(And by “All,” We Mean Cats, Dogs, Spotted Owls, Snail Darters….)

by James A. Bacon
There exists on the fringe of the environmental movement a proposition so crazy that some who first hear of it will think it a spoof: Nature has rights that should be granted legal standing in laws and representation in systems of government.
But the Rights of Nature (RoN) philosophy is not a Babylon Bee parody. It is making inroads in the real world. The high court of the Indian state of Uttarakhand, for instance, has recognized the Ganges and Yamuna rivers as legal entities with rights. Colombia courts have done much the same for the Atrato River and Mexico’s with the Rio Atoyac and Rio Papaloapan rivers. New Zealand has granted legal personhood to the Whanganui River, which the Maori revere as a living ancestor. Ecuador’s constitution grants nature the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, while Bolivia has passed the Law of the Rights of Mother Earth. In Australia, a 12-person council has been established to advocate on behalf of the Yarra River. And in the United States, according to the Matador Network, “dozens” of communities across the United States have codified rights-of-nature laws.
Endowing rivers, animals, plants, and ecosystems with legal and constitutional rights might sound deranged, but Noah M. Sachs takes the Rights of Nature ideology very seriously. Indeed, the University of Richmond law professor has published an essay in the Georgetown Environmental Law Review to critique the movement.
Sachs is a political progressive. He believes climate change is a threat to humans and nature alike. A supporter of social justice movements, he celebrated when the Confederate statues fell in Richmond; he even composed a folk song in honor of slave rebel Gabriel Prosser. But he regards the Rights of Nature as profoundly anti-democratic. The philosophical principles are vague, self-contradictory and hideously impractical to implement, he asserts. If somehow “Nature” could be given rights and representation, the legal mechanisms could be easily co-opted by groups speaking in Nature’s name to advance their own self-serving aims.














