Are we really at war with nature?
For the last 600 years, dominant human cultures have seen it as their right to plunder the planet and take land by force, making wealth for elites. In more recent times as the global economy has emerged, the same template of grab, exploit, pollute has continued.
Life on Earth is now under unprecedented pressure. People, animals and plants are threatened by massive destruction of their environment. It is now well understood that this is the result of human activity. Over time we have increasingly prioritised our own short-term interests over caring for the planet we inhabit.
There is a much-needed global debate about the place of humankind in relation to nature. This will be controversial and contested because it strikes hard at the roots of the global economic system. But it is essential to have if we are to shift away from our current direction of travel and survive.
How bad have things got?
Earth systems are unstable because of the harm already done. We’re in a race against time, as well as a bitter contest with those who deny ecological reality. Scientists are increasingly raising their voices but the response from governments and corporate enterprise is far from adequate for the challenges we face.
Science is clear that our actions have stressed Earth systems up to their tolerance limits, and in several cases well beyond. The Stockholm Resilience Centre has identified nine ‘planetary boundaries’ or safety rails. Violating them is as wise as smashing through the central barrier of a motorway.
Johan Rockström, joint director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, clearly lays out these boundaries here:
What can be done?
We need to think ahead and be prepared to make and take opportunities for fundamental change in the right direction.
This is happening through all sorts of alliances in communities, businesses, charities and academia, working for peace with nature as best they can, each in their own ways, and all are affecting voting and policies. The 2024 UK election shows the direction of travel since 2019, with a tripling of Green votes in Scotland and an extra million in England and Wales.
But this progress can be undermined by a single change in political fortunes, and a surer way to consolidate progress is needed.
Our party already supports a written constitution for Scotland which would be agreed by the people of Scotland. An idea that Greens are discussing is that we argue for the embedding of ‘Peace with Nature’ into the constitution. This would mean that we:
- Declare Peace with Nature with the aim of helping to restore and maintain mutually-supportive relations between humankind and nature.
- Establish a well-resourced Constitutional Court for Ecological Protection which citizens of Scotland would have a right to petition
- Cooperate with other peoples, nations and countries that are of like mind in restoring and maintaining Peace with Nature.
Whether or not Scotland is an independent country, it’s quite possible to develop structures (like a constitution and other legal entities) that allow people democratically to regain control and show how we want to live. For example, Norway’s Constitution was written when the country was still part of Denmark, stayed in force when it was part of Sweden, and remains in force today.
Constitutions signal the values and norms that are expected within society. We need to make the case for the principle that ecological sustainability outweighs human privilege in a Scottish Constitution, and that the limits and tolerances of Earth systems are boundaries within which people and all life can thrive together.
Building specific measures to restore peace with nature will help address the deep problems now facing us and all life on Earth, so we would advocate for a Constitutional Court for Ecological Protection. Such a court would respond to requests to examine, and if necessary take down, any law or practice that could contribute in a major way to violating Earth system boundaries.
A ‘Peace with Nature’ motion is tabled at Scottish Greens conference on 27 October.
Thanks to Julian Caldecott, who is proposing the motion with support from Edinburgh Greens, for contributing a lion’s share to this article.
Thanks also to Merle Ferguson who is seconding the motion.