猫咪社区

鈥淧eople think of laws being so objective and serious, and almost separate from the social norms,鈥� says investigative climate journalist Amy Westervelt. 鈥淏ut it鈥檚 really just a handful of people鈥檚 beliefs that have gotten baked into law.鈥�

Uncovering whose beliefs have shaped existing environmental law led her to report on an emerging legal arena that has been making headlines around the world: rights of nature laws. To explore the fascinating stories and characters behind some of the 200 cases currently underway, Westervelt is launching a new podcast today called , described as 鈥�Law & Order meets the climate crisis.鈥�

The idea behind the rights of nature approach extrapolates on the Western legal system鈥檚 insistence that a corporation is considered a person. If that鈥檚 legally true, then why not grant legal personhood to a watershed or a forest? For those who grew up indoctrinated by the existing legal system, Westervelt says their initial response is often delivered with a scoff: 鈥淪o, what, like, a tree could sue me?鈥�

But beyond this initial skepticism, she sees a lot of practicality and possibility to the approach. Take, for example, a polluted lake. 鈥淚t鈥檚 almost impossible to say my cancer was caused by this chemical in the water,鈥� she says. 鈥淏ut it鈥檚 super easy, scientifically, to say this chemical in this water is destroying this watershed.鈥�

And in this way, granting nature its own rights could provide an avenue to protect specific environments鈥攁nd the communities that depend on them. Because, she points out, 鈥淗umans actually need ecosystems to live a lot more than we need corporations.鈥�

The Proof Is in the Pushback

When it comes to protecting the environment, most existing laws are human-centered. They focus on the rights of people to a healthy environment. Westervelt says that well over 100 countries have these kinds of laws on the books. Still, since they require making a direct, causal connection between a pollutant and a human health outcome, winning a case in court can be difficult.

Rights of nature cases, in contrast, are 鈥減laying the long game,鈥� as Westervelt puts it. They approach legal arguments with a completely different philosophy and timescale. Incorporating the rights of nature into the constitutions of municipalities, states, and countries could shift the foundational approach to how environmental cases are litigated, Westervelt says.

And it might just be working. She says the proof is in the pushback.

鈥淲e鈥檙e starting to see pre-emptive laws get passed to block rights of nature legislation,鈥� Westervelt says. Ohio, Florida, and most recently Missouri have passed laws to this effect鈥攁 backlash she explores in Episode 5 of the podcast. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 always a key indicator that something鈥檚 working, right?鈥� Westervelt says. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e not passing pre-emptive laws against calling your reps鈥攍et鈥檚 put it that way.鈥�

The other strength of this rights of nature approach to environmental protection is the surprising coalitions it creates. 鈥淭he Lake Erie Bill of Rights is not a bunch of hippies in San Francisco. This is suburban moms in Toledo, Ohio,鈥� Westervelt says. 鈥淚 think that鈥檚 actually what scares the industry folks and the right wing about the way that [rights of nature laws have] progressed in this country, is you鈥檙e seeing it really pop up in the Rust Belt, in working-class towns in the Midwest.鈥�

Take fracking, for example. A person in Pennsylvania might be upset their neighbor has a fracking well that has ruined the water in the surrounding wells, making their land essentially valueless. So, Westervelt says, you have right-wing, anti-government libertarians fighting in defense of private property alongside Indigenous leaders arguing to protect the watershed鈥檚 right to live. 

The motivations may be very different, but Westervelt says the outcomes they鈥檙e fighting for are actually quite compatible.

Take the example of the Te Urewera rainforest in New Zealand, which Westervelt examines in Episode 4. She says this case is the one that international organizations point to as a key success story for the rights of nature, because the government recognized the rainforest as its own legal entity and the T奴hoe people as its legal guardians. In a lot of ways, this is a victory, but at the end of the day, it鈥檚 still a compromise on what the T奴hoe actually want: simply the return of their land.

The idea that the government had to grant these land rights is almost offensive to those who live there, Westervelt says. Still, she sees these cases, which aim to bring an Indigenous approach to both nature and justice, as a way to 鈥済ive Western law an instant upgrade on the environmental front.鈥�

Wild Rice for the Win

One unique aspect of Westervelt鈥檚 podcast is the way it frames Indigenous science, which she says is all too often viewed as myths or 鈥渨oo-woo mystical nonsense.鈥�

Westervelt shares an example of a water protector she spoke with in Hawai鈥榠 who was working to protect his people鈥檚 sacred mountain, Mauna Kea. He told her the reason it鈥檚 sacred is because half the island鈥檚 ecosystems are affected by it. Western watershed science eventually came to the same conclusion, but centuries later, after colonization had already caused great harm.

The same goes for why wild rice is sacred to the Ojibwe: it鈥檚 an indicator species. They knew its ecological importance and therefore came to reflect that in their cultural values.

In this way, Westervelt says, storytelling鈥攂e it through Indigenous knowledge-sharing or a podcast鈥攊s an effective way to explain why it鈥檚 important to protect water.

On this note, she starts off the podcast鈥檚 first season with Episode 1: 鈥淢anoomin v. Minnesota.鈥� This case looks at the rights of wild rice to survive and thrive in local waterways, which the Ojibwe added to their 1855 treaty with the U.S. government. The White Earth Band of Ojibwe, based in present-day Minnesota, has since sued Enbridge Energy鈥檚 Line 3 pipeline, which they say will violate the rights of the rice and threaten the health of the ecosystem at large.

The reason Westervelt starts with wild rice is because of the impact this case could have on so many other potential pipeline fights across the U.S.

鈥淲hatever decision they come down with will be pretty monumental,鈥� she says. The case is currently in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, and if its decision is appealed, Westervelt says this could be 鈥渁nother case where the Supreme Court is deciding whether the U.S. is going to honor these treaties.鈥� And that has far-reaching implications for the treaty rights of tribes across the continent.

鈥淓very time I tell people, 鈥榊eah, wild rice sued the state of Minnesota,鈥� it helps to get people to let go of the idea that the way things are is the way they鈥檝e always been and always have to be,鈥� Westervelt says. She believes exposing people to that idea by way of a story is less threatening than arguing with them about water clarity or carbon emissions. 鈥淪howing people a different perspective and what it can look like, I think, is helpful in opening people up to other possibilities.鈥�