Let's Do Something BIG.
A COMMUNITY DEDICATED TO TELLING THE STORIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES WORKING TOWARDS MAKING THIS WORLD A BETTER PLACE.
I think I speak for most of us when I say that keeping up with the daily news this year has been painfully exhausting. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find a self-care guide catered to current events that doesn’t instruct you to completely detach yourself from the news cycle from time to time. But amidst all of the stories, facts, and data we consume regarding COVID-19’s devastatingly negative effects on human society as we know it, there are a few tidbits of seemingly good news about the environment. Intuitively, this makes sense. Countries around the world who have experienced high coronavirus caseloads have fully locked down, resulting in some eerie photos of empty highways, airports, and public spaces, including a Times Square fully devoid of crowds in New York City. Many of the folks who would normally be commuting to work, flying to distant vacation destinations, and gathering in cities for professional conferences or social events are instead remaining at home, so greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants associated with travel and daily life should decrease. And this is exactly what scientists have observed: a report released by IQAir on Earth Day outlines the results of a study comparing fine particulate matter measured in the air of major global cities before and during the pandemic. Of the ten cities studied, nine of them showed drastic reductions in air pollution as a result of their lockdowns, with Delhi, India; Los Angeles, US; Wuhan, China; and Mumbai, India experiencing the largest decreases compared with their previous four-year averages. In April, someone in Delhi even described the air as "positively alpine!" (Observe current air quality anywhere in the world here.) Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, one of the main culprits in global temperature rise, has also been on the decline as a result of the pandemic. The International Energy Agency expects that global CO2 emissions will fall by 8% (nearly 2.6 gigatons) in 2020 – the largest drop ever recorded. This emissions reduction is the result of a global decline in demand for energy from coal, oil, and gas. CarbonBrief notes that an 8% emissions drop is approximately equal to the annual emissions reductions needed to meet the Paris Agreement's target of limiting global warming to less than 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. So, what do these reports really mean for the environment and the future of climate action post-pandemic? I’m not trying to squash the optimism anyone – myself included – might be feeling after scanning headlines of the “nature is healing” sort, but there are a few important things to keep in mind. First, although it is tempting to use the recent reports as definitive evidence that humans are the direct cause of environmental degradation (a.k.a. “we are the virus”), this way of thinking can lead to the dangerous and ecofascist belief that part of the human population must die for the earth to survive. In reality, it is our economic framework – the prioritization of profit over planet, the belief that economic growth can and should continue indefinitely despite finite resources, and the view of the natural world as a commodity – that leads to detrimental environmental outcomes from human activity. Human societies can, and have, existed in peaceful coexistence with the environment in the absence of these economic structures and beliefs. It’s possible even at our current stage of technological advancement. For example, Ireland took major steps to divest from fossil fuels in 2018, voting to sell its holdings in coal, oil, gas, and peat in favor of replacement with renewables. Unless sweeping changes are made to our methods of energy production, expert predictions and historical evidence agree that the rebound from this economic downturn will most likely result in higher carbon and pollutant emissions than were occurring pre-pandemic, as countries and businesses scramble to make up for lost time and profits. After the 2008-2009 economic crisis in the US, economic recovery ushered in an immediate rebound in CO2 emissions, with the highest year-to-year increase on record in 2010. At present, climate experts are saying that overall greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and the environmental impacts resulting from them, will continue to increase despite this temporary slow-down in anthropogenic carbon input. This is because we’ve been combusting fossil fuels for energy a lot longer than we’ve been living under stay-at-home orders. Andrea Dutton, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in an interview for this National Geographic article that cumulative emissions are what really matters: “If [the reduction in emissions] is short-lived, it’s not really touching the tip of iceberg.” Evidence from China, compiled by CarbonBrief, shows that coal consumption at power plants, oil refinery utilization, and nitrogen dioxide pollution levels all returned to a normal range by the end of March. This all makes sense considering that the improvements we are currently seeing do not result from the implementation of a set of policies designed to leave a healthier planet for future generations. Instead, they are the outcome of a temporary societal change initiated to prevent the spread of an infectious disease and protect the health of those who are living on the planet now, with short-term environmental improvements as a side effect. Any strategy implemented to address climate change will need to involve permanent societal changes that are economically sustainable as well. Taking the news of recent reductions in air pollution and carbon emissions with a grain of salt feels like a bummer. But knowing that we can globally mobilize against a common threat is something that’s been allowing me to maintain a sense of optimism. For years we have watched political leaders fail to meet collaborative climate goals, but in response to an immediate threat, we have seen countries learning from one another’s experiences, with many leaders prioritizing public health over economic growth. We have also seen renewable energy sources gain traction over fossil fuels, momentum that could be carried through economic recovery if made a priority. If we – collectively, globally – responded to climate change as urgently as we have responded to the coronavirus pandemic, imagine the environmental healing we would facilitate. It is an election year where I live, so I’ll leave you with a few open-ended questions that the events of 2020 have brought to light: how are your leaders (national and local) dealing with the coronavirus crisis? Have their responses been empathetic, equitable, and considerate of the disproportionate impacts that the crisis has had on various groups? Have they shaped their policies around scientific evidence every step of the way? Will they make the environment a priority in their recovery efforts? Stay safe, stay healthy…stay passionate, and stay involved!
2 Comments
Get excited for another round of plastic-free inspiration with posts on our Instagram from our ambassadors throughout all of Plastic Free July! If you are keen to learn more about plastic consumption reduction in general or to become an ambassador yourself, check out LDSB.'s Plastic Free July Support Group on Facebook. Watch this space for a Plastic Free July round up post towards the end of the month, and try your darndest to refuse single-use plastics for this month of July!
My name is Jill Pelto, I am a Masters student at the University of Maine in the Earth and Climate Sciences Department, and I work in the Antarctic. My research addresses the history of the ice sheet over the last 10,000 years, focusing on the retreat of ice in the southern Ross Embayment. This sort of paleoclimate work is done in large part to learn about the sensitivity of the Antarctic Ice Sheet in the past to various ocean and climate parameters, to better understand how it may respond to current change. I am also a climate change artist, and I create paintings that address both positive and negative environmental topics, with the aim of using art as a platform for effective science communication. As an undergraduate student I worked on two separate majors at UMaine: Studio Art and Earth Science, and I developed a strong drive to link the often disparate fields. In my painting and printmaking courses I sought to compose images that shared what I was learning in my classes about the climate and glacier systems. I was inspired to share important environmental topics, as well as subjects that are simply fascinating to learn about. I was able to work in the field several times in my undergraduate career with Dr. Brenda Hall, and created field sketches and watercolors while doing work in these places, which included a field season in the Dry Valleys of Antarctica. Over my five years in these programs I continued to develop ideas for showcasing science in my art, with my overarching goal being a meaningful communication about our natural world. I wanted to gauge reactions to my artwork, and my initial audience was my classmates, professors, friends, and family. I was able to hear various interpretations of what my art communicated to them both emotionally and informationally. My objective was to engage people broadly by creating pieces that could express clearly and impactfully. So far, the most successful and creative approach I have developed is incorporating graphical data into my artwork. I use x-y plots that tell simple stories of change over time, and link these with a visual message about the research question. Several topics I’ve chosen are: increasing temperatures over the last century and how this affects forest fire frequency; melting sea ice in the arctic and how this impacts species that rely on it; a shift in the United States to green energy use and how this inspires further conservation. One of the first steps I plan to take as I finish graduate school and begin my career is to collaborate with scientists from a myriad of disciplines to communicate the research that they do with a broader audience. Art is a powerful form of expression, and is an excellent platform for inspiring thought. Whether I can transform reactions to my art into inspiring action is a question I hope to be able to answer in the years to come; but, without a doubt, I will try! Another major goal of mine is to continue to use my data art to teach younger generations about our changing world. It’s absolutely crucial that we share and instill an understanding of the impact of humanity on the environment, in school systems world-wide. I helped to develop a lesson plan about my work with Science Friday’s Ryan Becker, and it has been absolutely wonderful to see the creations of students from around the world, and how the students have learned from this! I still have a lot to learn about communication, and I am continuing to explore different ways to mix science and art. One of the biggest inspirations for me has been working in Antarctica; it has been so impactful to actually visualize the role of the ice sheets for maintaining the sea level and climate in which we live today. Once I finish my degree, I plan to make a series about the beauty and vulnerability of these locations. Young scientists are entering a field that needs more clear, and more diverse, communication with the public. As a result it is important to seek out a variety of methods for sharing the outcomes and messages of research, and note that collaboration with others (journalists, artists, writers, teachers, etc.) is a really successful way to achieve this. It’s important for us as scientists to start thinking outside of the box, and begin to explore unique, alternative methods through which to communicate science.
The Fijian presidency gaveled COP23 to a close just before 7am on Saturday, November 18 after a full night and early morning of negotiations. You can see the details of what happened over the course of the evening here. The overall document coming out of COP23 is the Fiji Momentum for Implementation. Some of the major points of interest include:
Loss and Damage: The main COP 23 agenda item focusing on loss and damage was the review of the report of the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage Associated with Climate Change Impacts. There was much debate between parties as to whether loss and damage should become a permanent item on the negotiating agenda during future subsidiary body meetings, especially considering what some felt was an unclear mandate, and need, for the Executive Committee to continue its work after the initial 5-year work plan ends in 2020. Looking at the COP23 decision regarding the Warsaw Mechanism, it looks as though the parties have tried to address this by making clearer the rolling of the Committee beyond these initial five years ending in 2020. This seems to be an alternative solution to making loss and damage a permanent item on future negotiating agendas. Of course, the underlying tension below much of the loss and damage work and demands in negotiations is that countries see this mechanism as a tool for financing projects addressing loss and damage issues. This COP has done nothing in its official reports to move past the knowledge-gathering efforts of the previous two years and into looking at financial mechanisms attached to loss and damage. You can find the advanced unedited version of the WIM decision here. Agriculture: The working group on agriculture finally reached an agreement in the SBSTA/SBI joint task this COP, a decision 3 years in the making (over the course of five sessions). The decision calls on SBSTA and SBI to jointly address food security and agriculture, and specifically its vulnerability to climate change, through workshops and other means not really specified in the decision. The one-page decision then requests observers and parties to submit requests for topics for such meetings, listing 6 topics to begin with which include modalities for implementing the recommendations of the past 3 years' workshops, methods of assessing adaptation/adaptation co-benefits, and improved livestock management systems. You can find the advanced unedited version of the decision here. Indigenous Peoples: An outcome many parties were looking to by the end of this COP was the operationalization of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform, mandated by the Paris Agreement to focus on knowledge, effective engagement, and climate actions/policies. The final decision accepted by the COP lays out in two pages the purpose of the Platform as understood by the Parties as well as a further explanation/illustration of the three general focuses of knowledge, engagement, and climate policies. Additionally, per the decision, the first activity of the Platform will be a multi-stakeholder workshop on the further operationalization of the Platform's three work areas. The decision still left questions that need to be answered before any full operationalization and so it has been referred to the SBSTA April-May session to be further discussed. You can find the advanced unedited version of the decision here. Adaptation Finance: Countries continued to negotiate on the role of the Adaptation Fund in serving the Paris Agreement throughout this COP. They did not decide that the Adaptation Fund "shall" serve the Paris Agreement, but there is agreement that it should serve the Paris Agreement. Shall adds legal weight to the assertion which some countries are not comfortable with as of yet. The conversation moved away from this language and towards the legality of how to transition the Fund. The parties decided that this transition should be the focus of the next negotiating session. Here is a link to the final informal note from the APA agenda item on the Adaptation Fund. Ocean Pathway Partnership: Fiji along with many partner countries launched the Ocean Pathway Partnership on Thursday. This one page document states the importance in connecting oceans and climate change. It specifically calls out the interconnectedness of Sustainable Development Goals 13 (climate) and 14 (ocean). The document does not create any new agenda item or work program under the UNFCCC (which is what some parties had hoped for), but it does encourage integration of the ocean into future NDCs and into other negotiating streams. At the launch, Fiji announced that Sweden would be the co-chair of the Ocean Pathway Partnerships. Here is additional information about the Pathway although the final document is not posted yet. To check out the decisions coming out of COP23, you can check out the UNFCCC website. Thank you for following along during our time at COP23! Please reach out to us if you have any addition questions about the UNFCCC process. AnnaAnna is a master's student pursuing a dual degree in Climate and Quaternary Studies with the Climate Change Institute and in Global Policy with the School for Policy and International Affairs. Her research interests include climate change adaptation governance and interactions of international climate governance and ocean governance regimes. Interested in reading more? Find more posts at 'COP23 Perspectives: The University of Maine Delegation to the 2017 United Nations Climate Change Negotiations'
COP23 kicked off Monday morning in Bonn, Germany with the opening ceremony and plenaries. The ceremony featured an important cast of characters for international climate change negotiation including the last year's COP President from Morocco, this year's COP President from Fiji, the German Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (because they are physically hosting the COP here in Bonn on behalf of Fiji), the Chair of the IPCC, and the head of the UNFCCC. Upon accepting the Presidency of the COP, the Prime Minister of Fiji, Minister Frank Bainimarama asserted that the delegates here, and the countries they represent, "are all in the same canoe," and therefore, we need to work together over the next two weeks to achieve the objectives of this COP. So, what are the main areas of focus for this COP? This is a bit of a challenging question because each delegation comes in with a slightly, or wholly, different agenda. But, some of the main objectives/focuses of the COP that were articulated today during this opening ceremony and ensuing events held by both country delegates and NGOs are listed below.
There is certainly a lot of work to be done, but the collective spirit of Paris and the action-oriented spirit of Marrakech live on here in Bonn. We will see how the above priorities unfold over the next two weeks in this context. AnnaAnna is a master's student pursuing a dual degree in Climate and Quaternary Studies with the Climate Change Institute and in Global Policy with the School for Policy and International Affairs. Her research interests include climate change adaptation governance and interactions of international climate governance and ocean governance regimes. For two weeks this summer I was fortunate enough to be able to attend a Summer School run by the Smith School of Enterprise and Environment (SSEE) at the Oxford University Centre for the Environment. This article provides a (very) brief summary of some of the points discussed in what was a hugely informative and eye-opening course. As the majority of people will be aware, the Paris Agreement was heralded as perhaps the biggest step forward by national governments across the globe in tackling climate change. The scientific community, as physicist Myles Allen told us, reacted with surprise at the ambitious commitment to hold the increase in global average temperature to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and especially at the fact that nations also committed to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. This therefore begs the question as to how realistic the aims of the Paris agreement are, and I was intrigued to learn of the perspectives of the lecturers on this course, who came from a variety of different backgrounds. Firstly, the science. Contrary to some reports, it is not geophysically impossible to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C, and past emissions do not already commit us to 1.5°C of warming. Currently, average global temperature has risen by approximately 1°C since pre-industrial times. The goal is therefore simple: net carbon dioxide emissions have to reach zero before the global average temperature increase reaches 1.5°C. Prof. Allen argued that the simplest and most cost-effective way of doing this would to be a ‘straight-line path’, i.e. reducing emissions by 20% for every 0.1°C of warming from now on, but the Paris agreement allows for flexible decarbonisation of global economies, with nations making their own emissions reduction pledges that are revised every five years. Despite these targets being scientifically possible, a number of problems were highlighted with current progress towards the 1.5°C target. To put it bluntly – current pledges are not enough; although nations have pledged to decrease carbon emissions, there are no comprehensive plans to get emissions all the way to zero, and there is no indication of what will happen after 2030. This is a prime example of what many of the lecturers on the course argued is one of the main barriers to progress on tackling climate change: short-termism. Economic geographer Gordon Clark’s take-home statement from his lectures was this: “Economic growth, or making a profit, is a pre-condition to tackling climate change”. In order to tackle climate change and reach net zero emissions, there needs to be huge investment in technology to allow global energy and fuel needs to be met with renewable, fossil-free sources. The only way that this can happen is if economies are growing and corporations are making profit, so that this profit can be spent on research and development. However, again, the issue of short-termism crops up. Corporations and financial markets are driven by an embedded culture of short-term profit making, exemplified by the demand for constant improvement in performance in quarterly reports. This is preventing companies from investing in things like clean energy research and development, as they require high initial investment and will take longer to be as profitable as fossil fuels. There are therefore few companies that are willing to effectively sacrifice themselves and plug substantial amounts of money into research and development to tackle climate change. Economic growth is therefore only positive for tackling climate change if the profit being made is spent in the right way – current investments by governments and oil majors are barely more than token gestures with no overwhelming turn to investment in clean energy instead of fossil fuels. Linked to this lack of investment in the future, Prof. Clark argued, is the current political climate in countries such as the UK. Despite a resumption in economic growth, income equality is a huge problem, and without a more equal distribution of income it is incredibly difficult to turn the attention of both the government and the population to future generations. Put simply, the UK government, as well as the Trump administration and many other nations worldwide are ‘stuck in the now’, consumed in problems such as Brexit and healthcare, with an inability to look further into the future and think about more long-term problems such as climate change. So – are there any potential solutions to bring us on track for 1.5°C warming? Prof. Allen argued that the only way to get there would require an ability to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, as he did not believe it would be possible to switch to energy and fuel from entirely renewable sources by the 1.5°C target. Again, the short-termism issue comes into play; with short-term emissions reductions targets, there is very little investment in carbon sequestration or carbon capture and storage (CCS) anymore. Prof. Allen therefore argues that as there is currently no economic benefit in CCS and carbon disposal there needs to be collective action by the fossil fuel community. His proposal was mandatory sequestration requirements, for example making it a legal requirement for fossil fuel extractors and exporters to sequester 15% of CO2. This would mean that significantly more investment would be directed towards finding efficient ways to sequester CO2, or ways to prevent the emission of CO2 entirely, especially if initial requirements to sequester 15% of CO2 were gradually increased to 100%. Environmental economist Cameron Hepburn discussed further positive signs from the unprecedented rise of solar power – viewed in the long term, the price collapse in solar is remarkable compared to power from other fossil fuels such as coal. There are now places where solar can be as profitable as coal even without subsidies, and research and development means materials for solar photovoltaic (PV) cells are evolving to become more efficient and reliable. To add to this, the rate of decline in battery costs has surprised agencies such as the Committee on Climate Change, and has game-changing implications for the mass adoption of EVs. However, past evidence for coal, oil and natural gas demonstrates that it takes ~50 years for a new energy source to get a reasonable penetration and share of the energy market, meaning that the transition to solar may not happen in time. Also worrying, as Prof. Hepburn demonstrated to us with a decarbonisation equation, is that for 50:50 odds of stopping global temperature rise before it reaches 2°C the necessary capital stock will have been built by 2017; i.e. this is the year in which we need to stop building new fossil fuel plants. This means that in order to meet a temperature rise of 1.5°C any future capital stock, and likely some existing capital stock, will have to be retired early, making them stranded assets. This is something that fossil fuel companies will want to avoid; it is in their interest to burn all their existing carbon to prevent losing significant amounts of money. In summary, at the current rate of progress meeting the goals of the Paris agreement is going to be a huge challenge. However, perhaps the most important thing I took from the Summer School, is that there remains a sense of positivity and persistence among academics, business people, policy-makers and activists alike. Although we are perhaps not progressing as fast as we need to be, the rate of progress is undoubtedly increasing and action is happening. Global coal consumption around the world is falling, China and the US have managed to decouple emissions from economic growth, carbon prices are now in place in 40 countries and in 2016 more money was invested in renewable energy than in fossil fuels. So although the Paris agreement perhaps can’t be described as ‘realistic’, all hope is not lost, and we must remain optimistic and ready to tackle the challenges ahead. The content of this article is based on lectures delivered by the following three academics: Professor Myles Allen http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/people/mallen.html Professor Gordon Clark http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/about-the-team/director/index.php Professor Cameron Hepburn http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/about-the-team/professors-fellows/cameron-hepburn.php KateKate is a recent graduate from Durham University where she studied geography, and is currently on a gap year before beginning a masters in climate change science and policy. She spends most of her free time volunteering, hiking, running or cooking. She has travelled as much as she can in the past couple of years and has many big plans for future adventures! In part one of this blog post the new order by the courts in India regarding rights for nature was discussed. In their fundamental, operative parts the Court declared legal standing for the natural entities within these orders. As a result, lawsuits can be brought in the name of these entities and the Advocate General is to be their designated legal representative. This post will discuss whether or not the new orders contribute anything to the existing landscape of environmental law in India. It would be observed that the contribution, if any, is very limited. Rights for Nature in Indian Law These orders are a reminder of Christopher D. Stone’s seminal essay ‘Should trees have standing?’ [1] and Former American Supreme Court Justice Douglas’s dissent in Sierra Club v Morton [2], arguing in favour of giving standing rights to nature. [3] The concept that once seemed like an ambitious, even bizarre, thought experiment rejected by the US Courts, has been incorporated by the Indian judiciary. In Sierra Club the US Supreme Court rejected the idea that the Sierra Club could sue as an organisation committed to the protection and preservation of the environment. If the club were to be given standing it would be possible only where it represented individual users of the national forest land, to protect their aesthetic and recreational use of the area in question, which in this case was National Forest land soon to be used as the location for a resort. [4] Justice Douglas in his dissent observed that to simplify the question of standing, nature itself should be granted standing rights and those who are ‘beneficiaries of a wholesome environment’ and have a ‘meaningful relationship to… it,’ as distinguished from the busybodies, be allowed to represent the entities in question. [5] In contrast, the Uttarakhand Court did not identify what it would mean for the entities to have standing, apart from having legal representation and the claim being brought in their name. One possibility that can be drawn from Stone and Douglas is the elimination of any further requirement to show corresponding negative impacts on human beings as to the impacts on the rivers themselves for the purpose of establishing standing. [6] Therefore, whether or not there is an associated negative impact on human beings should not be an additional hurdle for an environmental harm to be eligible for legal redress. In cases of claims brought for river pollution for instance, the courts in India have noted the impact of river pollution on public health or negative impact on access to clean drinking water. [7] However, negative impact on human beings has not been a necessary legal requirement for petitions arising in cases of environmental degradation in India. The Uttarakhand Court orders are not the first time that an Indian Court has recognised the inherent value of the environment as separate from its relevance for human use. [8] For instance in the Calcutta Taj Hotel Case [9] the construction of a hotel was challenged on grounds that it interfered with the flight path of migratory birds. No specific negative impact on human beings was alleged. The petitioners in the case as the Court identified them, were a group of “lovers of wildlife,” lifetime members of the zoo, local residents, and a trade unionist. [10] Therefore, the creation of a specific standing right is not a new concept in the legal philosophy of Indian courts in so far as it means recognising the inherent value of nature as separate from its value for human beings. The case for standing rights for nature by Stone and Douglas is made in the context of a very restrictive Constitutional standing rule of standing in America which excluded the possibility of such claims as the Indian courts like in the cases above, have accepted. [11] If the Sierra Club were to bring its claim in a Court of India, it is more than likely that it would have been awarded standing. If the rules of standing in the US Supreme Court were more accommodative, it is difficult to see the development of environmentalism in its practical legal form, as it developed in Stone’s essay and Justice Douglas’s defence. Therefore, it is not entirely indefensible to say that when standing is very liberal, as it is in India, it provides for a recognition of the value of nature as it is and not with an accompanying human impact. This is not to suggest that anthropocentrism is not at the nucleus of many legal developments that have taken place. Anthropocentrism vs Environmentalism The public trust doctrine is a good example of anthropocentric ethos, and within the doctrine the state is recognized as the trustee of all natural resources that are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The public at large is considered a beneficiary of the environment and its various resources. The state as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources, for the public. The public trust doctrine was recognised as part of Indian environment law in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. [12] The case concerned a lease given for commercial purposes for a hotel along the banks of river Beas. The government of the State of Himachal Pradesh was found in breach of the public trust doctrine in giving ecologically sensitive land up for commercial purposes. In contrast to the public trust doctrine where the exploitation of nature is a considered a violation to the rights of the public, the orders of the Uttarakhand Court hold that the banks of river Beas be protected for its inherent ecological value, as opposed to in public trust, with the natural entity itself acting as the holder of rights. Even where land does fall into the hands of public trust, it does not necessarily mean that human interest is always against the values of what has been referred to as environmentalism or the interests of nature as it is. [13] For example, the Court in Kamal Nath and some other public trust doctrine cases did not create a property right for the public under the trust, but instead ordered the restoration of the area. [14] According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Right to Life entails that: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” [15] The right has shown considerable elasticity and the courts in India have recognised that the right to life includes the right to a healthy environment. [16]It has been argued that this Article has evolved with respect to an anthropocentric approach. [17] However, this is a narrow reading of the article. The interpretation of what constitutes such a ‘healthy environment’ has varied from a narrow to a broad interpretation. [18] In its narrow form, the right refers to an environmental threat to human life. For instance in the Shriram Gas Leak Case [19] where the leaking of gas caused injury, the claim brought entailed a direct human injury. Similarly in Subhash Kumar v. Bihar [20] where the right was interpreted as protection from anything that ‘endangers or impairs the quality of life.’ [21] Yet another conception of the right is as guarantee to an environment that is pollution free. Therefore, in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India [22] the Supreme Court observed that the right to a healthy environment means a right to pollution free air and water. [23] In Intellectual Forum, Tirupathi v. State of AP, [24] the preservation of nature was extended to a consideration for future generations (this is of anthropocentric significance as well, but as can be seen this is only one way of the interpretation of the right). In an even broader sense, the right has been interpreted as the right to not just a pollution-free environment but the protection of ecological balance. Therefore in Virendra Gaur v State of Haryana [25] the Supreme Court observed that: “Enjoyment of life … including the right to live with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of the environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation, without which life cannot be enjoyed.” [26] Similarly, maintaining of ecological balance was emphasised in T. Damodar Rao v. Municipal Corp. of Hyderabad. [27] Michael Anderson has argued that ‘the recognition of the importance of ecological balance offers a path towards an anthropocentric approach as it realises the protection and preservation of the natural environment as an end in itself’. [28] The recognition of the rights for nature now prove Anderson’s observation to be correct. The right of standing in nature, in so far as it means that harm to nature is a legal injury, can be used to fill gaps of legislation. In the Kamal Nath case the court made the observation that where no legislation can be found, administrative agencies can take this as guiding principle. It was observed that: “If there is a law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures the courts can serve as an instrument of determining legislative intent in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under the Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership or for commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the eco-systems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public goods and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources.” [29] Despite the extensive legislations [30] that are now a part of India’s environmental law, inevitably there will be some gaps. For instance, in a case a petitioner was accused of the inappropriate removal of ordinary earth from a plot of land in a remote village. [31] There was no law prohibiting removal of ordinary earth and it did not come under the definition of minor minerals, which were to be protected. In the case the Court noted that there had been a large-scale removal of ordinary earth, and stated that: “no one can have unfettered freedom to degrade and excavate land owned by them where this has a negative impact on the environment and the local residents…..the environment imposes constraints on our freedoms.” [32] The Court ordered all excavations by this individual to be filled and reclaimed. In coming to this conclusion, the Court emphasized the Right to a Healthy Environment and the need for sustainable development, even on privately owned lands. It can therefore be argued that in cases where no direct human impact can be established, the rights of nature would be of greater assistance for the administrative agencies to fill legislative gaps and for the public to bring claims to enforce the rights of nature. Furthermore, as Stone observes in his essay, “Judges who could unabashedly refer to the ‘legal rights of the environment’ would be encouraged to develop a viable body of law – in part simply through the availability and the force of expression…such a manner of speaking by courts would contribute to popular notions and a society that spoke of the legal rights of the ‘environment’ would be inclined to legislate more environment-protecting rules by formal enactment.” [33] Therefore the new (Fundamental) Right can assist in filling legislative gaps for administrative agencies in the exercise of their power, by the common law in deciphering legislative intent and by the legislature in further pro-environment legislation. Value of the Rights for Nature Finally, as Redgewell argues, a rights based approach contributes to a more ‘profound agenda’ in regards to protection of nature. “A strong rights based approach is just not concerned solely with the attribution of rights to animals and natural objects for the purposes of environmental protection but with the elevation of animals, plants, mountains, and other natural objects to a level of moral and legal considerability commensurate with that of humans.” [34] It can be observed that although the Court noted the importance of these resources for human beings, it has recognised them as legal entities with their own rights. Therefore, to a significant extent realising “the moral and legal considerability” that Redgewell considers. In Conclusion The legal implications of the declaration of rights for nature in these orders needs to be further clarified. Notwithstanding the gaps in the order, it is possible to detect the courts in India adjudicating with the particular needs of the environment even when such a right for nature did not exist. The courts have extended, in the cases discussed above, the human right, the Right to a Healthy Environment to the needs of nature. However, the declaration of a separate right can be utilised for filling legislative gaps. Finally, concerns about negative impact on public participation do not arise in environmental litigation, with continued access to broad standing requirements under PIL and the existing Right to a Healthy environment. SugandhaSugandha is a resident of the Indian capital of New Delhi and a student of law at Durham University. Her love for the environment began when she came to this small northern English city, and was exposed to air she could finally breathe. References found below.
In a recent order by the High Court of the North-Indian state of Uttarakhand, rivers Ganga and Yamuna [1] and all their tributaries were recognised as legal entities. They are now entitled to the same human rights as guaranteed under Articles 48-A and 51 A(g) of the Constitution of India. [2] The order came under an ongoing case on the inaction of the responsible government agencies regarding the cleaning of river Ganga, one of the largest rivers in the country and also one of the most polluted in the world. [3] The Court emphasised the religious and ecological significance of these rivers to reach its conclusion. It was observed that just as a company, or Hindu idols have been recognised as legal entities and are capable of having property and paying tax returns. [4] Similarly, these rivers can and must be recognised as legal entities capable of holding rights. [5] The Court stated that both rivers are worshipped by Hindus and carry deep spiritual and religious significance for Hindus, they support many communities and hold vast natural resources. [6] Their protection, the Court said, is of utmost importance. As a result, it accorded two government officials and the Advocate General of the State as persons in loco parentis or the human face to protect, conserve and preserve the rivers. The Advocate General shall represent the rivers at all legal proceedings to protect their interests. [7] Not only these two rivers, but ‘glaciers, rivers, streams, rivulets, lakes, air, meadows, dales, jungles, forests, wetlands, grasslands, springs and waterfalls’ were also declared as legal entities with fundamental rights. [8] The Court decided thus in a case which followed the first order in the case above. The Court reiterated the religious and mythological relevance of some of these natural entities, and quoted principles of international environmental law, like those identified in the Rio Declaration. [9] As in the first order, government officials and the Advocate General of the State were declared persons in loco parentis, in addition to noted advocates and academics. Some Concerns With these orders India is now in company with New Zealand and Ecuador to have declared a natural entity a legal person with equivalent rights to a human being. [10] While noting his reservations with the order of the Court, Professor Visvanathan has observed that the decision marks an important “shift in Indian legal philosophy.” [11] “It’s the inauguration of a new way of seeing.” [12] However, the larger legal implications of the orders are still not clear. The legal reasoning of the Court is limited, accompanied with religious and Hindu mythological narratives that give little direction as to the general legal implications and the impact on participation by the public in the protection of these natural entities. Additionally, there are jurisdictional concerns. Ganga and Yamuna are not contained within the state of Uttarakhand and cover vast territory in more than one state, where the High Court of Uttarakhand does not have jurisdiction, causing complications to this ruling. [13] In the second order, which recognised the wide list of natural entities as legal entities, the same jurisdictional concerns remain. Furthermore, the Court in either case does not explain the rights that have been extended to these entities. The first order observes that the rivers concerned have rights under Articles 41-A and 51 A(g). [14] Article 48-A is under ‘Directive Principles of State of Policy’(DPSPs) under the Constitution of India which identify principles to be adhered to in the policies of the state with respect to conservation of the environment. [15] DPSPs are not enforceable by a court of law and are merely guiding principles. [16] It is unclear therefore, what the Court means by rights. Article 51 A(g) falls under the Fundamental Duties of citizens of India, which are not meant to be enforceable. 51A(g) in particular concerns the general duty of citizens to protect the environment. [17] It may be inferred that, since the state and citizens have a duty to protect the environment, the environment has a corresponding right to be protected. However, this does not assist in understanding the content or scope of these rights. The second order, by a marginal contrast, observes that the concerned entities are entitled to all Fundamental Rights. Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution include human rights like the right to equality, freedom, religion, freedom from exploitation, and freedom for cultural and educational rights, [18] a violation of these is subject to judicial redress under Articles 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. [19] But, which articles out of these are applicable to natural entities is not identified by the Court, nor the implications thereof. For instance, River Ganga, whose religious importance the orders remind us of, remains exploited by inconsiderate human use. It is continuously polluted as a cremation site, or for other religious rituals. [20] Protection of the river would necessitate the restriction on the use of the river for religious practices. However, protection of the rights of the river in this way will conflict with fundamental rights of freedom of culture and religion to practice these rituals. Which rights take precedence? How does one know when the rights of a river are violated? Where is the line drawn between acceptable human use of the river and a violation of its right of equality, freedom and its exploitation? Will the construction of dams be affected by the judgement or are such development projects excluded from the scope of this right? [21] Many such questions remain unanswered. --- Continue reading about this issue in a post to be released next week! SugandhaSugandha is a resident of the Indian capital of New Delhi and a student of law at Durham University. Her love for the environment began when she came to this small northern English city, and was exposed to air she could finally breathe. References found below.
This Saturday, the 3rd of June 2017, a group of students from the Durham University geography department and Let's Do Something BIG. are hosting an event entitled 'Changes in the Arctic' communicating the effects of climate change on Arctic environments. The event is to be held at the Durham University Geography Department, Durham, United Kingdom. Educational posters and videos will be available for viewing by the public from 1.30pm-3.30pm in room W007.
These issues created as a result of a changing Arctic climate will later be approached from multiple perspectives in a discussion panel to take place from 4pm-5.30pm in room W309; FREE tickets for the discussion panel can be obtained here. Make sure to book your place, as seating for the discussion is limited. Nibbles and refreshments (including tea, coffee and wine) will be provided to discussion panel attendees, so if that isn't incentive I don't know what is. If you are unable to make it to Durham to attend the panel discussion, have no fear! The event will be live-streamed. Keep an eye out for live-streaming details on the event webpage and Facebook page so that you don't miss out! The discussion panel speakers have now all been announced, and short bios for each can be found on the 'Changes in the Arctic' event webpage. To keep up-to-date on Arctic happenings and announcements about the event, follow us on Facebook and Twitter. At a time when the governments of the world have a heightened interest in the future of the Arctic, both through climate change and political wrangling, we believe that this event will help inform and prompt discourse on the topic throughout surrounding the region. Hope to see you on Saturday!
Although we have taken a brief break from blogging updates, we have been active as ever in our No-Plastic-April campaign! As mentioned last month, we challenged a group of over 30 ambassadors from different places around the world to cut out/minimize their plastic consumption for the month of April, and share what they are learning along the way. This post includes some of those very useful tips and tricks shared by our ambassadors!
To see the different ways in which you can reduce the use of plastic, repurpose and reuse plastic already in your life and unexpected challenges that will be faced through saying no to plastic--check out our Instagram. Here is a round-up of some handy tips/tricks shared over the course of April:
Thanks so much to everyone who participated with the campaign throughout April, and remember that all of these tips and tricks can be applied to daily, everyday life in order to keep our oceans clean and our planet healthy!
Additional resources for reducing plastic consumption are bountiful! Check out this list from By the Ocean We Unite for a list of individual actions that make a huge difference to marine life and the overall health of the oceans. Watch this space for a more comprehensive list of resources to read, tricks to implement and videos to watch regarding WHY it matters to cut out plastic and WHAT we can do about it. Stay aware, live by your values and remember that together we can do something big. MariamaMariama lives in the UK whilst studying ice and other earthy things. She enjoys running through wild places, going on adventures and learning stuff. |
Meet the WritersArchives
May 2020
Categories
All
|