“Glaciers Are More Than Human Beings”

Environmentalism is growing increasingly radical and irrational, epitomized by the “nature rights” movement that seeks to declare geological features, flora, and fauna to be rights-bearing beings.

Nature rights activists proselytize neoearth religion. Advocates often invoke mystical beliefs of indigenous peoples as justifications for their advocacy, including the invocation of “Pachamama,” the Incan earth goddess. Some activists even claim that the earth is alive.

Now, an article in the environmental journal PLOS Climate claims that “glaciers are more than human beings” — what I guess we could call glacier exceptionalism:

In the context of accelerating climate change and widespread ecological degradation, there is growing academic and legal interest in reframing natural entities—such as glaciers—as more-than-human beings. This conceptual turn challenges anthropocentric ontologies by recognizing that ecosystems possess intrinsic value and agency beyond their utility to human interests. [Citations omitted.]

This is nonsensical. Glaciers are made up of snow that over millennia compacted into ice. They grow or shrink based on climate. They are geological features.

More:

Glaciers, in particular, are increasingly positioned not merely as passive indicators of climate change but as relational entities that demand ethical and legal consideration. The agency of glaciers means that their material transformation and possible death produce impact on human beings’ practices and feelings. According to Salim, “more than just shrinking ice, glaciers are more-than-human entities that have relationships with people, affecting and influencing their behaviour.” The field of relational ontology pays attention to non-Western worldviews, in which social personhood and agency extend beyond human beings, meaning that relational worldview is based on the ethics of respect and reciprocity.

No. Ice has no consciousness. It can’t reciprocate with people in any manner whatsoever. Glaciers have no “agency.”

Apparently though, glaciers must be given their voices!

The call to defend the voice of the glacier emerges from a broader recognition of the interconnectedness between cryospheric ecosystems and cultural, spiritual, and ecological life. For various Indigenous communities, glaciers are living ancestors, sacred beings, and integral parts of a relational world. For many Andean communities, the disappearance of the glacier also means the progressive loss of cultural memory and traditions associated with it.

We can respect these beliefs but should not base public policy on them.

Glaciers grow. Glaciers shrink. Fifteen thousand or so years ago, once mile-high glaciers from the last Ice Age disappeared, forming what we call the Great Lakes (which nature rights activists also claim have rights). Should that great melt have been prevented were we so capable? Please.

Nature rights advocates’ ultimate goal is to criminalize resource extraction through outlawing “ecocide,” as “the fifth international crime against peace,” legally akin to genocide and ethnic cleansing:

Ecocide, defined as widespread or long-term environmental destruction, would allow for the prosecution of individuals — particularly corporate and state leaders — whose actions knowingly contribute to irreversible ecological damage, such as the loss of glaciers. Enshrining ecocide in international law could help close the accountability gap and shift the legal system toward recognizing the rights of nature and the responsibility of humans to prevent irreversible harm.

No. Enacting such laws would be the irreversible harm.

Nature rights activists are totally committed to their cause. And it isn’t just cranks. Science and medical journals support the concept, National Geographic funds its advocacy, and major universities are beginning to teach the ideology. The UN is considering including nature rights as part of an international treaty. Two glaciers in India have already been declared legal rights bearers!

We can laugh at the craziness. But opponents need to be just as engaged as activists if we are to prevent irrationality from governing environmental policy in the West.