7/30/2009

Obama science adviser thinks that Trees Legal Should Have Standing to Sue in Court

Cass Sunstein has argued in favor of animals having the right to sue so I suppose that it is only fair that trees being able to sue also.

Since the 1970s, some radical environmentalists have argued that trees have legal rights and should be allowed to go to court to protect those rights.

The idea has been endorsed by John P. Holdren, the man who now advises President Barack Obama on science and technology issues.

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.

According to Holdren and the Ehrlichs, the notion of legal standing for inanimate objects would not be as unprecedented as it might sound. “The legal machinery and the basic legal notions needed to control pollution are already in existence,” they wrote. . . .

Labels: , ,

4 Comments:

Blogger Paul Blincow said...

Obama science adviser thinks that Trees Legal Should Have Standing to Sue in Court

Should read:

Obama science adviser thinks that Trees Should Have Legal Standing to Sue in Court

Feel free to delete this once the typo is fixed, no big deal.

7/30/2009 3:34 PM  
Blogger Harry Schell said...

I am pretty sure some person would claim to be able to talk to trees...a recent Berkely graduate maybe, so the court could be advised of the tree's testimony.

People like that scare the willies out of me. I wonder if they will start hearing the chicken I ate the night before and take direct action to retrieve it.

I suppose we should all find a cave to cower in when lightning comes and the gods are disturbed.

This is not "progressive".

7/30/2009 7:48 PM  
Blogger Angela said...

Blogger doesn't do trackbacks, but courtesy of my friend Georg:

http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2009/07/in-dubio-pro-reo.html

7/30/2009 10:09 PM  
Blogger ICONIC FREEDOM said...

Conservatives are missing an opportunity to connect with Independents, Democrats & others, on this issue. I'm surprised.

"Yes, the lawsuit aspect for trees is silly in retrospect, however, he speaks to an idea that we can all support and that is regard for all life - regardless whether it's human or not.

We continue to advance society where we have a regard for all life so at some point we are more efficient with the life we take for comfort & use, in addition to having regard for human life where we can educate toward fewer abortions & fewer death sentences.

All of this advances the development of personal responsibility.

Ultimately it would be great if we moved toward fewer combat wars, as well, but societies aren't there yet"

This shows a regard for those who have care about other forms of life other than human and supports the idea of bringing an important aspect of social issue to be addressed in society, with combined efforts.

7/31/2009 8:23 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home