O STJ e a jurisprudência ambiental: entre avanços e retrocessos

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate inconsistencies in decisions about environmental law, based on the paradigmatic case of environmental moral damage in the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). Through the chronological analysis of various decisions, it was observed that there is a disparity between the decisions of the two sections of STJ responsible for judging environmental controversies. While a section accept the moral damages based on the application of the principle in dubio pro natura, another section believes that the feeling of pain is individual and therefore incompatible with the environmental damage. There was also the use of procedural and formal arguments to rule out even considering the merits of the matter. The article concludes with the need for a fundamental change in the interpretive paradigm concerning jus-ecological conflicts, from an individualist, patrimonial and anthropocentric bias to a transindividualist and extrapatrimonial bias