Giving “natural objects” — like trees — standing to sue in a court of law would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment, Holdren wrote the 1970s.
“One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.
“In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,” Holdren added.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- UK Net Zero
- Erasing 1921
- “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Warming Toledo
- One Year Left To Save The Planet
- Cold Hurricanes
- Plant Food
- President Trump Gets Every Question Right
- The Inflation Reduction Act
- Saving The Ecosystem
- Two Weeks Past The End Of The World
- Desperate State Of The Cryosphere
- “most secure in American history”
- “Trump moves to hobble major US climate change study”
- April 11, 1965 Tornado Outbreak
- The CO2 Endangerment Finding
- Climate Correlation
- What Me Worry?
- Heatwaves Of 1980
- More Proof Of Global Warming
- Shutting Down The Climate
- ChatGPT Research Proposal
- Warming Twice As Fast
- Understanding Climate Science
- Recycling The Same News Every Century
Recent Comments
- Independent on UK Net Zero
- Francis Barnett on Erasing 1921
- william on UK Net Zero
- Robertvd on Erasing 1921
- dearieme on Erasing 1921
- Tel on President Trump Gets Every Question Right
- Bob G on Warming Toledo
- Bob G on “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Bob G on Erasing 1921
- Scott Allen on Erasing 1921
That would give CO2 the opportunity to sue for Defamation and libel.
Plants and court?How does jury of their peers work out?
I saw an interview recently where some animal rights group wanted animals to have lawyers. I immediately thought about a class action suit by birds and bats to sue utilities using wind farms and the land owners the the wind farms are on. A link between sea based wind farms and beached whales is also being explored so the whales may be able to sue too. Of course we would all be sued for cannibalism as what animal wouldn’t want a lawyer to prevent being eaten? In Denmark plants have already been given some minimal rights having to due with genetic modification.
To me it all has the look and feel of the 1930s German Greens which later became a political ally to Hitler in the justification for the extermination of Jews.
“The shocking climax of the infamous 1940 Nazi documentary film entitled “The Eternal Jew” stunningly reveals a strong green rationalization based on animal rights for the looming destruction of the Jews. According to Nazi ideology, the so-called “eternal Jew” is the transcendent Jew who tries to live above Nature through economics and capitalism in the west, or through politics and communism in the east.”
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/hitlers-green-killing-machine/
All plants being used for food have been modified by selective breeding. All of out pets have been modified by selective breeding and the animals raised for food have been modified by selective breeding. Royalty is famous for selective breeding. All of that is a form of genetic manipulation.
The EPA court case against CO2 with plants on the jury might not work out the way the eco-nuts would hope….