The BBC:

Ireland could become the first country in the EU to enshrine the rights of nature into its national constitution.

The Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action has recommended the government advance a referendum on protecting biodiversity.

The move would see nature bestowed with rights comparable to those of people.

Ireland’s rats and mosquitos have doubtless been partying for days. No snakes were able to attend the celebrations due to an earlier hostile intervention by St. Patrick, an infamous enemy of biodiversity.

The sort of nonsense reflected in the joint committee’s recommendation has, as Louise Cullen, the writer of BBC report, notes, been floating around for a while now (to be clear, she does not describe it as nonsense):

New Zealand has granted legal personhood to the Whanganui River. Countries in South America have made similar declarations.

If all this was simply an absurd gesture, it would be one thing, but should Ireland’s constitution be amended in this sort of fashion, the consequences could be serious.

Cullen:

The move would see nature bestowed with rights comparable to those of people.

It came in response to a report from the Irish Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss.

The Rights of Nature movement has grown in recent years.

It seeks to have elements of nature, such as trees, mountains and rivers, recognised as entities with rights to exist and flourish, to be restored, regenerated and respected.

And it also recognises the right of any person or organisation to defend, protect and enforce those rights on behalf of nature.

And that could easily be a fast track to stagnation. Obviously, we don’t know if such a constitutional change would get through, or what its small print would contain. But, based on the BBC report, it’s easy to see how self-appointed defenders of “nature” could use such a constitutional amendment to block roads, construction, industry, frowned-upon energy sources, scientific advances (further genetic modification of crops comes to mind), and who knows what else.

Embedding such new rights into the constitution also has a distinctly anti-democratic feel to it, in that it would consign issues that are properly decided by the legislature of the day to the courts. That is why eco-fundamentalists, a group not known for their fondness for democracy, can be expected to back such a step

And they may well not be alone. We live in an age in which “nature” is sentimentalized, fetishized (think of the price at which “organic” food is sold) and, even, venerated.

The other day I quoted from a bizarre passage in the speech given by Britain’s King Charles to COP28’s opening ceremony. It read as if he was channeling a druid:

We need to remember that the indigenous world view teaches us that we are all connected. Not only as human beings, but with all living things and all that sustains life. As part of this grand and sacred system, harmony with Nature must be maintained. The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth.

That Charles has not since become a laughingstock is a sad reflection of our times, and a warning that this Irish proposal may indeed become law.