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
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
Recent Comments
- dearieme on Diversity Is Our Strength
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Crashex on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on Diversity Is Our Strength
- GeologyJim on Diversity Is Our Strength
- Bill Odom on “a persistent concern”
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- conrad ziefle on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Francis Barnett on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- dearieme on “even within the lifetime of our children”
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….