taneagrafika 14m ago
No, they can't--and therefore shouldn't--have rights, because they are not legal persons and are incapable of being held responsible. But that doesn't mean we, who are legal persons, do not have the duty to protect them. But foolishly and needlessly casting the debate in the terms of rights just gives the whole debate a faint air of precious silliness.
In fact, the argument from self-interest is perfectly adequate for establishing our duty to preserve natural habitats. As the world dies, we die, it is just that simple. The reason we have historically been less than trusty stewards of the natural world is that we were ignorant of the many ways we depend on it and can suffer as a result of its degradation (plus the fact that humanity does not possess one undivided set of interests and therefore never acts in unison).
If we can't act when our natural habitat is dying, what makes you think we will act purely on the basis of some ceremonial "right" we assign to a plant? In other words, if the thing that is most important is still not important enough, why should something of marginal importance be enough?