In Quebec, a small town has granted “rights” to trees. From the CBC story:

A small town west of Montreal has decided to officially recognize trees as living beings with rights of their own, in what an environmental organization describes as a first in Quebec and Canada.

A resolution adopted by Terrasse-Vaudreuil city council on June 9 declares that trees are worthy of protection, “including the right to life, to natural growth, to integrity and to regeneration.”

Does a “right to life” mean they can’t be cut down? Does the “right to natural growth” mean they can’t be trimmed or cleared for fire safety? Does the “right to regeneration” mean that saplings must be allowed to grow in place and seeds left unimpeded to germinate? It sounds ridiculous, but those words have meaning.

As usual in these cases, the argument supporting such nonsense is irrational:

Mayor Michel Bourdeau says Quebec filmmaker André Desrochers inspired the community to take action. He said Desrochers’ film, called Des arbes et des arts convinced citizens that trees are living entities that breathe and communicate with each other through their root systems.

“A tree is like a human being,” Bourdeau said. “It breathes, it lives, it takes in water. It protects us from all sorts of things.”

Of course trees are alive. But they have very little else in common with human beings beyond consisting of carbon molecules. Tree “communication” is a purely chemical phenomenon, without moral consequence. They are plants. They are not sentient. They don’t intentionally protect us — or intentionally hurt us when one crashes on a house, for that matter. And contrary to the mythology of Lord of the Rings and fairy tales, trees are oblivious of our existence.

The town also signed the Universal Declaration of the Right of the Tree, whose terms include:

Article 2: The tree is a living being sensitive to changes in its environment. It must be respected as such. It should not be reduced to a simple object. It is entitled to the airspace and underground that is necessary for it to achieve its full growth and reach its adult dimensions.

In these conditions the tree has rights for respect of its physical integrity: whereas it is aerial (branches, trunk, foliage) or underground (root network). The alteration of these organs severely weakens the tree, as does the use of pesticides and other toxic substances.

Article 3: The tree is a living organism whose average longevity far exceeds that of the human being. The tree must be respected throughout its life, with the right to develop and reproduce freely, from its birth to its natural death, whether it is a tree of cities or campaigns. The tree must be considered as a subject of law, including within the rules governing human property.

Well, adios to wood for houses and paper then, and kiss your Christmas trees goodbye.

Look, I know that this is only a small town. But scores of municipalities throughout the West have signed onto or enacted some form of nature rights. So have several nations. The movement is advancing with the assistance of truly establishment institutions, such as the National Geographic Society.

Moreover, this subversive ideology spreads precisely through small and seemingly inconsequential or symbolic gestures. It is an inch by inch, step by step tactic: One small town today, a city, province, or country tomorrow, and eventually, an international treaty. That is why activists take so much time and energy promoting these small advances. Put it all together and it amounts to an international movement.

The strategy is working. I have little doubt that within a few years many more jurisdictions in the West will sign onto tree, river, or some other form of nature rights and the neo-pagan earth religion that the movement proselytizes. If I am right, their successes will come at quite the human cost to our moral sense of self, our liberty, and our economic thriving.

Don’t get me wrong. Trees are wonderful. Magnificent. Beautiful. They can fill us with awe (which only we can experience). And yes, they certainly benefit humanity (by our making productive use of them) and the environment because of the complex ways that life interacts on the planet.

But we can promote tree abundance quite well without granting them rights. After all, isn’t that what Arbor Day is all about?