Story here.
Editor
David Boonin (Colorado)Advisory Board
Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Brown)
Neera Badhwar (Oklahoma)
Francis Beckwith (Baylor)
David Benatar (Cape Town)
Elizabeth Brake (Arizona State)
John Corvino (Wayne State)
Robert George (Princeton)
Lori Gruen (Wesleyan)
Dale Jamieson (NYU)
Christopher Kaczor (Loyola Marymount)
Eva Feder Kittay (Stony Brook)
Eric Mack (Tulane)
Elinor Mason (Edinburgh)
Jan Narveson (Waterloo)
Tommie Shelby (Harvard)
Nancy Sherman (Georgetown)
Saul Smilansky (Haifa)
Bonnie Steinbock (SUNY Albany)
Heather Widdows (Birmingham)Partner Journals
note for contributors
Information about submitting material to What's Wrong? can be found here.search this site
-
follow us on facebook
It seems clear to me that a lake cannot have interests of its own, but even if it could, that is not the basis of the proposed law. Rather, it is regarded as a means of giving people the standing to sue. But to sue for what? The lake’s interests or the interests of the people who suffer from its pollution? Surely, the latter and I can’t think why giving a lake standing is necessary to allow those harmed by pollution from suing. It seems not only unconstitutional but costly, unnecessary, and illogical.
LikeLike