Toward eco-justice for all - Environmental Harm: An Eco-justice Perspective - page 142

• the right of laboratory animals not to be used in cruel or unnecessary
experiments
• the right of farm animals to an environment that satisies their basic
physical and psychological needs
• the right of companion animals to a healthy diet, protective shelter,
and adequate medical care
• the right of wildlife to a natural habitat, ecologically suicient to a
normal existence and self-sustaining species population
• the right of animals to have their interests represented in court and
safeguarded by the law of the land.
Translated into a practical model of advocacy, this construction of
animal rights implies human guardianship (Pollard, 2008). As with
notions underpinning Earth Law, there is the presumption that human
intervention - on the side of animals and as embedded in law - is
necessary in order to protect them against exploitation and abuse.
Guardianship and stewardship are thus two sides of the same moral coin.
The overarching approaches, of course, do have major consequences
with regard to where individual scholars and researchers put their time
and energy. The study of environmental harm, including issues such as
toxic discrimination involving humans, destruction of forests and animal
cruelty, is greatly influenced by the perspective one applies to the natural
world generally, and influences which issues ought to receive specific
priority. This does not preclude collaboration and interaction with
fellow travellers across the movement and theoretical divides (Beirne,
2007), but the gulfs between those writing about environmental,
ecological and species justice can nonetheless be profound and troubling
(Beirne, 2011; Pellow, 2013).
Part of the problem is due to that fact that some analysis is pitched at
too high a level of abstraction, which only reinforces rigid definitions
and absolutist positions (for example, humans come first; the earth is
most important; any harm to animals is bad). This can preclude closely
considered analysis of specific situations. For example, an absolutist
approach may contend that humans should not, in any way, interfere
with animals. This approach may be appropriate when dealing with a
situation involving dingos and kangaroos in the wilds of the Northern
Territory in Australia, but inappropriate when dealing with wandering
polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba. The more specific and situational
the problem, the more likely a reasonable solution and/or compromise
can be worked out.
The working through of issues is only 'successful' to the degree that
participants are willing to talk with each other, appreciate alternative