Post by damienbruckard on Aug 10, 2009 1:00:06 GMT 10
One of the more interesting environmental proposals I've seen is to give legal standing to trees. It sounds a bit wacky, but the idea of "tree rights" (or 'deep ecology' more broadly) seems to be gaining some traction: one of Obama's environmental advisors reportedly supporting the legal standing proposal, Ecuador's new constitution recognises nature’s “right to exist, persist, maintain itself and regenerate its own vital cycles, structure, functions and its evolutionary processes" and there is a serious campaign seeking a UN Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights. (As an aside, this is a much more 'realistic' motion than absolving ecoterrorists of violent crime.)
As I understand it, the idea is to give ecosystems standing before a court to seek relief for damages caused to it. Those ecosystems would be represented by a guardian, who would act on its behalf. So, for instance, a relevant environmental action group could sue a factory for polluting into a stream.
The aim of such a proposal is to deter environmentally unfriendly behaviour. At the moment there are few disincentives to pollute, but what if the trees (or the stream) could legitimately fight back through the courts?
Is it such an outlandish concept? We should also bear in mind that it is not just people who have the right to sue - so do corporations, for instance. And we use guardians to sue on behalf of vulnerable, unconscious groups - people in vegetative states can sue to protect their interests, so why not vegetation?
I think this raises some interesting issues such as:
- What is the value of natural objects? Do they even have interests? Should they be accorded rights? Do they have intrinsic value or merely instrumental value?
- What is the best way to protect forests and other ecosystems?
- What do you do in a conflict of rights between two different natural objects?
- How would this would affect the environmental movement more broadly?
- What is the basis for granting legal rights?
- How would this affect the relationship between humans and non-humans?
- Can we even actually gauge what is in an ecosystem's 'interest'? Might a stream actually like to be used for electricity generation?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on what issues this proposal raises and what arguments could be run.
For more information, see:
- A recent article in the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/07/19/should_nature_be_able_to_take_you_to_court/?page=1)
- Christopher Stone's original article on legal standing for trees, published in 1974 (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/~cstevens/ES201/local/Christopher%20Stone%20-%20Should%20Trees%20Have%20Standing.pdf)
- A Wikipedia primer on Deep Ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology)
As I understand it, the idea is to give ecosystems standing before a court to seek relief for damages caused to it. Those ecosystems would be represented by a guardian, who would act on its behalf. So, for instance, a relevant environmental action group could sue a factory for polluting into a stream.
The aim of such a proposal is to deter environmentally unfriendly behaviour. At the moment there are few disincentives to pollute, but what if the trees (or the stream) could legitimately fight back through the courts?
Is it such an outlandish concept? We should also bear in mind that it is not just people who have the right to sue - so do corporations, for instance. And we use guardians to sue on behalf of vulnerable, unconscious groups - people in vegetative states can sue to protect their interests, so why not vegetation?
I think this raises some interesting issues such as:
- What is the value of natural objects? Do they even have interests? Should they be accorded rights? Do they have intrinsic value or merely instrumental value?
- What is the best way to protect forests and other ecosystems?
- What do you do in a conflict of rights between two different natural objects?
- How would this would affect the environmental movement more broadly?
- What is the basis for granting legal rights?
- How would this affect the relationship between humans and non-humans?
- Can we even actually gauge what is in an ecosystem's 'interest'? Might a stream actually like to be used for electricity generation?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on what issues this proposal raises and what arguments could be run.
For more information, see:
- A recent article in the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/07/19/should_nature_be_able_to_take_you_to_court/?page=1)
- Christopher Stone's original article on legal standing for trees, published in 1974 (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/~cstevens/ES201/local/Christopher%20Stone%20-%20Should%20Trees%20Have%20Standing.pdf)
- A Wikipedia primer on Deep Ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology)