Speaker 1: Welcome back to Damages. I'm Amy Westervelt. Last episode, we
Speaker 1: heard about Ecuador's constitutional amendment to include rights of nature
Speaker 1: in a recent case that pitted the cloud forest of
Speaker 1: Losedros against a mining company and the government officials that
Speaker 1: permitted mining in that forest. La Cortero's one, and today
Speaker 1: we're going to get into a lot more detail about
Speaker 1: what that ruling means and why it was so important,
Speaker 1: not just an Ecuador but around the world. Joining me
Speaker 1: for that discussion today are Melissa Trautman and Joshua Purbanik,
Speaker 1: the co founders of Public Herald, an independent investigative journalism organization.
Speaker 1: Melissa's based in Pennsylvania, Josh is in Ohio, and for
Speaker 1: years they uncovered lots of dirty secrets about fracking in
Speaker 1: those states. That work actually led them to rights of nature.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of activity to incorporate rights of
Speaker 1: nature in both Ohio and Pennsylvania, mostly as a response
Speaker 1: to industrial pollution of various kinds. Once they started digging
Speaker 1: into the issue, Melissa and josh were hooked, and they
Speaker 1: eventually made a documentary called Invisible Hand that came out
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty and is an excellent way into the
Speaker 1: topic for anyone who is interested in learning more about it.
Speaker 1: I caught up with them shortly after the Lausdroes ruling
Speaker 1: came out to get their take on it. That conversation's
Speaker 1: coming up right after this quick break. I want to
Speaker 1: talk about the Lowis Sedros case and both of your
Speaker 1: responses to that, and especially the fact that it kind
Speaker 1: of well of getting paired with this decision to reaffirm
Speaker 1: indigenous communities right to consultation and involvement in decision making
Speaker 1: around extraction. So, yeah, what were you anticipating and you know,
Speaker 1: what did you think of the ruling?
Speaker 2: I didn't have any anticipations about what the ruling would be,
Speaker 2: because it was really unclear from everybody we talked to
Speaker 2: what was going to happen with this case. The part
Speaker 2: that made me most excited was that there was so
Speaker 2: much involvement from the international community and attention to the case,
Speaker 2: which brought a lot more pressure on the courts and
Speaker 2: on the discussion in general to see something become of that.
Speaker 2: And that's what happened. We saw something that was absolutely
Speaker 2: radical for the environmental movement overall and was literally a
Speaker 2: turning point. I think where it'll go down as a
Speaker 2: extremely historical moment that could change the mindset of the
Speaker 2: environmental movement, which hasn't been able to be changed up
Speaker 2: until then. And by that I mean the rights of
Speaker 2: Nature has been written off as a fringe movement that
Speaker 2: wasn't successful and wasn't getting the kind of notoriety that
Speaker 2: these environmental organizations needed in order for them to get
Speaker 2: behind it and use their resources on behalf of rights
Speaker 2: of nature. But with losegdros and twenty five thousand acres
Speaker 2: of forest being protected and it being done from a
Speaker 2: constitutional court being one of the highest rulings of law
Speaker 2: that you can get, that has significantly changed the perspective
Speaker 2: from what I can see of environmental organizations and people
Speaker 2: in general who are dealing with environmental problems. On top
Speaker 2: of that, you have reinstated respect and introduction to Indigenous
Speaker 2: knowledge and Indigenous ways of thinking for these issues, and
Speaker 2: that has been extremely important because it's allowing folks to
Speaker 2: take a breath and take a step back from their
Speaker 2: very siloed approach to this thing and bring in different
Speaker 2: perspectives to the battles that they're facing and ask these
Speaker 2: kinds of questions from the indigenous community in order, I think,
Speaker 2: to get a better understanding of how they should approach
Speaker 2: this issue from that mindset, and that has been something
Speaker 2: we've neglected for so long now in the environmental movement,
Speaker 2: and to see it come back into play through rights
Speaker 2: of nature is I think, a way to show how
Speaker 2: powerful this concept is. That Losadra's cases has been the
Speaker 2: precipice for all of that. Now I have my own
Speaker 2: personal response to it, which is more philosophical cool because
Speaker 2: I've always seen rights of nature as sort of an
Speaker 2: inevitable idea that has spawned out of capitalism and out
Speaker 2: of democracy, and I think that moving forward with the
Speaker 2: world and civilization, when you're looking at a ruling like Losadro's,
Speaker 2: you're not necessarily looking at democracy. Democracy itself is a
Speaker 2: very anthropocentric institution, and it's always served the interest of
Speaker 2: humans overall. And I think that a government that changes,
Speaker 2: a government that begins to serve the interest of nature
Speaker 2: and puts nature at the center of decision making is
Speaker 2: something that I've been calling an autocracy, just to give
Speaker 2: it a name. And I think that this is some
Speaker 2: of the first versions of an autocracy that we're seeing,
Speaker 2: and I'm hoping that other folks are recognizing that transformation,
Speaker 2: that academics are also recognizing that, and that they'll get
Speaker 2: behind this idea of evolving democracy from what it's been
Speaker 2: into something that does have reciprocity with nature, something that
Speaker 2: does have the definitions of a substance and sustenance with nature,
Speaker 2: and that that guild that we've lost can be rebuilt.
Speaker 2: And I think that that conversation has only become more
Speaker 2: tangible because of the the Los Agro's case, and you know,
Speaker 2: look what it's done for. Chile is now talking about,
Speaker 2: you know, bringing it into their country's constitution as well,
Speaker 2: which would make I think that would make five countries
Speaker 2: in the world who have now enshrined rights of nature
Speaker 2: into their constitution.
Speaker 3: And that's what Blivia, Costa Rica, Panama right already, and then.
Speaker 2: They have I think it doesn't serve the entire country,
Speaker 2: but it serves portions of the country for it to
Speaker 2: defend itself through rights of nature. But I mean, I
Speaker 2: think the envirable movement's been working on this stuff for
Speaker 2: what like eighty years, ninety years or something, and nothing
Speaker 2: has been for me, anywhere near as powerful as what
Speaker 2: we saw with the Ecuador's case.
Speaker 1: It struck me as an example of rights of nature
Speaker 1: being sort of uniquely well positioned to deal with this
Speaker 1: problem that's coming up where people are like getting off
Speaker 1: of fossil fuels but then you know, just replacing them
Speaker 1: with lithium and you know whatever else. This is like,
Speaker 1: if we evaluate these these decisions through rights of nature lens,
Speaker 1: you'd be less likely to do something versus evaluating it
Speaker 1: through basically a capitalism lens, where you know, people are
Speaker 1: just in this desperate rush to replace one energy source
Speaker 1: with another and not change anything else, or just.
Speaker 2: The regulatory lens, right, I mean, if you evaluate through that,
Speaker 2: I mean we're going to practically nowhere, we're basically making
Speaker 2: concessions in order for parts of nature to be sacrificed
Speaker 2: and annihilated so that we can have some profit at
Speaker 2: the end. You know. But this is like so far
Speaker 2: from from that, and it is amazing and wonderful that
Speaker 2: it happened.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Melissa, what were you going to say?
Speaker 4: Like you said, rights of nature is particularly well suited
Speaker 4: to lead us through the transition, right, and whether you're
Speaker 4: talking about a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies,
Speaker 4: we're just talking about a transition to a more just world.
Speaker 4: In general, Rights of Nature is a great way to
Speaker 4: guide us into that new world. And it is a
Speaker 4: totally new world. I mean, let's be real, a world
Speaker 4: where decisions were made based on the fundamental principles of
Speaker 4: the universe, of the physical universe, interconnectedness, reciprocity, diversity, you know,
Speaker 4: like the laws of nature. By acknowledging those and keeping
Speaker 4: those central to all of our decision making processes automatically
Speaker 4: means to a certain degree that we are just making
Speaker 4: more sustainable decisions. And also the rights of nature helps
Speaker 4: with transitioning to a more equitable and just world, just
Speaker 4: on a social level, because everything, every all living beings
Speaker 4: are included in the rights of nature equally. You know,
Speaker 4: the rights of nature is not giving more rights to
Speaker 4: certain species and not others, not in principle anyway, although
Speaker 4: there are interesting conflicts that will come up in the
Speaker 4: future between different species. You will have to answer questions
Speaker 4: like is the salmon more valuable than the algae eating
Speaker 4: darters that thrive in that same ecosystem. You know, if
Speaker 4: one I think it was Christopher Stone you mentioned in
Speaker 4: one of your previous podcasts about this where he brought
Speaker 4: this up where like one species could thrive in a
Speaker 4: cold water fishery and another species could thrive when the
Speaker 4: water warms a little bit, So there is conflict in nature.
Speaker 3: But back to Los Sidros.
Speaker 4: I think that future generations are going to look back
Speaker 4: on this point in human history and say that's when
Speaker 4: the shift happened. I really believe that, and they're going
Speaker 4: to point to things like the Los Adro's case and
Speaker 4: rights of nature in general, because these cases and the
Speaker 4: Rights of Nature movement not just the legal strategy, but
Speaker 4: also the cultural shift, the paradigm shift in how we
Speaker 4: think and how we see and how we feel and
Speaker 4: what we do. That shift is so fundamental, so fundamentally
Speaker 4: different from the massive, exponentially industrial and exploitative and oppressive
Speaker 4: period and human history that got us here in this
Speaker 4: massive crisis no living beings had to ever grapple with
Speaker 4: before in the history of the planet, which is how old.
Speaker 4: I mean. We are shifting from a culture that is
Speaker 4: separated itself from the non human world, has subjugated nature
Speaker 4: to property, women to property, slaves to property. All of
Speaker 4: that is shifting, and it's being birthed through this cultural
Speaker 4: shift that the rights of nature movement is a part
Speaker 4: of and it's not just the rights of nature. There
Speaker 4: are other sort of tangential things happening alongside of it.
Speaker 4: But inside of these fundamental shifts are some core principles, right,
Speaker 4: and one of them is a fundamental shift in how
Speaker 4: we perceive the world around us. And also it's about
Speaker 4: shifting power, because power over the last how many thousands
Speaker 4: of years or whatever, especially last hundreds of years in
Speaker 4: the Western world, but not just the Western world, there
Speaker 4: has been a usurption of power into more and more
Speaker 4: central organizations, central governments, certain particular types of people, religions,
Speaker 4: just all power has been kind of usurped by these entities.
Speaker 4: And that power is now being returned to where it's
Speaker 4: supposed to be, which is in everybody right equally. And
Speaker 4: we're also waking up from this ridiculous illusion that anything
Speaker 4: under the sun is separate, or anything under the sun
Speaker 4: or the stars for that matter, exists in isolation.
Speaker 3: I really do.
Speaker 4: Think that future generations are going to look back on
Speaker 4: now and say that's when the shift happened. I mean, obviously,
Speaker 4: change happens over time, and you know, again, nothing exists
Speaker 4: in isolation. It's not as if the cultural and legal
Speaker 4: shifts happening now are a build up from everything that
Speaker 4: has come before.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: But there was one other thing that was major for
Speaker 2: us when this came out, and that thing was that
Speaker 2: the ruling was based on the fact that the mining
Speaker 2: company would harm the biodiversity of the forest, and not
Speaker 2: particularly an endangered species or something of the like, but
Speaker 2: that the entire ecosystem itself was considered for the ruling
Speaker 2: rather than just something specific. And for me, that has
Speaker 2: been the one of the major issues for the rights
Speaker 2: of Nature movement since it began, which is decide this
Speaker 2: vagueness that existed to the law, and that's what they've
Speaker 2: been using in Ohio and Florida and other places, saying,
Speaker 2: you know this this law, we're going to preempt you
Speaker 2: from bringing any rights of nature case to the court
Speaker 2: because it's too vague and we can't make a ruling
Speaker 2: on it, and blah blah blah. But now you can
Speaker 2: see the foundation, what the foundation needs to be, and
Speaker 2: if the foundation is biodiversity going forward, that is exactly
Speaker 2: exactly what needs to happen. That was what we talked
Speaker 2: about at the very beginning when we were talking about
Speaker 2: Bills of Rights for rights of nation, you know, the
Speaker 2: idea of like freedom of biodiversity. I mean, it's so huge.
Speaker 2: That was the one thing that for us as far
Speaker 2: as you know, journalists covering it like that was major.
Speaker 3: It was. It was so huge.
Speaker 1: And then the fact that like the way that it was,
Speaker 1: the way the ruling was worded was like pretty prescriptive
Speaker 1: for how lawmakers and regulators should be interpreting this law
Speaker 1: in terms of protecting biodiversity too. I was actually like
Speaker 1: really blown away by that ruling. I just was like, wow,
Speaker 1: this is.
Speaker 2: The same here as soon as I read it.
Speaker 3: It's like something really new. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the language was like and was very very powerful
Speaker 2: and very extraordinary. It will be cited you know, in
Speaker 2: books from from here on down. It was just a
Speaker 2: fantastic version of what kind of response you'd want to
Speaker 2: see from a judge. I was tremendous.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think also because like I'm so used to reading
Speaker 1: rulings from American judges that are you know, disappointing at best.
Speaker 1: It was like, Wow, this is what like something like
Speaker 1: this could really do. And that's I think to me,
Speaker 1: I feel like that's a really important aspect of rights
Speaker 1: of nature too, is that it kind of shows people
Speaker 1: this different world that you're talking about, Melissa, in a
Speaker 1: way that like lets them, I don't know, engage with
Speaker 1: how great it could be and not freak out. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know if people do freak out about like trees
Speaker 1: having rights or whatever, but I feel like they're starting
Speaker 1: to be a little bit of a consciousness shift around that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and there absolutely has to be I mean, the
Speaker 4: old ways are dying, and people who be like, oh,
Speaker 4: why should a tree have rights like that? That way
Speaker 4: is dying. And the reality is you can you can
Speaker 4: cling to that all you want, but it's on its
Speaker 4: way out and at some point you're probably going to
Speaker 4: go out with it. We just can't exist that way. Literally,
Speaker 4: we just cannot dying.
Speaker 2: But also, sorry there was a pause.
Speaker 4: No go ahead, Josh, Maybe you're maybe I am anticipating
Speaker 4: you're going to say something like, yeah, it's dying. But
Speaker 4: it's also in the throes of death the old way
Speaker 4: will become bigger and bolder, and you know it's it's
Speaker 4: going to try to assert itself even more in certain ways.
Speaker 3: But at the same time, I don't know, twelve years of.
Speaker 4: Brain brain melding. But at the same time that the old, oppressive,
Speaker 4: extractive nature is property. You know, traditional ways are should
Speaker 4: give way to just technology, technology, technology, all of that
Speaker 4: is going to fight really hard to maintain a grip,
Speaker 4: and that's going to be really it already is really
Speaker 4: painful and has been painful for a lot of people.
Speaker 4: But at the same time, the amount of people who
Speaker 4: are coming into this and the amount of people pushing
Speaker 4: and fighting and living and sharing a more beautiful and
Speaker 4: sustainable and rational and sane and communal way of living
Speaker 4: and being is also growing. And so I think all
Speaker 4: of that is to say I am very optimistic. I mean,
Speaker 4: I also recognize I'm a very privileged person and that
Speaker 4: influences my perspective obviously, And I am also optimistic because
Speaker 4: of the just the amount of people and different kinds
Speaker 4: of people, different kinds of voices, and different people being
Speaker 4: representative and represented, and the shift of power back into
Speaker 4: the back into the places that it was stolen from.
Speaker 4: I mean, we have a long way to go, but
Speaker 4: that has been I mean, it's been growing, and if
Speaker 4: that trend continues, I think we're going to be in
Speaker 4: a better place tomorrow than we were Yesterday.
Speaker 1: That's it for this time. Next week we'll bring you
Speaker 1: the story of Day in New Zealand, so come back
Speaker 1: for that.
Speaker 5: I think when we when we crossed over the I
Speaker 5: think the psychological barrier of not viewing through the winter
Speaker 5: as property, the whole obstacle of ownership disappeared.
Speaker 1: Damages is an original Critical Frequency production. Our senior producer
Speaker 1: and editor is Sarah Ventry. Sound designed by Ray Pang,
Speaker 1: mixing and mastering by Mark Busch. Our fact checker is
Speaker 1: wooedan Yan. Our First Amendment Attorney is James Wheaton of
Speaker 1: the First Amendment Project. We have a whole team of
Speaker 1: contributing reporters that include Lindell Rowlands, Meg Duff, and Karen Savage.
Speaker 1: The show was created and written by me Amy Westervelt.
Speaker 1: Big thank you to the File Foundation for their generous
Speaker 1: support of the show. If you would like to support
Speaker 1: the show, you can do so by becoming a premium
Speaker 1: subscriber on Apple Podcasts or by just leaving us a rating.
Speaker 1: Most people might not know this, but readings are house
Speaker 1: shows actually make it into the podcast charts. So when
Speaker 1: you give us a reading, it helps our chan says
Speaker 1: to get into those charts and then reach other listeners.
Speaker 1: If you like the show, please give us a rating
Speaker 1: or review, and if you have ideas for other cases
Speaker 1: we should be following or topics you'd like to see
Speaker 1: us get into, shoot me a note at Amy at
Speaker 1: critical frequency dot org. Thanks for listening and we'll see
Speaker 1: you next time.