Nature and Conservation

The push to grant rights to, well, everything continues apace. Now, a long piece in the progressive publication Current Affairs argues that “Wild Animals Deserve Rights, Too.” Animal-rights activist Michael Burrows writes: Wild animals deserve our attention and respect, for the same reasons that we should care about any creature: they are sentient, with recognizable social behaviors and emotions, and just like humans their lives have intrinsic value. But wild animals are also unique, simply by virtue of existing outside of the sphere of human stewardship. They live their lives mostly out of our sight, and we have no hands-on role in their breeding or care. Still, our current system of land management treats wild animals as simply another variable in our nation’s supply-and-demand graph, to be kept Read More ›

A Green member of the House of Lords plans to introduce “nature rights” legislation. Not only would — basically everything — have rights, but these supposed liberties could be enforced against “individuals.” The authoritarian possibilities are unquantifiable.

First, “nature’s” definition is so broad it includes just about everything in existence. From Draft 8 of the Nature Rights Act of 2025:

“Nature” means the interconnected community of living organisms, ecosystems, geological processes, and natural cycles, including all species, habitats, landscapes, waters, soils, the atmosphere, and the evolutionary and regenerative dynamics of life on Earth.

Anything in the world missing from that definition? Not that I can see. Thus, everything on earth — including the air — would be deemed a “legal person.” And notice that “nature” is personalized with a capital N:

Recognition of Nature as a Legal Person:
a. Nature is recognised as a legal person and subject of law.
b. The rights of Nature established by this Act shall vest in Nature as a single legal entity.
c. These rights shall be enforceable collectively on behalf of Nature to prevent fragmentation of legal claims.

As I have noted here before, NYU Law School’s radical MOTH (More Than Human Life) program embraces neo-earth mysticism as part of its efforts to promote “nature rights.” Here’s the latest example. MOTH participants are seeking to force the Ecuadorian Copyright Office to grant a copyright to a forest as the supposed co-composer of music called Song of the Cedars. From “Giving Back to Nature,” published on the MOTH website: The aim of the song and its accompanying legal petition is to recognize—legally and culturally—the inextricable agency and participation of the natural world in the making of art. The song could not have been made without Los Cedros, legally and philosophically justifying the effort to acknowledge the forest’s “moral authorship” Read More ›

A few months ago, I posted about a Republican proposal in Wisconsin to have the state legally preempt local ordinances that grant “rights” to nature. I predicted that, if the bill passed, the Democratic governor would veto it because the nature rights movement is quickly entering the progressive mainstream. Well, no veto yet, since the bill hasn’t passed. But some Democratic legislators have reacted against the legislation by proposing a joint resolution in favor of granting “inherent rights to nature.” Par for the course, they bow to the supposedly superior environmental wisdom of indigenous people. From the proposed joint resolution: Whereas, Indigenous communities…have lived in respectful relationships with the land that is now Wisconsin for thousands of years, and their Read More ›

If everything has rights — trees, geological features, animals, waves (yes, waves!) — then the core principle protecting human liberty becomes as worthless as currency during a wild inflation. Now, illustrating the Luddite sensibilities that permeate environmentalism generally and the nature rights movement specifically, a science journal has published advocacy by three astrobiology “ethicists” urging that planets, moons, and even space microbes be granted rights. The authors are earnestly serious about their subject. They expend thousands of words discussing the history of the rights of nature movement and existing treaties that apply to space exploration. They then argue that planets be deemed juridical entities, a proposal that environmental radicals have previously urged apply to the moon, i.e., “the right to Read More ›

The “nature rights” movement is pushing environmentalism into the unscientific realm. Specifically, the movement promotes a neo-pagan mysticism — such as invoking Pachamama the Incan earth goddess — as a major basis for its advocacy. Such unscientific approaches have reached the highest levels of the ivory tower and have been invoked in medical and science journals. Most recently, the Harvard Kennedy School hosted a symposium on “nature rights” undergirded by “indigenous knowledge” as part of the 2025 Harvard Climate Action Week. From “Indigenous Leadership on Protecting Water as a Fundamental Right“: Throughout the event, a recurring theme was the need to reframe the human relationship with water—not as a resource for human consumption but as a living relative with which Read More ›

The question of whether nature should own stock is ridiculous on its face. But that doesn’t stop environmental radicals from furthering that cause. Indeed, at least one privately held company has put “nature” on its board of directors.

Now, a leading New Zealand law firm Parry Field — which represents nonprofit organizations — has published a paper urging that “nature” become an owner of companies. The author, one of the partners, named Steven Moe, goes wrong right off the bat. From “Nature as a Shareholder“:

When speaking, I often hold up an apple and ask what the potential is — maybe an apple pie, sliced into a salad, or perhaps some apple cider? No — the true potential are the seeds inside which might become a tree that produces thousands of apples. We just need a paradigm shift of thinking to see in a new way.

Please. Is Moe saying we should not make good use of the apple for human benefit? It sure seems that way. I mean, the “thousands of trees” wouldn’t do much good if we didn’t harvest them and extract the goodness to be found in the fruit. Moreover, we can harvest the apple, extract the juice, and plant the seeds.

The following article was originally published at Badger Institute by Mark Lisheron. Lisheron describes the current battle for and against nature rights, specifically in the United States, and quotes Senior Fellow and Chair of the Center on Human Exceptionalism, Wesley J. Smith. If a tree falls in the forest, can it sue for physical, mental and emotional harm? Not in Wisconsin, and two state lawmakers want to make sure the door isn’t opened to the possibility. State Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobar) and state Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) have introduced a bill that “prohibits a city, village, town, or country” from enacting a “rights of nature ordinance” that confers “legal rights to a natural resource to exist, to be protected against Read More ›

The nature rights movement’s greatest strength isn’t its crackers ideology — i.e., geological features are living persons with the right to “exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution,” and rivers have the “right to flow.” Rather, it is the lack of seriousness with which the movement is taken by expected opponents precisely because it is so crackers. That eye rolling condescension has allowed activists to further their cause almost unimpeded to the point nature rights is the law of several countries and under serious consideration for implementation at the highest level of international governance. Nature rights advocacy is now being funded by the National Geographic Society and its unscientific ideology has been Read More ›

The public-health intelligentsia and bioethics movement are determined to become the primary policy decision makers internationally. For example, back in 2020—at the height of COVID—Anthony Fauci wrote that the UN and WHO should be empowered to “rebuild the infrastructure of human existence.” You don’t get much more expansive than that. In the years since, others among that ilk have pounded the same drum furthered by an international agreement known as “One Health” (without US involvement) establishing an international bureaucracy aiming “to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems.” Toward that end, writing in The Lancet, a gaggle of international technocrats and academics reject the WHO’s current definition of human health as “a state of complete physical, Read More ›