1 00:00:03,600 --> 00:00:06,720 Speaker 1: Last time on Damages, you heard a little bit about 2 00:00:06,760 --> 00:00:10,920 Speaker 1: how wild Rice got rights. That's part of who we are. 3 00:00:11,440 --> 00:00:14,280 Speaker 2: I know, It's one of those fundamental core pieces of 4 00:00:14,480 --> 00:00:15,160 Speaker 2: our identity. 5 00:00:16,200 --> 00:00:21,160 Speaker 3: We're part of that creation. Something had to give us substance, 6 00:00:21,800 --> 00:00:27,360 Speaker 3: Something have to give us substance. And the agreement was 7 00:00:27,960 --> 00:00:32,159 Speaker 3: we would remember and I can look at water and 8 00:00:32,200 --> 00:00:33,360 Speaker 3: see a spirit there. 9 00:00:33,920 --> 00:00:37,080 Speaker 4: The unique case names wild rice, which is sacred in 10 00:00:37,200 --> 00:00:39,600 Speaker 4: Jibweight culture, as the lead plane up. 11 00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:44,760 Speaker 1: The Wild Rice case was the first to be filed 12 00:00:44,880 --> 00:00:48,920 Speaker 1: in tribal court in the US, A few non native 13 00:00:48,920 --> 00:00:52,640 Speaker 1: communities have also tried to work rates of nature into 14 00:00:52,680 --> 00:00:57,280 Speaker 1: their laws. In Ohio, Toledo residents passed the Lake Eerie 15 00:00:57,360 --> 00:01:00,800 Speaker 1: Bill of Rights in twenty nineteen, for example, but it 16 00:01:00,880 --> 00:01:05,400 Speaker 1: met with swift and severe backlash that ultimately led to 17 00:01:05,440 --> 00:01:09,800 Speaker 1: the state of Ohio passing a preemptive ban on any 18 00:01:09,959 --> 00:01:14,280 Speaker 1: rights of nature laws. In Pennsylvania, some townships have moved 19 00:01:14,280 --> 00:01:17,640 Speaker 1: to adopt rights of nature into their government charters, but 20 00:01:17,720 --> 00:01:21,319 Speaker 1: there too, the opposition has been pretty fierce. We're going 21 00:01:21,360 --> 00:01:23,759 Speaker 1: to get into the details of those stories a little 22 00:01:23,840 --> 00:01:26,720 Speaker 1: later in this season, but today we're going to look 23 00:01:26,760 --> 00:01:30,920 Speaker 1: at the US more broadly, and why it's so hard 24 00:01:31,200 --> 00:01:34,559 Speaker 1: to integrate an idea like rights of nature into the 25 00:01:34,600 --> 00:01:39,600 Speaker 1: American legal system, and why the idea is so terrifying 26 00:01:39,720 --> 00:01:40,480 Speaker 1: to industry. 27 00:01:43,600 --> 00:01:47,440 Speaker 5: Mister Olson, are you taking the position that there is 28 00:01:47,560 --> 00:01:52,080 Speaker 5: no difference in the First Amendment rights of an individual? 29 00:01:53,160 --> 00:01:58,280 Speaker 5: A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator 30 00:01:58,440 --> 00:02:05,880 Speaker 5: with inalienable rights. So is there any distinction that Congress 31 00:02:05,920 --> 00:02:13,320 Speaker 5: could draw between corporations and natural human beings full purposes 32 00:02:13,360 --> 00:02:14,560 Speaker 5: of campaign finance? 33 00:02:14,800 --> 00:02:17,519 Speaker 6: What the Court has said in the First Amendment context 34 00:02:17,760 --> 00:02:21,840 Speaker 6: is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the 35 00:02:21,840 --> 00:02:22,600 Speaker 6: First Amendment. 36 00:02:26,080 --> 00:02:30,480 Speaker 1: Back in twenty ten, Conservatives won a long running campaign 37 00:02:30,639 --> 00:02:35,640 Speaker 1: to grant corporations free speech. The Citizens United case was 38 00:02:35,720 --> 00:02:39,560 Speaker 1: the final win in that long battle, with the Supreme 39 00:02:39,639 --> 00:02:43,760 Speaker 1: Court granting First Amendment rights to corporations, including the right 40 00:02:43,880 --> 00:02:48,800 Speaker 1: to political speech and to donate money anonymously. That one 41 00:02:48,840 --> 00:02:52,200 Speaker 1: court decision has been credited with sparking a huge amount 42 00:02:52,240 --> 00:02:55,440 Speaker 1: of dark money in politics. And it will probably come 43 00:02:55,480 --> 00:02:57,680 Speaker 1: as no surprise to hear that a lot of the 44 00:02:57,800 --> 00:03:01,880 Speaker 1: very same industries that fought so hard for corporate free 45 00:03:01,880 --> 00:03:06,560 Speaker 1: speech are not at all into the idea of ecosystems. 46 00:03:06,600 --> 00:03:12,320 Speaker 1: Having those rights welcome back to damages. I'm Amy Westervelt. 47 00:03:19,720 --> 00:03:22,240 Speaker 1: In the United States, the push for rights of nature 48 00:03:22,280 --> 00:03:25,800 Speaker 1: started with of all things Disney. 49 00:03:27,080 --> 00:03:31,080 Speaker 7: The Wonderful World of Disney. 50 00:03:32,760 --> 00:03:36,480 Speaker 1: In the nineteen seventies, Walt Disney Productions wanted to build 51 00:03:36,520 --> 00:03:42,000 Speaker 1: a ski resort in Sierra National Forest. The Sierra Club 52 00:03:42,120 --> 00:03:44,560 Speaker 1: sued them to try to stop it. That case went 53 00:03:44,720 --> 00:03:48,640 Speaker 1: all the way to the Supreme Court. Our reporter Meg 54 00:03:48,720 --> 00:03:50,720 Speaker 1: Duff picks up the story here. 55 00:03:53,720 --> 00:03:57,120 Speaker 5: The largest tree and the largest living thing on the 56 00:03:57,200 --> 00:03:57,760 Speaker 5: face of the. 57 00:03:57,760 --> 00:04:02,040 Speaker 8: O, Mister Solna is to Chief Justice Burger and may 58 00:04:02,080 --> 00:04:06,480 Speaker 8: have pleased the Court. The Sierra Club brought this proceeding 59 00:04:06,800 --> 00:04:10,760 Speaker 8: against the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and their assistance 60 00:04:10,920 --> 00:04:15,000 Speaker 8: to establish that their plans to authorize a huge private 61 00:04:15,200 --> 00:04:19,719 Speaker 8: recreational development at Mineral King in Sequoia National Game Refuge 62 00:04:20,080 --> 00:04:23,240 Speaker 8: and for a state highway across Sequoia National Park to 63 00:04:23,279 --> 00:04:25,080 Speaker 8: reach that development, we're illegal. 64 00:04:26,040 --> 00:04:29,359 Speaker 4: That's the Sierra Club's lawyer, Leland Salna Junior, arguing before 65 00:04:29,360 --> 00:04:33,080 Speaker 4: the Supreme Court in November nineteen seventy one. Just a 66 00:04:33,120 --> 00:04:37,120 Speaker 4: month before in October, Walt Disney World opened in Florida, 67 00:04:38,000 --> 00:04:42,200 Speaker 4: and now Disney was planning another resort in Mineral King 68 00:04:42,320 --> 00:04:45,080 Speaker 4: Valley in the Giant Sequoia's range. 69 00:04:45,600 --> 00:04:50,040 Speaker 8: Mineral King is located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, approximately 70 00:04:50,080 --> 00:04:52,719 Speaker 8: two hundred and twenty five miles north of Los Angeles. 71 00:04:53,320 --> 00:04:56,720 Speaker 8: It is a portion of a fifteen thousand acre game refuge, 72 00:04:56,720 --> 00:05:01,160 Speaker 8: which Congress created in nineteen twenty six. Walt Disney Productions 73 00:05:01,200 --> 00:05:05,279 Speaker 8: has described Mineral King as unsurpassed and natural splendor, perhaps 74 00:05:05,279 --> 00:05:07,839 Speaker 8: more similar to the European Alps than any other area 75 00:05:07,920 --> 00:05:13,400 Speaker 8: in the United States, and generously endowed with lakes, streams, cascades, caverns, 76 00:05:13,400 --> 00:05:17,360 Speaker 8: and matchless mountain distas. In nineteen sixty nine, the Forest 77 00:05:17,360 --> 00:05:20,679 Speaker 8: Service accepted a proposal from Disney for a huge resort 78 00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:25,800 Speaker 8: development at Mineral King. Disney would construct hotels, lodges, restaurants, 79 00:05:26,360 --> 00:05:30,480 Speaker 8: other permanent facilities so that fourteen thousand persons could ski 80 00:05:30,520 --> 00:05:31,960 Speaker 8: at Mineral King at one time. 81 00:05:32,720 --> 00:05:35,039 Speaker 4: To get there, though, Disney would have to build a 82 00:05:35,080 --> 00:05:39,560 Speaker 4: busy highway through the heart of Sequoia National Park to. 83 00:05:39,480 --> 00:05:42,680 Speaker 8: Solve the problem of transporting fourteen thousand persons at one 84 00:05:42,720 --> 00:05:45,680 Speaker 8: time to Mineral King was a problem and the state 85 00:05:45,720 --> 00:05:49,320 Speaker 8: of California agreed to construct a high standard freeway to 86 00:05:49,400 --> 00:05:52,080 Speaker 8: dead end at Mineral King, provided that it could cut 87 00:05:52,120 --> 00:05:53,000 Speaker 8: across the park. 88 00:05:53,720 --> 00:05:56,479 Speaker 4: It might sound weird, but the idea for the road 89 00:05:56,760 --> 00:05:59,800 Speaker 4: actually came from the Forest Service. They'd been hoping to 90 00:05:59,839 --> 00:06:03,320 Speaker 4: ma Mineral King a more accessible recreation area for more 91 00:06:03,360 --> 00:06:06,560 Speaker 4: than twenty years. So it's good for the Forest Service 92 00:06:07,000 --> 00:06:10,200 Speaker 4: and it's good for Walt Disney productions. Who it's not 93 00:06:10,279 --> 00:06:14,279 Speaker 4: good for are the hikers and the trees. If Californians 94 00:06:14,320 --> 00:06:17,400 Speaker 4: have learned anything the past few summers, it's the building 95 00:06:17,440 --> 00:06:21,920 Speaker 4: in fire prone areas makes natural fire cycles difficult to maintain, 96 00:06:22,680 --> 00:06:25,160 Speaker 4: and this disputed road would lead to a ski resort, 97 00:06:25,279 --> 00:06:28,960 Speaker 4: which creates a huge conservation problem. That's one reason the 98 00:06:29,000 --> 00:06:32,040 Speaker 4: Sierra Club filed suit. The question is does the Sierra 99 00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:35,479 Speaker 4: Club really have any right to speak for the trees? 100 00:06:36,360 --> 00:06:38,960 Speaker 4: Solicitor General Irwin Griswold said no. 101 00:06:40,160 --> 00:06:43,719 Speaker 7: This case, in a very real sense, is the ultimate 102 00:06:43,839 --> 00:06:45,120 Speaker 7: case on standing. 103 00:06:45,920 --> 00:06:48,560 Speaker 4: Standing means you need to be able to show that 104 00:06:48,640 --> 00:06:51,279 Speaker 4: you were hurt in some way. It's the thing that 105 00:06:51,279 --> 00:06:52,679 Speaker 4: allows you to file a case. 106 00:06:54,360 --> 00:06:58,960 Speaker 7: If the petitioner here has standing, then I believe it 107 00:06:59,160 --> 00:07:03,320 Speaker 7: fair to conclude that anyone who asserts an interest in 108 00:07:03,400 --> 00:07:05,520 Speaker 7: a controversy has standing. 109 00:07:05,960 --> 00:07:09,279 Speaker 9: Griswold is saying, no injury, no case. 110 00:07:09,800 --> 00:07:12,760 Speaker 7: It did not allege that it had any financial interest 111 00:07:12,800 --> 00:07:16,360 Speaker 7: in the controversy. It did not allege the ownership of 112 00:07:16,440 --> 00:07:20,800 Speaker 7: any property involved, or any interference within the activities it 113 00:07:20,840 --> 00:07:24,080 Speaker 7: is conducting. It did not even allege a special interest 114 00:07:24,640 --> 00:07:25,440 Speaker 7: in mineral king. 115 00:07:25,840 --> 00:07:29,120 Speaker 4: This slicter general is saying, really, it's none of their business. 116 00:07:29,680 --> 00:07:32,400 Speaker 4: If we let the Sierra Club plead this case, things 117 00:07:32,400 --> 00:07:33,400 Speaker 4: could really spiral. 118 00:07:34,600 --> 00:07:37,000 Speaker 7: I don't think there's any magic in the fact that 119 00:07:37,080 --> 00:07:41,360 Speaker 7: the Sierra Club is a club or that has members 120 00:07:42,440 --> 00:07:47,480 Speaker 7: or a long and distinguished history, many of which members 121 00:07:47,520 --> 00:07:51,080 Speaker 7: may well share the interest which it's management now advances. 122 00:07:52,800 --> 00:07:54,640 Speaker 7: If it is the fact that it is a group 123 00:07:54,800 --> 00:07:58,080 Speaker 7: that gives it standing, how big a group must it 124 00:07:58,200 --> 00:08:07,680 Speaker 7: be remembered? Five or fifty or fifty thousand? What reason 125 00:08:07,760 --> 00:08:11,400 Speaker 7: is there for picking any number? If any group has 126 00:08:11,400 --> 00:08:17,080 Speaker 7: standing because it has an intellectual or emotional interest, does 127 00:08:17,120 --> 00:08:21,160 Speaker 7: it not inevitably follow than any individual who was certain 128 00:08:21,240 --> 00:08:27,120 Speaker 7: image likewise has standing to raise these legal questions. If 129 00:08:27,160 --> 00:08:31,520 Speaker 7: the Sierra Club has standing, as Mister Justice Blackman suggested, 130 00:08:31,560 --> 00:08:35,280 Speaker 7: would not John Muir have standing? 131 00:08:37,040 --> 00:08:40,760 Speaker 10: The odd thing about this thesis is it didn't come 132 00:08:40,800 --> 00:08:46,679 Speaker 10: out of an environmental thinking an environmental law class. It initiated. 133 00:08:46,720 --> 00:08:50,000 Speaker 10: The thesis initiated in a property class I was teaching. 134 00:08:50,080 --> 00:08:53,040 Speaker 10: I was teaching the basic property class, the introductory property 135 00:08:53,040 --> 00:08:55,679 Speaker 10: classes of the class you can teach without knowing a 136 00:08:55,720 --> 00:08:57,480 Speaker 10: lot of the technical details. 137 00:08:58,240 --> 00:09:02,120 Speaker 4: Just one month before that Supreme Court argument, Christopher Stone 138 00:09:02,280 --> 00:09:05,160 Speaker 4: was just a few hundred miles south of Sequoia National 139 00:09:05,160 --> 00:09:09,160 Speaker 4: Park at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, 140 00:09:09,760 --> 00:09:12,960 Speaker 4: teaching his intro to Property law class. He was an 141 00:09:13,040 --> 00:09:16,240 Speaker 4: environmental lawyer and law professor at the University of Southern 142 00:09:16,280 --> 00:09:20,720 Speaker 4: California for over fifty years. He actually passed away last May, 143 00:09:21,120 --> 00:09:23,520 Speaker 4: so I wasn't able to talk with him, but I 144 00:09:23,679 --> 00:09:26,320 Speaker 4: was able to find a lecture he gave back in 145 00:09:26,440 --> 00:09:27,600 Speaker 4: nineteen ninety six. 146 00:09:28,640 --> 00:09:31,960 Speaker 10: It was getting towards the end of the hour, and 147 00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:34,280 Speaker 10: I was trying to think of what would a radically 148 00:09:34,320 --> 00:09:37,600 Speaker 10: different consciousness that would be law linked look like. And 149 00:09:37,679 --> 00:09:42,760 Speaker 10: I said it would be where nature had rights, so 150 00:09:43,440 --> 00:09:47,240 Speaker 10: trees warming to it, rivers and the place broke is 151 00:09:47,320 --> 00:09:51,640 Speaker 10: pandemonial and of the hour. Thank goodness. Students were no, 152 00:09:51,679 --> 00:09:54,040 Speaker 10: that's you know, this is like enough. And I walked 153 00:09:54,080 --> 00:09:56,560 Speaker 10: down into the hall and I was exaggerating at all. 154 00:09:56,600 --> 00:09:58,079 Speaker 10: I said to myself, don't used seak myself on the 155 00:09:58,120 --> 00:10:01,000 Speaker 10: third person. So Stone, what have you done? Now? 156 00:10:04,800 --> 00:10:07,640 Speaker 4: What Stone had just done was question one of the 157 00:10:07,679 --> 00:10:12,679 Speaker 4: most fundamental taken for granted premises in Western law that 158 00:10:12,840 --> 00:10:16,280 Speaker 4: nature is property and that it exists to be used. 159 00:10:16,640 --> 00:10:19,240 Speaker 11: The phrase is, whoever owns the soil, it is theirs, 160 00:10:19,400 --> 00:10:21,160 Speaker 11: up to heaven and down to hell. 161 00:10:21,800 --> 00:10:26,040 Speaker 4: Environmental sociologist Colin Jarollmack is an expert on the intersection 162 00:10:26,120 --> 00:10:29,120 Speaker 4: of property rights and nature, and he says that in 163 00:10:29,160 --> 00:10:32,240 Speaker 4: the US this idea goes back to the colonial period. 164 00:10:39,240 --> 00:10:43,800 Speaker 11: So England had the strongest property rights before the United States. 165 00:10:44,120 --> 00:10:46,000 Speaker 2: And there's a huge caveat. 166 00:10:45,480 --> 00:10:48,840 Speaker 11: Though, to that whoever you know owning the soil down 167 00:10:48,840 --> 00:10:52,880 Speaker 11: to hell part, which was that the crown retained anything 168 00:10:53,000 --> 00:10:56,360 Speaker 11: valuable underneath the surface. So you technically own the soil, 169 00:10:56,400 --> 00:11:00,800 Speaker 11: but any gold, silver, or oil, precious metals, gas that 170 00:11:00,960 --> 00:11:03,760 Speaker 11: was there belonged to the crown. And so you know, 171 00:11:03,800 --> 00:11:07,480 Speaker 11: the United States inherited property law as it inherited many 172 00:11:07,480 --> 00:11:09,800 Speaker 11: other forms of law from England. But there was a 173 00:11:09,920 --> 00:11:13,600 Speaker 11: very conscious decision when the so called Founding Fathers, you know, 174 00:11:13,720 --> 00:11:18,120 Speaker 11: won the Revolutionary War to get rid of those caveats. 175 00:11:18,280 --> 00:11:22,920 Speaker 11: And this was explicitly consciously pulling on John Locke, who 176 00:11:22,960 --> 00:11:26,560 Speaker 11: exerted an incredibly strong force on the American Constitution, who 177 00:11:26,600 --> 00:11:29,680 Speaker 11: made this argument that it is only through labor that 178 00:11:29,840 --> 00:11:31,400 Speaker 11: nature becomes valuable. 179 00:11:32,040 --> 00:11:35,559 Speaker 4: This argument was also used to take Native American land. 180 00:11:35,960 --> 00:11:39,800 Speaker 12: Early Americans were afraid of the wilderness, and they said, 181 00:11:39,800 --> 00:11:44,680 Speaker 12: if we leave Indian people's in ownership, they will just 182 00:11:44,800 --> 00:11:46,120 Speaker 12: waste it as wilderness. 183 00:11:46,600 --> 00:11:47,680 Speaker 9: That's Robert Miller. 184 00:11:48,040 --> 00:11:50,880 Speaker 12: I'm a citizen of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, 185 00:11:51,200 --> 00:11:54,520 Speaker 12: and I'm a professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College 186 00:11:54,600 --> 00:11:58,360 Speaker 12: of Law at Arizona State University. John Locke's theory was 187 00:11:58,400 --> 00:12:01,600 Speaker 12: to put land to it its best and highest use, 188 00:12:02,600 --> 00:12:05,520 Speaker 12: and in American society, that seems to be make the 189 00:12:05,559 --> 00:12:08,280 Speaker 12: most money off it as you can plunder it for 190 00:12:08,320 --> 00:12:12,480 Speaker 12: its resources. If there's water, use it, use it even 191 00:12:12,480 --> 00:12:15,760 Speaker 12: if you use it up or defolid if there are 192 00:12:16,240 --> 00:12:20,240 Speaker 12: if there's oil, or trees or minerals, it's strip mined 193 00:12:20,360 --> 00:12:22,560 Speaker 12: until you have it all and then leave it and 194 00:12:22,679 --> 00:12:25,199 Speaker 12: walk away. And something I tell my class is more 195 00:12:25,240 --> 00:12:29,840 Speaker 12: than ever. Different cultures might see a different definition of 196 00:12:29,880 --> 00:12:33,480 Speaker 12: the best and highest use. A native culture who's already 197 00:12:33,520 --> 00:12:35,960 Speaker 12: lived here a thousand years and hopes to live here 198 00:12:36,040 --> 00:12:39,400 Speaker 12: for another thousand might be a little more in tuned 199 00:12:39,480 --> 00:12:43,680 Speaker 12: to preserving the waters, not cutting every tree, not killing 200 00:12:43,720 --> 00:12:46,800 Speaker 12: every animal than would corporate America. 201 00:12:47,960 --> 00:12:50,800 Speaker 4: When Stone said in his law school class that nature 202 00:12:50,800 --> 00:12:53,760 Speaker 4: could have rights, he was echoing ways of thinking about 203 00:12:53,800 --> 00:12:57,200 Speaker 4: the land that are not actually new. In doing so, 204 00:12:57,640 --> 00:13:01,240 Speaker 4: he was rejecting centuries worth of this Colonne idea that 205 00:13:01,320 --> 00:13:05,240 Speaker 4: nature only has value once humans have extracted value from it. 206 00:13:05,760 --> 00:13:12,360 Speaker 12: The justification was Christianity and civilization. That God wanted European 207 00:13:12,440 --> 00:13:15,760 Speaker 12: Christians to own these lands, and that the Christian God 208 00:13:15,840 --> 00:13:20,240 Speaker 12: intended that, and somehow Christian Europeans were superior to everyone 209 00:13:20,280 --> 00:13:21,000 Speaker 12: around the world. 210 00:13:21,559 --> 00:13:24,760 Speaker 4: That's the idea behind what it's called the doctrine of Discovery. 211 00:13:25,240 --> 00:13:27,440 Speaker 4: It goes all the way back to the Crusades and 212 00:13:27,520 --> 00:13:31,560 Speaker 4: says that land not owned by another Christian state, like 213 00:13:31,679 --> 00:13:35,640 Speaker 4: land occupied by indigenous people, for example, or by Muslim 214 00:13:35,720 --> 00:13:39,440 Speaker 4: or Jewish or Hindu or any non Christian people was 215 00:13:39,520 --> 00:13:43,319 Speaker 4: up for grabs. In his college class, Stone was suggesting 216 00:13:43,360 --> 00:13:47,239 Speaker 4: the opposite, that nature could have value in and of itself. 217 00:13:47,840 --> 00:13:50,960 Speaker 4: He was saying something that goes against all of Western 218 00:13:51,000 --> 00:13:54,600 Speaker 4: property law, that nature could be a subject rather than 219 00:13:54,640 --> 00:13:58,120 Speaker 4: an object to be owned. Legal subjects can be injured. 220 00:13:58,440 --> 00:14:00,600 Speaker 4: If you can be injured, you can get stand in court, 221 00:14:01,440 --> 00:14:02,720 Speaker 4: and you can plete your own case. 222 00:14:03,600 --> 00:14:07,200 Speaker 10: In traditional law, if there's an upstream or upriver polluter, 223 00:14:07,360 --> 00:14:10,880 Speaker 10: a factory is polluting, and someone downriver, call them Jones, 224 00:14:11,520 --> 00:14:15,000 Speaker 10: is suffering the effects of the pollution, Jones can bring 225 00:14:15,040 --> 00:14:17,600 Speaker 10: a suit against the polluter. What would the law have 226 00:14:17,679 --> 00:14:21,680 Speaker 10: to look like to correspond to a state of affairs 227 00:14:21,760 --> 00:14:25,280 Speaker 10: in which the river had rides, I said, One, the 228 00:14:25,360 --> 00:14:28,280 Speaker 10: suit would have to be brought or bringable in the 229 00:14:28,360 --> 00:14:30,080 Speaker 10: name of the river. The river would be the plane 230 00:14:30,080 --> 00:14:33,880 Speaker 10: if not Jones. Secondly, it would be the damage to 231 00:14:34,000 --> 00:14:39,440 Speaker 10: the river. And third, if relief were awarded, the relief 232 00:14:39,520 --> 00:14:40,720 Speaker 10: would run to the river. 233 00:14:41,280 --> 00:14:44,520 Speaker 4: Stone called the USC library to ask if any other 234 00:14:44,560 --> 00:14:47,640 Speaker 4: cases like this had been brought before. They told him 235 00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:51,040 Speaker 4: about the Sierra Club and the Disney Ski Resort. Stone 236 00:14:51,120 --> 00:14:54,840 Speaker 4: realized that the Sierra Club didn't have standing. But what 237 00:14:54,920 --> 00:14:59,440 Speaker 4: if Mineral King Valley itself did. What if instead of 238 00:14:59,680 --> 00:15:06,600 Speaker 4: s Club versus Morton, it was Mineral King versus Morton. Now, 239 00:15:06,640 --> 00:15:10,880 Speaker 4: remember this is October nineteen seventy one and the Supreme 240 00:15:10,920 --> 00:15:14,240 Speaker 4: Court is set to hear this case in November. So 241 00:15:14,440 --> 00:15:17,240 Speaker 4: Stone only has one month to figure out a way 242 00:15:17,320 --> 00:15:20,960 Speaker 4: to somehow smuggle this idea that nature could have rights 243 00:15:21,200 --> 00:15:25,080 Speaker 4: into the court, and the arguments are already set. There's 244 00:15:25,160 --> 00:15:27,520 Speaker 4: no way he can put this idea into the mouth 245 00:15:27,560 --> 00:15:30,680 Speaker 4: of the Sierra Club's lawyer. His best bet is to 246 00:15:30,680 --> 00:15:35,160 Speaker 4: get it straight to a judge. So Stone starts laying 247 00:15:35,200 --> 00:15:38,800 Speaker 4: out the argument in an article for the USC Law Review, 248 00:15:39,440 --> 00:15:42,400 Speaker 4: where it just might be read by Justice Douglas, the 249 00:15:42,440 --> 00:15:44,120 Speaker 4: most liberal voice on the bench. 250 00:15:44,880 --> 00:15:50,080 Speaker 13: Justice Douglas said, but why not just essentially follow Stone's 251 00:15:50,600 --> 00:15:54,760 Speaker 13: position and let the Mineral King be the Plaintifflet it 252 00:15:54,800 --> 00:15:58,640 Speaker 13: should be called Mineral King against Partner of Interior. 253 00:15:59,320 --> 00:16:02,440 Speaker 4: But Justice Doglass wasn't writing the ruling. He was writing 254 00:16:02,480 --> 00:16:06,560 Speaker 4: the descent. The Er Club loses the case, although the 255 00:16:06,600 --> 00:16:09,840 Speaker 4: ski resort never actually gets made in California. Rethinks the 256 00:16:09,880 --> 00:16:13,080 Speaker 4: highway to nowhere. The important thing from Stone's point of 257 00:16:13,160 --> 00:16:18,280 Speaker 4: view is that Justice Douglas writes a descent. Now, this 258 00:16:18,440 --> 00:16:21,240 Speaker 4: wild idea that nature could have her day in court 259 00:16:21,840 --> 00:16:23,800 Speaker 4: is out in the world from the pan of the 260 00:16:23,920 --> 00:16:25,320 Speaker 4: esteemed justice himself. 261 00:16:32,440 --> 00:16:35,720 Speaker 6: People that have not strong connections with these wars of 262 00:16:35,800 --> 00:16:41,360 Speaker 6: indigenous perspectives. I think, you know about what was perhaps 263 00:16:41,640 --> 00:16:44,960 Speaker 6: the first time that they came across these ideas, and 264 00:16:45,000 --> 00:16:48,000 Speaker 6: they think, okay, it was a book that was written 265 00:16:48,120 --> 00:16:52,760 Speaker 6: in the United States, you know, about whether trees have rights? 266 00:16:55,200 --> 00:16:59,000 Speaker 4: That would be Stone's book, Should Trees have standing? Monica 267 00:16:59,040 --> 00:17:02,320 Speaker 4: Ferrie Tinta is a lawyer in London. She says that 268 00:17:02,360 --> 00:17:05,280 Speaker 4: while Stone may have popularized the idea of the rights 269 00:17:05,280 --> 00:17:08,840 Speaker 4: of nature, it has a much longer history, but. 270 00:17:08,840 --> 00:17:11,880 Speaker 6: It's not really the rational Western mind that came up 271 00:17:12,280 --> 00:17:15,520 Speaker 6: with these ideas. We are talking about all around the 272 00:17:15,560 --> 00:17:21,560 Speaker 6: world indigenous communities. They have very similar approaches to nature 273 00:17:21,880 --> 00:17:25,399 Speaker 6: and the natural world, where they don't see that the 274 00:17:25,520 --> 00:17:28,800 Speaker 6: human being is more important, or that there is a 275 00:17:28,880 --> 00:17:32,400 Speaker 6: hierarchy where human life, let's say, you know, is more 276 00:17:32,440 --> 00:17:34,760 Speaker 6: important than this natural world. 277 00:17:35,040 --> 00:17:38,240 Speaker 4: In a sense, Western ideas about nature have been playing 278 00:17:38,320 --> 00:17:38,800 Speaker 4: catch up. 279 00:17:39,520 --> 00:17:42,240 Speaker 2: I think what's important to remember is that so today's 280 00:17:42,359 --> 00:17:45,359 Speaker 2: legal system is based on a mechanistic view of the 281 00:17:45,400 --> 00:17:48,480 Speaker 2: world that really emerged during the scientific revolution of the 282 00:17:48,560 --> 00:17:51,800 Speaker 2: sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which views nature as like a 283 00:17:51,840 --> 00:17:55,399 Speaker 2: machine composed of fragmented, independent parts. 284 00:17:55,720 --> 00:17:56,720 Speaker 9: That's Craig Kaufman. 285 00:17:57,320 --> 00:18:00,680 Speaker 2: I'm an associate professor of environmental politics at the University 286 00:18:00,720 --> 00:18:01,240 Speaker 2: of Oregon. 287 00:18:01,720 --> 00:18:05,160 Speaker 4: And according to Kaufman, our law is lagging far behind 288 00:18:05,240 --> 00:18:09,119 Speaker 4: our science. The foundations of our law haven't really changed 289 00:18:09,200 --> 00:18:13,639 Speaker 4: much since the eighteenth century, during the Enlightenment. 290 00:18:13,800 --> 00:18:16,639 Speaker 2: And at that time, lawyers replaced the previous view of 291 00:18:16,680 --> 00:18:20,439 Speaker 2: the world as a living organism or a community of life, 292 00:18:21,000 --> 00:18:23,040 Speaker 2: and this was replaced with a new view of the 293 00:18:23,040 --> 00:18:26,119 Speaker 2: world as sort of like stocks of independent resources that 294 00:18:26,160 --> 00:18:29,960 Speaker 2: could be taken and manipulated and exchanged and so forth 295 00:18:30,000 --> 00:18:33,040 Speaker 2: and so on. And it also emphasized the idea that 296 00:18:33,160 --> 00:18:36,119 Speaker 2: humans are separate and apart from nature, right, and so 297 00:18:36,240 --> 00:18:38,639 Speaker 2: can be sort of like the masters of the machine. 298 00:18:39,560 --> 00:18:42,639 Speaker 4: And so, how has that mechanistic view of the world 299 00:18:42,680 --> 00:18:43,720 Speaker 4: been working out for us? 300 00:18:44,320 --> 00:18:47,399 Speaker 2: Not well, right, you know. So it turns out if 301 00:18:47,440 --> 00:18:52,320 Speaker 2: you move rivers, there's consequences, right, if you destroy the 302 00:18:52,359 --> 00:18:57,040 Speaker 2: forests that are like the lungs of the world. There's consequences. 303 00:19:07,400 --> 00:19:10,639 Speaker 2: Scientists now understand that the world is not really a 304 00:19:10,640 --> 00:19:14,480 Speaker 2: collection of discreete parts, but rather it is a dynamic 305 00:19:14,600 --> 00:19:18,640 Speaker 2: and fluid, interconnected community of life that's probably best understood 306 00:19:18,640 --> 00:19:21,760 Speaker 2: in terms of patterns and relationships. So each piece is 307 00:19:21,800 --> 00:19:23,000 Speaker 2: dependent on all the others. 308 00:19:29,359 --> 00:19:32,400 Speaker 4: Monica Ferrie Tinta told us that much of international human 309 00:19:32,520 --> 00:19:35,320 Speaker 4: rights law came into being after World War Two, but 310 00:19:35,400 --> 00:19:39,000 Speaker 4: most environmental protections didn't start to come until the sixties 311 00:19:39,040 --> 00:19:40,760 Speaker 4: and seventies, and the two. 312 00:19:40,640 --> 00:19:42,040 Speaker 9: Didn't quite mash. 313 00:19:42,800 --> 00:19:46,800 Speaker 4: Kaufman says, people started to realize that rights for nature 314 00:19:47,600 --> 00:19:50,760 Speaker 4: could be a sort of hack of fitting a different 315 00:19:50,760 --> 00:19:54,959 Speaker 4: way of thinking about nature into our creaky old Western 316 00:19:55,040 --> 00:19:59,280 Speaker 4: legal system, exactly the kind of consciousness shift that Stone 317 00:19:59,520 --> 00:20:00,000 Speaker 4: was proposed. 318 00:20:03,760 --> 00:20:08,760 Speaker 2: In many Western societies, we value things that we value 319 00:20:09,040 --> 00:20:12,760 Speaker 2: by giving them rights, and so that's just the way 320 00:20:12,800 --> 00:20:16,520 Speaker 2: our system works, and so you sort of adapt it, 321 00:20:16,720 --> 00:20:19,199 Speaker 2: you know, you fit with the culture that you have. 322 00:20:19,840 --> 00:20:22,760 Speaker 2: So in our particular legal system in the United States, 323 00:20:22,840 --> 00:20:26,880 Speaker 2: for example, corporate property rights are really keen. 324 00:20:30,600 --> 00:20:34,560 Speaker 4: What Kaufman told me was a story about fracking. Fracking 325 00:20:34,640 --> 00:20:36,920 Speaker 4: is how we get natural gas, and if you own 326 00:20:37,000 --> 00:20:39,919 Speaker 4: land where fracking is done, you can make a lot 327 00:20:40,000 --> 00:20:43,280 Speaker 4: of money off the mineral rights to that land. But 328 00:20:43,640 --> 00:20:45,520 Speaker 4: it can also poison well water. 329 00:20:46,000 --> 00:20:49,000 Speaker 2: There are communities where these well systems are their only 330 00:20:49,080 --> 00:20:54,840 Speaker 2: access to clean drinking water, and people start getting sick 331 00:20:54,960 --> 00:20:56,720 Speaker 2: they lose access to potable water. 332 00:20:57,400 --> 00:21:00,879 Speaker 4: And with fracking, people started to realize that giving nature 333 00:21:00,960 --> 00:21:04,919 Speaker 4: rights could solve for way more than the Sierra Club's 334 00:21:04,960 --> 00:21:10,439 Speaker 4: worries about esthetics and conservation. It could fight childhood cancer. 335 00:21:11,280 --> 00:21:14,240 Speaker 2: In our legal system, if you wanted to sew to 336 00:21:14,440 --> 00:21:17,919 Speaker 2: say the fracking company, to force them to stop, you 337 00:21:18,040 --> 00:21:21,400 Speaker 2: have to show standing in court, and to do that, 338 00:21:21,520 --> 00:21:23,560 Speaker 2: the burden of proof is really high, and you have 339 00:21:23,600 --> 00:21:28,400 Speaker 2: to show that you specifically were harmed in some very tangible, 340 00:21:28,440 --> 00:21:32,119 Speaker 2: concrete way. It's often really difficult to do that in 341 00:21:32,160 --> 00:21:34,480 Speaker 2: a way that meets the standards of the law. So 342 00:21:34,520 --> 00:21:37,880 Speaker 2: a family will come and say, you know my child, 343 00:21:38,040 --> 00:21:40,320 Speaker 2: and you know the X percent of the people now 344 00:21:40,320 --> 00:21:43,560 Speaker 2: have cancer rates that have skyrocketed and these other disease 345 00:21:43,680 --> 00:21:47,919 Speaker 2: and my child has this problem. And the lawyer for 346 00:21:47,960 --> 00:21:50,639 Speaker 2: the fracking company will say, well, how do we know 347 00:21:50,720 --> 00:21:54,320 Speaker 2: that this problem was caused by the fracking wastewater. It 348 00:21:54,359 --> 00:21:58,639 Speaker 2: could have been genetic, it could have been secondhand smoke, 349 00:21:58,760 --> 00:22:02,880 Speaker 2: and it's virtually possible to draw a direct line of causation. 350 00:22:03,160 --> 00:22:08,760 Speaker 2: But scientifically, it's very easy to show the direct harm 351 00:22:08,960 --> 00:22:13,560 Speaker 2: caused to the functioning of the watershed ecosystem by injecting this. 352 00:22:14,400 --> 00:22:19,560 Speaker 2: So if you legally recognize the ecosystem as a subject 353 00:22:19,760 --> 00:22:23,359 Speaker 2: with rights to maintain the functioning and of their cycles 354 00:22:23,400 --> 00:22:26,840 Speaker 2: to be restored when damaged, you know, so forth and 355 00:22:26,880 --> 00:22:30,400 Speaker 2: so on, and then you empower the local community members 356 00:22:30,440 --> 00:22:35,160 Speaker 2: to speak on behalf of the watershed ecosystem, then it's 357 00:22:35,240 --> 00:22:37,080 Speaker 2: much easier to show standing. 358 00:22:37,760 --> 00:22:41,280 Speaker 4: In the US, some communities have started writing the rights 359 00:22:41,280 --> 00:22:45,520 Speaker 4: of nature into their town charters. They haven't yet won 360 00:22:45,640 --> 00:22:48,840 Speaker 4: at the federal level, but one case in Grant Township 361 00:22:49,440 --> 00:22:54,800 Speaker 4: is currently before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Federally recognized tribes 362 00:22:54,840 --> 00:22:57,880 Speaker 4: are also writing the rights of nature into tribal law. 363 00:22:58,600 --> 00:23:01,480 Speaker 4: Using the rights of nature as a legal strategy is 364 00:23:01,560 --> 00:23:04,119 Speaker 4: actually happening around the world. 365 00:23:04,960 --> 00:23:07,520 Speaker 2: In the United States, it tends to be framed as 366 00:23:08,119 --> 00:23:12,479 Speaker 2: community rights and democracy. In New Zealand, it tends to 367 00:23:12,520 --> 00:23:16,920 Speaker 2: be framed according to Maori Cosmo Vision about kinship relationships 368 00:23:16,960 --> 00:23:22,479 Speaker 2: between Maori tribe Ewi and the ecosystems in which you know, 369 00:23:22,520 --> 00:23:24,080 Speaker 2: that's their ancestral territory. 370 00:23:25,000 --> 00:23:28,679 Speaker 6: We have seen also this movement also take in place 371 00:23:29,040 --> 00:23:30,159 Speaker 6: a bit in India. 372 00:23:30,200 --> 00:23:30,439 Speaker 10: You know. 373 00:23:30,560 --> 00:23:35,159 Speaker 6: In Colombia we've seen some actions before courts trying to 374 00:23:35,240 --> 00:23:38,920 Speaker 6: protect weavers and even forests. 375 00:23:38,840 --> 00:23:44,040 Speaker 2: And Africa tends to be again framed by responsibility to 376 00:23:44,040 --> 00:23:48,640 Speaker 2: be a good custodian for these sacred natural sites. In 377 00:23:48,680 --> 00:23:52,919 Speaker 2: Europe it tends to be framed more in terms of ecoside. 378 00:23:52,560 --> 00:23:57,960 Speaker 6: The constitution, and Ecuador has this acknowledgment that nature has rights, 379 00:23:58,400 --> 00:24:03,040 Speaker 6: something that doesn't exist in in other constitutions. In Mexico 380 00:24:03,040 --> 00:24:07,720 Speaker 6: they already have started, you know, to consider introducing the 381 00:24:07,800 --> 00:24:09,560 Speaker 6: rights of nature into the constitution. 382 00:24:10,359 --> 00:24:13,639 Speaker 2: The common analogy among all of them is this idea 383 00:24:13,720 --> 00:24:18,520 Speaker 2: that we have to recognize that, you know, there is 384 00:24:18,560 --> 00:24:21,199 Speaker 2: this order to the world. We are part of the 385 00:24:21,200 --> 00:24:24,280 Speaker 2: ecosystems in which we are embedded. We are part of nature, 386 00:24:24,480 --> 00:24:27,359 Speaker 2: not separate from it, and that we have to learn 387 00:24:27,480 --> 00:24:29,159 Speaker 2: to live within nature's rules. 388 00:24:33,760 --> 00:24:38,600 Speaker 4: Next, things are about to get weird, both for Stone 389 00:24:39,200 --> 00:24:44,280 Speaker 4: and for the legal system itself. That story after the break, 390 00:24:45,480 --> 00:24:47,960 Speaker 4: I'm Meg Duff and this is Damages. 391 00:25:02,600 --> 00:25:04,800 Speaker 1: I had heard about rights of nature for a while, 392 00:25:05,040 --> 00:25:07,159 Speaker 1: but right when I was starting to dig into it 393 00:25:07,200 --> 00:25:10,240 Speaker 1: a little bit more, this great documentary came out. It's 394 00:25:10,240 --> 00:25:14,800 Speaker 1: called Invisible Hand. It's the third film from directors Joshua 395 00:25:14,880 --> 00:25:19,240 Speaker 1: Prabannik and Melissa Troutman and executive producer Mark Ruffalo. It's 396 00:25:19,280 --> 00:25:23,439 Speaker 1: won seven Best Documentary Awards and received laurels from twenty 397 00:25:23,520 --> 00:25:28,040 Speaker 1: to international film festivals. It's an excellent deep dive on 398 00:25:28,119 --> 00:25:29,960 Speaker 1: the subject of rights of nature. If you want to 399 00:25:29,960 --> 00:25:33,320 Speaker 1: dig into it even more after listening to this series, 400 00:25:33,440 --> 00:25:37,640 Speaker 1: I highly highly recommend it. It's a paradigm shifting documentary 401 00:25:37,800 --> 00:25:41,720 Speaker 1: that does not leave viewers in total despair, but actually 402 00:25:41,760 --> 00:25:46,560 Speaker 1: provides some inspirational solutions, strategies, and stories that will move 403 00:25:46,680 --> 00:25:49,520 Speaker 1: you to take action where you live. If you haven't 404 00:25:49,560 --> 00:25:54,040 Speaker 1: seen Invisible Hand, you're missing out. Go to Invisible handfilm 405 00:25:54,320 --> 00:25:57,640 Speaker 1: dot com for more on where to watch and how 406 00:25:57,640 --> 00:25:59,720 Speaker 1: to support this great work. 407 00:26:07,240 --> 00:26:11,800 Speaker 4: First came the poetry Law Poetry, published in the Journal 408 00:26:11,840 --> 00:26:13,320 Speaker 4: of the American Bar Association. 409 00:26:16,880 --> 00:26:19,600 Speaker 10: If Justice Douglas had has his way, Oh come not 410 00:26:19,720 --> 00:26:22,639 Speaker 10: that dreadful day. We'll be sued by lakes and hills 411 00:26:22,680 --> 00:26:25,800 Speaker 10: seeking an address of ills. Great mountain peaks of name 412 00:26:25,880 --> 00:26:29,639 Speaker 10: prestigious will suddenly become litigious. Our books will babble in 413 00:26:29,680 --> 00:26:32,639 Speaker 10: the courts, seeking real damages for torts. How could I 414 00:26:32,680 --> 00:26:35,359 Speaker 10: rest beneath a tree if it may soon be suing me? 415 00:26:35,840 --> 00:26:39,280 Speaker 10: Or enjoy the playful porpoise while it's seeking habeas corpus? 416 00:26:39,960 --> 00:26:45,439 Speaker 9: Okay? This poem was written by a lawyer named John Knapf. 417 00:26:45,880 --> 00:26:48,240 Speaker 10: Every beast within his pause will clutch an order to 418 00:26:48,320 --> 00:26:51,159 Speaker 10: show cause. The courts besieged on every hand will crowd 419 00:26:51,240 --> 00:26:54,119 Speaker 10: with suits by chunks of land. Ah, but vengeance will 420 00:26:54,160 --> 00:26:56,040 Speaker 10: be sweet. Since this must be a two way street, 421 00:26:56,359 --> 00:26:58,800 Speaker 10: I'll promptly sue my neighbor's tree for shedding all its 422 00:26:58,880 --> 00:26:59,399 Speaker 10: leaves on me. 423 00:27:00,119 --> 00:27:01,560 Speaker 9: Take that treehuggers. 424 00:27:02,000 --> 00:27:07,040 Speaker 4: If something has rights, shouldn't it also have responsibilities? In 425 00:27:07,119 --> 00:27:11,480 Speaker 4: Western law, the idea of holding nature responsible is ridiculous. 426 00:27:12,280 --> 00:27:15,679 Speaker 4: That's why contracts have that section weaving liability for acts 427 00:27:15,680 --> 00:27:20,320 Speaker 4: of God for nature's whims. But something about Stone's argument 428 00:27:20,400 --> 00:27:21,000 Speaker 4: took hold. 429 00:27:21,600 --> 00:27:23,840 Speaker 10: Suits began to come up around the country. 430 00:27:23,880 --> 00:27:27,919 Speaker 4: And around the world, and sometimes they were even succeeding. 431 00:27:28,720 --> 00:27:31,320 Speaker 4: But Stone was having second thoughts. 432 00:27:31,880 --> 00:27:32,360 Speaker 9: See. 433 00:27:32,760 --> 00:27:35,399 Speaker 4: He had been out to prove a point. His article 434 00:27:35,480 --> 00:27:37,760 Speaker 4: had been about a legal question, a theory. 435 00:27:38,119 --> 00:27:42,400 Speaker 10: It's a legal thesis about how we can fit non 436 00:27:42,520 --> 00:27:44,640 Speaker 10: humans into a legal system. 437 00:27:45,080 --> 00:27:46,600 Speaker 9: His question was could we? 438 00:27:47,280 --> 00:27:50,159 Speaker 4: He argued that we could, But now that his argument 439 00:27:50,280 --> 00:27:52,800 Speaker 4: was out in the world, there was a different question, 440 00:27:53,840 --> 00:27:56,000 Speaker 4: not could we, but should we? 441 00:27:56,600 --> 00:27:59,280 Speaker 10: The problems are rich and wonderful. I mean, there are 442 00:27:59,400 --> 00:28:02,680 Speaker 10: difficulties make this harder than a lot of people who 443 00:28:02,720 --> 00:28:06,000 Speaker 10: readily embraced it saw and I was the more worried 444 00:28:06,040 --> 00:28:09,119 Speaker 10: about this. For example, if you suppose you have a 445 00:28:09,200 --> 00:28:12,360 Speaker 10: nuclear plant that is warming a river because the water 446 00:28:12,440 --> 00:28:14,639 Speaker 10: runs through the cooling water runs through the nuclear plant 447 00:28:14,680 --> 00:28:17,359 Speaker 10: warms the river. What effect does this have an ecosystem? Well, 448 00:28:17,480 --> 00:28:19,800 Speaker 10: it raises the temperature of the water. Is this good 449 00:28:19,880 --> 00:28:22,600 Speaker 10: or bad for nature? Well, of course immediately becomes a 450 00:28:22,640 --> 00:28:25,280 Speaker 10: solly question and a difficult question. Some parts of nature 451 00:28:25,280 --> 00:28:28,399 Speaker 10: that worth thriving before don't do as well. Seamanates, it 452 00:28:28,480 --> 00:28:31,960 Speaker 10: turns out I love higher temperature water. So how do 453 00:28:32,040 --> 00:28:35,960 Speaker 10: you run this Stonian system? With difficulty? Because if you 454 00:28:36,000 --> 00:28:38,719 Speaker 10: have a guardian for the manates saying this is fine, 455 00:28:39,240 --> 00:28:41,240 Speaker 10: you know in a guardian for other parts of ecosystem 456 00:28:41,560 --> 00:28:44,960 Speaker 10: saying there are you know, how what do you look to. 457 00:28:55,520 --> 00:28:58,840 Speaker 1: All these questions about how to integrate the rights of 458 00:28:58,920 --> 00:29:03,640 Speaker 1: nature into Western courts is something judges and lawyers outside 459 00:29:03,720 --> 00:29:06,760 Speaker 1: the US have been grappling with in the decades since 460 00:29:06,840 --> 00:29:11,120 Speaker 1: Stone first started talking about all of this. Which ecosystems 461 00:29:11,240 --> 00:29:15,440 Speaker 1: have rights, and how does the government decide? And what 462 00:29:15,520 --> 00:29:18,600 Speaker 1: if the rights of one ecosystem impose on the rights 463 00:29:18,600 --> 00:29:22,320 Speaker 1: of another, What makes an appropriate guardian for nature? Who 464 00:29:22,320 --> 00:29:26,240 Speaker 1: should get that role, and what responsibilities does it come with. 465 00:29:26,840 --> 00:29:30,360 Speaker 1: These questions are becoming less theoretical as more and more 466 00:29:30,440 --> 00:29:34,120 Speaker 1: cases set precedence. In the next few episodes, we're going 467 00:29:34,160 --> 00:29:37,680 Speaker 1: to get into how some countries and courts have answered 468 00:29:37,680 --> 00:29:42,160 Speaker 1: these questions and what it really looks like to give 469 00:29:42,360 --> 00:29:46,440 Speaker 1: nature rights. We're going to start with Ecuador, the first 470 00:29:46,440 --> 00:29:50,120 Speaker 1: country to write rates of nature into its constitution, all 471 00:29:50,120 --> 00:29:53,920 Speaker 1: the way back in two thousand and eight. That country's 472 00:29:53,960 --> 00:29:57,680 Speaker 1: Constitutional Court, its equivalent to the US Supreme Court, just 473 00:29:57,800 --> 00:30:01,000 Speaker 1: ruled on one of the biggest rates of nature cases 474 00:30:01,080 --> 00:30:02,160 Speaker 1: in the world. 475 00:30:02,600 --> 00:30:06,320 Speaker 14: And one of those cases before the Constitutional Court of 476 00:30:06,360 --> 00:30:11,320 Speaker 14: Ecuador is a case to protect Losdros Forest Reserve from 477 00:30:11,360 --> 00:30:19,840 Speaker 14: mining it's a very, very ecologically diverse forest that will 478 00:30:19,840 --> 00:30:24,360 Speaker 14: be gone if concessions for mining put forth by the 479 00:30:24,360 --> 00:30:25,360 Speaker 14: Ecuadorian government. 480 00:30:25,520 --> 00:30:26,760 Speaker 9: I'll go through. 481 00:30:29,240 --> 00:30:36,760 Speaker 1: That story next time. Damages is an original Critical Frequency production. 482 00:30:37,600 --> 00:30:41,880 Speaker 1: This episode was reported and written by Meg Duff. Our 483 00:30:42,000 --> 00:30:45,600 Speaker 1: editor and senior producer is Sarah Ventry. Sound designed by 484 00:30:45,720 --> 00:30:50,440 Speaker 1: Ray Pang, mixing and mastering by Mark Busch. Additional editing 485 00:30:50,480 --> 00:30:54,680 Speaker 1: by Martha troyan citizen of Obi Shika Kong lack Suol, 486 00:30:54,960 --> 00:30:58,320 Speaker 1: First Nation. The show is written and reported by me 487 00:30:58,520 --> 00:31:02,959 Speaker 1: Amy Westerild, with reporting by Karen Savage, Meg Duff, and 488 00:31:03,080 --> 00:31:07,280 Speaker 1: Lindall Rawlins. Our fact checker is Woo dan Yan. Our 489 00:31:07,360 --> 00:31:11,440 Speaker 1: First Amendment attorney is James Wheaton of the First Amendment Project. 490 00:31:12,120 --> 00:31:14,480 Speaker 1: Our theme song this season is Bird in the Hand 491 00:31:14,640 --> 00:31:18,800 Speaker 1: by Forenoon. Artwork is by Matthew Fleming. The show is 492 00:31:18,840 --> 00:31:22,200 Speaker 1: supported in part by a generous grant from the File Foundation. 493 00:31:23,120 --> 00:31:25,480 Speaker 1: If you'd like to support our work, please rate or 494 00:31:25,560 --> 00:31:29,280 Speaker 1: review the podcast wherever you're listening and share it with friends. 495 00:31:29,640 --> 00:31:31,800 Speaker 1: Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time.