Environmental Court?

[applecorped]

"The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year. But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the "right to a healthy environment".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...-international-court-for-the-environment.html


I would be surprised if the US would sign on for this.

Where has the "right to a healthy environment" been established?

 

[Alex Libman]

Where has the "right to a healthy environment" been established?

Hopefully a padded room inside a nut-house...

 

[fishbob]

Where has the "right to a healthy environment" been established?

It has been pretty well established that I have the right to not have to breathe your cigarette smoke. How is this any different than my right to not have to wash in your excrement, walk in your trash, or get my drinking water from your feed lot runoff?

See: "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin describes a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared resource even where it is clear that it is not in anyone's long term interest for this to happen.

 

[Francesca R]

Where has the "right to a healthy environment" been established?

In a great many places. The richer a society becomes the more likely it is to protect such interests. It is a logical further step for this to reach across international borders at some stage.

 

[billw]

Where has the "right to a healthy environment" been established?

Ecuador.

Voters in Ecuador Approve Constitution

[...]
In a country rich with ecological treasures, including the Galapagos Islands and part of the Amazon rain forest, the constitution also calls on government to avoid measures that would destroy ecosystems or drive species to extinction -- the first such measure of its kind, according to Ecuadoran officials.​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092802644.html

 

[Francesca R]

Shame for people who love to keep out externalities . . .

 

[WildCat]

In a great many places. The richer a society becomes the more likely it is to protect such interests. It is a logical further step for this to reach across international borders at some stage.

Actually, the richer a country becomes the more likely they will force poor countries to "do as I say, not as I do". For example, I doubt the UK will restore the forest land that once covered most of it. But there will be no shortage of Brits ragging on, say, Brazil to stop cutting down its forests.

 

[Francesca R]

On the bright side, the Brits really don't give a monkey's what happens to Chicago any more

 

[lomiller]

It’s a form of property right. You can’t run a business that makes a profit by destroying your neighbors property because you are exploiting a resource you don’t own. With the environment it’s usually impractical to assign those property rights to individuals, but it’s still communally owned.

In the case of issues that are confined within national boarders allowing companies/people to pollute freely is still a form of subsidy that volutes international trade agreements.

 

[geni]

Actually, the richer a country becomes the more likely they will force poor countries to "do as I say, not as I do". For example, I doubt the UK will restore the forest land that once covered most of it. But there will be no shortage of Brits ragging on, say, Brazil to stop cutting down its forests.

European counties have been increaseing forrest cover for most of the last century. In the UK the Forestry Commission was set up in 1919. I think there was a sinificant expansion in the 60s.

 

[Francesca R]

Same in the US. In fact the more realistic predatory argument is that rich countries are restoring their own environments at the same time as encouraging (or profiting from) the trashing of that of poor ones.