Wednesday, January 09, 2008 Osmeña: Attitudes toward nature By Antonio V. Osmeña Estatements
A FAMOUS legal en-vironmental controversy raised the question of who speaks for nature in the courts. The question “do trees have standing?” was raised in the case of Sierra Club versus Norton. Now, we have in Cebu a case that raises the question, “do dolphins have standing?”
In the Sierra Club versus Norton, the plaintiff claimed that the proposed Walt Disney Enterprise Inc. to develop a $35-million ski resort in the Mineral King Valley recreation area is a violation of federal law governing the preservation of national parks and forests. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case because it concluded that the Sierra Club did not have standing. Although the case was never tried, the precedent suggested by the Sierra Club case was an important factor leading to the abandonment of the proposed project.
One important environmental law is the one on environmental impact statement (EIS). The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) requires all national agencies to file an EIS for any proposed legislation or project having significant effect or effects on environmental quality.
Each EIS must: (1) describe the purpose and need for the proposed action; (2) clearly describe the probable environmental impact (positive, negative, direct and indirect) of the proposed action and of possible alternatives; (3) identify any adverse environmental effects that could not be avoided if the proposal were implemented.
It must also discuss possible alternatives to the proposed action (including not taking the action); describe relationships between the probable short-term and long-term impacts of the proposal on environmental quality; discuss irreversible and irretrievable commitments of re-sources that would be involved if the proposal were implemented.
It must discuss objections raised by reviewers of the preliminary draft of the statement; list the names and qualifications of the people primarily responsible for preparing the EIS; and provide references to back up all statements and conclusions.
An EIS must be made public for review by the DENR, other appropriate national, local agencies, and the general public at least 90 days before a proposed action. A final statement, incorporating all comments and objections to the draft statement, must be made public at least 30 days before the proposed action is undertaken.
Groups who oppose the oil drilling in the Tañon Strait, off Pinamungajan’s coasts, should present relevant documents that the EIS did not receive careful scrutiny.
Environmentalists have suggested that the mandate of the DENR be amended to correct some of its major weaknesses. One proposed amendment is through a national agency that will pick and follow the terms of the least harmful option and by allowing public interest group to recover attorney’s fees when they sue to enjoin the DENR to enforce any environmental law, thus putting public interest law groups on a more equitable footing with national agencies and large corporations.
Many analysts argue that ecological concern will be short-lived and ecological action crippled unless we deal with the attitudes and values that have led to environmental degradation. How did we get such attitudes toward nature?
Historian Lynn White Jr., among others, trace the Western ecological crisis to the Judeo-Christian acceptance of the biblical directive “to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing” (Genesis 1:28).
The bible calls for stewardship of nature. For example, Taosim and Zen Buddhism include the idea of the harmony and unity of humans with nature, and Buddhism fosters reverence for all living creatures and an appreciation of the beauty of nature.
But people guided by these and other non-Western religions have also ruined land. Thus, some scholars argue that it is not one’s professed religion or philosophy of life that is to blame, but the failure of humans to put their religious or philosophical beliefs into practice. Others argue that all the world’s religions and philosophies contain anthropocentric (human-centered) views that can and, usually, do lead to environmental degradation.
