Posted on 05/07/2022 3:03:57 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
… In the case Salmon vs. Seattle, the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe is seeking legal action against the municipality on behalf of the salmon population. Sauk-Suiattle had previously attempted other legal maneuvers to improve the salmon's plight. They filed a lawsuit claiming Seattle was greenwashing by labeling the dams the "nation's greenest utility," despite contradicting evidence.
Salmon vs. Seattle relies on the legal theory "Rights of Nature," which states ecosystems like rivers, lakes, trees, animals, and mountains, have the same legal rights as human beings. Legal theorists have proposed nature should be granted legal rights of personhood like how entities that can't speak for themselves like states, infants, municipalities, universities, and corporations receive legal representation in court.
The Rights of Nature theory, and the growing movement to bring it into the legal mainstream, has been used to gain environmental protections for nature around the world to varying degrees of success. In 2008, Ecuador was the first country to recognize the Rights of Nature, referred by Ecuadorians as the Rights of Pachamama (Mother Earth).
The legal theory gets more unclear when applied to climate change litigation. Currently, only a few Rights of Nature cases explicitly relate to climate change. Colorado River Ecosystem v. State of Colorado was a case filed in 2017, that fought to establish the river's rights and stated climate change was a threat to the river's ability to thrive. The case was dismissed by the District of Colorado.
More cases that utilize Rights of Nature would place nature as legally equal to human beings. If we regarded nature as an equal citizen, perhaps we would be more likely to pass essential conservation laws that benefit the health of our planet.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
...standing.
I’m filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of all pot plants that have been murdered just so libtards can get high.
I’m expecting the Lorax to speak for the trees. Well, the Truffula trees in particular.
Can I sue insects?
Nature made plastic.
Salon vs MSN, sh## vs sh##
I’m suing a gang of ants that pilfered some of my picnic food last weekend. May go for RICO on them since saw multple ant hills involved.
So, when I spray an anthill and kill 100,000 of the little buggers, I can expect 100,000 individual lawsuits? I can see 100,000 lawyers salivating over that prospect!
That’s not civil but criminal MURDER 1 x 100,000.
(5 mins @ 1.5)
They would have been better off filing for or under Gaia? /s
This is just asinine - everything they claim the animals are “saying” or “thinking” is hear say.
They’re not representing them at all.
Estate of Dead Skunk in the Middle of the Road sues Loudoun Wainwright III for share of royalties from hit song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu5hzc2Mei4
I say eat more salmon.
And your veggies too.
With a nice chardonnay and some caviar.
5.56mm
They’re judgment proof.
Just the queen. The rest are her non-entity children.
Plants need better representation. They love Carbon Dioxide!!!
It’s like Stalin being assigned your legal representation during the holodomor. You’re starving and your legal representation is the one causing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.