ABSTRACT
The term ‘green criminology’ was first introduced by Lynch in 1990, although the history of criminologists concerning themselves with specific environmental and animal-related crimes goes back further than this. For example, Pecar (1981) put forward an even earlier statement about new, environmentally damaging forms of criminality in Slovenia and the role of criminology and sciences related to this (Eman et al., 2009: 584), but with no English-language translation, Pecar’s article made no international impact. Furthermore, although Lynch set out the scope and aims of a green criminology in a way that can still stand as a ‘manifesto’ statement, the article’s place of publication meant that it did not reach a wide audience at the time (although once ‘rediscovered’, it proved to be highly influential). Potter (2013) has reviewed arguments that might be put in order to ‘justify’ a green criminology, and this is a useful exercise. But in an important sense, a green criminology is justified because it was inevitable and necessary. It reflected scientific interests and political challenges of the moment, carried forward the momentum of critical non-conformist criminology, and offered a point of contact and convergence. So, no particular contribution was required as the ‘first’ or ‘unique’ catalyst for the development of a green or eco-criminology, for this was already under way in many places, for similar reasons, with teachers, researchers and writers expressing parallel concerns and proposing a similar project for criminology (see, for example, Clifford, 1998; Edwards et al., 1996; Halsey and White, 1998; Koser Wilson, 1999; Lynch and Stretesky, 2001, 2003; Pecar, 1981; Sollund, 2008; South, 1998; Walters, 2004, 2006; White, 2008).
