Property Laws Facilitate Environmental Destruction Essay

The purpose of this paper is to write a reflection essay based on Carr and Milstein’s article “Keep Burning Coal or the Manatee Gets It” and Graham’s book Lawscape: property, environment, and law. This write-up provides a summary of the two articles and compares the main themes between the works of both authors. I also share my thoughts on what I have read and discovered.

Summary of Carr and Milstein’s Article

Survival threats faced by Florida manatees arise from the unchallenged human activities in their natural habitat. The rampant growth of the built environments, human harassment, and toxic algae blooms – due to climate change – have forced over 60% of manatees to depend on man-made habitats for survival. Carr and Milstein (2017) argue that the destructive personal acts against nature are facilitated by the very laws that supposedly protect animals from human destruction. Environmental legislations take a minimalistic approach to protecting endangered animals by prohibiting specific acts while ignoring the systematic, political, and sociocultural issues that promote ecological exploitation. The UN recently reported that environmental laws have failed to adequately protect the environment from human activities due to ineffective implementation and enforcement practices (Shirreffs, 2019). Property logic provides the best theoretical lens of how environmental destruction has become culturally naturalized. It is a dephysicalizing mindset that enables humans to separate themselves from nature and treat animals like properties, rather than existential beings. Because the law is obligated to protect human rights, individuals can enjoy the protection of ecocultural invisibility.

Summary of Graham’s Book

Human interactions with the environment are always characterized by exploitation and degradation unless land laws and management practices sustain activities in that area. Compensation has been long used as a solution to the conflict between land ownership and environmental protection initiatives. However, Graham (2010) argues in her book that the notion that land can be compensated as a material commodity is illogical since there is no distinction between nature and culture. The current framework governing property law treats land as a commodity that dephysicalizes people from nature and property. The dephysicalization of property from people is the reason why the law cannot adequately respond to the needs of dispossessed people (Graham, 2010). The book argues that when monetary value is placed on the property, people seek to acquire it for its value as a commodity, rather than its intrinsic value.

Comparative Analysis

The key theme in both articles is that property laws facilitate environmental destruction by dephysicalizing humans from all other natural elements. It is clear from the two writings that people are causing undisputable harm to the environment through destructive behaviors. Carr and Milstein (2017) attributed these ones to the human tendency to separate themselves from nature, a mindset that is reinforced by the logic of property rights. On the other hand, Graham (2010) attributes property ownership and environment conflicts to the paradigm framework that guides law development. She argues that contemporary property regulations place material value on land and other environmental features, which facilitates ecological exploitation practices.

I support the viewpoints presented by both researchers. Humans can only act and behave to the extent which legal laws permit or accommodate. Legislations typically influence and shape attitudes, behaviors, and cultural norms (Varner & Varner, 2014). Therefore, if ecologically destructive behaviors continue to be problematic, it is because of the enacted environmental regulations’ gaps. Environmental legislation should have higher jurisdiction over property law, and in cases where property laws conflict with environmental laws, the latter should be given pre-emptive rights. As Graham (2010) puts it, there is no distinction between humans and the environment, and what benefits the environment will also benefit humans.

In summary, the environment drives the human economy and cannot be devoid of human interaction. Environmental regulations that control people’s activities have proven inefficient due to the conflicting judicial and executive power surrounding property laws. At the core of property laws is the dephysicalization mindset that empowers humans to be destructive against the environment. I concur with Graham’s (2010) view that the environment and humans are one; there is, therefore, an increasing need to treat them as a single entity rather than discrete components.

References

Carr, J., & Milstein, T. (2017). Keep burning coal or the manatee gets it: Rendering the carbon economy invisible through endangered species protection.Antipode, 50(1), 82-100. Web.

Graham, N. (2010). Lawscape: Property, environment, law. Routledge-Cavendish.

Shirreffs, L. (2019). The role of legislation in environmental protection and the Jersey legal framework. International Law Office. Web.

Varner, I., & Varner, K. (2014). The relationship between culture and legal systems and the impact on intercultural business communication. Global Advances in Business and Communication, 3(1), 3.