The rights of flora and fauna

Hello Rabbi,
I remember that you said in the past that animals have no rights, but that humans have a duty to refrain from harming them unnecessarily. The question of whether animals have rights or not is not important to the degree of coercion that should be exercised to protect animals. After all, when there is a violation of a right, it is appropriate to coerce against the violation, whereas when there is a violation only of a duty, it is generally inappropriate to exercise coercion (for example, there is a duty to give charity and it is not appropriate to coerce the giving of charity, at least in the moral aspect). It is seemingly intuitively clear to any reasonable person that it is appropriate to exercise coercion against casual abuse of a helpless animal, and this intuition shows that something in the basic assumptions was not correct. Therefore, it might be correct to define that animals have a tenuous right to protection from abuse without sufficient justification. Similarly, someone who burns down an entire forest just seems to be worth enforcing against this act because of the plant’s tenuous right to live, and perhaps we can also talk about the inanimate object’s right to exist (for example, if someone could make Jupiter disappear with the push of a button, it seems to me that it is worth preventing it by force).
Do you think there is room to talk about such tenuous rights for living and nonliving things?