This is quite something. Darn those Canucks. As we saw with his defense of eco-vandals in England, I wonder if Dr. James Hansen will rush to The Hague to testify for this one? And if by some furthest stretch of the imagination, this lawsuit is successful, what then? Will Pachauri use the spoils to whittle down the number of lifetimes if will take to erase his own carbon footprint? I wonder if Danny Bloom is related to omnipresent blog commenter, and Sierra Club representative, Steve Bloom? BTW Steve, we are still waiting, over a year now for your answer.
NOTE: The article below is reposted in entirety from the blog Northward Ho(t) The opinions are those of the author of that blog, Mitchel Anderson, not of myself nor of any WUWT contributor. – Anthony
Ballsy.
That is perhaps best word to describe a class action lawsuit filed this week in the International Criminal Court in The Hague in Holland against national governments refusing to act on reducing carbon emissions.
The suit was filed by climate activist Danny Bloom who is asking for “US$1 billion dollars in damages on behalf of future generations of human beings on Earth – if there are any”
No Joke
The lawsuit is specifically seeking damages from “all world leaders for intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuels to be harvested, burned and sent into the atmosphere as CO2, causing possible apocalyptic harm to the Earth’s ecosystem and the very future of the human species.
The point of the suit of course is not to wring money out of carbon emitters, but to embarrass the legions of laggard governments in advance of upcoming international climate negotiations next month in Poland. According to Bloom, the legal action “is about trying to protect future generations of mankind, humankind, and a positive judgment in this case will help prod more people to take the issues of climate change and global warming more seriously. We fully intend to make all world leaders of today responsible for their actions in the present day and age.”
This case is a legal long shot no doubt, but Bloom’s team said “”it’s up to the court to decide whether this case has any merit. We fully expect the court to agree to at least hear the case and make a responsible and measured decision later.”
It would also be the first case of its kind to seek to act on behalf of future generations for the irresponsibility of their ancestors. The need to put world leaders on the hot seat is very real. International climate talks like the one happening next month in Poland have happening for over a decade yet global emissions just keep climbing. A recent report showed that in spite of international commitments, carbon emissions of 40 industrialized countries rose by 2.3 percent between 2000 and 2006.
That said, those countries that signed Kyoto saw their overall emissions fall by 17% below 1990. The disgraceful outlier among those nations is Canada, whose emissions ballooned by over 20% in spite of having ratifying Kyoto. Canada’s Prime Minister Harper has called Kyoto a “mistake” and he seems openly contemptuous of such international efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Mr. Harper is of course not alone in the responsibility for Canada’ terrible climate change record. The Canadian public recently handed him another mandate in a general election.
Back to Mr. Bloom. His lawsuit seems directly targeted towards such irresponsible nations like Canada that have refused to take this issue seriously. If he wins, Bloom is planning to donate the $1 billion in damages to the Nobel winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Godspeed Mr. Bloom.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Speaking of lawsuits, this news just in. It is not PR. It news report from conservative, rightwing newspaper THE TELEGRAPH in the UK:
Lawyers call for international court for the environment
A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent, TELEGRAPH, UK
27 Nov 2008
Stephen Hockman is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.
The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.
But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the “right to a healthy environment”.
The innovative idea is being presented to an audience of politicians, scientists and public figures for the first time at a symposium at the British Library.
Mr Hockman, a deputy High Court judge, said that the threat of climate change means it is more important than ever for the law to protect the environment.
The UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland this month is set to begin negotiations that will lead to a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next year. Developed countries are expected to commit to cutting emissions drastically, while developing countries agree to halt deforestation.
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has agreed the concept of an international court will be taken into account when considering how to make these international agreements on climate change binding. The court is also backed by a number of MPs, climate change experts and public figures including the actress Judi Dench.
Mr Hockman said an international court will be needed to enforce and regulate any agreement.
“The time is now ripe to set this up and get it going,” he said. “Its remit will be overall climate change and the need for better regulation of carbon emissions but at the same time the implementation and enforcement of international environmental agreements and instruments.”
As well as providing resolution between states, the court will also be useful for multinational businesses in ensuring environmental laws are kept to in every country.
The court would include a convention on the right to a healthy environment and provide a higher body for individuals or non-governmental organisations to protest against an environmental injustice.
Mr Hockman said the court may be able to fine businesses or states but its main role will be in making “declaratory rulings” that influence and embarrass countries into upholding the law.
He said: “Of course regulations and sanctions alone cannot deliver a global solution to problems of climate change, but without such components the incentive for individual countries to address those problems – and to achieve solutions that are politically acceptable within their own jurisdictions – will be much reduced.”
The court would be led by retired judges, climate change experts and public figures. It would include a scientific body to consider evidence and provide access to any data on the environment.
Most importantly, Mr Hockman said an international court on the environment would influence public opinion which in turn would force Governments to take the environment seriously. He said: “If there are bodies around that can give definitive legal rulings that are accepted as fair and reasonable that has its own impact on public opinion.”
Friends of the Earth welcomed the idea.
A spokesman said: “We think any institution that is going to promote and help people enforce their right to a clean and healthy environment is a good thing.”
And this, MIGHT be interesting to some of you here, too. MIGHT.
NEWS from SWEDEN TODAY:
Hundreds of representatives of the world’s leading religions are in Sweden for a summit on climate change – said to be the first of its kind.
The two-day conference involves Christians, Muslims, Jews, Chinese Daoists and a native American representative, among others.
They aim to set a manifesto to encourage far-reaching policy goals from the United Nations.
They also want to encourage personal commitments from people of faith.
BBC religious affairs correspondent Christopher Landau, at the meeting convened by the archbishop of Sweden in Uppsala, says the lack of enthusiasm for action on climate change in some religious quarters is being tackled head on by the meeting.
The Anglican Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, says the religious community must speak out.
“Here is a major, human emergency.
“Many of our constituencies regard this still as a peripheral second-order issue – it’s got to be moved up the agenda.”
REPLY: And Danny, this, MIGHT be interesting to you here, too. MIGHT.
International poll: ‘Growing public reluctance’ to support global warming efforts
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=f0a1687c-decd-4c72-9d0e-7e6dd92d4ebe
Efforts to support global climate-change falls: PollPeter O’Neil, Europe Correspondent, Canwest News ServicePublished: Thursday, November 27, 2008PARIS – There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada.Results of the poll were released this week in advance of the start of a major international conference in Poland where delegates are considering steps toward a new international climate-change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.There already are reports emerging that some countries, such as coal-dependent Poland, are pushing for special treatment to avoid making major commitments to slash carbon emissions during a global economic downturn.
Danny, the globe is cooling. Look at the thermometers instead of all this fantasy in your head.
=====================================
Kim and John and Graeme,
You might be right, The Earth might be cooling. I might be wrong. I completely agree with you that I might be wrong. I often am. Let’s check back in 2015 and again in 2020 and again 2040, and see whether dear Earth got warmer or cooler. Could very well be that Earth grew cooler. I am open to your views. Cheers! And Happy Holidays! — Danny
Meanwhile, here is the REUTERS story, finally, it has been published today:
Egg on my face? No, sunscreen on my face. Well, ……Okay, they call it a stunt. But “stunt” could be a positive, wake-up call, alarm bell public awareness action, or it could be seen as a publcity-hound negative action. Let’s see what readers around the world think.
HEADLINE: (and note the question mark!)
“Sue world leaders US$1 billion for global warming?”
By Aaron Gray-Block, [Reuters reporter in Holland]
Tags: Environment, climate treaty, crimes against humanity, global warming, greenhouse emissions, international criminal court, skeptics, denialists, James Lovelock
TEXT OF NEWS STORY:
AMSTERDAM — In a global stunt, a U.S. environmental activist is poised to lodge a US$1 billion damages class action lawsuit at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against all world leaders for failing to prevent global warming.
Activist and blogger Dan Bloom says he will sue world leaders for “intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuels to be harvested, burned and sent into the atmosphere as CO2″.
He intends to lodge the lawsuit in the week starting Sunday, Dec. 6.
The prosecutor’s office at the ICC, the world’s first permanent court (pictured below right) for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, says it is allowed to receive information on crimes that may fall within the court’s jurisdiction from any source.
“Such information does not per se trigger a judicial proceeding,” the prosecutor’s office hastened to add.
The question is: will or should the prosecutor take on the case?
One might argue in defence that world leaders are in fact trying to impose climate-saving measures. In Vienna last year, almost all rich nations agreed to consider cuts in greenhouse emissions of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Talks on a new climate treaty will be held in Poznan, Poland, from Dec. 1-12.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N. Climate Panel, says the cuts are needed to limit temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, an amount seen by the EU, some other nations and many environmentalists as a threshold for “dangerous” climate change.
Granted then that there is growing consensus that climate change poses a real threat, is it not only world leaders who are failing to prevent global warming?
Perhaps the global collective of individuals, governments and industry is to blame and the ICC lawsuit a valid publicity stunt in the constant battle to raise awareness and prompt action?
Because it’s action we need — and now, right?
[Danny adds: COMMENTS WELCOME at the Reuters website. Google for it. Or see here:]
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/11/28/sue-world-leaders-1-billion-for-global-warming/
Let the global discussion, pro and con, begin!
2 comments at Reuters website so far:
1.
“From a purely legal point of view, Bloom would have to prove that there is some conceivable and legal course of action (so declaring military law and shooting SUV drivers is out), which could have been taken by these leaders, which if taken would have reduced warming.
Clearly, nobody can prove such a proposition. The real problem is that the most likely outcome is that he will simply harden the resolve of all those SUV drivers.”
– Ian Kemmish
2.
” Take it to court. At least that way the science will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the globe HAS NOT WARMED in 10 YEARS, even though carbon emissions have continued to rise! Case dismissed. At least the people aren’t fooled. Thank God for democracy.”
– Posted by ”totalkaosdave”
Comment 3
“….The question is: will or should the prosecutor take on the case?” ……As the plaintiff for this class-action lawsuit, I do hope the ICC will take the case. I think they should. However, while some readers here might see my lawsuit as futile, it is not pointless. Some will agree with me, others will disagree. Let the worldwide discussion, pro and con, begin. Politely. While some observers might call this a “publicity stunt”, and in many ways it could be seen as such, I prefer to call it a “publicity gesture” or a “publicity outreach”, to say to all world leaders and IPCC conference participants in Poland next month: “Please listen to James Lovelock and James Hansen and Tim Flannery and Fred Pearce and Mark Lynas and Sharon Astyk and James Howard Kunstler now. Before it is too late!”
Danny Bloom (17:40:36) wrote: “However, while some readers here might see my lawsuit as futile, it is not pointless. Some will agree with me, others will disagree. Let the worldwide discussion, pro and con, begin.”
You cause me to feel a real despair, Mr Bloom. The worldwide discussion, pro and con began some considerable time ago and has been robust.
Are you asking the rest of us to wait until you catch up?
It would be better if you caught up with the rest of us rather than see resources expended on an historical replay just so you can join the vanguard.
Roger,
Story of my life. I am usually way behind the curve. Still, be a sport, and let me try to catch up. I still got a lot of learnin’ to do, I know. We all do. I’ve learned alot already on this blog, and I thank everyone for keeping me posted on things I still need to learn, and really, I have learned a lot here this week. You have widened my horizons on this ongoing discussion and I appreciate the advice and suggestions, even if some of them were a bit snide. That’s okay. Comes with the territory. But most people here have been very supportive and encouraging, and I appreciate that. Cooling, warming, let’s check back in 10 years and see what the stats say. It might all be cooling, yes, and I might have been very wrong. In which case, I will withdraw my lawsuit and apologize. Give me some room to grow. After all, I am a growing boy! Sixty going on 80. Learn something new everyday. If I am wrong about global warming, I will eat my hat. Promise. In 2025.
Whether it warms or cools is irrelevant. The question is are we causing it to warm. So just because it warms is not proof that we are causing it, or can stop it. We simply need to learn more about the global climate than we currently do, a lot more. Right now there is zero evidence of a catastrophe going on (at least regarding climate). Which means there is no reason to halt progress and de-industrialze the world.
Danny Bloom (19:26:00) wrote: “Roger, Story of my life. I am usually way behind the curve. Still, be a sport, and let me try to catch up. I still got a lot of learnin’ to do, I know. We all do.”
I fully support your “catching up”, Mr Bloom. I am only suggesting you do it in your own time.
Then you agree that those who disagree with the abovenamed individuals should be jailed? Are you really ready for a totalitarian state? That’s what you’re proposing. We’re proposing better science, transparent data and methods, facts, not hyperbole. Tell Hansen to tell us all how he adjust his data. Tell Mann, Jones, Santer, Briffa, etc to release their data and methods so proper science can be done.
Oh, and take a valium, BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!
Danny Bloom (19:26:00) wrote: “Give me some room to grow. After all, I am a growing boy! Sixty going on 80.”
To be 60 again, Mr Bloom, would make me feel like a youth… but not, I trust, a whining child.
I agree 1000000%.
“We simply need to learn more about the global climate than we currently do, a lot more. Right now there is zero evidence of a catastrophe going on (at least regarding climate). Which means there is no reason to halt progress and de-industrialze the world.”
I bid adieu to all my new-found friends here. Let’s meet again in ten years time and compare notes. I might be a skeptic by then. For now, I am just a mere nutcase. I know. Everyone tells me. Sigh. Growing up is hard to do…
Outta here. My last post. Anthony, thanks for hosting this superb discussion.
“Hundreds of representatives of the world’s leading religions are in Sweden for a summit on climate change – …”
Dept. of Redundancy Dept. ?
JimB
Danny, if you agree with me why the lawsuit? That just makes no sense at all, but then again this whole thread makes no sense at all.
Jeff (22:40:13)
You’ll see more and more of this Jeff. It’s called cognitive dissonance and it will become epidemic as those who believe in the paradigm of CO2=AGW are confronted with dropping temperatures worldwide. I applaud Danny for at least exposing himself to alternative points of view.
Danny, maybe you could use some of your energy creating communities of sanity and comfort for those with severe climatic cognitive dissonance. Call the first one ‘DotEarthopolis’.
==================
Hmmm, good suggestion, Kim, re DOTEARTHOPOLIS. I will tell Andy. What’s nice about this debate, despite the fact that it might be a life or death issue in the far distant future — not NOW, of course, NOW life is wonderfull (sic) — what’s nice about everyone in this debate, pro and con, is that we all, or most of us, have a good sense of humour about it all. Love it: DOTEARTHOPOLIS.
When I finish with lawsuit, will get right on it. [Over and out.]
Danny Bloom (22:02:34) :
If only, if only…
And:
It is very likely that Danny Bloom is fibbing outright about a lawsuit, and has been all along.
What law firm would take a case that requires them to prove intent for a future act?
And any lawyer worthy of the name would have two words of advice for Bloom regarding his endless discussion of the case here and elsewhere: “Shut …UP!!”
So there is no lawsuit. Bloom is making it all up, so he can bask in the publicity.
Prove me wrong, Bloom. Post the name and address of your law firm right here, along with the case number and the court it was filed in. Lawsuits are a matter of public record, so simply acknowledging that one has been filed is no problem.
Ball’s in your court, Danny boy. This is where we see if you have credibility — or if you’re just a publicity hound.
More lunacy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/3530607/Lawyers-call-for-international-court-for-the-environment.html
Comments are closed for this article.