Rights of nature

Read more here:

"Ecuador is now the first country in the world to codify a new system of environmental protection based on rights," stated Thomas Linzey, Executive Director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.

"With this vote, the people of Ecuador are leading the way for countries around the world to fundamentally change how we protect nature," added Mari Margil, Associate Director of the Legal Defense Fund.

Article 1 of the new "Rights for Nature" chapter of the Ecuador constitution reads:  "Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.  Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public bodies."
 

NYT Editorial today: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14mon4.html

our abuse of the animal world since the domestication revolution in 8000 bc diserves some rerperations.

the slavery and death camp comparisions…

that’s cool, humans taking responsibilities for their actions. our actions affect ecosystems which in turn affects us. I don’t think the U.S. will ever do that. The U.S. thinks they own the world and everyone in it from animals to "foreigners". The U.S. says "The world’s my oyster. you are my *****es." BWAHAHAHAHA!

Preposterous.  Granting rights without expecting responsibilities is nothing short of insanity. Gorilla’s, trees and lakes have no obligation to us, therefore we have no obligation to grant rights to them.  As for Ron Sims attempting to steal land from King Country residents, finally a small glimmer of sanity has finally taken root in the Washington State court system. 

Leif, I mentioned that exact story today to Mari Margil today in Portland.

This is so great. It sets an immensely important precedent.

Here’s an interesting local angle in today’s Seattle Times: The same day Ecuador enshrined nature’s inherent right to exist in its constitution, an appeals court in Washington State struck down part of King County’s 2004 "critical-areas ordinance," calling it "an indirect but illegal ‘tax, fee, or charge’ on development." The ordinance limits landowners to clearing no more than half of the vegetation—read: forest—on parcels larger than 1.25 acres or 35% of lots larger than 5 acres. Property-rights activists gleefully revved their chainsaws, while enviros and county officials wrung their hands.

Quite a contrast, no? Can we get Tom Linzey back here to talk to the WA legislature?