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
- Climate Attribution In Greece
- “Brown: ’50 days to save world'”
- The Catastrophic Influence of Bovine Methane Emissions on Extraterrestrial Climate Patterns
- Posting On X
- Seventeen Years Of Fun
- The Importance Of Good Tools
- Temperature Shifts At Blue Hill, MA
- CO2²
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Philippe Jones on Temperature Shifts At Blue Hill, MA
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Dayna on Seventeen Years Of Fun
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- arn on Climate Attribution In Greece
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….