In reality the local government acts for the protection of the environment, so why pretend the river has rights? If you want cleaner rivers then pass legislation with appropriate level of punishment such as fines/prison.
In reality the local government acts for the protection of the environment, so why pretend the river has rights? If you want cleaner rivers then pass legislation with appropriate level of punishment such as fines/prison.
> how does the river have money to pay me?
The remedy at the end of a lawsuit may or may not involve money. Not all successful suits result in financial transfer.
> why pretend the river has rights?
The article addresses this. By giving rights to the environment, harming the environment is punishable by default, even if you come up with a completely novel way to do it.
In our current system, you can harm the environment until someone notices, write a law or rule, and then stops you from doing it.
There's precedent for other living things to have rights[3], so where do we draw the line? Why can't an entire, complex ecosystem have the same rights as a human or a monkey?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...
2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_rem
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
The point of such an environmental corporation would be to ensure its survival over the long run, rather than shareholder profit. Could you sue a river, maybe, though the lawyers for the river would argue that the blame is not the river's but an act of god out of the control of the river and those who manage it.
Currently people simply plunder natural resources where their longevity is an after thought and not really incorporated into the profiteering of their consumption. This has to change.