Rights of Nature must be breaking through to the mainstream, as here we have a commentator in the Financial Times being deployed in a lame attempt to mock the concept using hackneyed straw man arguments. No @FinancialTimes, rivers or any other part of nature wouldn’t be given the same rights as humans, that would be silly. Nature has different needs & would therefore receive different rights. No @FinancialTimes, it’s not ridiculous for rivers or any non-human to have ‘legal personality’. Your entire worldview is based on be idea of companies (entirely fictitious entities we just made up in the 19th century) having legal personality. At least my river actually exists. No @FinancialTimes, entirely human-centred laws & regulations won’t be enough to save our rivers. We’ve had those for the last 60 years & they have clearly failed to even stop raw sewage entering our rivers, let alone restoring them to full ecological health & beauty. No @FinancialTimes, having a moral, philosophical worldview to back up political arguments is “cockeyed”, it’s what every great political shift and extension of rights has had, from the abolition of the slave trade, to universal suffrage & votes for women, to animal rights.