What are nature rights?
The “Rights of Nature’ (RoN) doctrine is a legal theory that describes inherent rights as associated with ecosystems and species. It is underpinned by two lines of reasoning. The first is that since human rights emanate from humanity’s own existence, nature’s rights should arise from the natural world’s existence. The second is that since the survival of humans depends on healthy ecosystems, nature's rights in turn advance human rights. It is said to direct humanity to act in a way consistent with modern, system-based science which demonstrates that humans and the natural world are fundamentally interconnected.
Should nature’s rights be upheld?
Proponents of RoN summarise the current environmental regulatory system as environmental reductionism manifesting compartmentalisation, characterised by corruption and anthropocentrism.
Environmental laws are often constrained by the constitutionally-based property rights system that considers nature as property - resources to be owned and degraded for profit and human desire. This is evident when regulations supersede property rights, since regulatory takings are in place to compensate the property owner for the enforcement of the regulation. This framework is contrasted with indigenous communities’ conception of nature, for example Chippewa, who regard salmon and birds as the “flying people” and the “swimming people” and the “singing people”; or the Yurok nation in Northern California, who speaks of the Klamath river as a living relative. RoN embodies this indigenous worldview, where nature is animated, not owned and is interrelated with humans as equals, not subordinates.
Second, environmental law is based on an obsolete framework that compartmentalises nature into separate and independent parts, rather than components of a larger whole. Instead of an all-encompassing doctrine of nature rights, nature is fragmented into a particular medium at a time, for example the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The RoN movement, understanding that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, reverses this reductionist analysis of the world, replacing it with a system-based understanding of nature to recognise the need for interdependence and animacy in the living world.
Third, existing statutes are subpar due to lobbying by industries and corporate capture. This is apparent in laws that are clearly skewed in favour of corporations, particularly in the indigenous-led fight against the tar sands oil pipeline Enbridge line 3. Chippewa was unable to stop its construction through existing environmental permits, and it was only after passing a law recognising the rights of the rice plantations that the plaintiffs were able to sue in tribal court. Another example would be statutes that make it tax-deductible for corporations to defend permit appeals but burden plaintiffs wishing to appeal. The existence of grandfather clauses that exempt parties from legislation further illustrates how environmental laws are not all-inclusive. Moreover, the sluggish pace of policy-making fails to remedy the rapidly accelerating rate of environmental destruction. For example, the move to phase out DDT spanned 40 years and it took the government 60 years to establish connections between leaded gasoline and lead poisoning.
Furthermore, the current system is not preventive but reparative. Even when court decisions are scrutinised by the private sector, the damages are not truly remedied by injunction. In the Fadeyeva v. Severstal case, the Severstal steel plant in Cherepovets still operates and the compensation was paid to the residents, but the environment was not recompensed.
Ultimately, weak enforcement or legislation is not the root problem since environmental regulation is considered subordinate to economic interests. The Endangered Species Act prioritises economic interests by activating only when species are on the brink of extinction, and in the Hatton v. United Kingdom case before, the Court again ruled that it would be inappropriate for the Court to grant a special status to environmental human rights in relation to other human rights. Such legislation aims to uphold the system only by way of mitigating the negative impacts of economic growth, but does not override legislation supporting private property and state sovereignty. Conversely, defenders of deep ecology and biocentrism emphasise the maintenance of a healthy, sustainable environment is necessary for human well-being.
Lastly, the difficulty of bringing an environmental case to court is remedied by nature rights. The ‘direct victim requirement’ in environmental law stipulates that the plaintiff must be an individual whose civil rights are directly and sufficiently affected by environmental deterioration. In Kyrtatos v. Greece, the landowners whose livelihoods were disrupted by noise and nightlight from an urban project sued on the grounds that the project also destroyed nature values of a swamp on their property. The European Court of Human Rights, however, found that the applicants frustrated their burden to prove that their rights under Article 8 were compromised by damage inflicted on their swamp and the protected species it held, thereby overruling the plaintiff’s standing before the court.
RoN proponents recognise a need to reform the legal system at a scale similar to that of the abolitionist movement in the 1860s and suffragists in the 1800s to convert entities previously considered property to rights-bearing entities. Additionally, RoN is not that radical a departure from the norm, as it is, as activists contend, analogous to corporations' legal rights and lawsuits involving ships as plaintiffs suing under maritime law. If all arguments fail, publicising the concept of RoN still catalyses a change in public beliefs and communicates the government’s renewed commitment to environmental protection.
How can Gen Zs help with the nature rights movement?
Educate yourself (and others!)
Read up on the nature rights movement through news media outlets and find out more via the websites of nature rights activists and ENGOs. Engage with your community, starting with your social circle, by initiating conversations about the issue’s urgency. You may also want to set up projects in your school, or participate in other youth-led organisations that recognise nature rights.
Start your own initiative or volunteer with environmental organisations
There is a multitude of successful youth-led environmental organisations with significant reach and impact, and Gen Zs could assist environmental community groups and local non-profits through running online awareness campaigns and offering practical help like beach clean-ups as well as fundraising.
Take the initiative to reduce the paper use or recycle paper
Recycle old textbooks and novels by donating them to juniors or children in countries where educational resources are inaccessible. Use digital versions of coursework when possible, and shift away from paper-based activities in school. Recycling is also an effortless way for Gen Zs to mitigate their carbon footprint!
Reduce consumption of resources
By taking shorter showers, avoiding small clothes washes and turning taps off during brushing, teens can save gallons of water. Similarly, being mindful of electricity consumption and looking into transitions to sustainable alternatives is imperative for a reduction in fossil fuel dependency.
References
Writing: Angela Chan
Editing: Bernice Lau
Graphics: Cynthia Mu
Opmerkingen