The vision “We might have environmental protections, but those come from humans determining what’s good about an ecosystem. It might look a little different if you were to talk to a pod of pilot whales about what their needs are.” — writer and environmental philosopher Melanie Challenger
The spotlight
Imagine: You’re in parliament, getting ready to introduce a motion to tax greenhouse gas emissions at the global level and encourage the development of renewable energy. To your right, a fellow human lawmaker from the other side of the world nods in approval. But to your left? A koala glares at you; in Australia, the tax is expected to incentivize the clearing of eucalyptus groves — the koala’s habitat — for a major solar project! Next to the koala is a frangipani tree, and after the tree is a bend of the Murrumbidgee River. They’re on equal footing with you, since the policy will affect their interests as well as those of humans. Your motion is in danger — unless it can win the support of a majority of Earth’s living and nonliving constituents.
This scenario is a caricature, of course; river bends and koalas aren’t going to be literally invited into parliament anytime soon. But it’s a caricature of a real proposal recently put forward by Planetary Democrats, a European legal association. According to the group, too many decisions are currently made from a purely human-centric perspective, without proper consideration for the natural entities they affect. They argue that a “planetary parliament” representing the interests of nonhuman plants, animals, and ecosystems could bring much-needed balance — and get at the root of problems, like environmental degradation and animal exploitation — ensuring that nature is valued on its own terms and not just for the benefits it brings humans.
“These entities are affected by laws, and so they should be represented in the decision-making process,” said Anton Rüpke, the Planetary Democrats’ first chairperson. He said elements of nature deserve political representation by virtue of their existence, not because they have some special utility to humans.
Representation, not just rights
Rüpke’s thinking is rooted in a broader effort to recognize humans as just one part of the global ecosystem, with no inherent right to dominion over everything else. For example, within the “rights of nature” movement, many experts and environmental groups have advocated for the rights of nature to be enshrined in law. They’ve won a handful of big victories — Ecuador’s 2008 constitution, for example, recognizes Earth’s inherent right to “maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes,” independent of its utility to people. Other countries and subnational jurisdictions have enshrined nature’s rights through constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings. Underlying those victories, however, is a question of representation. Granting legal rights to something or someone is not a guarantee that those rights will be respected. Rivers, forests, and wildlife can’t speak for themselves; they need human surrogates in order to participate in human governance systems.
Some jurisdictions have attempted to solve this problem by appointing specific legal guardians to nature, or by calling on the general population to bring lawsuits against those who violate nature’s rights. But for Rüpke, depending on the legal branch alone is a reactive approach — it puts nature on the defensive every time a threat arises, rather than empowering it to create laws that could stop threats from cropping up in the first place. “We need to have representation also in the executive and legislative branches of government,” Rüpke said.
How it would work
Here’s how it would work: 200 members of the parliament would be selected at random from the global population to represent the diverse interests of humanity. The remaining 200 representatives would be experts nominated by environmental groups to legislate on behalf of nonhuman animals, fungi, plants, and microorganisms, as well as nonliving entities — the atmosphere, the cryosphere (ice), the hydrosphere (water), and the lithosphere (rocks). If the planetary parliament were created within the U.N., it could be empowered to put forward legislative proposals and make decisions that would be binding under international law.
Rüpke said this could include any number of policies to curb biodiversity loss, improve soil health, address plastic pollution — whatever the representatives deem to be the most pressing problems. Of course, existing governance bodies are already trying to tackle those problems. But they haven’t been very successful — at least not yet — and according to the Planetary Democrats, they lack the high degree of democratic legitimacy that would set apart a planetary parliament.
“While current politicians are beholden to their human constituents, nature’s representatives would be beholden to the entire planet, representing different needs and requirements in a more balanced way,” the Planetary Democrats’ proposal says.
More exposure
A parting shot
These (kind of inexplicably wacky) images, created by Planetary Democrats using artificial intelligence, show a visualization of the ethos behind the proposal. In two of them, a cloud and a koala speak in parliament, surrounded by plants. In others, for some reason, a clump of algae rides public transit and a swirl of ocean water hangs out in a studio.
IMAGE CREDITS
Vision: Grist
Parting shot: Grist / Courtesy of Planetary Democrats
