environmentalism

Science, medical, and bioethics journals are setting themselves up as the new political resistance to Trump policies, most particularly around global warming controversies. For example, The Lancet published a piece blaming the Los Angeles fires on climate change, which is hardly a medical issue properly understood. A bit later — as I wrote about here — a major bioethics journal published an advocacy article asserting that it is up to bioethicists to prevent global warming. Not to be undone, JAMA has just published a column decrying Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and claiming that preventing climate change is now up to doctors. From, “Defying Environmental Deregulation:” These policy changes may appear catastrophic for effective climate action, but they Read More ›

Environmentalism is becoming increasingly irrational and unscientific. The “nature rights” movement, for example, has convinced governments and judges to assign personhood, “rights,” and, laughably, even “responsibilities” to geological features. Concomitantly, the increasing advocacy in many scientific papers to “listen to the wisdom of indigenous people” in determining environmental policies reflects this ongoing shift away from empiricism in environmental research and advocacy.

Yes, indigenous people were and are keen observers of nature and live more softly on the land. But relying on “indigenous wisdom” to craft environmental policies suitable to the needs of modern societies makes little sense. Many of their practices were steeped in religious and mystical beliefs. They developed comparatively rudimentary technologies, had no electricity, and were required to feed, house, and otherwise provide for far fewer people than the 8 billion of us living today.

But don’t tell that to the increasingly ideological science establishment. A new paper published in Nature Communications goes deeper into “indigenous wisdom” argumentation, urging the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) environmental research sites to collect and analyze data in a manner accommodating of indigenous sensibilities.

It’s all about equity, don’t you know.

A mountain sacred to the indigenous people of the island has been named a “person” with “rights” and “responsibilities.” From the AP story:

The law passed Thursday gives Taranaki Maunga all the rights, powers, duties, responsibilities and liabilities of a person. Its legal personality has a name: Te Kāhui Tupua, which the law views as “a living and indivisible whole.” It includes Taranaki and its surrounding peaks and land, “incorporating all their physical and metaphysical elements.”

A newly created entity will be “the face and voice” of the mountain, the law says, with four members from local Māori iwi, or tribes, and four members appointed by the country’s Conservation Minister.

This is irrational and illustrates how environmentalism is going off the rails. A geological feature has been declared to be a living person! Again!

The assistant secretary general of the U.S., Kanni Wignaraja, wants “nature” to go to court so that tribunals can set environmental policy for the world. From her “Nature Goes to Court,” published by the U.N. Development Programme (of which she is a regional director): Nature is taking the stand as courtrooms worldwide become battlegrounds for Earth’s rights. The rise in climate litigation shows how the environment can take centre stage as a plaintiff, demanding justice and accountability, benefiting us all. . . . Good grief. “Nature” would not be “going to court” or doing anything as viruses, geological features, flora and fauna would be utterly oblivious of the proceedings. What Wignaraja really means is that people who think like her Read More ›

The bioethics movement has always had power ambitions beyond wrestling with health policy and medical ethics. Indeed, for years, the mainstreamers have been seeking to interpose themselves into the global-warming controversy.

The Hastings Center — the beating heart of the bioethics establishment — has been leading the charge to so expand the sector’s influence. The center just published a call to arms to fight global warming by a medical ethics professor emeritus, advocating that bioethicists be at the center of the climate-change fray.

After praising the inflation-causing spending of the mendaciously named Inflation Reduction Act as now set in stone — time will tell — the author rallies the bioethicists troops to the great cause. From “Now What? Bioethics and Mitigating Climate Disasters“:

We might well ask: Now what? Is there a way to make a difference over the next four years? And, especially, does bioethics have a role in this effort?

I argue that there is important work ahead and bioethics should be squarely in the middle of it. The work is less in federal policy and more in public persuasion. The role for bioethics is to bring global warming and its catastrophic health consequences into focus as an existential crisis neither party can ignore.

Environmentalism is growing increasingly irrational. Advocates are now pushing to give rights to a continent. From the Inside Climate News story: Antarctic Rights’ proposal is part of the growing rights of nature movement, which has cemented various rights of ecosystems and individual species, like sea turtles, into legislation and court rulings in more than a dozen countries. The worsening climate and biodiversity crises have helped the movement gain momentum. In Ecuador, frogs have taken mining companies to court and won. In Colombia, courts have appointed human-guardians to oversee the rights of the Atrato River. There’s even precedent for giving nature a seat in the boardrooms of companies. But never has an idea been set forth to put a natural entity Read More ›

The nature-rights movement continues to advance, and that’s bad for human thriving. Now, a “tribunal” will be held in New York — coinciding with Climate Week NYC 2024 — to promote the rights of nature and undermine public support for fossil fuels. The tribunal’s website is typical of the anti-humanism that permeates the nature-rights movement. For example, the fundamental philosophy of nature rights — as elucidated at the website, is “that the interests of nonhuman beings are of equal importance to human interests.” So, pond scum, mosquitoes, trees, squirrels, grass, and scallops are equal to us. That’s self-loathing any way you look at it. Worse, adopting such a misanthropic approach to environmentalism would have serious consequences to human thriving. For example, forget about heating Read More ›

Most people support responsible environmental policies but may be unaware of how radical the leading edge of the movement has become as an increasing number of activists support granting personhood rights to nature. Is nature rights a subversive threat to human exceptionalism and our thriving or is it the next necessary step in society’s moral growth and key to preventing Read More ›