Introduction

The question ‘Whose side are we on?’ (Becker, 1967) is arguably more fundamental and more nuanced for green criminology than elsewhere in the study of crime. More nuanced because green criminology focuses on environmental problems, therefore considering conflicts between humanity and nature alongside the dimensions of social conflict normally implicated in the question. More fundamental because the consideration of value positions inherent in the question is essential to the very definition of green criminology, shaping not only the remit of the field and the approaches taken within it, but also its relationships with the parent subject ‘criminology’ and the politically charged label ‘green’.

In green criminology, broadly defined as ‘criminological work that focuses … on environmental harm’ (White, 2008, p 6), an obvious assumption is that concern for environmental issues is a value that influences, if not defines, those working in the field. It is inferred that green criminologists are on the ‘side’ of nature. This leaves green criminology open to criticism for being overly ideological and overtly political, and therefore particularly prone to accusations of bias. Further, the perceived focus of green criminology – prioritising a concern for nature over social problems and often moving well beyond legal definitions of ‘crime’ – leads to accusations that it is not really the proper business of criminology at all. At the very least, concerns over the value positions inherent within green criminology have contributed to its remaining a niche specialism, kept apart from (and sometimes shunned by) the criminological mainstream.

This chapter examines value positions within green criminology. Primarily, the aim is to explore these positions and consider how they have shaped this field. A further aim, however, is to rise above the ideologically charged ‘values’ questions to draw out lessons applicable to criminology as a whole. The central contention is that despite the facts that (a) the values of individual researchers inevitably shape their work, and (b) much green criminology is unashamedly ideological, green criminology should not be dismissed as fundamentally politicised or biased. On the contrary, when we strip away the value positions to the bare science that underpins green criminology, we are left with an important observation: a green perspective can contribute greatly to our general understanding of crime.