A Green member of the House of Lords plans to introduce “nature rights” legislation. Not only would — basically everything — have rights, but these supposed liberties could be enforced against “individuals.” The authoritarian possibilities are unquantifiable.
First, “nature’s” definition is so broad it includes just about everything in existence. From Draft 8 of the Nature Rights Act of 2025:”
“Nature” means the interconnected community of living organisms, ecosystems, geological processes, and natural cycles, including all species, habitats, landscapes, waters, soils, the atmosphere, and the evolutionary and regenerative dynamics of life on Earth.
With a Capital N
Anything in the world missing from that definition? Not that I can see. Thus, everything on earth — including the air — would be deemed a “legal person.” And notice that “nature” is personalized with a capital N:
Recognition of Nature as a Legal Person:
a. Nature is recognised as a legal person and subject of law.
b. The rights of Nature established by this Act shall vest in Nature as a single legal entity.
c. These rights shall be enforceable collectively on behalf of Nature to prevent fragmentation of legal claims.
What if the rights of “landscapes” conflict with those living organisms? And certainly, the needs and desires of people will be in conflict with the weeds a farmer wants to spray, the trees timber companies want to harvest, the energy fossil fuel industry wants to harness, and the minerals companies want to mine. And what about wind farms that slaughter so many birds? Don’t they have the right to fly and migrate unmolested? The whole agenda is both profoundly destructive to human thriving, and utterly irrational.
Nature’s “rights” would be virtually all encompassing:
5. Substantive Rights of Nature
Nature is entitled to the following inherent rights:
1. Right to Exist, Persist, and Evolve: Nature has the right to exist, thrive, and evolve without interference that undermines its processes.
2. Right to Ecological Integrity: Nature has the right to maintain the structural and functional integrity of its ecosystems, ensuring the health and ecological balance of all life forms.
3. Right to Regeneration: Nature has the right to be restored and regenerated where ecosystems have been harmed.
4. Right to be Free from Pollution: Nature has the right to be free from pollution, contamination, and degradation that threaten its resilience and health.
5. Right to Operate within Planetary Boundaries: Nature has the right to maintain and exist within Planetary Boundaries.
By its very terms, wouldn’t these “rights” prevent almost any activity that makes productive use of natural resources and prospers off the earth’s bounty? And wouldn’t it require existing “violations” to be dismantled and the natural environment remediated? Talk about forcing human thriving to a screeching halt!
Adding to the Authoritarian Potential
Nature’s “rights” could, moreover, be enforced against individuals as well business entities and governments:
3. All public bodies, businesses and individuals shall:
a. Protect, preserve, and restore Nature for the benefit of present and future generations;
b. Prevent actions that degrade Nature and mitigate harm caused by their activities taking into account the specific ecological characteristics of the region;
c. Remedy any damage to natural systems caused by their activities, ensuring they remain within safe ecological limits;
d. Promote regenerative practices that support ecological integrity and resilience.
A special “Nature Rights Tribunal” would be empowered — we know the radical types who would be named to it — that would force adherence to nature’s “rights,” and even impose fines and criminal sanctions against violators. Those bringing cases before the tribunal could do so cost free:
19. Offences and Liability
1.Any act or omission that infringes the Rights and Duties established under this Act shall constitute an offence.
2. Such offences may result in criminal, civil, environmental, or administrative liability as determined by the Nature’s Rights Tribunal.
3. Any case brought before the Nature’s Rights Tribunal to uphold the Rights and Duties shall be brought in the name of Nature. . . .Funding for Legal Representation
The Government shall ensure that funding mechanisms are in place to provide cost-free legal representation for Nature in Tribunal proceedings.
“Nature’s” Enforcers
The “precautionary principle” would apply (whenever there is doubt about safety, don’t do it) to further handcuff human enterprise. The deck would also be stacked against those whom “nature’s” enforcers brought actions by imposing the burden of proof on the accused offenders rather than on nature’s accusers:
1. Application of the Precautionary Principle. In cases of scientific uncertainty regarding potential environmental harm, the precautionary principle shall apply, requiring public bodies to act to prevent harm.
Burden of Proof.The burden of proof shall lie with the party alleged to be infringing the Rights and Duties to demonstrate that no violation has occurred or will occur.
In case you were wondering, no duties could be imposed on nature.
This is the most draconian and potentially tyrannical “nature rights” proposal I have yet seen. Whether or not this particular bill ever is enacted, it vividly illustrates the authoritarian impulses of the “nature rights” movement specifically and its embrace of toxic anti-humanism generally.
And now, the proposal will be debated respectfully in the House of Lords. Step by step, inch by inch.
Cross-posted at National Review.