Discuss: If Nature Had Rights

Yes, it seems so obvious doesn’t it… people who harm the non-human environment on which we all depend should be held accountable for their harm, like the Kenyan farmer was in Cormac Cullinan’s story.  I believe that the non-human environment should also be a factor in the profession of psychiatry as well as in the law, so that depression or neuroses might be seen as responses not only to family or social environments, but to the harm that is being done to the non-human world. Industrialized societies greatly exaggerate the importance of the human individual, so we need to break down the psychological barriers separating individuals from their environments. Those barriers are solid in the legal and psychological professions, as well as in agribusiness, education, many and other fields. So I’m grateful for people like Cormac Cullinan and the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund who are helping us to see over the barriers. As he says, “our future as a species depends on those people who are creating the legal and political spaces within which our connection to the rest of our community here on Earth is recognized.” Thank you for a wonderful article.

Yes, perhaps nature is in desperate need of a legal guardian, one that can protect the natural world from the pernicious effects of economic globalization.

I have a concern that businesses are growing so large that they have become more powerful than the governments of the nation-states they call home. If people were not the consumers of their products, people would receive little regard, if any at all, I believe. 

Evidently, humanity has a global warming challenge, in large part induced by the industrial activities of big businesses worldwide.  During the last 30-40 years big business has admitted “poisoning the well” of public discourse about fulminating environmental degradation by giving millions of dollars to ideological think tanks, (for example, Exxon Mobil) to spread disinformation, to willfully misrepresent the science of climate change and to literally manufacture the uncertainty and controversy surrounding otherwise good science.

Leaders of big corporations have too much power to influence the decision-making of politicians, many of whom are already bought-for-paid-for by great wealth provided by the very big business entities that fill the politicians’ coffers.

How can national governments and their politicians be expected to sensibly regulate the activities of multinational conglomerations?

Are we now to think of multinational corporations as “global” citizens?  If so, what global entity is supposed to regulate them? If not, how an Earth can these gigantic corporations be made to serve the interests of humanity more reasonably and sensibly and not just their bottom lines for making profits?

The multinational businesses now operating rampantly and overspreading the surface of our planetary home represent a giant, soon to become patently unsustainable dinosaur-like presence on Earth. The current scale and continuous growth rate of the expanding global economy cannot be maintained much longer, much less forever, can it?

I can see who protects the endless expansion of the artificially designed, manmade global human economy.  What I cannot see is evidence of individuals or institutions with any actual authortiy to protect Earth, its frangible ecosystems and its limited resources.

Yours truly,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001

A
Declaration of Equality, Rights and Responsibilities
(The Declaration of Independence as amended by Bill Chisholm)

We hold these truths, to be self evident, that all men, women and children of all races, of all nations, of all beliefs, of all social and economic circumstances are created equal.  That they are endowed by their Creator, with certain, sure, and inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Joy and Contentment.  That inherent in these rights are also undeniable responsibilities, that among these are Good Neighborliness, Respectful Environmental Stewardship, Personal Accountability and Accountability to Future Generations.  To insure these Rights and foster these Responsibilities, government was instituted among humankind and derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.  That the surest way to insure one’s Rights, is to embrace one’s Responsibilities.  When any form of Government becomes destructive of those Ends, it is the right, it is the duty of the People to alter or abolish it, preferably at the ballot box or peacefully in the streets. 

It is further acknowledged as a self evident truth that humankind is a part of Nature.  That Nature is made up of interconnected and interdependent systems and species, and that all species and ecological systems should be accorded respect, for they too have come from the same Creator.  To best insure our inalienable rights, we must embrace our responsibilities toward Nature.
place to start.

This article makes a sound case for society to respect the rights of the environment. It notes
<Climate change is an obvious and dramatic symptom of the failure of human government to regulate human behavior in a manner that takes account of the fact that human welfare is directly dependent on the health of our planet and cannot be achieved at its expense. >
It does not, however, recognize that the operations of civilization depend on the irreversible depreciation of natural bounty capital. That is a natural law that is virtually unrecognized by society. Civilization has achieved its progress at the expense of the health of the planet, so at the expense of the future operation of civilization. Greater recognition by society of the rights of the environment would make a contribution to amelioration of decimation of the eco system by its parasite, civilization

Agreed.  But it is not so much that “nature” has rights as that WE agree that it should.  Nature cannot argue for it/herself: WE can.  Therefore we should agree that WE have, in certain instances, legal standing to represent the interests of Nature.  This is philosophically more accurate than stating/claiming that Nature has rights; and it does NOT take us off the hook: WE are responsible for what happens to Nature.

I am so pleased to see Cormac Cullinan’s article in this issue of Orion.  He raises critical issues to be addressed, especially in light of the devastating consequences of global climate change. Law and governance has to be re-envisioned and changed now so that we humans take greater responsibility for protecting the integral functioning of the natural world, for our own benefit as well as for the survival and flourishing of the rest of the members of the Earth community.
  We at the Center for Earth Jurisprudence have as our mission “a rethinking of law and governance from an Earth-centered perspective.” Cormac has been a key advisor to the Center and shaping its programming.  Both he and Thomas Linzey, of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, keynoted an inaugural Colloquium with us last Spring at St. Thomas University in Miami. 
  Cormac will again be a keynote presenter at the “Framing an Earth Jurisprudence for a Planet in Peril” Symposium at Barry Law School in Orlando, Florida on Friday, February 29, 2008.  He will be joined by five other environmental lawyers, scholars and activists including, Winona Laduke, Andrew Kimbrell, Joe Guth, Donald Goldberg and Barbara Wall.  Because of the urgency facing us as a people to respond to the unprecedented ecological crisis, the Colloquium is complimentary and open to the public. If you wish to register, go to http://www.earthjuris.org for more information.
Pat Siemen,
Director

The world is one - the living components (biota) and the non-living (abiota) form one entire ecosystem subdivided into myriads of ecosystems, far and wide.

As it is water is a non-living component of our world but at the same time it is essential for life to exist.  Therefore it is logical that those who distrupt the water cycle should compensate others for doing so - ideally they should amend their ways.

My argument can be applied to anything that is present on planet Earth. 

We must appreciate that the world owns us and not the other way - the planet existed before man appeared on this planet and it will continue to exist if man becomes extinct.

It is logical that all level headed people should come out in favour of planet Earth.

Dear P,

I agree with everything you report; however, something is worrying me.

We can see that global challenges, already visible on the far horizon,are posed to humanity.  Because economic globalization could be approaching a point in human history when it becomes patently unsustainable on a planet with the relatively small size and make-up of Earth, the current scale and unbridled growth of global consumption/production/propagation activities of the human species could soon produce a colossal wreckage of either the global economy or Earth’s ecology.

If leaders are presented with a forced choice between protecting the global economy and preserving Earth’s ecology, it seems crystal clear to me that the leadership of the kind we have today will reflexively choose the economy…..first, last and always.

And that is worrisome.

Sincerely,

Steve