Thank you all for your comments, very interesting to read. As a ground rule, I have not waisted my time on comments that blur the line into personal slur. One striking thing from comments is the extent to which people can 'read in' opinions or bias's I have not made in this modest 1300 word article.

This piece seeks to convey several point:
1. Law reflects culture - western law has developed in a fashion that reflects broader anthropocentric philosophy
2. The legal 'idea' of property defines nature as a human resources, which can be bought, sold, exploited or destroyed in satisfaction of individual preferences.
3. Our current mode of environmental protection is regulatory in nature and is not protecting the environment
4. The concept of 'rights for nature' as it appears in positive law may provide a better avenue for protecting the environment. As I note, several countries have adopted this legislation.

In this article I do not mention, 'communism', total rejection of property systems, 'economic illiteracy' or that values are non human constructs. If commentators can practice reading comprehension and write with basic respect, we may have an interesting dialogue.

An interesting article Peter and I acknowledge that the Environmental Protection Act was legislated some 40 years ago.
The Act was “to provide an Authority for the prevention, control, abatement of pollution and environmental harm, for the conservation, preservation, protection, enhancement and management of the environment……”

On the domestic front, the Act has not been enforced. Rather it has been manipulated and corrupted by state governments of both persuasions and departments of environment who collude with big polluters. The conditions of licence are minimal, thus an excuse for not enforcing the Act.

Community appeals on the environment or public health are rarely upheld and departments of environment are guilty of ignoring rare ministerial determinations which favour the environment and the most recent overruling by state government of an EPA environmental impact assessment occurred in WA in July.

It’s a despicable state of affairs when 250 Australian citizens have been forced to lodge a class action offshore, in the US, against a big American polluter who has plundered our resources and destroyed the health of the environment and our citizens because our department of environment has ignored community pleas on this issue for twenty years.

Australian governments have not enforced ecologically sustainable productivity on the management of its publicly-owned lands and society is equally culpable for allowing those who have over-mined, over-cropped, over-grazed, over-developed and over-cleared – to wipe out the biosphere with impunity. Thousands of native species continue to be wilfully killed off by the operations of mining companies.

The Australian culture has dominated various ecological systems so that interaction between culture and ecology has virtually ceased. A futuristic “rights for nature” ordinance will not assist in the remediation of these desecrated lands and Australia will remain an ideal “climate” for polluting industries - particularly WA where Premier Barnett's on rampage leading the state towards ecological collapse while citizens rejoice - "Hail Barney Rubble!"

Australia's sustainable future requires urgent corrective action in the present – not the distant future. Alas, Australian subjects remain asleep at the wheel and are happy with their pay packets.

I enjoyed your article *Peter* thankU.
It made me aware of a few things that I previously did not know.

As to some of the "dis," I take it as a compliment when my "adversaries" choose to "draw swords" against me in such a manner.

Clearly, your article made an impact and solicited a response.

..

If for a moment we give consideration to the established economic order in the same principle manner as the those of the "green" persuasion consider the environment,

(without wanting to start splitting hairs over definitions of words)

I would contend that indeed clusters of green tech represent a potential significant destabilizing effect.

An example perhaps that our feet may touch the earth:

In one of the locales in parts tropical where I have had occasion to frequent, there are some magnificent river systems which flow down from the mountains. Courtesy of the dutch, they are also home to some very cool electricity generating systems which harness the power of running water.

All the local villages used to be powered by them and they were kept as "communal property" for the benefit of all the locals with shared maintenance responsibilities, the cost of which in reality is negligible.

However, those who want to burn coal and put their hands out every month for a financial contribution had them all removed.

And now, there is a veritable chain of individuals in between the electricity consumer and the production plant that benefit and feed off the proceeds of those who pay.

Now, if we "imagineer" for a moment, and consider a home unit maxed out with appropriate green tech from Solar, to Wind, to Water, to Geo Thermal, to BioMass etc etc, very quickly we evolve a system where households are all energy positive, and sell surplus back to the grid.

Once the Greens and others can instill that as a goal into the psyche of the public with viable technical and economic solutions, then I suspect that the masses will seriously begin to turn.

So, in part what we are up against is the "ethereal" line of economic control. In our "imagineered" space, a mass of money will no longer go to electricity producers and their material suppliers, but rather will stay as savings in the pockets of the community, who will increasingly become more independent and self reliant and less easily beguiled.

Clearly, being energy green is not the interest of the two major parties. The material continuum that flows from the consumer to the profiteers to donations is.

..

I would remind people that the crown is a political establishment who classified the Original Australians as animals, who forcibly transferred the children of one group to another, who in recent times locked up children without charge or trial, who still don't afford all the people in Australia with appropriate medical care, and who micro manage one race but not another, so seriously, they're gutter trolls who dress and speak fancy.

Tis a noble thing, rights for the environment, a more equitable equitable concept of property however, as of yet a fanciful notion until popular opinion can be swayed.