11/16/11ESPP -78 1

11/16/11ESPP Does it matter that they are inanimate, lack voice, have no subjectivity, could not place a value on themselves, figure out when they are at risk, craft protective measures, or implement them?

 Major philosophical approaches  Use value: based on utilitarian and anthropocentric concerns (utility to humans)  Intrinsic value: based on Kantian ideas (nature as “end in itself” rather than means to an end)  Environmental laws are inconsistent  “Polluter Pays Principle”  Endangered Species Act and CITES  Regulating “unreasonable adverse effects” 11/16/09ESPP-78 3

 What are environmental rights anyway?  For humans?  For animals?  For other non-humans (such as trees)?  Basic structure of rights: establishes  Who needs to be protected ▪ Against what kind of harm ▪ Inflicted by whom  Who should do the protecting  What happens when rights are in conflict 11/16/11ESPP -78 4

 Asserting rights: Why do we appoint spokespersons for children, the elderly, the comatose?  Exercising voice: If a dog or cat is injured, why don’t we let the animal “testify”?  Holding things harmless: If a vehicle injures someone, why don’t we destroy the vehicle?  Ignoring unintended injuries: Why don’t we insure people against “acts of god”? 11/16/11ESPP -78 5

Constitutional basis: “cases and controversies” Most common basis for standing: ownership Standing in environmental context: – Under NEPA (representing particular interests) – Of environmental groups (NGOs) – Of natural objects (Stone essay) – By comparison with other countries – International developments (species, sites, sacred locations, trees as elements of “World Heritage”) 11/16/11ESPP -78 6

 Standing is about the right to speak for oneself in a court of law.  Representation is about speaking for a group or an issue, usually in a political forum.  Political spokespersons have to be legitimate representatives of those they speak for  Sources of legitimacy in political representation  What about speaking for nature?  Which forms of representation are legitimate? 11/16/11ESPP -78 7

What gives scientists the right to represent (speak for) nature? Sources of legitimacy: – “Truth to nature” Representing nature as it “really is” Problem: “construction” of facts (e.g., under uncertainty) – Accountability Impartial, non-partisan, disinterested, skeptical Criticism by community of “peers” Replication, triangulation, witnessing, building on… Problems: capture, self-interest, tunnel vision, bias 11/16/11ESPP -78 8

 Hundreds of private messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.  The messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.  In one exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “ trick ” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “ idiots. ”  Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “ This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud, ” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents. 11/16/11ESPP -78 9

What gives NGOs the right to represent (speak for) nature? Sources of legitimacy Ownership? Of which nature? Membership Specialized knowledge and expertise Rights of indigenous groups Rights of cultural existence (Martello) Sacred lands (Espeland) 11/16/11ESPP

11/16/11ESPP

11/16/11ESPP