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 endorsed by Science and promoted in The Lancet.

Hopefully, that complacency is beginning to change. Wisconsin State Senator Steve Nass plans to file a bill that would prohibit local municipalities from enacting nature rights ordinances or resolutions as more than 30 other municipalities have done, including Milwaukee County and Santa Monica (even though there is very little nature left in hyper-developed Santa Monica). From his memo inviting fellow legislators to become co-sponsors:

Allowing and promoting this ideology represents a dangerous shift in legal precedent. It would allow nonhuman entities to sue in court, threatening property rights, stalling development, and burdening the judicial system. Such measures have already been used, as in Minnesota where wild rice was granted specific legal rights. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has long held, most notably in Sierra Club v. Morton (1972), that only persons or recognized legal entities have standing.

If anything, Senator Nass understates the threat. Most of these laws permit anyone who believes that “nature’s rights” are being violated to sue on nature’s behalf. Imagine the lawfare possibilities! On a macro level, the movement threatens dams, mining, and seeks to prevent the extraction of fossil fuels.

Senator Nass includes some philosophy of his own:

Philosophically, the “rights of nature” concept is incompatible with America’s founding principles. Our Constitution and founding documents affirm that rights are inherent to people “endowed by their Creator” not to plants, rivers, or landscapes. As Jefferson wrote, “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time,” and Adams declared, “Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker.”

This legislation is necessary to preserve the integrity of our legal system, protect property rights, and affirm that rights belong to people, not to nature.

Indeed.

I haven’t seen the legislation yet, but Nass’s colleagues should take it seriously. I also hope the bill includes a provision stating to the effect that only human beings and our associations have legal standing in court and enforceable rights in Wisconsin. That could also bind the courts.

If the bill passes, I suspect that the Democrat governor will veto it. Nature rights was adopted into the platform of Florida’s Democratic Party, and I predict it will eventually become a plank of the national party as it is becoming a zealous progressive cause as a means of combatting climate change and hobbling capitalism. But at least a veto would be clarifying.