"why it is lawful to engage in an activity which is ecologically harmful (ie clearfelling old-growth forest), and, conversely, why it is illegal to engage in an activity which is ecologically benign (ie cultivating fibre hemp). Through an explication of the relative harm resulting from the processing of these resources, questions are raised as to the ecological utility of legislation that permits the destruction of a unique resource but prohibits the harvesting of a sustainable alternative. The article suggests, amongst other things, that criminologists need to make a clear analytical distinction between events termed ‘environmental crime’ and those which might correctly be termed ‘serious instances of ecological destruction’. More generally, the paper attempts to isolate the different conceptions of environmental harm that emerge from the comparative study, and proceeds to outline some of the more serious implications for present criminological approaches to the issue of environmental harm."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000486589703000202