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.
wes george, thanks, you are absolutely right.
You know, Danny, in an normal court, upfront admission of the frivolous nature of your suit would get you a lecture from the judge and assignment of costs. Are you testing how normal this court and this judge is?
======================================
It sounds like a scene from the film Minority Report…
Maybe we will see some real science being put forwards now by the defence.
Bring it on Danny. I’m just gagging to see this whole AGW fraud tested in Court.
Last time that happened, with “An Inconvenient Truth”, AGW was found wanting.
Unlike you, Danny Boy, I do have a scientific training and it doesn’t take much reading of the peer-reviewed literature to demonstrate a lack of “consensus”, or indeed, any definitive proof of AGW.
Just remember, politicised science is not science.
“intent to commit manslaughter” – is there such a thing? Manslaughter is a spur-of-the moment sort of crime, this sounds more like murder. Perhaps premeditation requires identifying a target. I’m no expert on international law.
Danny,
I am sorry, I must have missed the part where you were appointed guardian of future generations. If you really believe that humans are destroying the planet perhaps you should show real leadership and remove yourself from the planet as an example to all.
Michael wrote:
Could we lodge a suit against so called environmentalists …
If Bloom’s lawsuit is allowed to proceed, then we could and should file suit against the environmentalists and others. However, I would pick something that is provable and that has real facts. The tort would be wrongful death and the suit would start with one person that died of malaria due (arguably) to the ban on DDT. Then expand it to a class action. Since most deaths are African, establishing the base compensation amount would be difficult but if one used about 1,000 dollars as the life time valuation you would get enormous numbers. Say 20 million have died due to Rachael Carson, et al, then you have at least 20 billion dollars. Apply punitive damages of, say 1 trillion dollars.
I’d name as defendants all that promoted the DDT ban: the UN, each government on Earth, the Sierra Club, all newspapers and media outlets along with Al Gore (just for fun).
I think the suit will be tossed anyway, but there is hope. A trial attorneys cut would be what, 500 billion or so? As Obama says, there is Hope in the world.
Good thread again.
(1) When the issue of showing An Inconvenient Truth in schools was taken to court, the judge upheld all the challenges to the science. Likewise when Swindle went before Ofcom. Kingsnorth failed. Two up, one down in the UK.
(2) when deSmogBlog Littleton took on Monckton in public debate, guess who won, and what grounds? and when Crichton et al debated Schmidt et al, again, before debate the majority believed AGW, after debate the majority had changed sides. So roll on public debate. Let’s get our best speakers if this materializes!
(3) it’s possible that Danny will now be so busy he will not see our replies here any more – some might like to post on his thread perhaps? and I do respect him saying “we are all in this together” – only I want the truth about the parlous state into which all environmental science has fallen – flagrant, serial denial of basic facts… oh, read my primer if you want details of the science and the real denial… and the need for courtesy and integrity.
Mr. Bloom. Your “lawsuit” is a fraud based on nothing but fraudulent pseudo-scientific quackery. Do not even try to pretend that this is about protecting the environment, or the earths’ atmosphere which all of us here care about. If you cared in the slightest about the science, you would know that C02 is an entirely beneficial gas which has pretty much reached the limits to its’ “greenhouse effect”. Ice ages have occurred at C02 levels far greater than todays’.
Perhaps a counter-suit is in order.
The International Criminal Court is already a laughingstock. It is not recognized by the US, Russia, China, India and Israel to name a few. If they agree to hear the case it will only further marginalize the court. To date their big success is preventing Israeli military leaders from traveling to Europe to avoid arrest and kangaroo court prosecution.
Good luck Danny Bloom. I hope they hear your case so we can have another good laugh.
Danny Bloom wrote this over on dotearth
“The ICC will never accept the suit, it’s Don Quixote tilting at windmills”
Danny frequently makes comments that we are all going to have to move to Portland or Alaska in the next 12 years to escape the heat, but it is unlikely that Reuters will do any research into the huge footprint of nonsense which Danny leaves all over the Internet.
Danny, have you ever considered the consequences of what would happen if governments didn’t have enough energy to take care of the 7 billion people on earth? Don Quixote you are not – your thought process is more along the lines of the misguided leaders of China who starved tens of millions of people to death in the 1960s. Governments have to take care of their own, and live in the here and now.
I’m surprised, Danny. Where is the relentless pitching of your polar cities? In fact, considering your previous behavior, can we just assume that the purpose of your lawsuit is to bring more attention to your bizarre survivalist fantasies?
Show of hands, please. Is Mr. Bloom a scammer, a nutbar, or “envisionary futurist” ? I vote “scammer.”
Money usually wins in court. Who can bring the biggest bank account to the table. It would be nice to think that Bloom is not well funded, but that would probably be very wrong. Remember big Al has hundreds of millions for advertising and what better place to advertise.
Mr. Bloom,
Since you represent future generations, perhaps you can share your credentials. I know, or at least hope, that those issues will be revealed in a court of law, however, perhaps you can give us some idea of your studies or professional accomplishments. Maybe you could also give us a list of books that will help us understand how you will help future generations. I am looking forward to your response.
Mike the Plumber
YEs, my good friend Lubos in the Czeck Republic did a good reax to all this on his blog:
Not that I agree with everthing he said. — Danny
PS: [to Harold Ambler, above, I never said my lawsuit is lighthearted, sir. Or frivilous. I am very serious about what I am doing. What I don’t understand is why you people here get so angry and riled up about all this. We all live on this planet together. Can’t we just agree to disagree and then learn to get along with each other? — Danny]]
“A propagandistic blog about the climate funded by John Lefebvre, a criminal arrested for money laundering, informs us about a lawsuit filed by Danny Bloom, a radical environmentalist activist.
In this lawsuit, Bloom claims to represent the “future generations of human beings on Earth – if there are any” and he wants to be personally paid USD 1 billion from those world leaders who are skeptical about the catastrophic climate change. This list is supposed to include politicians as undecided as Stephen Harper of Canada.
Bloom claims that he will donate the money to the IPCC. Of course, unless the capital will be needed to repay some money to John Lefevbre and others.
Now, I think that the probability that Bloom could win this absurd case is infinitesimally tiny. Still, it may be a useful exercise to imagine that he will. Just imagine that these internationally organized criminals – John Lefevbre, Danny Bloom, RealClimate.ORG, and many others – will also be able to take over the International Criminal Court and steal billions of dollars from any innocent individuals they dislike, according to their own choice. After the next lawsuit, climate skeptics could perhaps be executed, too.
Climate skeptics would become as threatened by these organized fanatics as the German Jews were around 1938: it became legitimate to steal their ski or furcoats and to break their windows but not to steal billions of dollars from them.
Sane and human countries should leave the International Criminal Court, outlaw the climate activists, and freeze all of their assets. Yes, I am afraid that if things like Bloom’s victory in the lawsuit would occur, a world war against the climate alarmists, analogous to the war on terror, would be my preferred next step.”
Far be it for me to pour cold water over the enthusiasm for this case on the part of those who believe that truth will prevail over the smoke and mirrors of the AGW brigade, but we must remember that we are dealing here with m’learned friends of the legal profession, where truth and right are almost always subservient to financial, and often to political considerations, and justice as understood by the silent majority rarely results. The Law confirms that it is an ass on a daily basis.
Jim B is correct, we should take a look at the record of this court. Why go to this court? Must be a reason (see: 9th circuit court of appeals in California…).
Robert K in the UK just wrote this on his blog. — DANNY
“Carbon emissions – a crime against humanity”
Posted on November 23, 3008 by robert kyriakides in the UK
“I have never met Dan Bloom, but I feel I know him. His concern over climate change led him to devise a concept of polar cities, which phrase makes the global warming point in two words. Mr Bloom has now decided that national governments, who are not doing anything near enough to prevent climate change, should be made to pay in the traditional way – a lawsuit for damages.
Mr Bloom has filed a claim in the International Court at The Hague for one billion dollars (United States currency will do) on behalf of the future generations of this planet (if any). His cause of action is that he regards the world leaders as committing criminal manslaughter – a crime against humanity – in view of their refusal to act to reduce carbon emissions by “allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuel to be …burned and sent into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide”.
Of course Dan Bloom is making a point rather than hoping to win a billion dollars. The legal team he has employed will no doubt try very hard but the likelihood is that the lawsuit will be thrown out very promptly, almost as soon as the pages of the legal claim fall into the laser printer’s tray. Mr Bloom will have created some useful publicity for the climate change cause and made many people smile. That is a good thing.
However, with some adjustments, he may get a longer running more successful lawsuit.
First, instead of firing a shot gun he could target a particular leader. The largest target right now is Mr Stephen Harper, Canada’s Prime Minister, who has been Prime Minister of Canada since January 2006.
Now Canada, you may recall signed a solemn and legally binding pledge to reduce its emissions by 6%. In fact its emissions have risen by over 24%. The Canadian government have permitted much industrial pollution, instead of a viable a climate change policy they have a policy that permits emissions to rise and is devastating the taiga and tundra by exploiting the oil tars and very heavy environmental cost to many of its own people as well as everyone else in the world.
If Mr Bloom’s writ at The Hague fails, he may want to consider one against Mr Harper and the Canadian Government. The other leaders can wait and it might be a useful legal precedent because it would be much simpler and require less evidence to prove his case.
But what should the case be about?
Well, Canada has signed a legally binding treaty, which it now ignores. A writ claiming a breach of its own laws might be a useful starting point –under English law the process is known as a Judicial Review.
Mr Bloom can choose to either claim damages or allege crime. If he decides to claim damages then most jurisdictions will require him to prove his loss and hold that he has no loqus standii to sue on behalf of future generations. He might not be able to prove much of a personal loss, so he should group with like-minded people to up the ante. A class action lawsuit becomes much more promising.
He then has to find a legal jurisdiction in which to sue. If his target is Mr Harper the Canadian Courts might be suitable but Mr Harper has immunity except for war crimes, in all courts under international law, and this would include immunity against a civil claim for damages. Unfortunately, the claim for damages looks unpromising but a judicial review process might work.
Under a Judicial Review process in England you can complain to the court that the government has not obeyed its own laws or has acted irrationally or perversely. I imagine that there is a similar process available in Canada. You do not get damages if yu succeed but you do get the Government to change its laws or its policy.
Finally I have mentioned war crimes and I am sure that Mr Harper has not been guilty of any war crime, but actually the immunity from legal action afforded to leaders of nations also does not extend to crimes against humanity, and it is worth considering whether Mr Bloom could bring some claim on this ground.
Under Public International Law crimes against humanity constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government.
This seems closer to the mark. Of course I do not believe that world leaders are embarking on a deliberate policy to destroy our planet, but they do seem very careless about greenhouse gas emissions, criminally so.”
What’s all the fuss about? Dan’s case will be tested in the courts and they will decide. He makes a point with which virtually everyone with high level scintific training (like 90% of Nobel Prize wnners for science, 99% of metereologists would agree.
This is an issue of complex science and a series of one liners doesn’t take the debate very far.
Robert Kyriakides
Robert Kriakides in the UK re your blog post,
A very well reasoned and cogent post, your post, thanks a lot. I like all the points you made, and I hope many people get a chance to read your ideas here. That make a lot of sense. Some denialists blogs have already heard about the ICC lawsuit and are falling over themselves in denialist lingo. It’s funny! It’s also sad. Will the world ever come together on this? I fear not…
Danny
CASE IN POINT
”Mr Bloom has filed a claim in the International Court at The Hague for one billion dollars on behalf of the future generations of this planet (if any). His cause of action is that he regards the world leaders as committing criminal manslaughter – a crime against humanity – in view of their refusal to act to reduce carbon emissions by “allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuel to be …burned and sent into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide”.
Of course Dan Bloom is making a point rather than hoping to win a billion dollars. The legal team he has employed will no doubt try very hard but the likelihood is that the lawsuit will be thrown out very promptly, almost as soon as the pages of the legal claim fall into the laser printer’s tray. Mr Bloom will have created some useful publicity for the climate change cause and made many people smile. That is a good thing.”
Don keiller:
“Last time that happened, with “An Inconvenient Truth”, AGW was found wanting.”
Don,
In Massachusetts?…not so much. In fact, it’s very widely accepted around me that Al went off to devote himself to this cause at great personal sacrifice because he’s absolutely driven to contribute to our society and the world at large.
In fact, what he’s working on is SOOOO important, he couldn’t even begin to consider a cabinet position…it would have taken away from his ability to work on much more far reaching issues.
Remember…we get 30 seconds. 30 seconds to explain to John/Joanne Q Public that the “science” is flawed.
This court case will be very interesting, because those 30 second sound bites will be authored by hopefully a wide variety of reporters/agencies that are looking for something sensational to report, and maybe, just maybe, this time, they’ll find enough sensation in reporting what the truth is.
Don’t get me wrong. You science folks are great at what you do. Really.
But you have no credibility in certain circles because you’ve been out marketed.
JimB
Proud to be Canadian, perhaps the lawsuit opens some peoples eyes as the outcome should be based on factual evidence in the court of law what Mr Bloom can’t provide as AGW is only based on computer models and as of yet has to provide physical evidence that increased CO2 levels do indeed threatening man kind.
This will be interesting. To defend the suit on the merits, the governments will have to say global warming is not a threat. This will not happen.
They will have to take another route like standing or some other legal point.
Now if you could package up some Ginzu knives… ;*)…that would be a different story…
Can’t you see Steve, on TV, saying “…but WAIT…there’s MORE…”
JimB