Court considers the legal standings of environment

posted in: Opinion | 0

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations granted the same standing as an individual, which allowed the most powerful and in unethical corporations to donate to political campaigns with no limits.

If someone were to burn down a whole forest, they would surely be brought to trial. Not because the trees have standing, but because it is in the best interest of humans to keep the dangerous people away from the general population. I think it says a lot about where our priorities are as a nation when the environment that allows us to prosper as a species is not important enough to have legal standing.

The environment is our most valuable asset and should be protected at all costs. One of the main reasons people may not agree that the environment and its inhabitants should have legal standing is because they are not able to tell us when they are experiencing something that is against their best interest, or rather something that hinders their ability to reach their full biological potential. But if humans are supposed to be the superior being, is it not fair to consider that maybe we are not listening as well as we could be? If we can listen to the rights of corporations, I do not think it is out of the scope of the imagination to consider the environment and its inhabitants as worthy of legal standing.

There was a point in time when women, children and people of color had no standing. If we can progress from that, we can progress to allowing the environment standing, especially in the age of climate change.

Climate change is real, that is a fact. When 97% of the scientific community is in agreement, you listen. What is in our best interest is also the best interest of the environment.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *