Can the law really protect the planet when business and economic growth pull in the opposite direction? History suggests it can, but making it happen consistently is another story.
Whose side is the law on?
Imagine a company wants to build an oil field or clear land to expand a factory. The project could create jobs and generate millions, but it could also damage ecosystems or worsen climate change. When those interests collide, I’ve naively assumed that someone somewhere takes the planet’s side or at least weighs the destruction against the industrialisation to keep business accountable. But it’s never that black and white. So I’m curious to explore some of the different methods humanity has taken to try and legally protect the natural planet.
This isn’t about charities or NGOs standing up for a landscape, or about companies planting trees for their marketing or tick-box tax benefits. It’s about legally expecting everyday businesses, industries and financial institutions to prioritise our planet’s health over their own operations when the two conflict. There are real examples of the law doing this and my hope is that they offer some clues about what could work in the future…
Five ways the law has put the planet first
-
Recognising nature as a rights-holder
In 2008, Ecuador became the first country to recognise the rights of nature in its constitution – rather than simply being treated as a resource, nature was given rights to exist, persist and regenerate without certain disruptions. This meant that in 2011, during the Vilcabamba River case, a provincial court ruled in favour of nature’s rights following environmental damage associated with road construction. It demonstrated that environmental protection could be argued in nature’s own name.
Several countries have followed suit with parks, mountains, rivers and lagoons across New Zealand, Spain, Peru and Colombia all granted “personhood”, and Bolivia recognizing all of nature under its 2012 Framework Law on Mother Earth and Integral Development.
Why it matters: Traditional environmental law often focuses on harm to humans. Rights of nature can shift attention towards damage to ecosystems themselves, making destructive projects harder to justify on economic grounds.
The downside: Rights don’t automatically give nature a lawyer, funding or enforcement powers. Someone must represent it, creating risks of political or corporate influence. Legal personhood also doesn’t automatically make a river liable for pollution; responsibility depends on the law. Some businesses will still screw over a landscape for financial gain, just like they would a person!
The takeaway: Nature’s rights need independent representation, clear responsibilities and proper enforcement.
-
Using human rights law to demand climate action
In 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a ruling requiring the Netherlands to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020, compared with 1990 levels. Environmental organisation Urgenda, supported by nearly 900 citizens, argued that the government wasn’t doing enough to protect people from climate change. The court agreed that the state had obligations under human rights law, including the European Convention on Human Rights. While this wasn’t an order directed at individual businesses, it required government action that had roll-on consequences for energy, transport and industry.
Why it matters: Climate targets can become enforceable duties rather than political promises. Governments cannot always put economic convenience ahead of protecting people.
The downside: Courts can establish obligations but don’t necessarily design effective energy systems or decide how costs should be shared. The governments decides how to meet those requirements, and they will also be obliged to keep business and economy buoyant. This method also raises a democratic question about judges shaping policy – who decides what is important? Overall, a legal victory doesn’t guarantee lasting emissions reductions.
The takeaway: Citizens can use the law to challenge climate inaction, but implementation matters.
-
Giving environmental rights legal force
In 2023, sixteen young people won a landmark climate case against Montana. In Held v. State, they challenged state provisions preventing environmental reviews from considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts in certain decisions. Montana’s constitution guarantees a clean and healthful environment. The trial court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favour, recognising that a stable climate forms part of that protection. In December 2024, Montana’s Supreme Court affirmed the decision. The ruling didn’t ban fossil fuel production – it challenged how the state assessed environmental impacts.
Why it matters: Young people will live with today’s environmental decisions the longest. Constitutional protections can help prevent environmental standards being weakened by changing political priorities. They can also set a precedent for future cases, and media coverage of cases can help raise awareness of issues.
The downside: Not everyone has equivalent rights, legal representation or access to courts. Litigation can take years and victories usually only address one part of a wider problem.
The takeaway: Environmental protection can be a legal right.
-
Financial liability for environmental harm
In 1989, the Exxon Valdez tanker spilled millions of gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound, damaging wildlife, coastlines and fisheries. The legal response included criminal penalties, restitution and civil claims. In 1991, Exxon agreed to a criminal plea agreement including a $125 million criminal fine and restitution, alongside a separate civil settlement. In 2008, the US Supreme Court reduced punitive damages to $507.5 million.
Why it matters: If companies can pollute cheaply and leave everyone else with the consequences, the incentives are backwards. The “polluter pays” principle can encourage prevention, safer operations and cleaner processes.
The downside: Money cannot restore every ecosystem or compensate for lost wildlife. If penalties are too small, pollution becomes another business expense. Some companies may also be unable to pay.
The takeaway: Responsibility should involve meaningful penalties, prevention and restoration wherever possible. This case demonstrates accountability after harm, rather than proof that environmental protection always prevailed.
-
International agreements that change industry-wide rules
Sometimes the strongest environmental protection isn’t a courtroom victory. It’s changing the rules everyone follows. Agreed in 1987, the Montreal Protocol targeted ozone-depleting chemicals, including chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigeration and aerosols. Governments agreed to phase out these substances, requiring industries to change products and manufacturing processes.
According to UNEP, around 98% of controlled ozone-depleting substances have been phased out globally compared with 1990 levels. With continued implementation, the ozone layer is projected to recover towards the middle of this century.
Why it matters: Rather than relying on individual choices, regulation changed the market. Industries adapted, alternatives developed and international cooperation delivered measurable progress.
The downside: Transition costs can fall unfairly on workers, consumers and smaller businesses. Some CFC replacements, including many hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), contribute to climate change. The Kigali Amendment subsequently introduced an HFC phase-down.
The takeaway: Environmental rules can transform industries, but they must consider unintended consequences and support a fair transition.
What could the future look like?
While these methods all vary, I believe they reveal a common thread: environmental protection works best when it becomes a legal requirement, not a business choice. The strongest approaches combine clear duties, independent enforcement, prevention and fairness. They also recognise that restoring damage isn’t always possible and that workers and families shouldn’t bear the costs alone. So what could a planet-first legal system look like?
Businesses operating within environmental limits
Imagine starting a business in 2040. You must demonstrate that all your operations meet binding environmental standards covering emissions, water use, waste, biodiversity and supply chains. Not simply by publishing a sustainability policy, but with credible and ongoing evidence.
Environmental assessments could also consider cumulative impacts. One factory might appear harmless, but dozens of developments could collectively push an ecosystem beyond its ability to recover. Governments could establish ecological limits in vulnerable regions and refuse permits for projects causing unacceptable damage. Such rules would need sound science, public participation and carefully defined exceptions for essential activities.
Stronger duties for company directors
Corporate law could require directors to consider environmental impacts and risks, with accountability for disregarding legal obligations. This wouldn’t mean every director becomes personally liable for every environmental problem, but concealing emissions or knowingly ignoring serious pollution risks could carry consequences that the companies would have to own up to. The challenge would be avoiding a paperwork-heavy system where businesses tick boxes while damage continues.
Making finance part of the solution
Financial institutions could face stronger requirements to assess exposure to deforestation, ecosystem destruction and high-emission projects. Public investment could favour restoration and clean infrastructure, while financial rules could discourage environmentally destructive activities.
Disclosure alone won’t prevent harm and liability needs careful definition. However, it could mean that investors are motivated to increasingly ask “Can this business make money without causing unacceptable environmental damage?”
Could environmental destruction become a crime?
Another possibility is stronger criminal law addressing severe environmental destruction, often called ecocide. In 2021, an independent expert panel proposed defining ecocide around unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge of a substantial likelihood of severe and widespread or long-term environmental damage.
Okay, so this option remains a proposal. Ecocide is not currently a standalone crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Nevertheless, carefully defined offences could introduce stronger consequences for serious environmental destruction, while protecting due process. There is room here for inspiration, even if just in part.
The planet shouldn’t have to compete with profit
So, can the legal system be on our planet’s side?
Well, the Montreal Protocol showed industries can change. Urgenda demonstrated that governments can be held accountable. Ecuador challenged the idea that nature is merely property. Montana showed how environmental rights can protect younger generations, while the Exxon Valdez case demonstrated that pollution can carry financial consequences. So, in certain ways, yes it can.
However, legal victories aren’t the same as environmental recovery. The next step is making prevention, accountability and ecological protection part of everyday economic life. That doesn’t mean businesses, jobs or financial security must either completely change or disappear. It means recognising that our economy depends on the living planet beneath it.
We shouldn’t have to choose between a future where society thrives and one where nature survives. Reframing some legal systems would help make those two things inseparable – because in reality they already are.
