In every disaster only damage is accounted for the people, their assets, crops and domestic animals, but not the damage to the ecological system and wild animals because only the previous account is considered for compensation! There is no account of ecological loss in Tsunami, earthquake, hailstorms and other such disasters. Is the money everything?

A big landowner wants to make a five star hotel at his property, cutting every tree in the acres of the land! Has the general public a right to intervene with detrimental practices occurring on someone else's land?

For the government, it is acceptable for the economic development of the region! Climate change will displace communities, submerge homes and kill entire species. If an individual in intentionally kills an individual and causes destruction of property, will s/he not face severe legal action?

Our perception towards such issues greatly affects our response to them, and our perception is greatly determined by what we accept as ‘morally correct and morally incorrect?’ An issue like violence against women or inaction during a flood is morally not justifiable, and being an ethical issue it pressurizes governments to take swift action and minimize damage, regardless of economic implications. But treatment of climate change is never considered an ethical issue.

Christopher D. Stone's 1972 essay, "Should trees have standing?" addressed the question of whether natural objects themselves should have legal rights. In the essay, Stone suggests that his argument is valid because many current rights holders (women, children) were once seen as objects.

It is no answer to say that streams and forests cannot have standing because streams and forest cannot speak. Corporations cannot speak either, nor can states, estates, infants, incompetents, municipalities or universities. Lawyers speak for them, as they customarily do for the ordinary citizen with legal problems. The guardian (or conservator) then represents the incompetent in his legal affairs.

He argues that by simply giving nature the ability to have legal standing, public opinion will follow. Otherwise humans will continue to see nature as the resource/ property that is here for our use and at our disposal. And we will develop a prejudice to nature just as there was once a prejudice against women or people of a minority race.

So we need efficient laws and proper implementations.