IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v11y2021i2d10.1007_s13412-020-00649-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Standing in the environment: new fashion grassroots and old fashion court advocacy in the time of Trump

Author

Listed:
  • Michael B. Jones

    (West Virginia University)

Abstract

Justice Douglas called for judicial standing for the land, wildlife, and aesthetic vistas in the US environment independent of human or organizational actors (Sierra Club 1972, 741–751). In the 48 years since the Douglas dissent, the federal institutions have failed to expand any legal standing to elements of nature. Any environmental protection has been based on current property law theory of nature as the property of humans, to be managed or used. A nascent “Rights of Nature” movement proposes a new way of considering the environment based not on human values and concerns but viewing nature endowed with independent rights and legal standing. Advocates for this Earth Jurisprudence policy image have used local venues of direct democracy, town councils, and citizen ballot initiatives to protect local environmental treasures. The countermobilization of powerful interests at the state level has blocked the Rights of Nature movement. Existing court strategies under current jurisprudence continue to be necessary to offer some hope for protecting pro-environmental gains against negative actions in the executive. The paper proposes a model for predicting the possibilities of success by the Rights of Nature movement in local attempts to protect natural resources. Finally, the paper calls for Congressional and Constitutional actions to protect the right of nature to speak for herself.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael B. Jones, 2021. "Standing in the environment: new fashion grassroots and old fashion court advocacy in the time of Trump," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(2), pages 173-182, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:11:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s13412-020-00649-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-020-00649-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-020-00649-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-020-00649-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaron M. McCright & Riley E. Dunlap, 2013. "Bringing ideology in: the conservative white male effect on worry about environmental problems in the USA," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 211-226, February.
    2. Sharece Thrower, 2017. "To Revoke or Not Revoke? The Political Determinants of Executive Order Longevity," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(3), pages 642-656, July.
    3. Wu, Xiaoyu & Cutter, Bowman, 2011. "Who votes for public environmental goods in California?: Evidence from a spatial analysis of voting for environmental ballot measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 554-563, January.
    4. Frymer, Paul, 2003. "Acting When Elected Officials Won't: Federal Courts and Civil Rights Enforcement in U.S. Labor Unions, 1935–85," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(3), pages 483-499, August.
    5. Prendergast, Patrick & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna & Lang, Corey, 2019. "The individual determinants of support for open space bond referendums," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 258-268.
    6. Kyle D. Dell, 2009. "The Grassroots Are Greener: Democratic Participation and Environmental Policies in State Politics," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 26(6), pages 699-727, November.
    7. Kelly Tzoumis & Susan Bennett & Elizabeth Stoffel, 2015. "The executive order in the United States: a policy tool used that has shaped environmental policy and decisions from Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt to Barack Obama," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 401-409, September.
    8. Peter D. Howe & Matto Mildenberger & Jennifer R. Marlon & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2015. "Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 596-603, June.
    9. Cobb, Roger & Ross, Jennie-Keith & Ross, Marc Howard, 1976. "Agenda Building as a Comparative Political Process," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 70(1), pages 126-138, March.
    10. Jason Bell & Joel Huber & W. Kip Viscusi, 2009. "Voter-weighted environmental preferences," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 655-671.
    11. Matto Mildenberger & Jennifer R. Marlon & Peter D. Howe & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2017. "The spatial distribution of Republican and Democratic climate opinions at state and local scales," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 539-548, December.
    12. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Wallace E. Oates & James N. Sanchirico, 2010. "Success and design of local referenda for land conservation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 769-798.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Walsh, Patrick J. & Bird, Stephen & Heintzelman, Martin D., 2015. "Understanding Local Regulation of Fracking: A Spatial Econometric Approach," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 138-163, August.
    2. Hawkins, Christopher V. & Chia-Yuan, Yu, 2018. "Voter support for environmental bond referenda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 193-200.
    3. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Kline, Jeffrey D., 2019. "Gaining voter support for watershed protection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Maennig, Wolfgang & Ahlfeldt, Gabriel M. & Steenbeck, Malte, 2016. "Après nous le déluge? Direct democracy and intergenerational conflicts in aging societies," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145793, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    5. Shawn Olson Hazboun & Hilary Schaffer Boudet, 2020. "Public Preferences in a Shifting Energy Future: Comparing Public Views of Eight Energy Sources in North America’s Pacific Northwest," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-21, April.
    6. Lang, Corey & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna, 2022. "Aggregate data yield biased estimates of voter preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    7. Heintzelman, Martin D. & Walsh, Patrick J. & Grzeskowiak, Dustin J., 2013. "Explaining the appearance and success of open space referenda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 108-117.
    8. Chad Chriestenson & Dawn Thilmany, 2020. "Do factors contributing to appearance and success of conservation referenda in the West differ from those found in other regions of the United States?," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 65(1), pages 83-104, August.
    9. Megan Mullin & Martin D. Smith & Dylan E. McNamara, 2019. "Paying to save the beach: effects of local finance decisions on coastal management," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 275-289, January.
    10. Matthew J. Holian & Matthew E. Kahn, 2014. "Household Demand for Low Carbon Public Policies: Evidence from California," NBER Working Papers 19965, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Stefano Ramelli & Alexander F Wagner & Richard J Zeckhauser & Alexandre Ziegler, 2021. "Investor Rewards to Climate Responsibility: Stock-Price Responses to the Opposite Shocks of the 2016 and 2020 U.S. Elections [Asset pricing with liquidity risk]," The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 10(4), pages 748-787.
    12. Helena Fornwagner & Oliver P. Hauser, 2022. "Climate Action for (My) Children," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(1), pages 95-130, January.
    13. Sanwar A. Sunny & Cheng Shu, 2019. "Investments, incentives, and innovation: geographical clustering dynamics as drivers of sustainable entrepreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 905-927, April.
    14. Lars Mewes & Leonie Tuitjer & Peter Dirksmeier, 2024. "Exploring the variances of climate change opinions in Germany at a fine-grained local scale," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
    15. SeeHoe Ng & Bridget Kelly & Heather Yeatman & Boyd Swinburn & Tilakavati Karupaiah, 2021. "Policy Inertia on Regulating Food Marketing to Children: A Case Study of Malaysia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-18, September.
    16. Byungdoo Kim & David L. Kay & Jonathon P. Schuldt, 2021. "Will I have to move because of climate change? Perceived likelihood of weather- or climate-related relocation among the US public," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-8, March.
    17. Kakuho Furukawa & Hibiki Ichiue & Noriyuki Shiraki, 2020. "How Does Climate Change Interact with the Financial System? A Survey," Bank of Japan Working Paper Series 20-E-8, Bank of Japan.
    18. Bazzi, Samuel & Fiszbein, Martin & Gebresilasse, Mesay, 2021. "“Rugged individualism” and collective (in)action during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    19. Chunhua Wang & Changdong Zhang & Yong Wang, 2020. "Environmental satisfaction among residents in Chinese cities," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2283-2301, November.
    20. Severen, Christopher & Costello, Christopher & Deschênes, Olivier, 2018. "A Forward-Looking Ricardian Approach: Do land markets capitalize climate change forecasts?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 235-254.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:11:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s13412-020-00649-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.