Global Warming Hysteria: Pushing Rights of Nature at Durban

Wesley J. Smith
First Things
Sunday, December 11, 2011

Over at the warming skeptical blog Climate Depot, Lord Monckton analyzed the proposals for a comprehensive anti global warming treaty. There is much he describes about which to be alarmed and oppose implacably.  For example, apparently an international global warming court is contemplated.  Goodbye national sovereignty, but that is part of the point isn’t it?

Within the jurisdiction of Secondhand Smoke,we see a push to enact the “rights of nature,” against which I have written before.  I decided to check the document itself, and sure enough.  From “Update of the Amalgamation of Draft Texts in Preparation of a Comprehensive and Balanced Outcome to be Presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its seventeenth session,” pp. 138-139:

Impacts:…

38. Ensuring the full respect of human rights, including the inherent rights of indigenous  peoples, women, children, migrants and all vulnerable sectors;

39. [Recognizing promoting and defending the rights of nature to guarantee harmony between humanity and nature ensuring the prevalence of all elements of nature over market interests].

40. [Ensuring that ecological functions of Mother Earth will not be commodified inorder to guarantee the rights of nature;]

This is nothing less than a proposed official adoption of an international earth religion that seeks to impose a neo paganism on us all.

I understand this is draft language that might well not make the final cut. But I believe that many GWHics would enthusiastically accept the rights of nature, and in a heartbeat, which would destructively:

• Undermine human exceptionalism by conflating humans–who exclusively possess rights–with flora, fauna, viruses, dirt, and rocks, all of which are part of nature.
• Materially impede development and the creation of wealth by placing a huge roadbock in front of economic enterprise, given that with rights, nature would have to be given equal consideration with humans. Ironically, this would push us toward greater poverty, preventing much wealth redistribution, which is a key GWH goal.
• Unleash GWHs and other assorted Green radicals to bring litigation on behalf of the trees, pond scum, mosquitoes or whatever aspect of nature they decided to defend.  From there, it would be a small step to “ecocide,” criminalizing wealth and jobs producing activities like the Alberta tar sand resources.

Talk about eating your own tail!  Whatever the merits or demerits of the warming hypothesis, this “solution” is a catastrophe in the making.  Nature doesn’t have rights. Humans have duties, to properly husband the world to be sure, but also to our own prosperity and thriving.

This article was posted: Sunday, December 11, 2011 at 7:40 am

---

---

---

---