On the front page, Liz Klimas has a great roundup of the details from the treaty that has emerged from the Climate Conference in South Africa. The indispensable Lord Christopher Monckton has already pointed out some of this document's more "off the wall" provisions but there's a few subtle details of this treaty that are worth your attention.
-The treaty officially recognizes the Rights of Mother Earth declaring that “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature”. For people who are famously opposed to bestowing "personhood" on certain entities, this move seems to be sort of inconsistent.
-"Mother Earth" is being nonchalantly anthropomorphized in official UN treaties. Just thought I'd point out that such language is absolutely incompatible with a supposedly "science based" document. Referring to the environment as Mother Earth is either a marketing maneuver or an acknowledgement that we're all uniting under some neopagan understanding of the universe. Either one aught to raise red flags.
-While we laugh at the "Right to Survive" as some kind of bastardization of the "Right to Life" found in our Bill of Rights, it's much more odious than it might appear at first glance. Check out the wording contained in the document: “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.” (emphasis added) What exactly constitutes "Parties" in international legalese? Does that definition extend beyond humans?
Is anyone in our UN delegation actually reading these documents?