Environmental rights protect the right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment for human beings. Over 100 countries around the world, from France to Argentina, have incorporated environmental rights into their constitution. Canada is not one of these countries. In the following essay I will outline some of the arguments for and against having environmental rights in our constitution, and argue we should consider this strategy to protect both people and nature. 

 

The first argument in favour of this debate is that environmental rights guarantee further environmental protection. As David Boyd indicates, “constitutional environmental rights and responsibilities are a catalyst for stronger environmental laws.” (1) Aside from protecting nature, these rights would also protect people. As framed by Ecojustice Canada in “A Tale of Two Valleys” (2), human well being depends on the health of the natural setting that surrounds us, whether is the water that we drink, the air that we breathe, or the soil in which we grow food. In this line of thought, the recognition of environmental rights gives individuals and communities a chance to fight on legal grounds for a safe, clean environment. Boyd’s and Ecojustice Canada’s arguments are mostly centered around safeguarding the interests of human beings, but incorporating environmental rights in the constitution could also advance the interest of animals, plants, and ecosystems.

 

On the other hand, the arguments against environmental rights point out that constitutional rights aren’t the best way to prevent the degradation of nature and human health. In “Parliament, not the courts, should decide” (1), Emmett MacFarlane argues that the court system isn’t well equipped to solve environmental problems because the climate crisis demands greater public participation and debate. In his words, “rather than mobilizing for constitutional change, environmentalists should focus their energies on convincing governments, political parties and the public to commit to the pursuit of policies that will ensure environmental protection.” MacFrarlane’s second argument is that environmental rights would add to the inflationary call for the expansion of rights such as social welfare rights, property rights and animal rights. 

 

With regards to this last argument, the case of Whanganui River in New Zealand (3) gives an interesting example of the expansion of rights to non-human entities. Here, a river was granted legal personhood after decades of conflict between settlers and indigenous communities, who recognized the river as paramount to their lives and the wellbeing of the whole ecosystem. Around the world, there are similar examples where lakes, mountain ranges, or animal species are granted legal rights. Unlike MacFarlane, I consider this to be a positive achievement, especially in a time of global ecological crisis. Granting environmental rights to human beings, or personhood rights to non-human entities recognizes that the wellbeing of people and natural ecosystems is interconnected. This understanding is rooted in ecocentrism, an ethical framework that sees ecosystems as entities deserving moral considerability. From this approach, it is evident that human societies cannot prosper without the stability of the natural environment. 

 

Currently, our economic system prioritizes profits and economic growth over social and environmental stability. In this context, environmental rights are an important step towards considering the good of ecosystems in themselves, not just as functions of anthropogenic interests. In the words of Aldo Leopold, “a system of conservation based solely on economic self interest assumes falsely that the economic parts of the biotic system will function without the uneconomic parts” (4). 

 

Taking MacFrarlane’s position into account, it is important to realize that solely incorporating environmental rights into our constitution isn’t going to provide the necessary social change to tackle the environmental crisis. However, it is a good place to start. It signals that the government does care about the interests of people and nature beyond immediate economic or political benefit. As framed in BILL C-438 of the House of Commons of Canada (5), environmental rights would provide a balanced environment for all, which means “an environment of a quality that protects human and cultural dignity and human health and well-being and in which essential ecological processes are preserved for their own sake, as well as for the benefit of present and future generations.” This holistic approach of recognizing the value of ecosystems in themselves is related to the ecocentrist ethical framework of Aldo Leopold, who sees ecosystems (the Land) as a collective organism whose integrity and stability should be preserved. 

 

In conclusion, environmental rights should be recognized in the constitution of Canada because they would guarantee greater environmental protection and give people the opportunity to demand a clean, safe environment in which to live. Granting personhood rights to non-human entities such as rivers and mountains can also improve the living conditions for humans and non-humans across the country. At the same time, it is important to keep open the channels of public debate and participation on this issue, so that the courts aren’t the only responsables of regulating environmental protection. Lastly, environmental rights (specially as framed in Bill C-438) are a good opportunity to recognize the good of ecosystems in themselves, which makes this policy favorable from both an anthropocentric and an ecocentric framework. 

 

~Monica

 

References:

1. 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/
2. Ecojustice Canada (2012). “A Tale of Two Valleys”. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/g1m1k8uCsa0
3. David Freid (2018) The River Is Me. MEL Films. https://vimeo.com/288119812
4. Aldo Leopold (1948). “The Land Ethic” from A Sand County Almanac. http://www.neohasid.org/pdf/landethic.pdf
5. House of Commons of Canada (2019). Bill C-438. An Act to enact the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights and to make related amendments to other Acts. First Session, 42th Parliament, 64-65-66-67-68 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016-2017-2018-2019

Along with changing weather patterns, melting ice caps and rising sea levels, one of the most distinctive effects of climate change is the loss of biodiversity. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “at the global level, human activities have caused and will continue to cause a loss in biodiversity through land-use, soil and water pollution, habitat fragmentation, the introduction of non-native species, […] and increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide” (IPCC, 2002). The current extinction rate is as much as a thousand times higher than the background rate, and many have identified that we might be in the midst of a sixth mass extinction event (Kolbert, 2015). All living organisms alter their habitat in one way or another. But humans are the only species on the planet capable of transforming their environment to the extent of driving countless other life forms to extinction. In the words of Ronald Sandler, “the influence of humans in the environment is pervasive, transformative, and enduring” (Sandler, 2017). In this context, the development of genetic engineering strategies has brought up the possibility of mending some of this damage by using gene drives as a form of conservation. In this essay I will examine some of the opportunities and ethical problems of deploying this conservation strategy. 

A gene drive is a genetic modification designed to spread through a population at higher than normal rates of inheritance (Scudellari, 2019). This strategy gives scientists the opportunity to intentionally engineer ecological systems and communities to be better adapted to the changing conditions of their environment. Current conservation strategies are local, and they depend upon the relative stability of the environment in which the species lives. However, preserving species in their local habitat is becoming an ever-challenging task because the stability of ecosystems worldwide is in decline.

Gene drives are an alternative approach to conservation where endangered populations could be designed to be better adapted to changing conditions (Sandler, 2017). The problem with this type of intervention is that it involves transforming natural systems according to how we believe they ought to be, giving human beings god-like powers. In my view, this strategy should not be deployed for several reasons. Firstly, engineering our way of the environmental crisis will not solve the deeper issues that caused the crisis in the first place. It is true that we should, to the best of our ability, try to mend the damage we have caused on the planet. But at the same time, it is important to recognize that the crisis emerged out of our ever-increasing desire to control nature, and our belief that the natural exists solely to benefit human interests. Further, what’s problematic about gene drives as a tool for conservation is that it focuses on changing the species instead of changing the environment that we have degraded. For instance, the reality of corals dying due to ocean acidification and fisheries crashing around the globe is a call to stop bumping tons of carbon dioxide into the oceans and cease overfishing. It isn’t a call to change the species and pretend everything is fine. As Sandler has pointed out, this outlook implies that the problem with endangered species “is that they are not well fitted to the world. But, of course, the problem is that we have made a world that is not hospitable for them” (Sandler, 2017). 

Aside from being deployed as a conservation strategy, gene drives can also be used to control populations of species that are harmful to humans. One of the most prominent lines of research in this field is implementing gene drives to reduce the prevalence of disease-transmitting mosquitoes. This biotechnological strategy is different from the conservation approach in that the end goal is to improve human health by eradicating harmful species, not modifying species to be better adapted to the pressures we have imposed on their environment. This strategy too can be criticized for being too anthropocentric. However, our current way of practicing medicine already has some of the same presuppositions about the place of humans in the natural world.  For instance, the eradication of smallpox in the 1980’s was seen as a positive achievement, because we value human lives much more than viruses. Nonetheless, it is still important to consider the effects of implementing this technology in the field, as it will alter entire populations and ecosystems for long periods of time. If used cautiously, gene drives could be deployed as a public health mechanism to prevent diseases because, as Jonathan Pugh has pointed out, “the status quo is one where hundreds of thousands of lives are being lost each year to mosquito burden diseases” (Pugh, 2016). 

In conclusion, gene drives can be implemented both as a form of conservation and as a strategy to eradicate diseases. As a form of conservation, implementing gene drives is unethical as well as impractical because it doesn’t solve the underlying causes of the climate crisis. As Sandler has pointed out “the best conservation strategy, by far, remains reducing the number of species that are at risk; and the only way to do that is to limit the scale of climatic and ecological anthropogenic change through technological innovation and modifying our behaviors, practices, and systems” (Sandler, 2017). On the other hand, and perhaps paradoxically, I find that the most ethical use of genetic engineering is to drive disease-transmitting species into extinction. 

References:

• IPCC (2002). Climate Change and Biodiversity. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/climate-changes-biodiversity-en.pdf
• Kolbert, E. (2015). The sixth extinction: An unnatural history. New York: Henry Holt.
• Scudellari, M. (2019). Self-destructing mosquitoes and sterilized rodents: The promise of gene drives. Nature, 571(7764), 160-162. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-02087-5
• Sandler, R. (2017). Gene Drives and Species Conservation. An Ethical Analysis. In Braverman, I. Gene editing, law, and the environment: Life beyond the human. (39-53).  Taylor & Francis Group
• Pugh, J. (2016). Driven to extinction? The ethics of eradicating mosquitoes with gene-drive technologies. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(9), 578-581. doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103462

In the past decades, environmental organizations such as Greenpeace and WWF have advocated for the conservation of the environment from a wilderness perspective, portraying charismatic animals in fantastic landscapes and highlighting the importance of preserving their natural environment. At the same time, people living in urbanized areas often perceive nature as an external setting to their everyday lives, only experienced during holidays or recreational activities. Critics have questioned this outlook on nature because it reinforces the notion that humans are outside of nature and only escape to the wilderness to find spiritual fulfillment and wonder. In this article I will examine wilderness environmentalism from two perspectives and discuss how we might incorporate a revised notion of wilderness into our environmental conservation initiatives and policies.

In “The Trouble with Wilderness”, William Cronon discusses the romanticized notion of wilderness as a sublime setting for human realization in which the human is entirely outside of the natural. He criticizes this constructed idea because “any way of looking at the natural world that encourages us to believe we are separate from nature is likely to reinforce environmentally irresponsible behaviour” (Cronon, 1995). Further, he asserts that the frontier idea of wilderness is a myth invented by white settlers to build up their own system of values and justify oppressive behaviour towards indigenous peoples. Instead of a pristine landscape untouched by human influence, Cronon argues, nature is a setting that has been altered for millennia by the people who inhabit it.

In response to ideas such as Cronon’s, the environmental movement has taken a shift from wilderness conservation to environmental justice. Environmental justice incorporates concerns such as racism and discrimination into the conservation debate. In the view of environmental justice activists, solving the environmental crisis is intrinsically intertwined with solving other social issues such as poverty, discrimination, and economic inequality because the domination of nature and the domination of people are closely related. Environmental justice activists go as far as saying that wilderness conservation and the protection of endangered species is a form of racism because the people advocating this part of the environmental agenda are mainly white people from the developed world. So is wilderness an entirely constructed idea? Should we abandon our efforts to preserve it? What types of values are we prioritizing when advocating for wilderness conservation?

In “A Wilderness Environmentalism Manifesto: Contesting the Infinite Self-Absorption of Humans” Micheal DeLuca discusses these questions from an alternative perspective. For DeLucca, abandoning wilderness conservation is wrong because it would place too much weight on human interests and human values. In his view, putting humans first dilutes the focus and efforts of environmental groups, whose main goal should be to preserve nature regardless of its relationship to human societies. Cronon himself recognizes that “[a]ny way of looking at nature that helps us remember—as wilderness also tends to do—that the interests of people are not necessarily identical to those of every other creature or of the earth itself is likely to foster responsible behaviour” (Cronon, 1995). This idea is a relevant critique to environmental justice because environmental interests are not always the same as human interests. As DeLuca puts it “social justice and human rights around the world are not a priori conditions for environmental protection” (DeLucca, 2007).

In my view, a new notion of wilderness and environmental conservation should take into account aspects of both Cronon’s and DeLucca’s views.  When thinking about “saving the environment” many people might think about a beautiful mountain range, a deep, biodiverse rainforest or an exotic animal. For many of us in large city centers, “saving the environment” does not evoke images of the place where we live, work, and form relationships. This is a large problem when trying to promote conservation efforts because nature is seen as something external to most people’s everyday experiences, and therefore external to their range of responsibility. The outlook on nature as something external to the human experience must change. Firstly, as Cronon argues, we should deconstruct the idea of wilderness as a pristine and sublime ideal. For many of us, wilderness is a place far away, untouched by human influence, where we go every once in a while to clear our minds and breathe fresh air. Then, as DeLucca suggests, we should construct an idea of wilderness as a place we inhabit, a place in which our very existence depends upon and a place that we are responsible for preserving. When it comes to environmental justice, we should be aware that human interests are not always compatible with the conservation of nature. This is a hard realization for many idealists on the political left who think we can solve all the world’s problems by abolishing the structures of power of capitalism. The reality is, nevertheless, much more complex than that. Preserving wilderness is sometimes compatible with pursuing human interests and social justice, but in many cases it is not. As DeLucca suggests, the environmental crisis is an opportunity to overcome human self-absorption and start viewing ourselves as part of a greater web of life on the planet.

~Monica

Photo credi:t Pixabay  https://www.pexels.com/photo/adventure-calm-clouds-dawn-414171/  (creative commons license)

Resources:

1. William Cronon. (1995). The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. Excerpted from Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1995, 69-90

2. Michael DeLuca. (2007). A Wilderness Environmentalism Manifesto: Contesting the Infinite Self-Absorption of Humans. Environmental Justice and Environmentalism. doi:10.7551/mitpress/2781.003.0005

The case for vegetarianism

Recent environmental efforts have encouraged the public to eliminate their meat consumption to help tackle global warming [1][2][3][7][11]. However, many people are skeptical of the real impact that their diet might have on the environment [4], or recognize the effect but maintain their food practices because they love to eat meat. So should we become vegetarians? And if so, for what reasons? Throughout the course we have examined the views of different thinkers that might help us answer these questions. In the following essay I will focus on three of these perspectives: sentientism, ecofeminism, and climaterianism.

Firstly, we should become vegetarians to avoid animal suffering. Current farming practices limit animals’ freedom by confining them to cramped spaces, forcing them to eat, grow, and reproduce in a certain way, and finally killing them. Surely we wouldn’t treat other human beings in this way, mainly because we attribute members of the human species intrinsic worth (value that is independent from instrumental use). In his essay “All Animals Are Equal” [5] Peter Singer argues we should extend moral consideration to animal species because they are capable of suffering. According to Singer, our moral equality can’t depend on attributes such as rationality, awareness or self-consciousness because many people (like small children, disabled people, or elderly adults) don’t satisfy these conditions. Instead, he argues the entitlement to equal consideration derives from sentience (the capacity to suffer or enjoy). If we accept this position, being vegetarian is a logical choice that derives from the understanding that animals too deserve moral consideration.

Secondly, we should become vegetarians to stop perpetuating oppression. From an ecofeminist standpoint, animals and nature should not be used as instruments because there is an important connection between the domination of women and the domination of nature. In her essay “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” [6] Carol Adams argues we should recognize the similarities between the discourses that allow for the supremacy of men over women and the discourses that allow for the dominance of humans over non-human species. She also brings important arguments regarding the reasons people keep consuming animal meat regardless. One of these reasons is that consumption is experienced separately from production, which makes the animal absent from the act of eating. The food industry achieves this by making intensive farming invisible for the general population and presenting meat separately from what once was a living organism. 

Thirdly, we should become vegetarians to reduce our environmental footprint. In his article “A New Global Warming Strategy” [7], Noam Mohr addresses the wide range of impacts that intensive farming has on the climate system, especially the emission of methane gases that contribute to global warming. He argues people should become vegetarians in order to address global warming because methane has a large warming potential compared to other greenhouse gasses, remains less time in the atmosphere, and would allow for a faster and economically feasible transition. Aside from global warming, farming also contributes to other environmental issues like water and land use because feeding livestock requires a great amount of resources. In the following section I will expand on the impacts of methane on the atmosphere, and the role vegetarianism might play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the IPCC, agriculture, forestry and other types of land use account for 23% of human greenhouse gas emissions [8]. In the Amazon, for instance, 1.4 million hectares of rainforest are cut down every year primarily to make space for cattle ranching [9]. Deforestation not only endangers wildlife but also releases substantial amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, previously trapped in the biomass of the forest. Further, cattle ranching damages the soil and produces large amounts of methane. Two characteristics of atmospheric gases determine their strength and effect. First is the global warming potential (or GWP), which measures the radiative effect of each unit of gas over a specific period of time. Second is the atmospheric lifetime, which determines how long the gas stays in the atmosphere after being released [10]. Methane has a GWP 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide, and stays in the atmosphere for approximately 12 years (compared to to hundreds to thousands of years in the case of CO2). The farming industry generates large amounts of methane because animals like cows and sheep process food through enteric fermentation, which produces methane as a byproduct [11].

All in all, there are many reasons for becoming vegetarian. Rethinking our diets can improve environmental stability, reduce animal suffering and dismantle systems of oppression. So why aren’t people doing so? Why is meat consumption in fact increasing across most developed countries? One of the reasons is that vegetarianism is seen as a conflict over autonomy. As Adams explains in her article “rather than being seen as agents of consciousness raising legitimate issues, […] vegetarians are seen as violating others’ rights to their own pleasures.” [6] However, it is increasingly important to ask ourselves how significant is our autonomy compared to the suffering of millions of other sentient beings, and how much value we place on consumer choice over the thousands of years of climate instability that will follow if action is not taken quickly. 

Photo credit: Photo by Ella Olsson from Pexels  https://www.pexels.com/photo/flat-lay-photography-of-vegetable-salad-on-plate-1640777/

References

1. Greenpeace International. “Eat Less Meat, More Veg.” Greenpeace International, www.greenpeace.org/international/act/eat-less-meat/.
2. Drayer, Lisa. “How Your Diet Could Help Combat Climate Change in 2019.” CNN, Cable News Network, 2 Jan. 2019, www.cnn.com/2018/10/18/health/plant-based-diet-climate-change-food-drayer/index.htm
3. Poore, J., and T. Nemecek. (2018) “Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through Producers and Consumers.” Science, vol. 360, no. 6392, 2018, pp. 987–992., doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216.
4. Bailey, Ronald. “Why Giving Up Meat Won’t Have Much of an Effect on Climate Change.” Reason.com, Reason, 29 July 2019, reason.com/2019/07/29/why-giving-up-meat-wont-have-much-of-an-effect-on-climate-change/.
5. Singer, Peter (1974) “All Animals Are Equal,” Philosophic Exchange: Vol. 5: No. 1, Article 6. 103-116. Available at: http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol5/iss1/6
6. Carol Adams (1991) “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” Hypatia vol. 6, no. 1. 125-145
7. Noam Mohr (2005) “A New Global Warming Strategy: How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes” EarthSave International Report. 
8. Land is a Critical Resource, IPCC report says. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_srccl/
9. Deforestation in the Amazon. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://wwf.panda.org/our_work/forests/deforestation_fronts2/deforestation_in_the_amazon/
10. Climate Change: From Learning to Action. UN CC: e-Learn 
11. Vox. (2020, May 13) Why beef is the worst food for the climate. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lrJYTsKdUM&feature=youtu.be

The intergovernmental panel on climate change (or IPCC for short) released in 2018 a special report [1] on the importance of keeping global warming below 1.5 ºC to prevent irreversible change to the climate system. This report and countless other scientific evidence [2][3] point towards a disturbing truth: current anthropocentric greenhouse gas emissions are warming the climate at an unsustainable rate. Since the industrial revolution of the mid XVIII century, the average temperature of the planet has increased by roughly 1ºC, and if current trends continue, we will see an increase in temperature of at least 3ºC by the end of the century. But why should we care about global warming? Why is it an important issue for human kind? And is it significant beyond human interests?

So far in the course we have considered two types of moral frameworks: anthropocentrism (human-centered ethics) and biocentrism (life-centrism ethics). From an anthropocentric view, climate change will have (and indeed is already having) serious impacts on human societies. From rising sea levels to water shortages and food insecurity, people around the world are going to live with the detrimental ramifications of modern industry. However, nowadays most people seem to prefer to carry on with business as usual because facing global warming is both uncomfortable and demanding. Fossil-fuel-driven-economy provides immense value for human kind. From transportation and electricity to petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals, energy-dense fuels have allowed unprecedented growth and the advancement of a highly interconnected world economy. So if we only consider short-term human interests, tackling global warming doesn’t seem such a pressing issue.

However, if we take into consideration the wellbeing of other species, the urgency to address the climate emergency becomes increasingly evident. We have shared the planet with other living organisms for thousands of years, and our actions are rapidly changing their environment.  According to the IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [4], “around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction […] more than ever before in human history.” Biocentrism rejects the view that humanity alone matters in ethics, and holds the position that all living creatures have an intrinsic good of their own. Intrinsic good refers to the value of a thing in itself, independent of external relationships. For instance, we might find a forest useful to extract timber, but if we consider its intrinsic value, its usefulness can’t be a reason to destroy it. A biocentric philosophy encompases a broader range of creatures that we should consider when thinking about climate change, and it reminds us that our actions have serious consequences beyond our own existence. A position put forward by Robin Attfield argues that what matters about animals is their capacity to be harmed or benefited. In his talk on Biocentrism [5], Attfield highlights the importance of protecting other species’ habitat as well as ours, and sees with worry global warming for driving species into extinction at ever increasing rates. Attfield is a utilitarian, which means his ultimate goal is to maximize happiness and minimize pain. In classical utilitarianism, actions are judged by their consequences on the satisfaction of human preferences, and these preferences are given the same weight by the principle of equal consideration. However, when this principle is extended to non-human beings, Attfield makes the remark that sentient or rational beings might have more interests than non-sentient, non-rational beings. This view might be problematic when dealing with climate change issues because it reaffirms, in a way, human superiority over other creatures.

The deontological philosopher Paul Taylor puts forward an alternative biocentric viewpoint [6]. According to Taylor, humans should assume an attitude of respect for nature, an attitude rooted in the good of all living beings and their inherent worth. Taylor wholeheartedly rejects the idea of human superiority over other animal and plant species, and calls for a change in mentality that allows us to see ourselves as co-inhabitants of the planet. This biocentric outlook on nature is based on an “understanding of earth’s natural ecosystems as a complex web of interconnected elements” (Taylor, 1981), which results in the knowledge that the wellbeing of the earth’s ecosystems is essential to both human and non-human species. 

In dealing with climate change, I consider the attitude of respect for nature an ideal limiting condition of every person’s freedom of action (just like Kant’s principle of respect for persons is a limiting condition in classical deontological philosophy). If we take into account the intrinsic value of every bird, elefant, and oak tree, human’s boundless exploitation of the natural environment comes out to be irrational. If we stop thinking about nature as useful to us, and start recognizing the value it embodies in itself, the acidification of the oceans, burning of the rainforests, and deterioration of wild environments comes out to be utterly immoral. But this does not mean humans are evil. It mostly means we are ignorant of the interconnectedness of the earth’s ecosystems, and the profound implications that nearly every aspect of our life has on the planet.

References:

1. IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5 ºC. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
2. “Scientific Consensus: Earth’s Climate Is Warming.” NASA. January 21, 2020 https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/.
3. “United in Science 2020.” World Meteorological Organization. September 11, 2020. https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/united_in_science. 
4. “UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’ – United Nations Sustainable Development.” United Nations. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/.
5. Robin Attfield. Biocentrism Talk. Cardiff University
6. Paul W. Taylor. The Ethics of Respect for Nature. 1981.