Do We Need A Land Ethic?

By Kathy Robb

The people of Norfolk have long known the importance of good land stewardship, as evidenced by the environmental work of Great Mountain Forest, Aton Forest, the Conservation Commission, the Norfolk Land Trust and many other organizations in town. The demands of global human justice—and humanity’s health—require an ethic that embraces our environment. As early as 600 B.C., Ezekiel called for humans to show more care for the land: “Is it not enough for you to feed on good pasture? Must you trample the rest of your pasture with your feet?” (34:18). 

It is not hard to persuade us that the environment is important to us—it’s hardwired into our brains, really. Among the many studies about the positive effect nature has on us was a study of a hospital ward in England where all patients that had the same surgery were located on the same floor. The staff noticed that on one side of the floor, patients were recovering more rapidly and were discharged earlier, despite having had similar procedures, often by the same doctor. The study, replicated in other countries, showed that the patients who were discharged earlier were in rooms on the side of the hospital building that looked at a stand of trees. Those who improved more slowly looked at a brick wall. 

Similar studies of office workers and their window views established that those who looked at trees, parks or other natural greenery had lower blood pressures and better health outcomes. Even just looking at photos of nature has been found to affect our health positively.

In Norfolk, the conserved land and open space we enjoy are some of the key hallmarks of our town. The beauty around us impacts our lives in good ways. So, Norfolkians should theoretically be calmer and more focused than people in some larger cities.

In considering environmental ethics, we must also define what “environment” means. Most legal definitions of the environment, including the United Nations Stockholm Declaration in 1972, approach the environment in relation to humans—referring to “the complex inter-relationships among elements that form the framework, setting, and living conditions for mankind, by their existence or due to their impact.” Under the law, the environment largely is still viewed as property—a commodity, a resource to be owned, used, consumed and degraded at will.

Perhaps more appropriate to the implementation of an effective land ethic is Albert Einstein’s definition of the environment: “The environment is everything that isn’t me.” This definition is in keeping with our search to make sense of that which is not ourselves.

In 1972, law professor Christopher Stone published a book called “Should Trees Have Standing?” He advocated that legal standing—the ability to bring suits to protect the elements of our environment—should be extended beyond people to the air, water, land and trees. Stone raised this concept at a time when U.S. rivers were literally on fire from contamination and debris. With the public galvanized by photos of those fires published on the cover of Life magazine in 1969, Congress passed new federal environmental laws, with overwhelming bipartisan support that we can only dream of today.

“Should Trees Have Standing?” also formed the basis of a passionate and now iconic dissent by Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, in Sierra Club v. Morton, proposing that trees, rivers and other natural entities should be granted “legal personhood” to defend themselves in court. 

This idea of environmental personhood was picked up by a few scholars but largely languished for the next 30 years, in part because the many U.S. environmental laws passed around 1970 were viewed as adequate for environmental protection. Although those laws improved our environment, they have not made enough headway in preventing environmental degradation. 

Internationally, at least seven countries now grant the environment legal personhood, and a number of other countries have declared through legislation or the courts that rivers and other environmental entities have legal rights independent of people. Numerous tribes of indigenous peoples in the Americas have also granted legal rights to nature or natural objects. These advances are part of the International Rights of Nature Movement, which has encouraged localities in the United States to grant rights to water entities in their jurisdictions. Examples include Philadelphia and Toledo, where the “Lake Erie Bill of Right,” recognizing the lake’s right to “exist, prosper, and evolve naturally,” was later struck by the courts as unconstitutionally vague.  

But we still lack a land ethic embraced and implemented at scale. In Norfolk we have come close. Nationally not so much. Without it, we will continue to fall short of what’s needed to address global environmental issues. What could it mean if we had a land ethic widely implemented in the law? 

We need to think more like a mountain.