Robin Milam responds on 'Rights of Nature'

[In my 26feb14 post on 'The Rights of Nature' I invited Ms Robin Milam of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature to respond.  She has kindly submitted the following response to the points I raised, and expanded on a number of other issues that are salient to incorporating the rights of nature into our lives and how we are to be governed.  I thank her for the following thoughtful and thorough essay, and hope that RR readers will gain greater insight to the structure, magnitude, and direction of this movement. gjr]

Robin R Milam, Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature theRightsofNature.org

In response to George Rebane’s February 26, 2014 Rebane’s Ruminations - The Rights of Nature  http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2014/02/the-rights-of-nature.html

Preface and underlying assumptions

Our legal systems frame how we as a society relate to each other and to our planet. A predominant underlying assumption in legal systems of today's industrialized world is that humans are separate from nature and the natural systems that sustain life.  Our legal systems treat natural ecosystems as property to be bought, sold and consumed. A second underlying assumption is that our planet has unlimited natural resources to feed an economic system that assumes and encourages a continuum of perpetual growth. The reality is we as a human race are part of a tightly interrelated, interdependent Earth community and our planet does have a finite carrying capacity to support life as we know it. Our legal structures and economic systems are designed for humans to dominate the natural world rather than encourage the natural balance inherent in our interconnectedness.

Since the Industrial Era began, human activity has had an increasing effect on pollution of fresh water sources, climate change, extinction of plant and animal species, acidity of the oceans, toxic waste contamination as well as other environmental impacts.  We have instituted a plethora of Environmental Protection Laws – the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and similar state laws to limit the negative impact of our society. Rather than preventing pollution and environmental destruction, these laws instead codify it by setting acceptable pollution limits.  In addition, under commonly understood terms of preemption, once these activities are legalized by federal or state governments, local governments are prohibited from banning them. Thus in spite of the improvements afforded by these laws, our planet today is in worse condition than it was 40 plus years ago when the Environmental Protection Acts were first enacted.  The system is not working.

The Rights of Nature movement proposes that to address the significant issues of our time including the condition of our planet, we need to re-examine the fundamental assumptions about our human relationship with the Earth Community and realign our legal and social systems accordingly.  In pragmatic terms a growing number of US communities are asserting a community rights-based approach to addressing specific threats to the quality of life, health, safety and welfare of their communities. They are finding that recognizing rights of natural systems, in partnership with limiting the overreaching hand of a dominant corporate arm, has provided a legal tool for protecting the rights of their community and a stepping stone for realigning legal structures.  Later in this document I provide examples of communities who have implemented rights-based ordinances.  First let’s establish a common base for what we mean by rights and rights of nature.

What are Rights?

Our country’s Declaration of Independence asserts, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” 

In your segment on Rights and Privileges (updated 13apr2010) you outline distinctions regarding rights because, as you note, rights and privileges is an area that is misunderstood.  The concepts related to rights is an area that is highly debated among authors of many disciplines particularly philosophy, law, political science, logic and deontology or moral obligation.  It is not a debate that will end here. 

I will address a few distinctions that hopefully we can agree on.  With respect to: "Searching for the prime distinctions from the foregoing in order to render a succinct definition, we understand that 1) the grantor must be a collectively founded agency with an established and widely accessible social code, and 2) the granting agency must commit itself to and actually carry out the enforcement of the rights that it grants its individual members."  Our ultimate goal is that the granting entity is a legal entity i.e. a community, county, state or national/federal government. 

Our laws are the codification of societal values, customs, and norms.  Our understanding and interpretation of rights is likewise based on our society's customs, laws, and statutes. With rights of nature we are starting with the premise of a natural (universal, more or inalienable) right.  The intention is to codify the natural inalienable rights of nature in much the same way we have codified the inalienable rights of humans, thus recognizing the natural right as a legal right when recognized by a governing legal system. 

The question becomes one of not what is a right but who/what is entitled to be recognized as a subject of rights according to the law and can that right be granted equally.  One of the rights that our legal systems grant relates to having “standing” or “locus standi” in a court of law, i.e. to be a subject of the law and have ones rights be defended.

Rights of Nature and Underlying Assumptions

Albert Einstein, theoretical physicist and one of the great thinkers of modern time, wrote “A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.”  The New Quotable Einstein by Alice Calaprice (Princeton University Press, 2005: ISBN 0691120749), a letter dated February 12, 1950, p. 206.

With Rights of Nature, the fundamental underlying assumption is that we humans are an interrelated, interdependent integral part of the “Universe”.  Without the life giving elements of water, air, earth, plants, and integral cycles such as photosynthesis, human life would cease to exist. And, just as we hold to the truth that humans have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, recognizing rights of nature acknowledges that natural communities including humans, have a right to life:  more specifically the right to exist, to regenerate, and to maintain their integral cycles.

Through the codification of these rights, an ecosystem itself can be named as a rights bearing subject with standing or locus standi in a court of law. In contrast, most current legal systems treat ecosystems as an object of the law with no standing. Furthermore, we as human society have the legal authority and responsibility to enforce these rights on behalf of our earth's ecosystems. Humans serve as guardians for natural systems in much the same way humans act as legal guardians for children.

Moreover, Rights of Nature is not about granting rights to a tree or to a single animal.  It is about recognizing the rights of the whole in the context of our Earth Community. Just as humans have the right to life, so does the broader Earth Community and her integral ecosystems.  If we are to truly recognize our inalienable right to life as humans, we must recognize the right of the life-sustaining elements without which we humans cannot survive. As such our rights as humans are deeply intertwined with the rights of nature. 

Broader Rights Movement

Let’s go back to our legal system and the legal framework of rights for a moment. As a human society, our values and social norms are evolving.  The United States continually updates our laws and regulations.  At certain points in time it becomes necessary to amend our Constitution in order to realign it with our social norms and values.  It was a position held by Thomas Jefferson who in a letter to James Madison, stated “Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.” Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

The statement in the Declaration of Independence about inalienable Rights starts with the assertion “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”  At the time of their ratification, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights Amendments did not in fact treat all men or all humans in the same way. Jefferson wrote those words as a brilliant statesman who was also a white, male, slave and plantation owner. At that point in our history, slavery was both legal and a primary tenet of the US economy, especially in the South.

The constructs our Founding Fathers built into the Constitution reaffirmed equality for white males, most of whom were land owners.  Their wives were not granted the right to own property in their name, to keep their own wages, or even to vote.  For a significant number, the people who toiled in their fields and nursed their children were slaves owned by the landowner.  Slaves had no right to own property and no vote or say in the social systems that dictated their fate. They were bought and sold at the whim of their owners; families were separated for breeding or whatever financial purpose their owner was pursuing.

Eighty years after ratification of the US Constitution, it took a civil war before slaves were freed and black men were given the right to vote.  The 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments were followed by more than a century of a prominent Civil Rights movement to guarantee and expand their rights. 

For women, a married woman could not own property in her own name or keep her own earnings until mid-1800 in some states and until 1900 in all US stares.  It was not until 1920 – over 130 years – that the 19^th Amendment granted women the right to vote. 

The point in reviewing the rights movement in our country is to acknowledge that the changes we are proposing will not happen overnight.  The debates are heated and the subject highly contested – as has been the case through the broader rights movement.  Nonetheless they do represent the fact that our values and sense of moral ethics evolve over time. 

Fundamentally, today, we treat life-sustaining natural systems in much the same way we once treated slaves.  Just as social values have shifted over the course of the last 250 years, we are in a new transformational period in our thinking especially with respect to our relationship with earth.  Industrialization has propagated a globalized economic system that is out of balance.  As a result we have created social structures that propel us into extraction systems that are exceeding the carrying capacity of our planet and degrading precious life giving resources. 

As were look to restoring balance, I submit that it is important, appropriate and healthy to reexamine the fundamental values and tenets that frame how we as a society relate to each other and our larger earth community. At the core is the recognition of our interdependencies.  The survival of future generations is dependent on our not just recognizing, but deeply owning, that other forms of life have a comparable right to life and to maintain their vital cycles as we humans have.

Sample Cases in the United States

A growing number of communities throughout the US working with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) have adopted local rights-based ordinances which affirm the community’s right to self-governance combined with the recognition of the rights of natural communities and limits to overreaching corporate personhood rights.  Across the US the issues vary.

Sewage Sludge Ordinance – Tamaqua Borough, PA

The first recognition of Rights of Nature occurred in 2006 when the township of Tamaqua Borough, PA asserted its right as a community to say no to the land application of sewage sludge by large corporate agriculture in order to protect the health and safety of its citizens, land and rivers via the Tamaqua Borough Sewage Sludge Ordinance.    

According to the ordinance "In 1994, eleven-year-old Tony Behun from Rush Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania, died from a staph infection shortly after being exposed to sewage sludge. The following year, seventeen-year-old Daniel Pennock from Reading, Pennsylvania, died from a staph infection shortly after being exposed to sewage sludge. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes staph as a potential pathogenic component of sewage sludge.

In spite of these risks, Tamaqua Borough has been rendered powerless by the state and federal government to prohibit the land application of sewage sludge by persons that comply with all applicable laws and regulations."

The intent of the ordinance is to recognize a legal means whereby Tamaqua Borough can ban land application of harmful sewage sludge in order to protect the health, safety and the general welfare of the citizens and environment of Tamaqua Borough.  Key provisions include the recognition that:  “Borough residents, natural communities, and ecosystems shall be considered to be “persons” for purposes of the enforcement of the civil rights of those residents, natural communities, and ecosystems.” (Section 7.6)

Compensatory and punitive damages paid to remedy the violation of the rights of natural communities and ecosystems shall be paid to Tamaqua Borough for restoration of those natural communities and ecosystems. (Section 12.1) 

And “Any Borough resident shall have standing and authority to bring an action under this Ordinance’s civil rights provisions, or under state and federal civil rights laws, for violations of the rights of natural communities, ecosystems, and Borough residents, as recognized by sections 7.6 and 7.7 of this Ordinance.”  (Section 12.2)

Tamaqua Borough Corporate Waste and Local Control Ordinance

A second, similar ordinance is the 2007 Tamaqua Borough Corporate Waste and Local Control Ordinance.  A coal mining operation in an immediately adjacent neighboring community was converting its mine plant to a toxic waste dump site.  The issue confronting Tamaqua Borough was that the dump site was outside the community but presented a serious threat of contamination to the air, land and water systems within the Borough.  The ordinance prohibits the storage and dumping of dredged material, coal ash, sewage sludge, construction and demolition (C&D) waste, radioactive material, and other waste deemed by the Borough to be hazardous, toxic, or dangerous.”  Provisions of the Corporate Waste and Local Control Ordinance reaffirmed the rights of the community to a healthy environment, the rights of the natural communities, and limits to corporate personhood which had preempted individual and community rights.

Numerous other communities throughout the Midwest and Northeast have implemented similar ordinances. Hydraulic fracking has become the focus of many community rights ordinances which include rights of nature as a tool for protecting community aquifers and regional ecosystems.

Western Nevada County Local Application

Residents of North San Juan and Western Nevada County are protesting the proposed opening of the San Juan Mining Corporation.  When the mine was in operation as Siskon Gold in 1996, local wells of residents, Grizzly Hill School, and North Columbia Schoolhouse Cultural Center went dry.  While Siskon deepened and replaced the wells, poor water quality required treatment and filtering of a number of these wells. The concern with the proposed mine opening is that additional wells will go dry and that mining operations threaten to further contaminate local wells. A local community rights based ordinance could provide an additional legal tool for the community to assert their right to protect the quality and volume of water in wells on their personal property as well as community property such as Grizzly Hill School and the Cultural Center and the broader aquifers which extend well beyond the community boundaries.

Rio+20 and United Nations Advocacy

As for our advocacy directed toward the United Nations and the Rio+20 Earth Summit, aka United Nations Conference for Sustainable Development, members of the Global Alliance of the Rights of Nature have directed energies toward influencing UN policy for a very specific reason.  Whether or not we agree with the decisions and direction of the UN, we recognize that the United Nations is a highly influential global force in today’s world. 

Promoting dialogue through the UN has had significant impact on world views and societal norms.  In December 1948, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  That Declaration is the universal “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,”

While that aspirational document was not legally binding, the Human Rights Declaration has inspired legally binding human rights treaties around the world.  According to the UN, “the UDHR has inspired more than 80 international human rights treaties and declarations, a great number of regional human rights conventions, domestic human rights bills, and constitutional provisions, which together constitute a comprehensive legally binding system for the promotion and protection of human rights.”    

A formal United Nations endorsement would accelerate an expanded global examination of Rights of Nature and what a society grounded in Rights of Nature looks like. For this reason, colleagues and I have participated in selected UN hosted assemblies in order to advocate endorsement.  

In Summary

In proposing the recognition of Rights of Nature, are we charting new territory and figuring it out as we go, as one of your readers has accused? Yes of course ... But then that is exactly what the international banking system, economists, politicians, corporate executives, and others at the helm of globalization are doing as well. 

Certainly the earth and all elements of the earth community are in a constant state of change and evolution. Human life and the life of any species on our planet will ultimately disappear regardless of what actions we as human society take.  But we do have choices about our contribution to the rate at which we accelerate the loss of species on our planet. Many of us will argue that the earth will take care of herself.  And regardless of our actions today, at some point in time, the human race, like dinosaurs and so many other species will cease to exist.

As an intelligent citizen of the industrialized modern world, I feel a responsibility to myself and to future generations to engage in a deliberate examination of the value systems which are shaping how we relate to each other and to our planet.  Ours is a complex world, there are no easy answers. In the face of many issues related to the human condition and the condition of our planet, examining the case for recognizing that other forms of life on Earth share the right to life that we claim as humans is an important and worthy endeavor.  

Comments

[Barry Pruett]

Thank you George for the illustrative piece...

[Russ Steele]

I do not think that Mother Nature reads anyones talking points, Republican, Democrat, or Wackos. She could wipe us all out in a long instant, as she has with other species for millions of years. She does not need a Nature Bill of Rights, and would not pay attention if we created one. We live in a chaotic world, and Mother Nature tosses the dice.

[Dave K.]

My hair hurts...nature's rights, really?

[Michael R. Kesti]

It is typical to hold that rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand and that limitations of rights is justified when certain responsibilities are not met. Crudely, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins and yelling, "Fire!" in a theater is not an example of protected free speech.

Milam is long on the nature's rights but short on its responsibilities. This, as Russ Steele implies, may be because nature cannot be expected to be in any way responsible. If this is the case then how can nature's rights be in any way justified?

[Account Deleted]

Thanks Robin, for taking the time to respond. There is a lot in your piece and I'll need some time to go through it more thoroughly.
Some points need clarification:
"Our legal structures and economic systems are designed for humans to dominate the natural world rather than encourage the natural balance inherent in our interconnectedness."
What - exactly - is this balance and who gets to decide?
Flora and fauna of all kinds 'naturally' discharge their bodily wastes out into the environment around them with no treatment of any sort. If we are equal to, and an integral part of nature - it would follow that we are free to do the same.
I would also like to know how it is possible for 'nature' to have rights at the same time that no individual thing in nature has rights. It would seem to follow that the entire known universe has 'rights' but nothing else in that universe does.
Or do you separate our planet earth from the rest of all known things? If so, why?

[MikeL]

It is interesting now that the truth is coming out about the green scammers attempt to extort $9.5 billon from Chevron for something that they never were responsible for while one of the responsible parties, the country of Ecudor, has 'rights for nature' conference.

If Nature is granted rights, will I be able to sue for damages when an earthquake damages property that is owned by myself?

Will I be able to have the Dingo that ate my baby pay restitution for my loss.

[Fuzz]

"Nature" (ecosystem process) has "rights" in the same sense that the "laws" of physics are "laws".  There is no written "law" of physics (in a legal sense) but if you "violate" one, there are consequences.  Our survival depends on the ecosystem functioning at a life sustaining level.  Human activity (economic and otherwise) must take into account its impact on the ecosystem in relation to sustainability.  Yes, Mother Nature can produce an "extinction" event from asteroids, disaster from a mega-volcano or tsunami, but that is not the norm within human lifetimes.  All the elephants across Africa will produce flatulence that has some small effect on the ozone; human beings, if they wanted to, could cut down, or burn, every tree in the Amazon within 50 years.  That would have dramatic effects on rainfall patterns, air filtration, oxygen production, etc.  Slash and burn agriculture in the Amazon is like sawing off the branch you're sitting on.....short term gain for you, long term pain for you and lots of other people.  Most people don't understand ecosystem science.  Unfortunately, ignorance is not bliss.  How you intelligently work ecosystem considerations into human culture and law is the challenge.   If you want to see two examples of how man's activities can profoundly affect the ecosystem, including multiple extended effects, watch this 15 minute TED talk. As our scientific understanding of this increases, we'll be in a better position to “regulate” ourselves intelligently.

http://www.ted.com/talks/george_monbiot_for_more_wonder_rewild_the_world?utm_source=email&source=email&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ios-share

[Russ Steele]

This is a more important TED Talk. How to fight desertification and reverse climate change, by Allan Savory

“Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And it's happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. Savory has devoted his life to stopping it. He now believes — and his work so far shows — that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert.

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change

It turns the environmental wacko ideas of preservation on its head.

[Walt]

Fuzz could use a little insight.
"Yes, Mother Nature can produce an "extinction" event from asteroids, disaster from a mega-volcano or tsunami, but that is not the norm within human lifetimes".
Just "who's" lifetime is Fuzz thinking of? His own? My Great Grand Dad's? Or "man" in general?
Required reading Fuzz.. http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/hekla-volcano-iceland-strong-inflation-suggest-volcano-could-be-close-to-erupting/

The ECO gang are still yapping about " We want clean water!",, Well , you have it. " They" demand higher and higher standards. Which all come at a cost to you and me.
So how far do they want to push these "clean standards"? They want to drink right from the Sacramento river @the Tower Bridge?

[Account Deleted]

Thank you, Fuzz for telling us nothing. Conservatives have been trying to explain this to the left for years. What you and Ms Milam are talking about is not the rights of nature, but the fact that we need to take care of what takes care of us. There is certainly a need to make sure we don't spoil our own nest. The problem lies mainly in the left having a very biased and hate based info gathering system that renders their ideas of what the problems are and the solutions to those problems to be not only failure prone, but destructive to boot. It is the left that has no clue about the inter connection of everything. 'Everything' includes the laws of supply and demand. The govt mandate of alcohol polluting our supply of gasoline is a good example. It does little or nothing to clean the air and costs everyone far more money. Money has a carbon footprint. Injecting un-needed inefficiency into the economy has a ripple effect that degrades the environment, yet is never considered by the left.
The worst man-caused environmental disasters have typically been caused by govts, not corporations. If Ms Milam is concerned about deaths from staph infections, I would suggest she look into the larger picture of where the over whelming number of them occur. Human greed knows no political party, economic system, religion, group affiliation or social standing. Most of the wasteful and needless destruction of the planet is not caused by Euro-descent white males or corporations, yet the left is only interested blaming them and doing their best to extract, at gun point, ever increasing amounts of money from only those parties.
The only road blocks I face in life to being constructive and at the same time using as little of our natural resources as possible come from govt, not corporations. If anyone wants to start cleaning up the environment, I would suggest we start with all of the pollution from Washington DC.

[Fuzz]

Russ, I thought Mr. Savory's presentation was excellent. He makes a very persuasive case, backed by good research and data. I'm an environmentalist, but not an ideologue. I assume your "wacko" reference is for folks who think grazing cattle/sheep/buffalo/horse should be removed from federal land as a prima facie position for "naturalness". I go where good science takes me and am open to all arguments. (Figuring out what is "good" science is often the problem.)

Walt, I was referring to events much greater than the Icelandic eruptions I've experienced in my 65 years; something that's more large continent impacting over long periods of time. (The types of events that may occur only once in multiple thousands of years.)

Scott, you bring up the good point about keeping politics out of this (where it most certainly doesn't belong) although I don't see that happening. The motives and actions of govt/corporations must be constantly monitored against what research is revealing regarding sustainability. I, too, don't like to be forced to do something, or pay for something, that isn't necessary or isn't working.

[Account Deleted]

Keep the govt out of this? You must be kidding. The left has staked out this issue as their crown jewel of intrusiveness in our lives. You might as well tell an alcoholic not to get into a well stocked liquor cabinet.

[Fuzz]

Scott, read again. I included "govt". Of course you have to have govt. I want the govt crafting policy based on good science, not political ideology, posturing, and payoff, left or right.

“In the end we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand; and we will understand only what we have been taught.”

― Baba Dioum
Senegalese ecologist

[Account Deleted]

"I want the govt crafting policy based on good science, not political ideology, posturing, and payoff, left or right."
Agreed - but the 'problem' is all on the left. Conservatives have always wanted good science and facts.
It's the left that skews the whole plot to an agenda of power and control over the citizens. Large corps that pollute the environment only do so to the extent they allowed by govt. They can, and have done this because the corrupt govt is happy to work with any entity that helps them continue their quest for more and more power. The average citizen usually doesn't care or know much beyond what's right in front of their noses. The govt schools are useless as they continue a regimen of environmental science that consists of 'euro white man bad - govt good'. Look at Ms Milam's post.
Corps are bad - govt is good.
If a corp is doing something bad, it's easy to correct by simply not buying their products. They have and will respond pronto, unless they are protected by a corrupt govt that shields them. If a govt is bad, good luck with trying to not provide them with funds. You have no choice. Pay or else.

[fish]

If a corp is doing something bad, it's easy to correct by simply not buying their products. They have and will respond pronto, unless they are protected by a corrupt govt that shields them. If a govt is bad, good luck with trying to not provide them with funds. You have no choice. Pay or else.

Two lines....two simple lines that explain it all! Remember.....in progressive paradise the only commandment is pay or else!

[Walt]

Fuzz. "events much greater than the Icelandic eruptions I've experienced in my 65 years". So it's "your lifetime".
In the grand view of things, that's a brief instant in time. Krakatoa did plenty of damage, and messed with global climate.
There are many examples of Mamma Earth just about snuffing life on this marble.
Many a time I have posted proof of just how small man is in relation to natural forces.
In my Father's lifetime, he witnessed the Russian "commit?" explode over Siberia. ( the bright glow on the horizon)

How many known examples of cataclysmic events do you need to get? And just because they really haven't happened in "your lifetime", doesn't mean they can't happen tomorrow.
And all the "feel good " eco stuff is out the window.

The day is coming that that the N.Pacific subduction zone will "unzip" and lay waste to the North American coast. It will make what happened in Japan hardly news worthy.
But count on the ECO loones to blame AGW for that. ( They bring it up on every natural disaster.) Yup,, Japan included.
A "news" person had the stupid idea that AGW may have been to blame for the latest meteor to hit Russia! ( a quick google search may even find that clip)

[Walt]

Speaking of the "rights of nature", One thing is for sure. It's cold, cruel, and unforgiving.
I am no backer of physician assisted "suiside",,, but what I'm having to witness makes a strong argument FOR it. ( Momma is still lingering on. How,, no one knows.)

[fish]

I'm sorry Walt....I hope she finds her rest soon.

[Account Deleted]

Here's a good example of left-wing 'science'.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/09/senate-democrats-talkathon-climate-change/6172647/

An all night bloviation yak-a-thon.
They have no actual legislation in mind, just a good ol' all night DC BS session.
I'm sure that every one who participates treads so ever lightly on the earth and has the smallest carbon foot print imaginable.
It's like listening to the Pope give a homily on sexual purity whilst fondling the genitals of a 12 year old.
This is the actual face of what Ms Milam is pushing. I'm sure she might object and say these wealthy Dem pols are not on the right track, but the fact is that whatever the left says about the environment or AGM, this upcoming blab-a-thon is a tip off on the only legislative action on the issue that will come out of Washington.
Expect more wealth transfer from the middle class to Al Gore's pockets.
End of story.

[Walt]

DAMN.... Scott, you beat me to it.
But something I found on the USGS earthquake page caught my attention.
I noticed a cluster of quakes near Oklahoma City. I did a little looking,
and what do ya' know? " MAN" made. Nope,, not Fracking,, waste water injection
is what they are pointing the finger at.
Just think of what would happen with that "carbon sequestration" ( pumping captured CO2 into the ground) plan. It would turn to "dry ice", expand the frozen rock/soil, are do all wonders of damage.
Look what some "dirty" water is doing... But we should listen to some brainiak
who thinks it's a great idea.
That's the problem these days. " book smart" but real world "practical stupid".

[Bill Tozer]

I am surprised that nobody has painted us knuckledraggers into the "you want to destroy the planet" corner. I oppose massive deforestation on the grand scale. I love nature and I get along with hikers, hunters, anglers, and even met a tree hugger or 3 in my time. Nothing stops me in my tracks more than admiring a bear with cubs or Big Horn Sheep in its habitat. I like clear air and clean water, but I am not about to let people starve to death or freeze to death to achieve some theoretical goal.
We, as humans, have a responsibility to take care of our planet for future generations. Now, the exact interpretation of that last statement is where "the devil is in the details" lies.

Rights vs legal rights. Responsibility vs irresponsibility. The Good Lord put Adam and Eve in charge of the garden to take care of it, not destroy it. That was before they got the boot. I argue that Christians and eco-nuts are on the same page in the sense that we are the caretakers, i.e., the gardeners of this orb known as Earth. After that common goal, the two sides differ greatly. The Earth was made for Man verses Man was made for the Earth is where the two sides part ways. We Flat Earth Society Neanderthals believe in taking care of our fellow man as well as the flat plane known as Earth. It is not an 'either or' proposition.

The card carrying Flat Earth Society members such as I look at the interaction between man and the planet. Humans poop a lot, even those who live in caves. So, just our existing will leave its mark on pristine nature. We have set up nature preserves, nature reserves, and even 190k johnny on the spots in National Parks and National Forests. Yet, our cars pollute and we make fire and we consume fruits and veggies and meat. We work, we engage in commerce and we leave our mark, with or without toilet paper.

That is not to say we hate nature and never seen a tree we don't want to fall or never seen a critter we want don't to kill. That is the corner we get painted into by the blind talking points repeaters and spin doctors.

Now, we all have to pay more and more to reduce our mark here in the Golden State, even the innocence poor schleps.

http://news.yahoo.com/gas-prices-may-jump-california-emissions-law-151427979.html

[Bonnie McGuire]

I think we should all respect and take care of the house we live in...the earth, and all it's creatures. Indeed, nature and our solar system is a powerful force we know very little about, and consequently there are those who exploit our ignorance for personal gain. Nature worship was an ancient religion to which the first born, or finest human beings were once sacrificed, because those in charge convinced the ignorant followers such sacrifices were needed to receive blessings of prosperity. Eventually, animals were sacrificed instead of babies and virgins....and all that was eliminated by the final sacrifice of Jesus Christ so that his teachings would live forever. There was a time when I didn't like reading the Old Testament because it was so violent and contradictory to the Ten Commandments, but now realize you have to know history in order to not repeat the same mistakes. Those men who wrote our Constitution learned to read using the bible in a Christian culture, and some didn't like the doctrines, or interpretations of men. That's why Thomas Jefferson's bible contains only the words of Christ. While the Constitution was inspired by their Christ consciousness, they wisely made sure that there was not to be any corrupt state church in league with a corrupt government brainwashing and enslaving the people like the Roman Catholic Church in Europe before the reformation.
Why do I bother writing this? Because human nature pretty much follows the same tendencies, and if you paid attention to history you recognize the environmental movement as a resurrection of the ancient religion of Nature worship and the sacrificing of human beings (by those in charge of our mentality) allegedly for our salvation, and the enrichment of our mentors. Our unconstitutional State Church.

[Neighbor]

Nine points for this silly thread.

1. Mother Nature does not throw dice. There is increasing order and complexity in nature -- from nebulae forming to galaxies to increasingly complex life appearing on the Earth over time. Call it what you want, but chance is the worst explanation.

2. If you guys want to have dialogue with others, you need to listen, ask questions, and not drive them away. You drove Fuzz away when he had intelligent contributions to this thread. If you want to have a conversation with yourself, use a mirror. If you don't want to speak to anyone who challenges your view of the world, stay inside and avoid the Internet. Keep your selected flavor of cable news running 24/7.

3. The "Law" of Supply and Demand is not a natural law. It is a explanatory device, and very likely an actual phenomena -- although on a national economic level, "measuring" supply and demand as having influence on each other is sketchy at best.

3. Obermuller, you are clearly diluted by what you read and watch. The false (and stunningly boring) binary debate that defines guys like you is making us a dumber culture. There are literally thousands of you, right this second, encumbering the conversations of normal people everywhere. Only your first comment to this post was viable. Those were good questions, I wanted to respond there, to join the debate...

4. The philosophy "Anything could happen to us at any moment; we have no control or why make an effort?" is what separates the thinking of children from adults, or those who play the lotto, smoke three packs a day and don't clean their houses and yards from those who do the opposite.

5. You guys are answering your own questions, just with converse logic. As you look around America, and you see water sans sewage and staphalocaccus, plentiful deer, regrowing forests, and clean air, you conclude we don't need environmental legislation -- most would conclude that such legislation is responsible. Scott, you even suggest we look to 3rd world nations where such crappy environments do exist, like this will somehow bolster your arguments that government = bad. I happen to agree with you on that point, but I'm not ready to have my neighbors start mining or not use their septic system in the name of libertarian freedom. If we're going to be smart libertarians, land ethics and neighborliness has to be a part of the discussion.

6. Thinking and morality evolves. We no longer accept things as moral that were considered moral in say, 1860. There has been sea change after sea change in this human ocean of history, with each advance toward a more whole understanding of who we are, perpetually countered by those that would prefer to maintain the status quo--which identifies these people, by definition, as being in a seat of privilege or power.

7. Thomas Jefferson's version of the new testament was designed to excise the language that is suggestive of Christ's deity, and to make him the philosopher Jefferson thought him to be. Equating the environmental movement to shamanism/animism is a stretch at best, your last statement makes no sense--what do these have to do with our supposed "unconstitutional State Church"? I would assert that the Old Testament not only contradicts itself in the area of the Commandments--I would say that it is representative of a premature stage of moral development in mankind. All Christian churches have had their ugly moments. Puritan Pilgrims hung Quakers as heretics, probably while explaining to their children that they (Puritans) left England because of religious persecution.

8. The people who think they know everything work for both gov't and corporations. They are the same people. We cannot influence these people by voting (or by shopping elsewhere) because they own everything, they are all of the stores, they are both "political" parties, they are both sides of the false political debate. They want your money, and they want you to be distracted by false debate, to believe you influence the fate of the nation by voting and talking "politics" with your friends. The only thing that threatens their hegemony is your actual behavior. Action. The same people who cry about gov't being corrupt are likely and (nonsensically) to criticize Occupy Wall Street from an armchair.

9. The question of natural rights, and the preservation of nature is an authentic subject. Avoid banality. When asked if he believed he would out-live racism, he said no, but tolerance would. This is a key point. Beliefs that don't stand up to new beliefs, die. This is a non-starter for you guys, but for the culture as a whole, you must ask yourself; am I on the side of movement toward a finer, better understanding of the world? or am I on the side of a persistent, festering, status quo?

[Neighbor]

When asked if he would out-live racism...Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said...

[Account Deleted]

from my Neighbor - "The "Law" of Supply and Demand is not a natural law. It is a explanatory device, and very likely an actual phenomena -- although on a national economic level, "measuring" supply and demand as having influence on each other is sketchy at best."
It is as much a law of nature as any other. Please give an example of where it doesn't operate. It can (and is) be ignored or defied by humans, but it's influence is ever present.
I wasn't aware of this terrible condition you accuse me of - I seem to be as fully human as when I was conceived. Perhaps you could elaborate?

[Russ Steele]

Dear Neighbor,

Since we live in a well ordered world, no chaos by Mother Nature, are we to assume the meteor impact that destroyed the dinosaurs was a well ordered event? Are we to assume that out bursts of plasma from the sun strong enough to destroy satellites and ground based electronics are not chaotic events, just part of some complex order in nature? Can we assume that the next class 5 tornado is already on the calendar and the next ice age is as scheduled in your well ordered world? Really.

[Todd Juvinall]

Russ, my thoughts exactly. The universe is total chaos and at any given moment all can change. The thing man brings to the equation is attempts to make order out of that chaos. I think the person and his nine points are just a petty mind trying to show all of us neanderthals how smart he thinks he is. Too funny.

[fish]

New breath into an old post.....how refreshing!

Welcome "neighbor" I find your Frischian style simply charming!

And since it's Saturday who isn't up for a thorough fisking?

cracks knuckles

Let's begin shall we.....

Nine points for this silly thread.

...then why comment? I dig you guys....credentialed and smug who deign to enlighten the simple hill folk with your hi-falutin citified wisdom....but please spare me.

1. Mother Nature does not throw dice. There is increasing order and complexity in nature -- from nebulae forming to galaxies to increasingly complex life appearing on the Earth over time. Call it what you want, but chance is the worst explanation.

Open with a spin on Einstein....dismissed without further comment.

"There is increasing order and complexity in nature -- from nebulae forming to galaxies to increasingly complex life appearing on the Earth over time. Call it what you want, but chance is the worst explanation."

Entropy would like a word....but since you raise the issue this is as powerful an argument for a deity as can be made!

Point for faith!

2. If you guys want to have dialogue with others, you need to listen, ask questions, and not drive them away. You drove Fuzz away when he had intelligent contributions to this thread. If you want to have a conversation with yourself, use a mirror. If you don't want to speak to anyone who challenges your view of the world, stay inside and avoid the Internet. Keep your selected flavor of cable news running 24/7.

The dialogue here flows just fine in my estimation. As is so often the case the call for civility usually happens after your positions have been provided and found wanting. A more sedate and nurturing environment can be found over at “Associate Bobs” site.....you would probably enjoy discussing the size of Todd's "package" as was briefly touched upon yesterday.

Everybody here wants to "speak to anyone who challenges your view of the world" here! What isn't found here is a rolling over for the revealed wisdom offered by the "cathedral". If you want to talk (read argue...perhaps be subjected to ridicule...but never censored) you are welcome here. I don't speak for the proprietor but he has made his position clear regarding the subject and tenor of debate permitted here.

Finally, are you “fuzz”? No? Then how do you know he was “driven away” from the discussion.

3. The "Law" of Supply and Demand is not a natural law. It is a explanatory device, and very likely an actual phenomena -- although on a national economic level, "measuring" supply and demand as having influence on each other is sketchy at best.

Your claim....please provide the proof that that the influence of demand upon supply is “sketchy at best”.

4. Obermuller, you are clearly diluted by what you read and watch. The false (and stunningly boring) binary debate that defines guys like you is making us a dumber culture. There are literally thousands of you, right this second, encumbering the conversations of normal people everywhere. Only your first comment to this post was viable. Those were good questions, I wanted to respond there, to join the debate...

Clearly diluted......? You might want to disable auto correct on the I phone and repost or maybe your grasp of the language is as poor as are your reasoning skills. Encumbering conversations of “normal” people....yeah....I’m sure you are completely normal! Sedate, accepting of the “knowledge of the herd”, uncritical of what you are spoon fed...yep, completely normal!

The philosophy "Anything could happen to us at any moment; we have no control or why make an effort?" is what separates the thinking of children from adults, or those who play the lotto, smoke three packs a day and don't clean their houses and yards from those who do the opposite.

“... is what separates the thinking of children from adults” Do you lefty midwits ever break from the approved script?

5. You guys are answering your own questions, just with converse logic. As you look around America, and you see water sans sewage and staphalocaccus, plentiful deer, regrowing forests, and clean air, you conclude we don't need environmental legislation -- most would conclude that such legislation is responsible. Scott, you even suggest we look to 3rd world nations where such crappy environments do exist, like this will somehow bolster your arguments that government = bad. I happen to agree with you on that point, but I'm not ready to have my neighbors start mining or not use their septic system in the name of libertarian freedom. If we're going to be smart libertarians, land ethics and neighborliness has to be a part of the discussion.

Again you have no idea what you are talking about. “Smart” libertarians propose addressing these issues through property rights and the courts. What does legislation as it is currently crafted and as I suspect you really would prefer MOAR REGULATIONZ have to do with any of it?

Thinking and morality evolves. We no longer accept things as moral that were considered moral in say, 1860. There has been sea change after sea change in this human ocean of history, with each advance toward a more whole understanding of who we are, perpetually countered by those that would prefer to maintain the status quo--which identifies these people, by definition, as being in a seat of privilege or power.

Pompous social bluster....crap only 6 points in and I’m already bored to tears! That’s a real skill you know....

Did the whole team over at Jeffys collaborate on this post?

Thomas Jefferson's version of the new testament was designed to excise the language that is suggestive of Christ's deity, and to make him the philosopher Jefferson thought him to be. Equating the environmental movement to shamanism/animism is a stretch at best, your last statement makes no sense--what do these have to do with our supposed "unconstitutional State Church"? I would assert that the Old Testament not only contradicts itself in the area of the Commandments--I would say that it is representative of a premature stage of moral development in mankind. All Christian churches have had their ugly moments. Puritan Pilgrims hung Quakers as heretics, probably while explaining to their children that they (Puritans) left England because of religious persecution.

Not going to comment on Thomas Jeffersons faith....would be curious to know if you know that the philosophical descendants of the Puritans morphed into todays secular left with their obsession for the creation of a “heaven on earth”?

8. The people who think they know everything work for both gov't and corporations. They are the same people. We cannot influence these people by voting (or by shopping elsewhere) because they own everything, they are all of the stores, they are both "political" parties, they are both sides of the false political debate. They want your money, and they want you to be distracted by false debate, to believe you influence the fate of the nation by voting and talking "politics" with your friends. The only thing that threatens their hegemony is your actual behavior. Action. The same people who cry about gov't being corrupt are likely and (nonsensically) to criticize Occupy Wall Street from an armchair.

Wow...that’s kind of “conspiracy theoristy” isn’t it? I thought you smug lefty types didn’t go in for conspiracies....that was the province of the “knuckle dragging righty” set? Interesting.

9. The question of natural rights, and the preservation of nature is an authentic subject. Avoid banality. When asked if he believed he would out-live racism, he said no, but tolerance would. This is a key point. Beliefs that don't stand up to new beliefs, die. This is a non-starter for you guys, but for the culture as a whole, you must ask yourself; am I on the side of movement toward a finer, better understanding of the world? or am I on the side of a persistent, festering, status quo?

I’m not even going to address the last one as your “all over the mapism” has sapped my will to live.

One final point though. I retract my earlier allusion to Frisch authoring this bilge....say what you want about the guy he’s insufficiently stupid to write something this bad!

[stevenfrisch]

Re: Posted by: fish | 15 March 2014 at 11:11 AM

Although there are elements of the comments by 'Neighbor' that I agree with, I cannot take credit for the post. I always post under my own name.

Why do you guys find it so hard to believe that there is an entire universe of people out there that think you are idiots?

[fish]

No need for hurt feelings I retracted my attribution.

And yes, I'm well aware that there is an entire "entire universe of people out there that think" I'm an idiot! To save time I refer to them as the constituencies of the two major political parties...that also relieves me of caring about their collective opinion.

Hey....did you check out Todds "package" over at Jeffys site?

[Russ Steele]

Steven@11:56AM

"As of August 2011, 19% of American voters identify themselves as liberals, 38% as moderates and 41% as conservatives." Wikipedia

Your "entire universe of people" who think we conservative are idiots are only 20% of the US voting universe. Please note there is a very good chance that at least half the moderates and all of the conservatives, a total 60% (19 +41=60) may not think we are idiots. Give these numbers, I think the conservative opinions expressed here are on secure ground.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Russ Steele | 15 March 2014 at 12:25 PM

Ha, statistics, damned statistics and lies....

Even the conservatives I know, which is a lot of conservatives, would read the threads here and think you guys are idiots.

My contention would be half the conservatives and two thirds of the moderates would think you are idiots, (19 + 25 + 20.5 = 64.5) thus the score would be closer to 64.5% who think you are idiots.

Fortunately logic and facts have no party.

[Todd Juvinall]

My goodness Steve Frisch. All my friends that are liberals read your comments as well as your pals and say the same thing about you and them. A bunch of mind numbed robots idiots from LaLa. So, I guess we are even on the "who thinks we are all stupid" I guess. You are such a child.

[George Rebane]

stevenfrisch 1244pm - Unfortunately the perusal of the evidence presented by writers from both sides shows that logic and facts are extremely ideology dependent. Hence the basis for the country's growing polarization.

(Nevertheless, you continue to honor us here with your visits and the extensive attention you pay elsewhere to the thoughts and opinions voiced by a class of people that is so obviously below yours. We are blessed.)

[fish]

I retract my earlier allusion to Frisch authoring this bilge....say what you want about the guy he’s insufficiently stupid to write something this bad!

C'mon Stevie...baby...given the general tenor and nastiness (god I love it so!....apologies G.C. Scott) of the blogosphere this practically counts as a compliment.

[Account Deleted]

Hey StevenF - What a brave little fellow you are: "Even the conservatives I know, which is a lot of conservatives, would read the threads here and think you guys are idiots." Now you have to hide behind imaginary people!
Since you are so brilliant, perhaps you can answer any of the points I raised.
Maybe you can find where this drivel comes from: "Scott, you even suggest we look to 3rd world nations where such crappy environments do exist, like this will somehow bolster your arguments that government = bad." What???
And since you (excuse me, other imaginary conservatives) think I'm an idiot - maybe a bright boy like you can explain how I became 'diluted'.

[Gregory]

Having first read this piece and finding there not to be enough right to just be wrong, I sat back. The only one who touched on the essence of Milam's point of view was Scott:

"What - exactly - is this balance and who gets to decide?"

I think the "deciders" would be chosen from the Anointed who have shown to have good judgment and freedom from politics... and it would be pure coincidence they have politics similar to Ms. Milam. Milam spends no time or effort in defining "who gets to decide" what Nature deserves from the rest of us, but that is what it would boil down to. Democracy is a bitch, and we won't be ceding sovereignty to a uber-Gaian dictatorship anytime soon.

This tack seems to be related to the fact there has been no movement in the Congress to criminalize carbon, there probably won't be in the future, and even if there was, the US represents a declining share of CO2 generation. The good news is that the current crop of science shows a climate sensitivity to an anthropogenic doubling of CO2 somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5 degree C, not the 2.0C to 4.5C or more determined by the IPCC in the AR4. Meaning, no positive feedback and no catastrophe. Just a small warming indistinguishable from natural variations.

[fish]

Re: Scott Obermuller | 15 March 2014 at 01:23 PM

I enjoyed "diluted" as well!

Clearly diluted......? You might want to disable auto correct on the I phone and repost or maybe your grasp of the language is as poor as are your reasoning skills. Encumbering conversations of “normal” people....yeah....I’m sure you are completely normal! Sedate, accepting of the “knowledge of the herd”, uncritical of what you are spoon fed...yep, completely normal!

[Gregory]

Neighbor starts with batting 0.000:
"1. Mother Nature does not throw dice. There is increasing order and complexity in nature -- from nebulae forming to galaxies to increasingly complex life appearing on the Earth over time. Call it what you want, but chance is the worst explanation." -neighbor

Sorry, "neighbor", absolutely wrong. In early discussions on quantum mechanics an exasperated A.Einstein did demand God did not roll dice, but Einstein lost that argument, and the even bigger error is "There is increasing order and complexity in nature"... what gibberish. Sorry, "neighbor", but the arrow of time always points to increasing disorder.

Given the very late night posting, ignorance of basic science and evidence of being wine soaked, I'd guess "neighbor" is Pelline himself.

[fish]

Given the very late night posting, ignorance of basic science and evidence of being wine soaked, I'd guess "neighbor" is Pelline himself.

Add his obsession for "our community" stapled to his choice of temporary nom de plume....and I think you've cracked the case!

[Todd Juvinall]

You guys are to funny! Wine soaked, yikes!

[Michael Anderson]

Todd, there are no caribou in Nevada County. Please make a note of it.

[Todd Juvinall]

Where did you get that?

[Walt]

" No Caribou in NC"? Does the two pounds In my freezer count?
( My kid in Alaska sent me some of that tasty fresh off the hoof.)
Glad I taught her to hunt.

[Account Deleted]

Gregory - correct about congress, but there's that guy with 'a pen and a phone' (wish he'd opted for a brain, but I digress. The carbonphobes are as busy as ever. And there is the California govt to boot. The battle is still on.

[stevenfrisch]

Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 15 March 2014 at 01:23 PM

Hey Scott, I am not the one who applied a false political identification metric to the idiocy meter, I merely re-calculated the idiocy based on my observation.

George, just trying to keep it honest every now and again for the lurkers my friend.

[Account Deleted]

Still ducking the questions, Steve. Just call folks names and run away. I suppose that's what passes for wit on the left. Sad.

[Walt]

"Fortunately logic and facts have no party. "
Apparently,, Leftists have none of each.. But they do " party on!".

[Todd Juvinall]

That was a good one Walt! Too funny.

The Frisch is out of his league here with his infantile arguments and copy/paste. He needs to stay over on the Sesame Street blogs, he is inferior.

[Michael Anderson]

Todd, do caribou migrate in Nevada County or not?

How long will I have to wait for an answer?

[Todd Juvinall]

Why would you want to know something you can look up on your favorite website, DailyKos? Of course the caribou don't live here. Where did you get that?