Follow the logic. If flowers, trees, etc. have rights, then they should have the right to their original food supply (CO2) in quantities as it was when they evolved (about five times today's value).Indeed, half a billion years ago, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was about 2,000 ppm. That's when the plants began to evolve. They have the right to get their optimum atmosphere that has been catastrophically stolen from them. ;-)
Another follow the logic: If it is legal to commit the crime of vandalism on power plants to reduce CO2, then it should be legal to run stop signs and red lights because you reduce CO2 as a result. John C.
Anyone who prevents the CO2 from returning to 2,000 ppm should be arrested for damaging the basic human rights of billions of Tree Americans, Potato Americans, and other groups that have been discriminated against so far. :-)
And even if someone is a racist and an anti-plants bigot :-) and prefers CO2 to drop, she should allow cars to run red lights because it reduces CO2 emissions, either because the car doesn't have to accelerate again or - even more efficiently - because some nasty CO2-emitting humans will be killed.
Now, both John Christy and your humble correspondent are joking: in reality, the "justifications" of the proposed policies are irrelevant in comparison with the important bad consequences that they would have.
But the problem with all the jokes in this context is that we are surrounded by thousands of nutcases who are constantly proposing very similar regulations and they seem to be serious about them.