Toward eco-justice for all - Environmental Harm: An Eco-justice Perspective - page 140

of the biosphere and human interests. However, an animal welfare
perspective is one that views nonhuman animals as part of a web
of relationships involving humans and the biosphere. There is a link
to species justice, since each animal has 'value' - but this, in turn,
is contingent upon specific times, places and activities. Nonhuman
animals are part of the symbolic, instrumental and value universes of
human beings.
Not surprisingly, tensions exist between both animal rights and
environmental justice, and animal rights and ecological justice,
approaches. Where do we draw the line when it comes to which
animals should receive rights, and if there is a conflict between animal
rights and the rights of humans? Trees and rocks and streams are not
sentient beings capable of suffering, so where do they fit into the
animal rights or environmental justice moral universe? Very often,
of course, conceptualisation and direct experience of environmental
harm encapsulates the concerns of all three strands - protection of
biodiversity within our forests is compatible with sustaining localised
environments, protecting endangered species and ensuring human
happiness. Conversely, the clearfelling of old-growth forests can be
highly problematic from the point of view of human enjoyment,
nurturing of nonhuman animals, and conservation of complex eco-
systems.
There are many concrete links between the health of natural
environments, diverse human activity and the exploitation of animals.
This is acknowledged in recent work examining the relationship
between the environmental justice movement (dealing primary with
issues of social justice and discrimination) and the wider environmental
movement (dealing primarily with ecological justice and conservation/
preservation issues). Based upon the premise that we need to go beyond
either/or political choices, it is asserted that: 'What is ultimately at issue
is not whether one movement has more worthwhile goals or moral
authority over the other, but, rather, how the goals of both movements might
be achieved together effectively' ' (Pezzullo and Sandler, 2007: 2, emphasis
in original). Similar arguments are being put forward in regards to the
relationship between the animal rights movement (dealing primarily
with issues of species justice and the health and wellbeing of animals)
and the EJ movement, namely, that common ground needs to be
recognised and built upon both in terms of mission objectives and
tactical and strategic alliances (Pellow, 2013).
Some of this common ground is already apparent with respect to
notions of responsibility for harm on the part of humans, and human
responsibility for care of the nonhuman. In the former, concepts such