This article is reprinted from National Review with the permission of the author.

The “nature rights” movement has really hit the big time. The National Geographic Society — one of the world’s largest and most influential science organizations — is going to pour money into the movement. From the National Geographic website:

Today, the National Geographic Society, in collaboration with The Alfred Kobacker and Elizabeth Trimbach Fund, are proud to announce For Nature. Announcement of the new program comes in anticipation of the celebration of the International Day for Biological Diversity, May 22). For Nature will support National Geographic Explorer Callie Veelenturf’s vision to advance the Rights of Nature movement and provide funding for ten Explorer projects to advance this work.

The Rights of Nature movement seeks to bring rights-based legal protection to threatened and endangered species and habitats. Under the newly-launched For Nature program, this movement will be further catalyzed and expanded with the help of the Society’s global community of researchers and conservationists, storytelling and education expertise, technology and communications support and elevation opportunities to drive the impact of this work and grow the movement for species and habitat protections.

What are the rights of nature? Don’t let the press release fool you. It isn’t just about endangered species, habitats, or ecosystems. Here’s a frequently deployed definition:

Rather than treating Nature as property under the law, Rights of Nature acknowledges that Nature in all its life forms has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles.

That’s all-encompassing. Think about it. Viruses are part of nature. So are pond scum, mosquitoes, and milkweed. Nor would these supposed “rights” be limited to living things. Indeed, geological features such as rivers, glaciers, waves, and even a mountain have already been granted “rights.”

How are nature’s putative rights to be enforced? After all, “nature” will be oblivious. Most such laws and proposals allow anyone to sue to protect nature’s rights. (Think of the lawfare possibilities!) Some proposals would appoint a commission, which would be made up of environmental radicals.

The point of nature rights is to throttle human activities. Indeed, nature rights litigation has already prevented copper mines from operating. It also exhibits a definite anti-capitalist taint.

Why oppose nature rights? Here’s a summary. (For a more detailed explanation of the below, hit this link.) “Nature rights” would:

• violate human exceptionalism;
• devalue the vibrancy of human rights;
• cause profound harm to human thriving;
• be incapable of nuanced enforcement.

“Nature rights” are unnecessary for proper environmental protection. Besides, China would never be so stupid as to enact “nature rights,” and so, if adopted in the free world, the movement would give a huge economic boost to the tyrannical CCP’s international dominance.

At the very least, “nature rights” would require us to give equal consideration to creatures and other organisms that might be affected adversely by human activities, and, more subversively, open the courtroom doors to radical environmentalist lawyers who would surely fire a continual barrage of lawsuits seeking to uphold the rights of their geological, animal, vegetable, and fungal clients.

The National Geographic Society receives abundant funding from non-U.S.-government grants, large corporations, and individual donors. A chunk of this funding will now be invested in what is essentially an antihuman policy agenda.

So, the next time you receive a request for donations from National Geographic, I hope you will remember this post and tell the society to go fly a kite. It is not humankind’s friend.