian.