nature rights

The “nature rights” movement has infused environmentalism with unscientific mysticism. In spite of — or perhaps because of — that, its influence continues to grow as geological features like rivers, glaciers, and a mountain have been declared in law to be living persons endowed with rights. Adding to that threat, elite institutions such as law societies, science and medical journals, and grandees at the U.N. are increasingly embracing the cause. In the latest example, Cambridge University’s new policy journal Public Humanities will devote an issue to promoting the rights of nature. From the call for papers: We urgently need to change the way we relate to nature. One of the ways to do so is to consider nature as a Read More ›

How radical has the U.N. become? This radical. Volker Türk, the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated in a recent speech at Oxford University that nature rights are equivalent to human rights. First, he briefly focused on our obligations as humans to treat the environment responsibly. From the Scoop World transcript: We have a responsibility to treat our planet with respect; to protect its glaciers and forests; to support the diversity of species on land and in the sea; to keep our rivers and lakes clean; to preserve nature, including ourselves. No argument. That is a core principle of human exceptionalism. But then, Türk denies that this responsibility flows from our exceptionalism, but rather, claims that our understanding Read More ›

Encountering little political resistance, the “nature rights” movement continues its march toward legal and institutional respectability. Now, the Council of Paris has asked the French Parliament to grant legal personhood and “rights” to the river Seine. From the RTL Today story: French authorities want to give legal rights to the River Seine to better defend the world-famous waterway in court and protect its fragile ecosystem, part of a global movement to grant legal personhood to nature. In a resolution adopted on Wednesday, the Paris City Council called on parliament to pass a law granting the Seine legal personhood to enable “an independent guardian authority to defend its rights in court.” “The Seine must be able to defend itself, as a Read More ›

The “nature rights” movement has really hit the big time. The National Geographic Society — one of the world’s largest and most influential science organizations — is going to pour money into the movement. From the National Geographic website:

Today, the National Geographic Society, in collaboration with The Alfred Kobacker and Elizabeth Trimbach Fund, are proud to announce For Nature. Announcement of the new program comes in anticipation of the celebration of the International Day for Biological Diversity, May 22). For Nature will support National Geographic Explorer Callie Veelenturf’s vision to advance the Rights of Nature movement and provide funding for ten Explorer projects to advance this work.

The Rights of Nature movement seeks to bring rights-based legal protection to threatened and endangered species and habitats. Under the newly-launched For Nature program, this movement will be further catalyzed and expanded with the help of the Society’s global community of researchers and conservationists, storytelling and education expertise, technology and communications support and elevation opportunities to drive the impact of this work and grow the movement for species and habitat protections.

What are the rights of nature? Don’t let the press release fool you. It isn’t just about endangered species, habitats, or ecosystems. Here’s a frequently deployed definition:

A bill has been filed in New York that would grant rights to the Great Lakes and all waterways in the state. (A similar law was enacted previously in Toledo, forcing Ohio to pass preemptive legislation.) I have no idea whether it will pass — I would certainly hope not — but it illustrates the profound anti-development/free market agendas behind the entire nature-rights movement. First, the bill would create a very expansive definition of the rights that would be accorded to the Great Lakes and New York waterways. From A05156A (italicized for emphasis): The Great Lakes, and the watersheds that drain into the Great Lakes and their connecting channels, as well as the watersheds and ecosystems throughout the state of 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 ›

More than 30 U.S. cities have adopted nature rights ordinances, mostly to prevent fracking. And now in the recent election, 57 percent of voters in Everett, Wash., granted rights to a geological feature, specifically, the Snohomish River watershed. From the initiative:

The Snohomish River Watershed possesses the rights to exist, regenerate, and flourish, which shall include the right to naturally recharge, the right to naturally flow, the right to water quality necessary to provide habitat for native plants and animals, the right to provide clean water, and the right to restoration. The Snohomish River Watershed shall also have the right to be free from activities.

This is anti-enterprise — and anti-human — since it waters down (pardon the pun) the crucial legal principle of rights to a ridiculous degree. Indeed, with a river granted rights, we re-dignify rights into a concept that thwarts, rather than protects, human freedom.

The “nature rights” project — and its ancillaries — keeps advancing, mostly ignored by those who could stop it in its tracks with legislation declaring that only humans and our associations and juridical entities have legal standing in courts or enforceable rights. Now, a “whale rights” project has commenced, pushed pro bono by a big international law firm, Simmons and Simmons. From the Legal Cheek story: These frameworks centre on the concept of a “legal person” — an entity acknowledged as having “standing” within the judicial system. Traditionally, this status has been reserved for humans, community organisations, and corporations. Granting this designation to whales represents a groundbreaking shift, acknowledging the value of non-human life and redefining how the law engages Read More ›