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
- The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- The Thing Of The Past
- “‘extremely unlikely’ without climate change, says scientists”
- Holocene Optimum In Alaska
- ‘Two incredible extreme events’
- The End Of Snow
- Google Maps Adds Context
- Thing Of The Past Update
- Expert Government Forecasting
- Thing Of The Past Comes To England
- “far outside the range of observed variability”
- African Desertification
- Grok Explains Polar Bears
- The Climate Denial Money Machine
- President Trump : “decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.”
- New Plan To Rob The Citizenry
- “Fifteen days to flatten the curve”
- Warm December 1923
- “Ensure No One Is Above the Law”
- The Best Electric Cars
- Honeybee Collapse Update
- “a live-animal market in Wuhan, China.”
- Fifteen Year Old Children In Australia Control The Weather
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- conrad ziefle on The Thing Of The Past
- Timo, not that one! on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Timo, not that one! on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Francis Barnett on The Thing Of The Past
- arn on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- William on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- dm on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Francis Barnett on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Robertvd on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
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….