There is a growing movement across the world recognizing the rights of nature and awareness of areas of devastation. The Rights of Nature Movement is aimed at legally supporting the rights of nature. It is based on the supposition that if humans have rights, nature does too. And when nature has rights, humans have responsibilities.
No matter where anyone stands on environmental issues—global warming/no global warming, pipelines/no pipelines, coal mining/no coal mining—as RVers, we know being in nature is important. It soothes, relaxes, and beckons us to hike, explore, and stand in awe. It makes camping and RVing so much better. Think of sitting around a warming campfire with a breeze gently blowing and the sun setting in the glorious shades of pink, orange and purple. In the U.S., we work on protecting endangered species, preserve our natural wonders with national and state parks, and look at the potential of wind and solar energy.
Other countries are going even further. They are moving to protect nature with equal rights—the Rights of Nature Movement.
Ireland
Ireland could be the first country in the European Union to put the rights of nature into their constitution. It would recognize the rights of nature to be respected, protected, and have the right to thrive. It would also allow organizations to defend those rights. The measure is dependent on the Irish Parliament putting the issue into a national referendum and the people voting.
Finland
Finland allows all people to utilize all land, including private property when they do so with respect. The Finnish people believe strongly that their connection to nature is one of the reasons they have been noted as the happiest country in the world. Read more about that here.
New Zealand
In 2017, New Zealand recognized and granted legal personhood to the Whanganui River, one of the country’s major resources. It runs from the snowy Mount Tongariro volcano to the Tasman Sea. The river has been a place of deep reverence, a source of food, and a home for the Māori people for over 800 years. The Māori people have a saying: “I am the river and the river is me.”
110 countries recognize nature in their constitution
Many Latin American and African countries have moved forward recognizing the importance of the natural world and the impact of the environment on people. They have added nature rights and human rights to their constitutions.
United Nations’ mandate
The United Nations has mandated that everyone, everywhere has a fundamental right to live in a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. This mandate was added in the 2022 General Assembly to the library of internationally recognized human rights.
Not your average tree hugger
The term “Tree Hugger” has always been a bit of a cliche, with the vision of a hippie environmentalist chained to a tree. It is beyond one tree and one forest. These new laws are granting the constitutional rights of nature to be protected and cared for in the same vein that people have constitutional rights.
In the end, what I think we all hope for is a world that can be passed on to our children and our grandchildren with endless natural spaces to camp, fish, recreate, explore, and relax.
For more information on The Rights of Nature movement, check out this book by David Boyd.
So far, I haven’t seen any speeches written by ‘nature’ or heard anything else by ‘nature’. But I have seen and heard lots of diatribes from those who think the human population is the scourge of the earth and should somehow be eradicated to save Mother Earth. Yawn . . .
From a Plumber- I hate working in public rest rooms- People are PIGS when not at home. Just look at our national, state, county and local parks. It’s not a diatribe to expect people to have some respect for what they use.
Exactly. Which is why socialist paradigms fail. Where there is no self-interest, too many people will not care.
See: “Tragedy of the Commons”.
Sorry John, but there is a lot of people that do care for public lands. Throwing to term “socialism” around so freely only proves your ignorance of the term.
Caring for public lands and “socialism” are not the same thing. So I’m not the one throwing the term loosely. Unlike most people online, I choose my words very carefully.
Again, look up “Tragedy of the Commons” by Garrett Hardin and get back to me on this. It’s literally the reason I became an economics major.
There’s too many wack jobs in this world anymore. Glad I have far fewer years ahead of me than the many behind me.
This is ridiculous and it is what happens when children make policy.
Will we soon have to yield for possums crossing the highway?
Watch out for worms on the road after a rainfall folks. They have the right of way.
Will this be reciprocal? Can I sue the bird’s siblings if it flys into my windshield and cracks it?
I would surmise that law suits filed on behalf of a plant or animal for damages, would then place the financial awards into the coffers of the Govts. on behalf of the firewood or the road kill.
I hate mosquitoes and love the sweet sound of the zapper when it roasts one. Will that get me a hate crime enhancement?
Thank you, Nanci! The motto of a university econ department in which I briefly taught, and that I gleefully adopted as my own, was “you can never be too cynical.” So, too, for a secondary motto, “no good deed goes unpunished.” Lastly, through living 66+ years I have developed a default position on political issues, “if European countries do it, then it’s a bad idea.” Consequently, I find the idea of nature having rights ludicrous and dangerous to humans, and probably wildlife/nature. Yikes! I probably need to die soon, or I may find myself holed up in a depression on the side of our mountain engaged in my last stand with European-style environmentalists.
Tossing tomato soup onto a Picasso, no jail time. Tossing tomato soup into the dirt, 10 years.
Not only do the KOOKS want us to not drive anymore, this type of craziness will make riding horse a crime too. Unless and only if you get the horse to sign a waiver and have it notarized.
Maybe I too am just getting old Neal.
Hyperbole.
How do we know how nature feels? Or have we heard the earth crying that we are killing it? Other than the politicians spewing bs…..there are a lot of crazies in this world looking or their 5 minutes of fame.
The western entitlement mindset of our so-called ‘dominion over the earth’ has wreaked much damage to our planet over the centuries. To ignore this obvious reality is willful blindness. Ideally the Rights of Nature movements seek to protect what’s left of the environment on which we all depend, will hopefully give more teeth to laws protecting native lands from encroaching industrial development.
Considering the natural environment is healthier and cleaner than its been in 75 years, you know, cleaner air and water, I would say we’re doing a pretty good job already without getting sued by a rattlesnake.
Now that we have stopped murdering whales to build offshore wind farms, I would say the rational thinking grown ups have won a battle for the whales against the evirowackos.
“the natural environment is healthier and cleaner than its been in 75 years”
Citation please.
The problem with this notion is that nature does not care. “Rights” cannot exist without responsibility, and nature has none, nor can it be held accountable to anyone.
To ignore the feelings & rights of animals to be able to live in their natural ecosystems is another kind of willful blindness. How about instead, we focus on taking the “right of personhood” away from corporations? After all, a corporation isn’t a real person, it doesn’t feel, & its only purpose is to make money at the expense of everything else.
If given rights, can the antelope sue the lion? Can the grass on the plains sue the antelope? Can the parched desert sue the sun? Or is the intent to only segregate out humans and their interaction with nature? If a lion can still eat an antelope, can a human still eat an antelope if “nature” has rights?
Please define humankind’s natural ecosystem for us. You know, our natural food sources and the geographical boundaries you think are natural boundaries, from the arctic circle to the tip of Argentina. We didn’t just show up here from a different planet either.
It really speaks volumes that folks like you are more incensed about protective rights for animals than about corporations having legal “personhood.”
Nice deflection…. not really but good try.
So you can’t define humankind’s natural ecosystem? We are also an animal species, no?
Absolutely correct, John. “Nature” is whatever it is at the moment and will still be “nature” even if unsuitable for humans to exist in it. “Nature” could care less one way or another. We cannot take legal action against nature if a tornado wipes us out or an earthquake swallows us up as it has no responsibility to humans.
All this is is a legal maneuvering by Eco and animal rights extremists to give THEM power to act on behalf of the rights of nature to force their will on a broad scale in the courts.
I am all for reasonably protecting “nature.” That only makes sense since I rely on it to live. But I am not for granting it “human rights.” Too many ways that can be twisted.
I love reading smart comments!!!!
Cheers.
Mosquitoes will finally be able to be free to fly, bite and survive to say nothing of the hordes of flies, deer, fish, and you name it! The crazies will love this one! What is this “salmon have the rights to go over a dam”. We need a law for that? Good grief. I have, personally, all the respect for natural surroundings, including trees, flowers and all the rest. Let me assure you, I will continue to cut my grass whether it likes to be long or not! As a society, we need to punish the trash droppers and litterbugs. By the way, where does lithium come from? Guess we will need wind powered cars! Be careful what you wish for – you might get it!
Well stated, top 2 bottom.
Guess we can not burn wood. It has a right not to be burnt.
“Nature” is unable to assert its rights, so a (privileged) human or group of humans will be authorized to act on its behalf. They’ve just set up another elite.
Protection = locking out the recreational public!
We’ve seen what environmental crazies can do and things they want. The problem is how far this will go, once you give a group, committee, or a bureaucracy any kind of power their main purpose is to get more power, to increase their own importance. Never has any bureaucracy ever not fight to get more and more power, increase their area of control and ignore the people it’s to serve. Government bureaucracies never shrink, always grow and is a miracle if it’s not a black hole of waste.
This is part of the UN’s 30 by 30 initiative where they want to control the land by removing it from the public. The more the government controls it the less self sufficient we are, which is exactly what they want.
The last thing I need is a new group of idiots to tell me how to act. My parents did a proper job.