The rule of ecological law is a fitting complement to degrowth. Planetary boundaries of safe operating space for humanity, along with complementary measures and principles, provide scientific and ethical foundations of the rule of ecological law, which should have several reinforcing features. First, it should recognize humans are part of Earth’s life systems. Second, ecological limits must have primacy over social and economic regimes. Third, the rule of ecological law must permeate all areas of law. Fourth, it should focus on radically reducing material and energy throughput. Fifth, it must be global, but distributed, using the principle of subsidiarity. Sixth, it must ensure fair sharing of resources among present and future generations of humans and other life. Seventh, it must be binding and supranational, with supremacy over sub-global legal regimes as necessary. Eighth, it requires a greatly expanded program of research and monitoring. Ninth, it requires precaution about crossing global ecological boundaries. Tenth, it must be adaptive. Although the transition from a growth-insistent economy headed toward ecological collapse to an economy based on the rule of ecological law is elusive, the European Union may be a useful structural model.
References
[1]
Gore, A., Jr. An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It; Rodale: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
[2]
Atkisson, A. Believing Cassandra: An Optimist Looks at a Pessimist’s World; Chelsea Green: White River Junction, VT, USA, 1999.
[3]
Oreskes, N.; Conway, E.M. Merchants of Doubt; Bloomsbury Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
[4]
Rockstr？m, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, ？.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 6, p. article 32. Available online: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/ (accessed on 29 August 2011).
[5]
The Living Planet Report; Hails, C., Humphrey, S., Loh, J., Goldfinger, S., Eds.; WWF International: Gland, Switzerland, 2008.
[6]
Speth, J.G. The Bridge at the Edge of the World; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2008.
[7]
Brown, P.G.; Garver, G. Right Relationship: Building a Whole Earth Economy; Berrett Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2009.
[8]
Environmental economics is “[t]he branch of neoclassical economics that addresses environmental problems such as pollution, negative externalities, and valuation of nonmarket environmental services[,] focuses almost exclusively on efficient allocation, and accepts the pre-analytic vision…that the economic system is the whole, and not a subsystem of the containing and sustaining global ecosystem” ([9], p. 432).
[9]
Daly, H.E.; Farley, J. Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
[10]
Heinzerling, L.; Ackerman, F. Law and Economics for a warming world. Harv. Law Rev. 2007, 1, 332–362.
[11]
Ecological economics is “[t]he union of economics and ecology, with the economy conceived as a subsystem of the earth ecosystem that is sustained by a metabolic flow or ‘throughput’ from and back to the larger system” ([9], p. 431).
[12]
L’Ordre Public Ecologique/Towards an Ecological Public Order; Boutelet, M., Fritz, J.-C., Eds.; Bruylant: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
[13]
Percival, R.V. Environmental law in the twenty-first century. Va. Environ. Law J. 2007, 25, 1–35.
[14]
Research and Degrowth. Available online: http://www.degrowth.org (accessed on 31 October 2012).
[15]
Martinez-Alier, J.; Pascual, U.; Vivien, F-D.; Zaccai, E. Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1741–1747, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.017.
[16]
Latouche, S. Degrowth Economics. Le Monde Diplomatique (English edition). 14 November 2004. Available online: http://www.mondediplo.com/2004/11/14latouche (accessed on 31 October 2012).
[17]
Kallis, G. In defence of degrowth. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 873–880, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.007.
[18]
Barcelona Conference on Economic Degrowth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity. “Degrowth bullet points” from the Barcelona conference, undated. Available online: http://www.montreal.degrowth.org/downloads/degrowth_barcelonabulletpoints.pdf (accessed on 31 October 2012).
[19]
Howarth, W. The progression towards ecological quality standards. J. Environ. Law 2006, 18, 3–35, doi:10.1093/jel/eqi049.
[20]
Kolbasov, O.S. The concept of ecological law. Conn. J. Int. Law 1989, 4, 267–277.
[21]
Berry, T. The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future; Three Rivers Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
[22]
Boyd, D.R. Sustainability law: (R)Evolutionary directions for the future of environmental law. J. Environ. Law Pract. 2004, 14, 357–385.
[23]
Bosselmann, K. The Principle of Sustainability: Transforming Law and Governance; Ashgate Publishing Co.: Burlington, VT, USA, 2008.
[24]
Cullinan, C. Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice, 2nd ed.; Chelsea Green: White River Junction, VT, USA, 2011.
[25]
Westra, L. Ecological Integrity: Its History, Its Future and the Development of the Global Ecological Integrity Group. In Reconciling Human Existence with Ecological Integrity; Westra, L., Bosselmann, K., Westra, R., Eds.; Earthscan: Sterling, VA, USA, 2008; pp. 5–20.
[26]
Westra, L. An Environmental Proposal for Ethics: The Principle of Ecological Integrity; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 1994.
[27]
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 12, 1992. Available online: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163 (accessed on18 January 2013).
[28]
The future we want, Outcome of the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, 2012. Available online: http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%20Future%20We%20Want%2019%20June%201230pm.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[29]
United Nations Security Council. The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies: Report of the Secretary General; Document No. S/2004/616; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2004.
[30]
Leopold, A. A Sand County Almanac; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1949.
[31]
Because ecosystems constantly evolve, it would be more consistent with current understandings of ecology to refer to the resilience, rather than stability, of the biotic community [7].
[32]
Nordhaus, T.; Shellenberger, M.; Blomqvist, L. The Planetary Boundaries Hypothesis: A Review of the Evidence; Breakthrough Institute: Oakland, CA, USA, 2012.
[33]
Heinzerling, L. Risking it all. Ala. Law Rev. 2005, 57, 155–169.
[34]
Victor, P.A. Managing Without Growth: Smaller By Design, Not Disaster; Edgar Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2008.
[35]
Tarlock, A.D. The future of environmental “rule of law” litigation. Pace Environ. Law Review 2000, 17, 237–272.
[36]
Delgado, R. Our better natures: A revisionist view of Joseph Sax’s public trust theory of environmental protection, and some dark thoughts on the possibility of law reform. Vanderbilt Law Review 1991, 44, 1209–1227.
[37]
Naess, A. A defence of the deep ecology movement. Environ. Ethics 1984, 6, 265–270, doi:10.5840/enviroethics19846330.
[38]
Robertson, V. Methow valley citizens. Available online: http:// www.supreme.justia.com/cases/ federal/us/490/332/case.html (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[39]
Kass, M.J. A NEPA climate paradox: Taking greenhouse gases into account in threshold significance determinations. Indiana Law Rev. 2009, 42, 47–96.
[40]
Robertson, V. On writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit. Available online: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-101.ZO.html (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[41]
Consistent with the TMDL approach, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 aims “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem” [42] and calls upon the United States and Canada to consult regarding “[t]he control of pollutant loading rates for each lake basin to protect the integrity of the ecosystem over the long term” [43]. The Agreement relies on implementation through the national and subnational laws of the signatories [44], along with State-to-State consultations regarding implementation [45].
[42]
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, Article II. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/glwqa/1978/articles.html#AGREEMENT%20BETWEEN%20CANADA (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[43]
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, Article IV(3)(b). Available online: http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/glwqa/1978/articles.html#AGREEMENT%20BETWEEN%20CANADA (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[44]
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, Article V. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/glwqa/1978/articles.html#AGREEMENT%20BETWEEN%20CANADA (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[45]
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, Article X. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/glwqa/1978/articles.html#AGREEMENT%20BETWEEN%20CANADA (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[46]
Clean Water Act § 303(c)(2)(A), Available online: http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[47]
Clean Water Act, § 304(a)(1), Available online: http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[48]
Clean Water Act § 303(d)(1)(C), Available online: http: //www. epw.senate.gov/water.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[49]
Clean Water Act § 304(a)(2), Available online: http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[50]
40 C.F.R. § 130.2(i). Available online: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title40-vol22/pdf/CFR-2011-title40-vol22-sec130-2.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[51]
Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, 1983. Available online: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/lrtap/full%20text/1979.CLRTAP.e.pdf 30 November 1979 (entered into force 16 March 1983) (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[52]
Adler, R.W. Freshwater: Sustaining use by protecting ecosystems. Environ. Law Rep. 2009, 39, 10309–10315.
[53]
Caudill, D.S.; Curley, D.E. Strategic idealizations of science to oppose environmental regulation: A case study of five TMDL controversies. Univ. Kans. Law Rev. 2008, 57, 251–312.
[54]
Karr, J.R.; Yoder, C.O. Biological assessment and criteria improve total maximum daily load decision making. J. Environ. Eng. 2004, June, 594–604.
[55]
Umweltbundesamt. Manual on Methodologies and Criteria for Modelling and Mapping Critical Loads & Levels and Air Pollution Effects, Risks and Trends; Umweltbundesamt: Berlin, Germany, 2004.
[56]
Cresser, M.S. The critical loads concept: Milestone or millstone for the new millenium? Sci. Total Environ. 2000, 249, 51–62, doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00510-0.
[57]
Boyd, J. The New Face of the Clean Water Act: A Critical Review of EPA’s Proposed TMDL Rule; Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 00–12; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. Available online: http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-00-12.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[58]
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads? Available online: www.water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/ (accessed on 29 August 2011).
[59]
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Withdrawal of Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation and Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program in Support of Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation, 68 Fed. Reg. 13608; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
[60]
United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress, 2004 Reporting Cycle; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
[61]
Pelletier, N. Of laws and limits: An ecological economic perspective on redressing the failure of contemporary global environmental governance. Global Environ. Change 2010, 20, 220–228, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.12.006.
[62]
Spranger, T.; Hettelingh, J.-P.; Slootweg, J.; Posch, M. Modelling and mapping long-term risks due to reactive nitrogen effects: An overview of LRTAP convention activities. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 154, 482–487, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2007.10.035.
[63]
Gothenburg Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone (30 November 1999), Available online: www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/lrtap/full%20text/1999%20Multi.E.Amended.2005.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[64]
European Union. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2001/81/EC of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants [2001] O.J. L 309/22, Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:309:0022:0030:EN:PDF (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[65]
Clean Air Act Title IV, Title 42, U.S. Code §§ 7651–7651o (2006), Available online: http://epa.gov/oar/caa/title4.html (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[66]
Clean Air Act § 401(a), Title 42, U.S. Code § 7651(a) (2006), Available online: http://epa.gov/oar/caa/title4.html (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[67]
Reitze, A.W., Jr. The legislative history of U.S. air pollution control. Houston Law Rev. 1999, 36, 679–741.
[68]
Heinzerling, L. Selling pollution, forcing democracy. Stanford Environ. Law J. 1995, 14, 300–344.
[69]
Moore, C.A. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments: Silk purse or Sow’s ear? Duke Environ. Law Pol. Forum 1992, 26–58.
[70]
Doremus, H.; Hanemann, W.M. Of babies and bathwater: Why the Clean Air Act’s cooperative federalism framework is useful for addressing global warming. Arizona Law Rev. 2008, 50, 799–834.
[71]
Jenkins, J.; Roy, K.; Driscoll, C.; Buerkett, C. Acid Rain and the Adirondacks: A Research Summary; Adirondacks Lakes Survey Corporation: Ray Brook, NY, USA, 2005.
[72]
European Commission. Comparison of the EU and US Approaches towards Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground Level Ozone. In Assessment of the Effectiveness of European Air Quality Policies and Measures, 2004, Doc. B4-3040/2003/365967/MAR/C1. Available online: http://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/activities/pdf/case_study1.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2012).
[73]
United Nations Environment Programme. Backgrounder: Basic Facts and Data on the Science and Politics of Ozone Protection. 2008. Available online: ozone.unep.org/Events/ozone_day_2008/press_backgrounder.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2011).
[74]
Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2012. Available online: http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/MP_Handbook/MP-Handbook-2012.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[75]
London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 29 June 1990. (entered into force 10 August 1992). Available online: http://ozone.unep.org/Ratification_status/london_amendment.shtml (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[76]
Copenhagen Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 25 November 1992. (entered into force 14 June 1994). Available online: http://ozone.unep.org/Ratification_status/copenhagen_amendment.shtml (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[77]
Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 17 September 1997. (entered into force 10 November 1999). Available online: http://ozone.unep.org/Ratification_status/montreal_amendment.shtml (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[78]
Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 13 December 1999. (entered into force 12 February 2002). Available online: http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/Treaties/treaties_decisions-hb.php?dec_id_anx_auto=783 (accessed on 18 January 2013).
[79]
Steiner, A. 20th Anniversary of the Protocol and International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer, Speech at the Opening of the 19th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Montreal. 16 september 2007. Available online: www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=518&ArticleID=5667&l=en (accessed on 12 November 2012).
[80]
Report of the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, 1999. Available online: ozone.unep.org/Meeting_Documents/mop/11mop/11mop-10.e.pdf (accessed 29 August 2011).
[81]
Synthesis Report of the 2006 Assessments of the Scientific Assessment Panel, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, No. UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/27/3; United Nations Environment Program: Nairobi, Kenya, 2007.
[82]
Roberts, M.W. The Montreal Protocol must act to prevent global climate change while restoring the ozone layer. JSDLP 2009, 9, 33–67.
[83]
Winchester, N.B. Emerging global environmental governance. Indiana J. Global Leg. Stud. 2009, 16, 7–23, doi:10.2979/GLS.2009.16.1.7.
[84]
Sunstein, C.R. Worst-Case Scenarios; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007.
[85]
Reeves, H. Mal de Terre; éditions du Seuil: Paris, France, 2005.
[86]
Plein, A.L. A Story between success and challenge: 20th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol. New Zeal. J. Environ. Law 2007, 11, 67–98.
[87]
Carpenter, S.R.; Bennett, E.M. Reconsideration of the planetary boundary for phosphorus. Environ. Res. Lett. 2011, 6, 1–12.
[88]
Ivanova, M. UNEP in global environmental governance: Design, leadership, location. Global Environ. Polit. 2010, 10, 30–59, doi:10.1162/glep.2010.10.1.30.
[89]
Yang, T.; Percival, R.V. The emergence of global environmental law. Ecol. Law Q. 2009, 36, 615–664.
[90]
Rees, W.E. Globalization and sustainability: Conflict or convergence? Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc. 2002, 22, 249–268, doi:10.1177/0270467602022004001.
[91]
Living Planet Report 2010; Pollard, D., Almond, R., Duncan, E., Grooten, M., Hadeed, L., Jeffries, B., McLellan, R., Eds.; WWF International: Gland, Switzerland, 2010.
[92]
Srinivasan, U.T.; Carey, S.P.; Hallstein, E.; Higgins, P.A.T.; Kerr, A.C.; Koteen, L.E.; Smith, A.B.; Watson, R.; Harte, J.; Norgaard, R.B. The debt of nations and the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 1768–1773.
[93]
Heller, M.A. The tragedy of the anticommons: Property in the transition from Marx to markets. Harvard Law Rev. 1998, 111, 621–688, doi:10.2307/1342203.
[94]
Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342.
[95]
Weizsacker, E.; Desha, C.; Hargroves, K.; Stasinopoulos, P.; Smith, M. Factor Five: Transforming the Global Economy Through 80% Improvements in Resource Productivity; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009.
[96]
Young, O.R.; Steffen, W. The Earth System: Sustaining Planetary Life-Support Systems. In Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-Based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World; Folke, C., Kofinas, G.P., Chapin, F.S., Eds.; Springer Science + Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 295–315.
[97]
Saunier, R.E.; Meganck, R.A. Dictionary and Introduction to Global Environmental Governance, 2nd ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009.
[98]
Daly, H. Beyond Growth; Beacon Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1996.
[99]
Schlesinger, M.E.; Ring, M.J.; Cross, E.F. A Revised Fair Plan to Safeguard Earth's Climate. J. Environ. Protect. 2012, 3, 1330–1335.
[100]
Latouche, S. The Globe Downshifted, Le Monde Diplomatique (English edition). 13 January 2006. Available online: www.mondediplo.com/2006/01/13degrowth (accessed 31 October 2012).
[101]
Commoner, B.; Woods, P.W.; Eisl, H.; Couchot, K. Long-range Air Transport of Dioxin from North American Sources to Ecologically Vulnerable Receptors in Nunavut, Arctic Canada; Commission for Environmental Cooperation: Montreal, Canada, 2000.
[102]
Tarlock, A.D. Environmental law: Ethics or science. Duke Environ. Law Pol. Forum 1996, 6, 193–223.
[103]
Garver, G. The Rule of Ecological Law: A Transformative Legal and Institutional Framework for the Human-Earth Relationship. LLM Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, 2011.
[104]
Garver, G. Introducing the Rule of Ecological Law. In Human Health and Ecological Integrity; Westra, L., Soskolne, C.L., Spady, D.W., Eds.; Routledge: New York, USA, 2012; pp. 322–334.
