They don’t want us to be able to do anything “Nature rights” would stop development in its tracks, and “ecocide” would punish large scale projects as an international crime akin to genocide.

Showing you how serious they are about imposing such anti human nonsense upon us, a Huffington Post blogger wants trees to be able to sue. From “Plantiff Trees” by Greenie columnist, Edward Flattau:”

Scientific evidence indicates that trees can communicate with each other. No, they cannot argue about politics. But experiments suggest that in times of stress, trees release chemical compounds and/or electrical impulses and warning signals to their neighbors, which immediately begin manufacturing chemical-defense mechanisms of their own. We are talking about eminently living organisms.

Since trees provide us with natural air conditioning, absorb pollutants, produce food, and last but not least, emit oxygen on which all life depends, maybe we should be more receptive to granting their representatives a day in court when potential mutilation is at hand. Certainly, that was the view of the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, an esteemed conservationist as well as jurist. In a 1972 dissenting opinion, he wrote that “protecting nature’s ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation.”

Of course, it wouldn’t be the trees suing, it would be radical environmentalists. And they would stop our prosperity, what hasn’t already been undone, in its tracks in the pursuit of their ideology/earth religion.

But how about I sue for the trees—for the right to become decks, the frames of houses, paper, book cases, etc. beyond etc. Oh, also magnificent judges’ benches. We can protect sensitive ecosystems and old growth forests without saying that trees are people too.

blog comments powered by Disqus