This pre-recorded show is furnished by Matthew Matern goes into Unite and Heal America, KABC 790. This is Matt Matern, your host. And I’ve got Katie Surma on the program. She’s a fellow at Inside Climate News. Katie, you’ve been covering the rights of nature story. And I’d like to hear why that’s important. And what’s going on in that area right now?

Sure. So the rights of nature is a legal approach to environmental protection, that uses legislation, constitutional provisions, and sometimes court rulings, to give elements of nature, like rivers and forests, or sometimes will ecosystems, a unique legal rights. So sometimes rivers are granted the rights to flow and be free from pollution.

And this is something that’s happened in countries across the world within over 30 us communities. And it’s, you know, people are getting behind the movement, in large part because they see existing laws, as you know, failing them and putting, failing to stop the ecological crisis that we’re seeing happening now.

Where would this? Where would this be extended? Or how this? How could this be extended to other areas like, related to air, and air is kind of the primary thing that is getting polluted, which is causing the most important climate problems?

So with the rights of nature? You know, I haven’t seen a law that says, you know, that nature has an inherent right to have clean air. Certainly, that could be part of it, there’s there is a parallel sort of idea that there’s a human right to a clean climate, which is that I’m not sure if that’s, that’s what you’re getting at or not, but so vague and ambiguous that you could you could answer it any way you want.

Yeah, well, I mean, you know, I think, with rights of nature laws, you know, the idea is to protect and preserve ecosystems. And certainly, you know, pollution in the air, as well as in the water or whatnot, would be considered an infringement of those rights, depending on how the rights are articulated in whatever legislation is out there.

Well, just to bring it home to our viewers, or listeners in Southern California, the right to flow or the rights of rivers, how that could impact us would be like the Los Angeles River has been encased in concrete. And it has essentially been channeled out to the ocean. And it used to run kind of wild. So it used to bounce all over the the LA basin, because it was kind of a wild river.

And now it is entrenched in concrete, which has some deleterious effects because the water doesn’t seep in the groundwater, and the soil isn’t brought down from the mountains and deposited there, and so on and so forth. But how could we shift that in a way that is somewhat still manageable? Because having the LA River jumping around the LA basin could be problematic as well.

To be honest, I don’t know, you know, how that, you know, if that river, for instance, was given the right to flow naturally, I don’t know how that would, you know, play out, as far as you know, the interest of the communities who live around there to be safe from, you know, flooding or something like that, you know, the laws are more sort of, with the mind towards, you know, future actions.

So, you know, the government is going to permit, you know, additional development that’s going to pollute the river, you know, we need to we need to elevate the standing of this river to, you know, have consideration at the table when this decision to permit is being made versus you know, after the fact is, my honor, already kind of exist in that we have the clean air and clean water act, or acts which you know, people are not supposed to dump pollutants into the rivers or lakes or streams in the US Currently, so roids of nature laws are different from existing environmental laws like that.

So the Clean Air Act Clean Water Act, the the ideas behind them are that we, you know, we’re going to allow pollution, we’re just going to regulate the extent or the pace of that pollution. The idea behind the rights of nature laws are, you know, we are elevating the, what, how humans think about nature, that it is a, you know, a co equal existing living thing, like humans. And so, you know, by giving it legal rights, this is a higher form of protection. And it’s not I don’t think it’s, you know, starry eyed about the fact that pollution development, these things are still going to happen.

But I’m in for one second here. A, I mean, humans are also subjected to certain levels of pollution. So it’s not as if rivers are somehow treated better than humans, because many of us humans are subjected to pollution every day. So are all of us are so it’s not like we’re somehow elevated beyond are elevated beyond rivers and streams in that respect.

Right. But I mean, we are the ones that are causing these problems, you know, and, you know, human beings, the, the philosophical sort of underpinnings behind existing Western law. And again, I should clarify that, you know, I’m, I’m speaking to this, as a journalist, as, you know, I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m trying to articulate the arguments that advocates make, um, but that, you know, it’s about human exceptionalism, that, you know, these are all laws and systems that have been put in place so that humans can benefit.

And people who, who are behind the rights of nature movement, want to flip that. And, you know, think about it, think about law in a more egocentric way that we’re, we’re we’re designing things and making decisions based off of the well being of the earth as an end in and of itself, not just for the benefit of humans. Does that? Yeah,

I hear what you’re saying. You know, I, sometimes I think there’s some degree of semantics in there. Because if we actually eliminated pollution for humans, it would certainly eliminate pollutions for rivers and streams and lakes and the like. So but I understand the concept of actually considering it from a the entity of a river, what effect does pollution have on a river?

Well, it might have effects that I can’t think I’m having a hard time thinking of effect, the deleterious effect that it has on a river that wouldn’t it wouldn’t have on a human. But I guess it theoretically it, might you, maybe you can tell me how it would be any way different?

Yeah, well, so, for instance, there’s a situation and crew that I’m writing about right now. And, you know, plaintiffs, community nearby polluted rivers, you know, sued a company that was responsible for the pollution, and they settled and the communities took the money and, you know, use that money in whatever way you wanted to, but it didn’t use the money to remediate the river to remediate the damage. And so, you know, a rights of nature law would give standing to that river to sue the company for the damage and whatever settlement I got would go towards remediating the river, the damage, so you take the human out of it. And there’s other sorts of situations like that. Where things would shake out differently to the benefit of the ecosystem?

Well, then that’s certainly something to be considered. I believe that US environmental laws generally require some degree of remediation if there’s been some finding that they have soil or soil is probably the wrong word polluted the soil or rivers. But I don’t know if that always is the case, because certainly humans get compensation from those cases as well.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I don’t think that there’s a way to, at least under existing law, we don’t. We don’t care for ecosystems for the sake of the ecosystems. It is about human beings. And I don’t think that’s wrong, that we care about human beings. That’s a very good thing. And it’s great that, you know, I think everyone can agree that environmental justice is becoming, you know, is getting the attention it deserves.

Well, I was gonna stop you right there, Katie, and we’re gonna go to break and you’re listening to unite America and KABC 790. I guess Katie Surma, who is our inside climate news. We’ll be right back.

I was talking to a prior guest, a scientist at University of California Irvine, Dr. Brower, Jack Bauer. And he informed me last week that the first Ershad that the Biden administration had announced was creating hydrogen at one kilo $1 per kilogram. And bringing the price down to that level, which would be less than the price of gasoline.

I think the problem for the Biden administration is that nobody knows about this. So part of what worked in President Kennedy’s we’re gonna have a man on the moon in a decade was that it kind of got a splash in the news, and people were talking about it, and there was a conversation. And essentially, that, that news isn’t news.

And if we’re going to have something like that occur, I think we’ve got to focus more energy and attention on it, it truly would be revolutionary, it truly would shift the problem. And I’ve, I’m a big proponent of hydrogen Upad. Now to hydrogen cars. So I believe that it is something we should be focusing on yet. We’re not hearing about it.

Yeah, I mean, hearing hearing you talk it out and the comparison to Kennedy’s moonshot, I can’t help but think that I mean, there’s a stark difference right, between them going to the moon, and hydrogen energy. I wonder how many Americans are even aware that hydrogen as a source of energy, hydrogen can be a source of energy or is a source of energy?

The just the general awareness in the public of, you know, clean energy? It’s, it’s not there, people mean, and I don’t, I wouldn’t blame people for not being interested in it. Um, but, you know, maybe there’s a sort of disconnect between the framing as as this being a, you know, an earth shot versus the reality that this is sort of a wonky issue.

Yeah, I think that, well, when you look at it in terms of how this could change the world, certainly, the ability of hydrogen to be the power source of the planet, is, has more relevance to everybody on the planet and putting somebody on the moon. And putting somebody on the moon is like a great show. And it’s a great, you know, feat of technological prowess, and I don’t want to put it down. But in terms of actual effect on day to day life, it really doesn’t have a whole lot didn’t have that much effect on our day to day existence.

And I think it’s a failure of communication to not have the public more aware about what hydrogen energy is and what it could do and why it’s important. And why are not? Why are people not talking about it? Why do people not understand it? These are, these are failures in communicating from the environmental movement from political leaders, that they’re not discussing it, they don’t understand it, they haven’t educated themselves about it, and therefore the public isn’t engaged on it.

I agree with you there that you know, this is something that can be not just life changing for us, but future generations. For sure. And yeah, communication definitely but but education as well in people you know, you know, how many how many kids growing up in their their schools are learning about you know, the these issues on a deep enough level. But beyond that, I mean, when there’s so many other things to be distracted by and pay attention to.

You know, worrying about alternate sources of energy just doesn’t seem to be high on the agenda for so many People, you know, wondering, you know, how is if you’re a communications person working for the government, or even a private company that’s that’s working on this issue? You know, how do you how do you successfully convey that message to people to get them to care about it? It’s probably a million dollar question.

Well, I had somebody on the show a few months back, who was an advertising agent, or advertising executive and his son had challenged him, Dad, what are you doing about the environmental movement, and he’s like, nothing. And he said, You got 48 hours to come up with a plan of what you’re going to do to help improve the environment. And so he got his Rolodex and started calling people and said, Hey, what, what do you think we could do?

And so he talked about creating a nonprofit that messaged about the environment more effective way, because the messaging is not very good, and not very effective, and the terminology that’s being used. And so they started a group of mothers, again, mothers for the climate, because figured that moms can communicate this message very effectively.

And they’re all scientist. So that was a effective messaging tool. I feel like I’m gonna indict the press here for a minute, since you’re part of the press, and I don’t want you to get off scot free, you know, is that I don’t believe the presses has covered this very effectively.

And looking at, hey, in from somebody who runs an organization, it’s not rather it’s not particularly large, we only have like 50 people, but you have to focus on the certain thing. So we have to like figure out, Hey, what are the most important things to focus on and focus on those, maybe they’re three to five things. And, and partially, our attention is so scattered.

And I feel like the environmental coverage is so scattered, sometimes in ways that are talking about things that ultimately are, in my mind, trivial if we do not solve the major problems, like talking about saving one particular species, when we’re not talking about saving, the entire ecosystem is maybe short sighted. I think maybe we could focus more on what are, you know, some kind of internal agreement as to these are our most important issues, which we don’t really have.

Yeah, I mean, I think that you’re right, that there’s been mistakes that has been made. And I and I think that’s something that generally the, you know, I always take issue with, you know, the media or journalism, and then like this, this just overarching term, because there’s such a spectrum, right of organizations, and even within an organization, different journalists that cover different things.

So, you know, when we’re talking about just serious news organizations within that realm, I think they’ve been very upfront that yes, mistakes have been made in the past, and particularly with the false equivalence for a long time, about climate change that, you know, you have both sider isms that, you know, this side says it’s happening, and the side says it doesn’t, even though science is pretty, pretty solid, that yes, this is happening and humans are causing it.

But, but beyond that, you know, I really, when people ask me, you know, what should people do? How can they get good information? You know, seeking out journalists who really know their stuff, and following them, or following their work? Oh, you know, because we’re talking about hydrogen, I’ll throw out a shout out to one of my colleagues, Dan Green out and inside climate news is a great guy to follow on clean energy.

But, yeah, I mean, I think the media is never going to come to an agreement on you know, what, what are the most important things to cover but but they’re getting better and I think more Environment and Climate reporters are joining, or I shouldn’t say they’re joining but but big news organizations are hiring more journalists in this area and putting more into their coverage and, and I think it’s going to get better and better and better. And, and it seems to me that that it already is.

Yeah, has it improved? Yeah, I would say it has improved. I just think that we don’t have time to kind of continue to make, in my mind very big mistakes in in the coverage and in part two It’s that people aren’t covering the most important things. And that just just like the Biden administration isn’t communicating their shot, very effective way, the press isn’t covering it very effectively, because they don’t understand it. And so they just leave it alone.

And it just gets put on the backburner, and nobody hears about it, versus we’re hearing all kinds of trivial stories all the time. That to me are, you know, just meaningless chatter. But the most important things that we should be focusing our attention on educating the public about are just not being talked about. And to me, that’s a travesty.

So I, I encourage, you know, all of us to, to focus on those more important items, because otherwise, we’re wasting our time, and we don’t have time to waste. So you’re listening KABC 790 This is Matt Matern, your host at Unite and Heal America.

You’re listening to Unite and Heal America. This is Matt Matern, and our guest today, Katie Surma, as well as we’ve got Christopher Berry on the show. And Christopher, welcome. Thanks for being on the show.

Thanks for having me.

Hi, Christopher. Tell us a little bit about your background and the work that you’re doing currently.

Yeah, I’m a I’m a managing attorney, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, which is an Animal Protection nonprofit. And what I do there is, is impact litigation, essentially. So filed lawsuits on behalf of animals, wildlife, animals, on farms and so forth, and try to set legal precedent or have a on the ground impacts for them.

And how long have you been working at that organization?

Yeah, I’ve been at the Animal Legal Defense Fund for 10 years. I I joined straight out of law school. So I spent my my entire career there. That’s great.

So what cases are you currently working on there?

Yeah. I mean, it really it runs the gamut. The and the one that that’s been in the news a lot recently was an application for discovery on on behalf of hippos, which resulted in a court order recognizing animals as legal persons for the first time in, in US history, actually.

And, you know, in addition to that, cases, you know, a dog hoarding case where we’re trying to get an injunction and preserve an injunction against someone who’s keeping dogs in violation of animal protection laws in Cal California, you know, sued the USDA over Animal Welfare Act inaction. And, you know, I could I could go on and on, but that’s just a little sample.

Tell us a little bit about the hippo case, because recognizing animals, as persons, as you said, is a novel situation, and how is it that the court made that leap? And what was the court relying upon and coming to that to find it? Yeah, it’s,

you know, this ties, ties a lot into the discussion about rights of nature, too. But the background is that a Pablo Escobar had hippos and after his downfall, they they got loose into the environments. And, in particular, the, the Magdalena River in Colombia, and it because they’re invasive, they’re from Africa. That was there was a lawsuit filed on their behalf to have them sterilized rather than killed, which was a plan that was being discussed and Colombia.

Support supports not only the right of nature, I mean, the Magdalena River where they live has been granted legal personhood, but also recognizes the animals themselves can have standing. So this lawsuit was filed and on their behalf. And sorry, it’s a little bit of a long winded answer, but but the short of it is that the United States has a law that allows parties and foreign litigation to come to the United States to collect evidence to help their foreign lawsuit.

And so we we apply it directly on behalf of the hippos because they’re the names. It’s there. They’re the party in the Columbia lawsuit, and a federal judge approved their application to take testimony of experts here to help their lawsuit, finding that there Recognizing that they’re, quote, interested persons, even under US law by nature of their status at Columbia.

You had said that the Magdaleno River is a legal person. Does Colombia also recognize animals is legal persons?

Yeah. So Colombia led led really led the way with, with rivers, including the Magdalena River, having legal personhood. But subsequent developments in the country have really extended that philosophy to animals as well, you know, and, of course, the hippos, they’re a part of the river ecosystem, you know, they they live in the river.

So it’s this really the extension of the same logic, which is that it’s not just humans that can have legally recognized interests, right, that that, that rivers can, or, you know, or hippos can, in this case.

So anything that’s in the river ecosystem would be considered a person by Columbia Law. But so I’m not an expert in Columbia Law. So I don’t I don’t know that I would necessarily necessarily go that far. I think. I think the argument, I think it’s a pretty, pretty tight, tight argument to make and sort of, regardless of how you how you framework conceptualize it.

You know, the bottom line is that, you know, that these rivers and animals are recognized as having distinct interests from humans, but but distinct interests that courts care about. And that’s really that’s really the sort of the bottom line, which is it doesn’t have to be any humans name for humans interest, or can it be in the name of in the interest of someone else?

Have we seen any states or local governments in the US give legal personhood to any rivers or any parts of Nate?

I can take that one. Yeah, there’s been over 30 local communities and at least six tribal nations in the US that have enacted these laws. They’re typically when they are challenged in court are struck down, just based on state preemption, usually, but there’s an active lawsuit in the state of Florida right now.

Orange County is enforcing a law that I think was 87% of voters voted in favor of recognizing the rights of nature and the 2020 election. And the state. Well, actually, before the voting took place, vote well, that law was was being put on the ballot ballot for a vote the state preempted it. And so there’s a there’s a showdown happening right now in an orange in Orange County.

And for our listeners who aren’t familiar with the Florida geography awareness, Orange County, Florida, it is the home of Disneyworld. Okay, so Orlando, Orlando.

Okay. Well, that should be an interesting thing to watch. Are we seeing any states that are on the cusp of or considering creating rights of nature for rivers or other habitats?

So also in Florida, there’s a push to get a few rights of nature was put on the ballot to to amend the state constitution. I’ve had sources tell me that there’s other states that are considering similar things, but nothing material yet.

Okay. Christopher, what kind of litigation Do you see continuing in the US related to these foreign jurisdictions? And is it likely that it’ll have an effect on US law? Or is this still going to just be related to foreign jurisdictions on kind of some minor issues that get brought to or narrower issues they could brought to us through like the Colombian hip house?

Yeah, I mean, it’s a great question. I you know, you know, what the the order recognizing hippos is an interested persons with the ability to essentially plan to subpoena in the United States. That was a that was an order that was granted in it, and it wasn’t contested, either. So that the judge had to find that all the elements were met, including that they were interested persons with, uh, you know, that should be able to take this discovery, but, but the, but it wasn’t contested on you know, it was It wasn’t an appellate decision.

So, you know, it’s, it’s possible that there could be some more of these in the future that could lead to case law precedent. You know, an interesting that Supreme Court has has already weighed in and said that litigants are, you know, no doubt qualify as an interested person. So, you know, I actually think it’s kind of a, in some ways, kind of a boring legal issue.

But, but by contrast, it’s it’s, uh, it’s really paradigm shifting it in a sense that this, it’s, you know, it normalizes, and it frames, legal personhood for, for animals, for wildlife, you know, potentially for other kind of strange persons under a legal system that it normalizes that, that, that there is room in our legal system to recognize those legal interests. And so I think that I think that demonstration, the example and precedent that it sets is, is really, really profound and paradigm shifting.

It certainly is fascinating. I would, I would ask you in terms of just discusses in relationship to like the Endangered Species Act where endangered species, I believe were given essentially rights under US law 50 Some years ago.

Yeah, you know, interesting that there was a Ninth Circuit decision. A couple decades ago, cetacean community v. Bush, or someone had argued that cetacean community those were like, you know, the the porpoises and whales and the that, I think it was an may have been a navy sonar case in the Pacific. And they argued that they’re the animals were the interests that they were persons with standing to sue under the Endangered Species Act, which, you know, has a very broad to distance supervision.

The court ruled that while animals have this potential that they that they can have injuries that could be recognized that just as a matter of statutory interpretation, Congress didn’t. The Ninth Circuit thought that Congress didn’t intend to give animals that ability through the statute.

So it’s kind of an unnatural alized potential through the Endangered Species Act. You could you could go to other circuits with that and contest that. That finding that I think it’s, it’s interesting on its own just to say animals do have that capacity, potentially, if you know.

Well, Christopher, it’s a fascinating conversation. And I appreciate you and Katie coming on the show, or you’re on the cutting edge here at the United heal America, listening to how the rights of nature are expanding around the country around the world, and something we’ll be following up on and weeks and months to come. We’ll be back in just one minute. This is KABC 790. This is Matt Matern, Unite and Heal America.

You’re listening to Unite and Heal America and KABC 790. This is Matt Matern. And I’ve got Katie Surma and Christopher Berry with us. And I just wanted to ask you to a question about under the law, there are many different things that are considered persons. And maybe, Katie, you want to talk about that, and how that relates to the rights of nature?

Sure. So we give legal rights to a lot of things that are are not humans, you know, corporations and trusts, other forms of businesses, governments and universities and ships. And the legal rights they have are tailored to the essence of what they are, and, you know, the rights of nature, our legal rights tailored to whatever element of nature that I mentioned before the right of a river to flow or just of ecosystems to persist.

And so in that way, you know, people have argued that this is just an extension of other similar rights movements, whether that’s women’s suffrage or children’s rights, or the art those are the arguments that, you know, rights of nature proponents tend to make.

Chris, what were your thoughts on that, that question?

Yeah, I mean, I mean, very similar. It’s, you know, the end of the day the the legal system is, you know, we we administer the we administer the legal system. So, if if we think there is value or or use or, you know, a moral argument, that, that non human entities should should be added to the mix of, you know, entities, legal personality, then then you we can and should do it, and it it’s, you know, in the case of animals, or the environment, it’s, it’s, it is very helpful.

There are situations where animal cruelty can occur and if the animal isn’t recognized as having a In a legal personality with interests that a court will appreciate that, then a case to stop that cruelty may just get thrown out on procedural grounds because you didn’t find a human who had sort of coincidentally been injured by witnessing the cruelty for example. And the same could be said for, you know, in the case of REITs, for nature. So, it’s, it can be it can be tailored, but it’s a, it’s a good thing to do.

I guess the question is, where do where do we draw those lines, in terms of saying we have things that we consider to be pests like rats or things of this nature? That, you know, generally considered the things that we don’t want to have around? If we were to give all animals rights, would they would we be able to deal with pests like, rats?

Yeah, that’s, that’s a great question. Um, I think a useful distinction to have in mind is, is sort of the difference between a like a substantive legal right, that that offers, like, you know, like a protection, like, you know, that you can’t be killed except under the circumstances versus like a mere procedural, right, which is that whatever those protections are, someone can go to court on your behalf in your interest to make sure that those are being enforced.

And so in the case of animals, you know, talking about, you know, whether it’s sort of, you know, pest animals are animals that are raised for food, that, that, that the baseline for legal personhood can just be that the, that someone can go to court to enforce those rights and those protections that already exist on their behalf. And there, the law already exempts, you know, killing animals for food exempts, you know, killing animals who are a nuisance or who are dangerous.

So it wouldn’t give me conferring legal personality doesn’t necessarily confer more protection to the animal. It just means whatever protection they have can be enforced. And then And then, you know, of course, we there should still be a debate about whether those are the right protections, maybe we ought to protect them more.

You know, I think I certainly think we should. But you don’t necessarily have to do that just because you’ll recognize legal personality as something we were talking about. Katie, on the break was eco side. And can you explain to the audience what that is and why that is something we should be concerned about going forward?

Sure. Ecocide or epicyte. It’s tomato tomahto is roughly widespread destruction of the environment. So most people when they hear that they think about Deepwater Horizon, or deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. And right now there’s a campaign to criminalize internationally Ecocide and never before has international criminal law been used to protect the environment as an end in and of itself.

And people behind this campaign say that this could be a game changer as far as principle, you know, making environmentally destructive projects, uninsurable, that sort of thing. They want to do it at the International Criminal Court. The US is not a party to that court. So it tends to fall off the radar of a lot of Americans. But it’s a really interesting legal development development that’s happening and it’s worth paying attention to.

That’s certainly something that we will have on our radar screen going forward. I I guess I would think that countries like Brazil would probably not want to be a party to that, given the fact that they are engaging right now, as we speak so indicting themselves essentially, it’s now likely to happen is it?

Well, I mean, you know, you have countries are engaging in genocide that are parties to, you know, the Genocide Convention. The idea of, you know, joining international treaties that prescribe these things is to protect future generations and, you know, gyre balsa narrow, for instance, there’s been multiple complaints filed with the International Criminal Court, accusing him of crimes against humanity, for COVID and also for deforestation of the Amazon.

You know, Philip, the President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte. A, to your point, you know, he pulled the country out of the International Criminal Court after he was investigated for crimes against humanity for his drug war. So these things are moving pieces. I don’t think you know, international Justice’s ever clear cut. But people can and are held accountable under these laws,

I tend to think that maybe something that you said earlier, which is not ensuring these projects and hitting them, where the dollars are maybe more effective. And it talking about kind of working down the supply chains of, of various companies that are using products from the deforestation of the rainforest. And not, and those companies saying, Hey, we won’t do this. And we as consumers, saying, We don’t want to buy products from companies that are engaged, or supporting that kind of behavior kind of cuts it off at the source. Maybe not completely, but it could be pretty effective.

Yeah, there. I mean, there’s a huge reputational side of this, and, you know, people behind the Ecocide campaign often say nothing concentrates someone’s mind more than the possibility that they’re going to be in the dock at The Hague at the criminal court. And warlords may not care much about that. But CEOs of multinational corporations do.

And, you know, the court only goes after individuals. So the possibility that you could be prosecuted for an international crime on this level, whether you know, it’s in the head of an insurance company or an oil company, you know, that gets people to pay attention, and that changes behavior. Anyway, that’s the argument.

As an American citizen, would any American corporation chief be liable under that law if Americans aren’t parties to the treaty?

They could be. So there’s a territorial aspect to the court, if a crime is committed on the territory of a country that is a party. So for instance, a US oil company that’s operating on the territory of, you know, in Brazil, which is a party to the court, there’s also trans border effects of pollutions that have pollution that could raise issues, you know, does a crime committed on the US, but that affects Canada? Is that possibly within the remit of the court? You know, it’s an open question. So there are ways that US companies or people can become embroiled.

Chris, I’ll give you the final word on this subject before we close out the segment. I know that’s a bit open ended question. Maybe I’ll reframe it. Is your organization at all working on kind of EchoSign Ecocide issues, or is that something that’s kind of beyond the purview of the animal Legal Defense Fund currently?

Well, I’d say you know, ecocide specifically is isn’t actually a word that I that I had even heard before this conversation but but that said, you know, a big, big part of the animal kingdom are wild animals, animals who live in the wild.

And so, threats to the wilderness, including including climate change and other environmental damages are certainly really impacted, you know, the core of our of the animal legal defense funds, you know, mission to protect the lives of animals who, who live in the wilderness, or you’ve been listening to KABC 790.

My guest today, Katie Surma. Christopher Berry with the animal Legal Defense Fund. We’ve been nerding out here on international law and the rights of nature, and I hope all of you non lawyers out there, have enjoyed this as much as I did. Great to have you both on the program and to have you.