Two Underdogs and a Mutual Interest Lost in the Wind: The Shortcomings of Environmental Law and Animal Law in Protecting Animals and Suggestions on How to Reconcile the Two Movements

• Author: Jessica Meltzer
• Position: Pronouns: They/Them/Theirs. Georgetown University, J.D. 2021; Northwestern University, B.A., B.M. 2018
• Pages: 119-139

Two Underdogs and a Mutual Interest Lost in the

Wind: The Shortcomings of Environmental Law

and Animal Law in Protecting Animals and

Suggestions on How to Reconcile the Two

Movements

JESSICA MELTZER*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

I. The Environmental Law Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

A. Background on Environmental Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

B. How Does Environmental Law Protect Animals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

1. National Environmental Policy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

2. Clean Water Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

3. Endangered Species Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

4. Clean Air Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

II. The Animal Law Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

A. Background on Animal Law: A Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights 128

B. How Successful Has Animal Law Legislation and Litigation Been in

Ensuring the Protection of Animals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

1. Legislation—What Has Legislation Accomplished and What

Does it Still Fail To Do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

a. The Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Methods of

Slaughter Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

b. Anti-Cruelty Statutes and Their Shortcomings . . . . . . . . 130

2. Litigation—How Has Animal Welfare Been Addressed in the

Courts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

III. Reconciliation of the Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

A. CAFOs Showcase the Overlap and Mutual Interests of the

Environmental and Animal Rights Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

B. Animal Law Has Struggled to Gain Adequate Footing and Animal

Welfare Statutes Have not Been Enforced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

IV. Suggestions for Statutory Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

A. NEPA—Redefining Terms and Heightening Permit Requirements . 135

* Pronouns: They/Them/Theirs. Georgetown University, J.D. 2021; Northwestern University, B.A.,

B.M. 2018. © 2022, Jessica Meltzer. I would like to thank my parents, Leigh and Jeffrey Meltzer, and

my sisters, Rebecca and Alex Meltzer, for supporting me and believing in me throughout my life. I

would also like to the thank the Georgetown Environmental Law Review staff for all of their work.

119

B. CWA – Conditioning NPDES Permits on Animal Welfare Standards 137

C. ESA – Protecting Hybrid Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

D. CAA – SIP Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

INTRODUCTION

Environmental law and animal law are closely related and have both been suc-

cessfully employed to protect animals. Both the environmental and animal rights

movements reflect an overall shift in mentality that has taken hold throughout the

latter half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first: human beings must

start taking responsibility for our actions and caring about how these actions

impact our surroundings.

Environmental law started to expand in part due to Rachel Carson’s 1962 book

Silent Spring. Carson’s views illustrated a fundamental paradigm shift, declaring

that if society wishes to prosper, we must take account of the consequences of

each individual decision and action.

1

Her views reflect utilitarianism, the idea

that society will self-destruct by way of pollution and toxins so long as public and

private enterprises continue to act as individuals, instead of as an interconnected

being.

2

Carson asks us to view ourselves as mere pieces in the puzzle—rather

than as the entire puzzle—because that is the only practical way to achieve

greater environmental health.

Carson’s paradigm shift is applicable to the animal rights movement as well

because both environmentalism and animal rights activism ask humans to look

within, recognize the interconnectedness and implications of our actions, and

actively put the health and welfare of the natural world ahead of our monetary

objectives. Despite this similar call to action, many environmentalists view

animal rights activists as working against the interests of the environment.

According to Mark Sagoff, a prominent environmentalist philosopher, “envi-

ronmentalists cannot be animal liberationists. Animal liberationists cannot be

environmentalists.”

3

He claims the reduction of animal misery requires the sac-

rifice of the “authenticity, integrity, and complexity of ecosystems to protect

the rights, or guard the lives, of animals.”

4

This Note deconstructs Sagoff’s

belief that the movements are at odds with one another and instead argues that

not only can the movements coexist, but they can work together to achieve har-

mony in the natural world.

1. See generally RACHEL CARSON, SILENT SPRING (1962).

2. Id.; Zygmunt J.B. Plater, From the Beginning, A Fundamental Shift of Paradigms: A Theory and

Short History of Environmental Law, 27 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 981, 982 (1994).

3. Mark Sagoff, Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce, 22

OSGOODE HALL L.J. 297, 304 (1984).

4. Id.

120 THE GEORGETOWN ENV’T LAW REVIEW [Vol. 34:119