After learning about the different perspectives on anti-extinction technology last week, we will focus on Canada’s environmental rights debate this week. Although there is still academic disagreement on whether environmental rights are a basic human right or a fundamental constitutional right, an increasing number of countries are incorporating environmental rights into their constitutional texts.
There are now many voices arguing that Canada should also actively incorporate environmental rights into its constitution. David Boyd critics that Canada’s environmental problems have caused many health consequences for Canadians. Using Norway as an example, David counters voices that question whether the inclusion of environmental rights in the constitution will make a real difference. In fact, Norway has recognized the people’s right to the environment in its constitution since 1992, and the strong environmental laws based on the constitution have generated good economic and ecological benefits for the country. He pointed out that the move to constitutionalize environmental rights would not undermine national unity but rather contribute to reconciliation with indigenous peoples.
Emmett Macfarlane holds a different opinion on this. He agreed that Canada has substantial environmental issues that need to be addressed, but enshrining environmental rights in the constitution may not be an appropriate solution at this time. He notes that “entrenching rights effectively transfers the decision-making authority to the courts.” However, it is questionable “whether judges have either the legitimacy or the competence to delve into the relevant policy issues. “It would be very challenging to add a broad right to a healthy environment to the charter because it requires substantial provincial consent. He believes that the key to solving environmental problems lies in the effective realization of governments’ political commitment to environmental policies.
As a fundamental law, the constitution provides the legal basis for the state’s activities and citizens. I believe that incorporating environmental rights into the constitution is the only way to improve the environmental legal system. In the context of the environmental crisis, environmental rights have become the premise and basis for the existence of the right to life, the right to development, and other human rights. Environmental pollution and destruction can seriously undermine or threaten existing human rights, and if environmental rights, which are the foundation of all basic human rights, are not brought into constitutional focus, other human rights will be left unprotected. Take the “Flammable water” case as an example. While there is no conclusive evidence linking groundwater contamination to hydraulic fracturing in the oil and gas industry, even with evidence, it is difficult for victims to win lawsuits against energy giants. Without the support of environmental rights, the best possible outcome would be a large payout, but the oil industry would not stop using this technology, which can be very profitable.
Aldo Leopold, a representative of the ecocentrists, proposed an idea with many similarities with environmental rights. Recognizing the value of the environment and the land itself and actively protecting the stability and prosperity of the environment as a whole is beneficial to human well-being and other members of the eco-community.
In conclusion, I believe that the Canadian Constitution should recognize the environmental rights of its citizens. As living creatures, humans cannot survive without clean water, atmosphere, soil, and other environmental elements. Thus, humans should see ourself as a member of the natural community, where the moral community’s scope needs to be expanded to include humans and nature itself. While the mere act of amending the constitution does not directly address environmental issues, it is an indispensable start.
-Dengnan Chen
References:
- David R. Boyd, E. M. (n.d.). Should environmental rights be in the constitution? 3 March 2014. Retrieved from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/second-regard/boyd-macfarlane/
- Aldo Leopold (1948). “The Land Ethic” from A Sand County Almanac. http://www.neohasid.org/pdf/landethic.pdf
Hello Dengnan,
I think you did a good job of summarising the opinion article from the debate between Boyd and Macfarlane. I also like that you mentioned the difficulties communities currently face when challenging larger corporations, who can simply weather fines and court battles without having to meaningfully change their practises. When writing laws, it is definitely important to consider who will try to get round it and how to stop them.
One thing I noticed was that, you mentioned Macfarlane’s arguments about the problem of shifting the responsibility of making moral decisions to judge who are untrained to do so. After that you went on to argue of the adoption of environmental rights without really addressing the problems it would cause. Adding a rebuttal to that point or suggesting a hypothetical solution would strengthen your arguments for amending the Constitution. Another was that the section mentioning the ecocentric view was brief and could benefit from some expansion. You could also tied it another point you previous mentioned about reconciliation with indigenous people. They too seem to hold ecocentric views about having a duty to the environment as a whole and that it should be valued in its own right, irrespective of its usefulness to humans. Their inclusion could add more weight to the argument.
Keisey