Kiribati Man is Back: UN Rules Climate Refugees Cannot Be Rejected

National flag of Kiribati, public domain image source Wikimedia

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

This judgement has implications for US border control, as unskilled illegal immigrants who attempt to enter the USA are starting to claim they are really climate refugees.

Climate refugees can’t be returned home, says landmark UN human rights ruling

Experts say judgment is ‘tipping point’ that opens the door to climate crisis claims for protection

Kate Lyons Pacific editor @MsKateLyons
Mon 20 Jan 2020 16.27 AEDT Last modified on Mon 20 Jan 2020 16.59 AEDT

It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis, a landmark ruling by the United Nations human rights committee has found.

The judgment – which is the first of its kind – represents a legal “tipping point” and a moment that “opens the doorway” to future protection claims for people whose lives and wellbeing have been threatened due to global heating, experts say.

Tens of millions of people are expected to be displaced by global heating in the next decade.

The judgment relates to the case of Ioane Teitiota, a man from the Pacific nation of Kiribati, which is considered one of the countries most threatened by rising sea levels. He applied for protection in New Zealand in 2013, claiming his and his family’s lives were at risk.

The committee heard evidence of overcrowding on the island of South Tarawa, where Teitiota lived, saying that the population there had increased from 1,641 in 1947 to 50,000 in 2010 due to sea level rising leading to other islands becoming uninhabitable, which had led to violence and social tensions.

While the judgment is not formally binding on countries, it points to legal obligations that countries have under international law.

“What’s really important here, and why it’s quite a landmark case, is that the committee recognised that without robust action on climate at some point in the future it could well be that governments will, under international human rights law, be prohibited from sending people to places where their life is at risk or where they would face inhuman or degrading treatment,” said Prof Jane McAdam, director of the Kaldor centre for international refugee law at the University of New South Wales.

Even though in this particular case there was no violation found, it effectively put governments on notice.

Read more:

I’m a bit puzzled why New Zealand climate zealots have fixated so hard on Ioane Teitiota. He was fired from a job in New Zealand after allegedly sexually assaulting a co-worker and attacking others. If the allegations are true, not someone you would want as a next door neighbour. Even New Zealand threw him out, and they normally accept pretty much anyone.

Immigrants who want special treatment should show a little respect for the culture and laws of their hosts.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James R Clarke
January 21, 2020 10:16 pm

What about the dangers of unicorn farts? Can you be set sent back to a country where your life could be threatened by unicorn farts? What about alien body snatchers? These threats are every bit as real as man made’climate change’. Is it against international law to disregard the rantings of the delusional? If so, Good help us all!

Reply to  James R Clarke
January 21, 2020 10:53 pm

The UNHCR rules were already usable by clever refugees, find some religious or sexual group that has legal problems in the country you want to flee and claim you are that. Many Arab countries for example have draconian laws against homosexuality so just claim you are and you immediately qualify for refugee status as LGBQIT was ruled on years ago. Even the US has taken refugees on that basis along with many other countries. Yes if there was severe descrimination against mental illness in a country that has also been ruled as a reason to be granted asylum.

You can see what UN via the UNHCR is trying to do make it impossible for countries to have sovereignty.

Reply to  LdB
January 22, 2020 12:21 am

You’ve got some really ugly medieval thinking here. Homosexuality is most assuredly not a mental illness, and I have no idea what leaps of logic are required to believe that accepting refugees is somehow an attack on your sovereignty.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Trevor
January 22, 2020 12:38 am

There is a big difference between accepting refugees, and being forced to accept refugees.
If you can’t see that, then you are not seeing the issue.

Reply to  Rod Evans
January 22, 2020 6:09 am

I don’t recall electing the UN to tell me whom I “have” to accept into my neighborhood.

I suspect I have a lot of company.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rod Evans
January 22, 2020 9:14 am

Simple solution…
If their chosen country of intended migration would pose a greater health risk due to climate change then disallowing emigration would be doing them a favor as allowing them to emigrate would increase their climate related health risks

Reply to  Rod Evans
January 22, 2020 11:57 am

Some having been warning us that this has been the U.N. plan for a very long time.

Reply to  Trevor
January 22, 2020 1:30 am

Trevor try reading what I said again .. I have not offered any opinion of what I think about homosexuality.

For Sovereignty Rod is correct … try the definition

Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.

So if you are forced to do anything you don’t want to do in your own country by definition it curtails your Sovereignty.

Tom Foley
Reply to  LdB
January 22, 2020 7:05 am

How retrospectively would you take this? The Europeans who took over the Americas, Australia, New Zealand curtailed the Sovereignty of the people already living by forcing them to accept people they didn’t want. Should we all go home? Should we prevent others from doing what we did?

Reply to  LdB
January 22, 2020 8:48 am

That sort “sovereignty intervention” goes by another name “invasion”, and is prosecuted usually at the point of a spear. It has also been refereed to as “diplomacy with extreme prejudice”. It sometimes happens when neighbors say “NO” to demands from each other.

The UN has no teeth, but plenty of bad breath.

Reply to  Trevor
January 22, 2020 3:27 am


Reply to  Trevor
January 22, 2020 4:06 am

It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis, a landmark ruling by the United Nations human rights committee has found. – article

Trevor, I think you missed that part. Since when does a nation lose its own sovereignty, and the right to deny entrance to aliens if it so chooses? China has astringent restrictions. South Korea is likewise – you can’t emigrate to South Korea.

And since when did the UN have any authority beyond disaster relief, at which it is completely inept? Should I bring up the boondoggle with Saddam Hussein’s refusal to let UN inspectors into his weapons factories while he was busy moving stuff elsewhere? The UN is the most useless, overpaid bunch of numbnuts on the planet. It’s time they were dismissed for incompetence.

Reply to  Sara
January 22, 2020 4:51 am

“It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis,”

according to the UN, that’s every country on the planet….so what they are saying is there are no borders at all….anywhere

Hasn’t that been their goal all along

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
January 22, 2020 9:23 am

If the Climate Crisis IS a Global Situation then no country is safe and emigration is unnecessary. You wouldn’t want to be forced to relocate into an Unsafe Country would you?

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Sara
January 22, 2020 1:14 pm

Part of their One World Government agenda. This is another poke with a stick to see if this gets them anywhere.

Reply to  Sara
January 22, 2020 6:04 pm

Well, hell, we can’t have more people in the USA – my god, you are all so BAD for the environment, that each climate refugee you take in will create 3 more! So in the interests of keeping climate refugees to the minimum, they’ll have to go somewhere else – sorry.

Reply to  Sara
January 22, 2020 6:25 pm

And since when did the UN have any authority beyond disaster relief, at which it is completely inept?

They also have UNESCO, to ‘educate’ the world with.

Reply to  Trevor
January 22, 2020 4:31 am

Woketimonious achievement unlocked!
Note the word “also” in LdB’s post.

John Endicott
Reply to  Joe
January 22, 2020 11:32 am

Hush Joe, the woke have no need to paying attention to the actual words used. Their righteous outrage (and their letting everyone know how righteously outraged they are) is enough.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Trevor
January 22, 2020 8:11 am

Forcing a country to accept refugees, just because they claim some status that is uncorroborated, basically removes the country’s sovereignty and opens the borders, which is unsustainable for the country.

This is just another route for the UN to destroy the Western countries with floods of moochers and freeloaders, to overload their services and economy.

Reply to  Trevor
January 22, 2020 6:22 pm

” … and I have no idea what leaps of logic are required to believe that accepting refugees is somehow an attack on your sovereignty. …’

What’s actually amazing is that you couldn’t figure that out in under 2 seconds. The people who pay the taxes have the say, “no taxation without representation”. Does that mean anything to you, or does your sense of entitlement trump all the “leaps of logic” you speak off?

It means the people who are citizens and pay the taxes, have the major say in Gov policy direction and development. And it is that representation which determines policy on things like immigration, and who can come to the country.

So the people either have the representation and policy regulation control, or we won’t be paying taxes or recognizing the government as representative of the people’s will and would revolt.

In fact the US Constitution encourages the population to do just that, if the Govt goes bad, or is taken over by an external enemy of the people.

” … It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis, a landmark ruling by the United Nations human rights committee has found. … ”

As I understand it the US doesn’t even recognize an International Court (gee, haven’t they gone quiet since then), but I’d like to see the UN try to usurp and exert sovereignty over the USA.

The useless UN parasites need to be kicked out of the Western world – entirely.

Reply to  WXcycles
January 23, 2020 9:50 am

To go along with what you said, as a US citizen in the US the only law I recognize is US law and the treaties it has signed with other countries. I could care less what the UN says or another country unless I step inside their borders. For the UN to say it’s illegal to turn away a climate refugee I say “Show me the US statute that’s under, if you can’t it’s not illegal in the US.”

Reply to  LdB
January 22, 2020 7:20 am

If a country insists on putting criminals in jail, would you be able to claim refugee status as a criminal?

Chris Morris
January 21, 2020 10:16 pm

The people pushing his case never have to have contact with him so they never suffer from his behaviour. Just like the liberals who live behind high walls, send their kids to private schools and support bussing.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  Chris Morris
January 22, 2020 4:30 am

So let him sleep on the floor of the general assembly, it’s the only place this ‘ruling’ has even a veneer of jurisdiction.

Dennis Stayer
January 21, 2020 10:16 pm

It’s time for the U.S. to exit the U.N. and stop wasting millions of dollars supporting g this corrupt to the core organization.,

Ron Long
Reply to  Dennis Stayer
January 22, 2020 2:23 am

It’s past time to leave, Dennis, especially now that former Chile President Michelle Bachelet is High Commissioner of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Ms. Bachelet describes herself as an Ultra Socialist, and it was her policies that produced the demonstrations against current President Piñera. The specific policy she advanced was to allow Indigenous groups to burn more than 300 logging trucks, a hundred houses, and yes, kill several European settlers, all without any meaningful prosecution. This was apparently due to the view that they were just reclaiming their lands, you know, sort of hands-on reparations.

January 21, 2020 10:18 pm

Kill the U.N.

January 21, 2020 10:18 pm

New Zealand is keen to accept all the immigrants that it can attract as New Zealand has a continual population drain (about 7,000 per annum) as residents flee to Australia driven by lack of opportunity and boredom.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 21, 2020 11:00 pm

Careful there are a number of large groups looking for a new homeland at the moment, Kurds (1Million), Quarter of Syria(4Million), half of Lebanon (3Million) and disgruntled Iranians (prob 1Million) .. you could double you population overnight 🙂

Patrick MJD
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 21, 2020 11:48 pm

“nicholas tesdorf January 21, 2020 at 10:18 pm”

7000 p/a? It’s more like 45,000. There is no work in NZ, none! Unless you work for Govn’t. It’s why I left.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 22, 2020 1:29 am

NZ has mostly Green energy.
I was told that Green energy gives lots of Green jobs, or have the black sheep population taken most of the Green jobs? /SARC

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 22, 2020 6:41 pm

The only green jobs I saw in NZ were ones like Dept. of Conservation and staff spent NZ$800,000 moving 1000 native worms from a road upgrade project site. That was about 20 years ago now. I wonder how long those worms lived.

Environmental idiocy!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 22, 2020 12:01 am

Also, what NZer’s don’t expect upon arrival, is that NZ citizens are TEMPORARY residents under a special class visa 444, since 2001 thanks to Helen Clarke. To become a permanent resident you need to apply as any migrant under any category. Forget any support from the Govn’t, even if you are a tax payer. Children born in Australia to NZer’s are NZer’s, not Australians.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 22, 2020 3:45 am

Patrick MJD

I love the Aussies and NZ’rs. Brilliant people, lots of fun, clever and adventurous. Well they were around 30 years ago when I used to know lots of them when they visited London.

What the hell happened?

The country seems to be run by more idiots than it’s fair share, most of the population seem to have gone WOKE, and the insane regulation you guys labour under seem worse than in Singapore. Bureaucracy heaven as far as I can gather.

My best mate moved to Aus 30 years ago and eventually owned the largest electric bicycle importing business in the country until the government basically banned them. That hurt his business badly, obviously, so on a much reduced scale he was importing petrol engine conversions, until the government banned them and reverted to electric bicycles.

That ruined him.

He and I were looking at buying and selling classic British and American cars in Aus (I’m in the UK) but draconian legislation meant that a modest classic like an MGB needed a mortgage to buy in Aus. and it was nothing to do with emissions.

The government there seems to suck the fun or profit out of everything.

Reply to  HotScot
January 22, 2020 8:46 am

Aus will suffer from the same complaint as all other developed countries, namely the growth of urban populations, which in their turn attract the sort of idiocy that dont get house room in smaller communities. As these urban concentrations grow, so does their representation in the halls of government, which in their turn are forced to pledge support for ever increasing levels of misadaptation.

All of the above happens at an increasing rate with the passage of time. For instance, in my lifetime California could be taken by a conservative candidate for the POTUS, something that would be so far out as to be regarded as fantasy today.

As far as Aussies go, it may well be in order to only associate with those who know who Chips Rafferty was 🙂

Patrick MJD
Reply to  HotScot
January 22, 2020 6:18 pm

Aus is a great place for Bureaucrats and Govn’ts to set up rules telling you what you CANNOT do. They learnt from the best; The British.

Interesting about the bikes. 30 years ago electrically powered transport was for invalids and the elderly, not an up-and-coming manly, Croc Dundee like, population. How things have changed. Electrically powered bikes now litter the city streets.

There are some beautifully restored classic British and America cars here. Just a few weeks ago saw a mint Mk1 Mini Cooper S. That would have cost at least AU$50,000 to do the restore. Probably another $50,000 to source and import the base vehicle if needed. Not quite mortgage levels these days but still lots of money.

January 21, 2020 10:19 pm

” It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis… ”

Might sure is a weasel word. Nothing needs to be proven?

Bryan A
Reply to  Dnalor50
January 22, 2020 10:35 am

Shouldn’t it also be Unlawful to allow CLIMATE REFUGEES into countries where their lives might be threatened by the (global) Climate Crisis?
Global Crisis = Nowhere is safe

Plantation Willie
Reply to  Dnalor50
January 22, 2020 3:01 pm

Apparently not. So send the people back to their countries because their lives also might not be threatened by the climate crisis.

January 21, 2020 10:20 pm

Virtue signalling, Eric – nothing more.

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
January 22, 2020 3:53 am


Dangerous is what it is.

The UN forces countries to take unlimited ‘refugees’ and immigrants which has an effect directly on the host country. Witness the ch!ld abvse cover up going on in the UK right now. (Not misspellings, moderation forces me to improvise).

But more than that. Instead of staying and f!ghting for their own country, they bail out and leave the despots to it. Then we end up with yet another rogue state the world has to deal with.

Reply to  HotScot
January 22, 2020 4:34 pm

HotScot – You are absolutely right. The broad sweep of recorded history tells the stories of peoples who lost control of their boarders. The new info from paleogenetics indicates cultural changes, which antropologists had said were due to ‘cultural tranfer’ turn out to be a new set of genes over-writing the those of the previous inhabitants.

Craig from Oz
January 21, 2020 10:21 pm

“… director of the Kaldor centre for international refugee law at the University of New South Wales.”

The WHAT?!

I repeat my claim that the main role in society of Tertiary Education is to help keep the unemployable from cluttering up the all ready crowded job market.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Craig from Oz
January 22, 2020 1:07 am

Import students…is what you are saying…that PAY 3 times what a local student will pay.

January 21, 2020 10:35 pm

So +0,8°C in 150 years leaving the Little Ice Age is a climate crisis ?
Thus the Roman and the Medieval climate optima where climate crisis ?

UN : it’s high time to eradicate this bunch of psychopathic clowns.

Bryan A
Reply to  Petit_Barde
January 22, 2020 10:38 am

Safest places for climate refugees…
Siberia & Mongolia
High enough in altitude that sea level rise poses no threat…
Cool enough year round that +0.8c temperature increase has little effect…

January 21, 2020 10:39 pm

Almost every developed country is therefore in breach of the UNHCR ruling. It’s not binding but they have put countries on notice that one day in a far far away universe the UN will enforce the law 🙂

The human rights act has now expanded to 37 articles and it has never been used for anything other than public shaming. If you think the UN is useless and meaningless the UNHCR takes that to a whole new level.

So be prepared to be shamed, you won’t take climate refugees … HOW DARE YOU.

Bill T
Reply to  LdB
January 22, 2020 3:48 am

Actually, since all industrialized countries which use fossil fuel are “poisoning the planet”, those counties should turn back all “climate refugees’ because of humanitarian reasons. The UN is engaging in subjecting refugees to even more threats to their lives- how dare they!

Reply to  LdB
January 22, 2020 4:43 pm

Most developed countries have laws that permit immigration. Most of the countries that are potential sources for ‘climate refugees’ have laws that prohibit immigration. For example, a relative lived in Indonesia for 40-odd years, ran a profitable business, married a local and raised a family. He had to leave the country and reapply for a visa every couple of years throughout.

Maybe the UN should require all countries to accept anyone who presents at their boarders, and not just the developed countries.

January 21, 2020 10:49 pm

It’s simple. They hate the descendants of the founders. They are also trying to provoke them.

J Mac
January 21, 2020 10:57 pm

Another specious statement, without evidence in fact: “It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis.”

Lord, I am weary of these equivocating, weasel words “might be threatened by the climate crisis” proffered as evidence to commit absolutes such as “It is unlawful for governments to return people”. By this non-standard, any divergence from nominal weather, any mud slide, river bank erosion, dust storm, or bad case of sunburn can be claimed to be a ‘climate crisis’. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily rigorous proofs. ‘Might, maybe, could be, possibly’, etc., just don’t cut it! The UN has gone stark raving mad….

A reasonable response for any nation state faced with such a UN declaration would be “No. We will not comply. This is nuts. If you attempt to impose sanctions, we will withdraw all funding support to the UN until this injustice… no, this insanity is corrected. How copy, over?”

Reply to  J Mac
January 22, 2020 3:58 am

heres an idea
maybe all us Aussies andkiwis that have had fires/floods whatever should aply to Kiribas for climate reffo status..
see how that plays;-)))

J Mac
Reply to  ozspeaksup
January 22, 2020 10:31 am

Turn about is fair play, eh? Hmmmm… It’s cool, gloomy, and rainy here in the Great NorthWet winter (Washington state, USA) and depression is a real problem for many. ‘Climate change’ might be making it worse! Given that, all such afflicted must be afforded refugee status on the sunny tropical isle of their choice!

While I like the ironic justice of your idea, Oz, I’d prefer the USA to just tell the UN to ‘P!ss Off’.

January 21, 2020 11:09 pm

You can bet there will be a rush of these immigrants now that a new hole has been smashed in the legal fence. Just watch. I bet none of these poor immigrants will want to try to get in to China or India or Saudi Arabia. They will only want to get in to America, Australia, The U.K. and Western Europe. There will be a whole new market for the people smugglers and NGO’s and other groups that support them.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Pete
January 22, 2020 1:45 am

Agree with you Pete, but have to laugh at “The U.K. and Western Europe”. The U.K. is part of Western Europe. My former English colleague used to fall for the same unique upheaval of UK 🙂

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 22, 2020 4:12 am

I don’t think so anymore. After Brexit it is just one separate island… 🙂

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 22, 2020 4:20 am

The UK is only part of western Europe as a political convenience, for the moment.

We are an island off the west coast of Europe delineated by the English Channel and the North sea. We may geographically share the same continental land mass, but that’s like saying Russia is part of western Europe because it occupies a common land mass.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  HotScot
January 22, 2020 5:24 am

Europe extents to the Ural Mountains:

Western Europe commonly is regarded as the European countries west of a dividing line approximately in line with the former Iron Curtain.

Politically seen UK and Ireland is also commonly regarded as belonging to “the Western World”.
Brexit has nothing to do with geography.

John Endicott
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 22, 2020 11:40 am

Carl, you are mixing apples and oranges. the United states is commonly considered part of “the Western world”, it is not in any way part of “western Europe”. Those are two distinct terms, you can’t use the interchangeable.

That said, the UK is generally lumped in to the term “western Europe” what with it being an island off the western coast of the European continent. Though, with Brexit, there’s an argument to make that the UK is no longer part of Europe (and thus no longer part of “western Europe” which is basically a subset of Europe) at least in a political sense.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 22, 2020 4:24 pm

The UK is in the far east, off the coast of Maine, I thought.

charles nelson
January 21, 2020 11:21 pm

I am a climate refugee.
I grew up in Northern Ireland in the 1960s and 70s…the average July (summer) temp in Belfast is 19˚C.
I have since settled in Northern NSW Australia…where the average Dec (summer) temp is 28˚C.
Maybe if the world warms enough I will be able to return to the my homeland? (chortle)

January 21, 2020 11:21 pm

Actually NZ accepts very few refugees, for the size of their population. Far less than Australia or the US

Patrick MJD
Reply to  andy
January 21, 2020 11:45 pm

Correct! No matter what Ardern says.

Reply to  andy
January 23, 2020 12:52 am

The US has taken in more refugees than the rest of the world combined. It needs to stop

January 21, 2020 11:27 pm

Haven’t heard from Willis yet?
He used to live there
And help the islanders with novel ideas and technological innovations

Patrick MJD
January 21, 2020 11:27 pm

As I recall , he was also breaking the law, he over-stayed his visa conditions (IIRC temporary worker visa. Had kids in NZ. Lived on benefits). He was deported.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 22, 2020 3:56 am

yeah and bitching cos his kids dont like the island and want to go back to un zud
his case was booted out some time ago so how theyre still flogging him as even slightly deserving beats me.
the NON legallly binding bit is the important thing like parisite agreement
maybe getting some birth control clinics on the island would be a smarter idea?

Rod Evans
January 21, 2020 11:30 pm

The UN is consistently giving itself authority and power it does not posses. It assumes authority to judge, on matters it has not been given judicial powers to do. It hands down decisions affecting national matters, where it has no power or means to implement or to enforce.
Perhaps someone in a position to do so, can inform the UN its role is to harmonise relations between nations not to establish frictions between those same nations, by usurping national authorities that have the inherent right, to manage their own national affairs.
If this unenforceable UN edict runs its course, then every resident in every nation affected by a hurricane or typhoon will be claiming right of residence, anywhere they choose, simple by invoking “climate change” blew down my house.
The UN asylum has been taken over by the inmates.

Reply to  Rod Evans
January 22, 2020 6:16 am

The UN: They continue to pretend they are important. Everyone else continues to pretend to pay attention to them.

But the money there is good. So, long as the money is there, the charade will continue.

January 21, 2020 11:31 pm

What real power does the UN have to actually enforce this?

Reply to  Nylo
January 22, 2020 2:36 am


UN is worlds politicians playground. And in politics there is this magic word “consensus”, and that´s all they need. IPCC is just their toy to achieve that.
There´s only one leader on this planet who have said something against this consensus, and he is Donald Trump.

old white guy
Reply to  Nylo
January 22, 2020 4:48 am


Michael Carter
January 21, 2020 11:37 pm

“saying that the population there had increased from 1,641 in 1947 to 50,000 in 2010 due to sea level rising leading to other islands becoming uninhabitable,”

Show me the evidence. On balance, atolls are in rough equilibrium with sea level . Why else should their mean elevations fall within quite a confined range right throughout the Pacific?

According to data I find the absolute maximum current SLR is 3 mm/yr. We are told that it has been accelerating. So what is the mean over the last century?

Lets say it was 3 mm/year to be conservative. Coral growth and detritus sediment deposition cannot result in a net elevation increase of 300 mm over a century? Date the inland elevated coral sands. I’ll bet that they are commonly less than a century old. Take your spade and tell me how thick these sediments are. You’ll be digging a long time.

Of course there will be variation but the basic principle of equilibrium is clearly demonstrated in the real world.



Reply to  Michael Carter
January 22, 2020 2:22 am


Magic words “where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis” are more than enough evidence.

Data is irrelevant when something -might- happen. UN is promoting one world government, and this climate propaganda is the weapon to do it. All they need is to make people to believe. And this climate movement is very strong religion now. Fear is the key, and UN is the fear machine, which it has always been.

Reply to  Michael Carter
January 22, 2020 3:54 am

Doesn’t anyone actually have evidence as to what is happening on these islands. Did the plaintiff produce evidence? It would be helpful to know. There is a difference between overcrowding and your homeland sinking beneath the waves.

Eugene Conlin
Reply to  Susan
January 22, 2020 8:28 am

all four islands exhibited an increase in island area. Notably the three urbanized islands of Betio, Bairiki and Nanikai increased in area by 30, 16.3 and 12.5% respectively. Buariki in the north of the atoll exhibited an increase of 2%.

John Endicott
Reply to  Michael Carter
January 22, 2020 11:44 am

“saying that the population there had increased from 1,641 in 1947 to 50,000 in 2010”

Ut oh, they better watch out or soon they’ll tip over. Just as Rep. Hank Johnson.

January 21, 2020 11:44 pm

Surely, people aren’t so green. The [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] cooling… warming… change prophecy is a sociopolitical, and economic, construct to defend the the advocacy for PP (e.g. planned parenthood, planned population) schemes, redistributive change, and anti-nativist solutions. Wicked solutions.

layor nala
January 21, 2020 11:50 pm

I understood that the problem is not sea level rise but the natural sinking of these islands. How does this relate to climate change (which is part of the normal climate cycle)?

January 21, 2020 11:54 pm

“A new geological study has shown that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.

The islands of Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, because of coral debris and sediment. ”
From 2010

Help facts keep getting in the way of our dreams. Utopia Now.

January 22, 2020 12:03 am

“It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis”

A statement that might very well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
A) It is sufficiently tyrannical that the USA vetoes the claim; or refuses to comply.

B) Immigrants claiming climate refugee status might become the driving force for the USA to cleanse the shysters from government and to refuse funding any support of the international climate cabal.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 22, 2020 1:43 am

You can’t veto the claim you have no standing, you and your courts would have to just refuse to comply. Meanwhile the UNHCR would whine on.

To me there is a deeper issues when most countries signed on to the human rights convention it was very specific. Now the UNHCR is unilaterally changing it you would think countries should have to ratify it as a new treaty. That however is not how it works so here is how it works

Although the Convention is “legally binding” there is no body that monitors compliance. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has supervisory responsibilities, but cannot enforce the Convention, and there is no formal mechanism for individuals to file complaints. The Convention specifies that complaints should be referred to the International Court of Justice.It appears that no nation has ever done this.

An individual may lodge a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or with the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but no one has ever done so in regard to violations of the Convention. Nations may levy international sanctions against violators, but no nation has ever done this.

At present, the only real consequences of violation are 1) public shaming in the press, and 2) verbal condemnation of the violator by the UN and by other nations. To date these have not proven to be significant deterrents.

John Endicott
Reply to  LdB
January 22, 2020 11:46 am

You can’t veto the claim you have no standing,

In other words we have as much standing to veto the claim as the UNHCR had in making it.

Eugene Conlin
Reply to  ATheoK
January 22, 2020 9:08 am

“It is unlawful for governments to return people…”

Interesting that they should use the word unlawful

Black’s Law Dictionary defines unlawful as not authorized by law – Illegal is defined as forbidden by law.

Semantically, there is a slight difference. It seems that something illegal is expressly proscribed by statute, and something unlawful is just not expressly authorized

Reply to  Eugene Conlin
January 22, 2020 4:57 pm

Eugene – very interesting comment. After 40 years in Quebec under the Civil Code for all non-criminal law, I became very aware of the differences between Common Law and the Civil Code. Essentially, in Common Law, everything that has not been declared to be illegal is by definition legal. Under the Civil Code (based on Napoleonic principles), EVERYTHING not declared legal is by definition illegal. Anyone grown up with Common Law finds this top down regulation of all societal interactions an anathema.

The question is which legal system the UN is operating under – the difference will change the interpretation.

January 22, 2020 12:27 am

Security: Yes, Health: Yes, Disaster Relief: Yes.

Nothing else, the UN should be disbanded, split into those 3 bureaucracies, with anonymous leaders, no more strutting and posing from progressive fascists.

shortus cynicus
January 22, 2020 12:33 am

One of most danger animals in Africa is hippopotamus. It hides in muddy water and attacks without warning an unexpected victim.
If warming continues, I’m afraid of being killed by them returning to Rhine River (Hippopotamus antiquus).
So if I apply for asylum, do I get a citizenship or redirection to insane asylum?

a happy little debunker
January 22, 2020 12:34 am

In a world where everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else – surely it would expose ‘climate refugees’ to unaccounted catastrophic risk by not returning them home?

January 22, 2020 1:19 am

In September 2018, The Guardian carried a story about 5 American “ climate refugees”.
It was subtitled “ Five people from across the US explain how extreme weather forced them out of their homes not always to safer ground”.
It recorded that one family had moved from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina to Houston only to be in harm’s way with Hurricane Harvey.
In future litigation in the US , it is clear that Counsel for the Government must argue that the US is an unsafe destination for applicants who flee other countries as “climate refugees”.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Herbert
January 22, 2020 1:29 am

Hey, that’s a great idea! In our country (Switzerland) there are avalanches and rockslides. There’s even a fire department to combat floods and fires! There are also lots of roads where one can get run over. Much too dangerous for climate refugees…

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Herbert
January 22, 2020 2:05 am

Wow, that is a beautiful defense:
“Sorry, we agree You and your family are climate refugees, but we cannot let you into this country as we recon our climate will endanger you further. Please go to gate 24 to return to where you came from. Have a nice day.”

Bryan A
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 22, 2020 10:32 am

As far as Climate Goes, Russia and China appear to be unaffected

Eric Vieira
January 22, 2020 1:24 am

The UN rules… = the UN would like to rule! For that they have to abolish nations first. Massive immigration is a clear step in that direction, disrupting local way of life and cohesion. With a climate “emergency” they “create” a situation which enables bypassing of democratic decision making processes. Soft laws from soft brains…
It’s time to put the UN back in its place: less power and influence, not more.

Alasdair Fairbairn
January 22, 2020 2:04 am

It seems to me that this is not a rule but merely a suggestion. Lawyers however will disagree as it will bring in a lot of lucrative business.

January 22, 2020 3:45 am

The UN is quickly heading to a crisis point where western countries will begin to ignore their “global edicts” that they expect sovereign nations to follow. The UN is fast losing its mandate originally formed in WWII to prevent it happening again, and provide global security. How far they have moved away from that original goal.

January 22, 2020 3:51 am

All citizens of China live in a country fraught with danger, and that applies to North Korea and a dozen more! The total is more than two billion people who live under constan repression!!

And it isn’t climate change that puts these people in danger–it is their repressive communist governments! The UN’s ruling imposes crazy restritions on the right of nations to protect their borders consistent with the former’s communistic overbearing attitude! The quicker the US kicks the UN out of the US, the better!

Demonstrable joke: Why doesn’t AOC ever criticize China? Ans: They’re already communists!

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 22, 2020 4:09 am

Demonstrable joke: Why doesn’t AOC ever criticize China? Ans: China already has a “perfect” one-party government, providing AOC with cheap mobile phone.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 22, 2020 5:14 am

Only one phone? Of course, a community phone.

Peter Morris
January 22, 2020 4:52 am

Well, time to leave the U.N.

Coach Springer
January 22, 2020 5:36 am

Since there isn’t anything manmade global warming isn’t responsible for, we’re already climate refugees even if we move from Chicago to Florida to escape the occasional polar vortex and any natural disaster that comes along.

January 22, 2020 6:22 am

Here in Arizona we have thousands of climate refugees who come here every winter from Canada and the northern Midwest to escape the cold and snow…and every summer we have thousands of Arizonan refugees escaping the climate to cooler places around the country. Can these people claim refugee status? This could be a real good deal for my family and me when we ‘flee’ to the mountains in summer! Maybe we can score some benefits from taxpayers…

Reply to  Dave
January 22, 2020 12:23 pm

…the BLM and Forest Service have plenty of acres.. much of it prime building lots, too!

Certainly they understand fair climate rules!

Reply to  Dave
January 22, 2020 12:24 pm

Definitely sounds like a tax credit…Climate Refugee Temporary Relocation Credit.

I hope my vacation to beach qualifies.

January 22, 2020 6:27 am

Any sovereign country has an absolute right to control its own borders. So the UN America-haters club can pound sand.

January 22, 2020 6:32 am

Stop listening to the UN.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Davis
January 22, 2020 9:37 am

Better yet – get OUT of the UN, and stop wasting $$ on it.

And the US response to this edict should be direct – “There is no “climate crisis,” and this rule is therefore applicable to nobody.”

No Name Guy
January 22, 2020 8:21 am

“It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis, a landmark ruling by the United Nations human rights committee has found.”

Since there are zero countries where lives might be threatened by the (non-existant) climate crisis, then there are, by definition zero refugees due to that alleged cause.

January 22, 2020 8:38 am

This judgement has implications for US border control, as unskilled illegal immigrants who attempt to enter the USA are starting to claim they are really climate refugees.

I don’t think so. The U.S. government regularly ignores stupid UN decrees, like their international criminal court and the notion that they can try U.S. military personnel for supposed “war crimes” under their liberal definition of them. We recognize that the UN has no sovereign authority over any nation, certainly not ours.

michael hart
January 22, 2020 9:29 am

But shirley, isn’t the whole world threatened by the global warming? It makes more sense for people to stay where they are and suck it up. After all, humans already live and breed in every climate the planet has to offer.

michael hart
January 22, 2020 9:35 am

Countries could also argue that they shouldn’t have to accept “climate refugees” from countries with an increasing natural population (from a net-positive indigenous birthrate). Since climate changes on a generational timescale, a naturally increasing population is clear evidence that the climate is not a serious impediment to the humans that already live there.

January 22, 2020 9:44 am

“Tens of millions of people are expected to be displaced by global heating in the next decade.”
Tens of millions of people were expected to be displaced by global heating in each of the previous 3 decades. So far not a one. Global warmunists seem to have very short memories.

Mike Lowe
January 22, 2020 10:09 am

It seems to me that a tipping point has been reached on the matter of deciding whether to remain a member of the U.N. Many non-socialist countries should now opt out, especially if they wish to maintain control of immigration and other matters in which interfering outsiders should have no say.

Robert of Texas
January 22, 2020 10:09 am

I live in Texas…I should be able to move just about ANYWHERE in the world claiming I am a refugee fleeing hot temperatures. The problem is, most parts of the world are now ruled by complete idiots (including the U.N.), so I guess I’ll stay here where a fringe of common sense remains.

Tom Abbott
January 22, 2020 10:55 am

From the article: “Tens of millions of people are expected to be displaced by global heating in the next decade.”

I expect you’ll be eating those words in about 10 years.

The global temperatures are actually cooling a few tenths of a degree over the last few years. Did you expect that? Obviously, not, from your statement. So, what you expect, may not be a good forecast of what actually happens, it would appear to me.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 23, 2020 10:24 pm

Nope. They’ll still be saying those words in 10 years. They’ll just have forgotten that they’ve been saying the same thing for 4 decades, and so will the fools who pay attention to them.

Captain Climate
January 22, 2020 12:43 pm

The UN is just a complete joke. The general assembly is basically a Marxist sponsor organization.

Robert of Ottawa
January 22, 2020 2:09 pm

Can I claim climate refugeehood by moving to a warm country to escape the cold in Canada?

January 22, 2020 3:01 pm

Eff the UN.

I would NEVER obey them or their laws in any way, shape, or form.

January 22, 2020 3:39 pm

Kiribati man; is that anything like Piltdown man?

Reply to  Tom
January 23, 2020 10:28 pm

A guy from the island of Kiribati tried to claim climate refugee status in N. Zealand a while back.

January 22, 2020 6:02 pm

“UN Rules Climate Refugees Cannot Be Rejected”

They think they’re the EU Commission now, and can without being elected by the people, undermine every country’s sovereignty, policy making and stability.

U N E X I T !

January 22, 2020 6:03 pm

“This judgement has implications for US border control, as unskilled illegal immigrants who attempt to enter the USA are starting to claim they are really climate refugees.”

Prove it.

David Cage
January 22, 2020 11:24 pm

OK so allow them once they prove that climate change is sufficient to make them refugees and make climate science prove its case in court. Especially make them show that climate change has exceeded random variation by a significant amount.

January 23, 2020 4:01 am

One million Canadian climate refugees head south to the US every winter due to global cooling. The situation is particularly serious this year as the carbon tac has spread rapid cooling across the country and buried Newfoundland and Vancouver with snow.

YOU can end this suffering. For only $19 per month. Less than a dollar a day. Send your check or money order to: Save Ferd Berple, c/o Anywhere but Canada in winter.

January 23, 2020 9:46 am

At the core of this issue is whether or not Kiribati is really being submerged. It isn’t! Read the hard data of Niklas Morner’s on site field work.

January 24, 2020 9:14 am

Due to global cooling, tens of millions of North Americans can now permanently relocate anywhere in the world we choose. We can establish majority rule and overwhelm the native language, culture and political system. We can get free housing, education and health care.

Or maybe we can just send caravans of gangs and criminals. Empty out our jails and prisons.

The worm will turn.

January 26, 2020 10:27 pm

Bill Clinton at Warwick U (Tony Blair attending)
Some interesting and I think relevant comments from Bill Clinton while on his Presidential world farewell tour.

President of the United States President Bill Clinton visited the University of Warwick on Thursday 14 December 2000. He was accompanied by First Lady and Senator Elect Hillary Clinton, their daughter Chelsea Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Text of President Clinton’s Speech

The intensifying process of economic integration and political interdependence that we know as globalization is clearly tearing down barriers and building new networks among nations, peoples, and cultures, at an astonishing and historically unprecedented rate. It has been fueled by an explosion of technology that enables information, ideas and money, people, products and services to move within and across the national borders at increasingly greater speeds and volumes.
I might say, parenthetically, I believe there are national security and common security aspects to the whole globalization challenge that I really don’t have time to go into today, so I’ll just steer off the text and say what I think briefly, which is that as we open borders and we increase the freedom of movement of people, information and ideas, this open society becomes more vulnerable to cross-national, multinational, organized forces of destruction: terrorists; weapons of mass destruction; the marriage of technology in these weapons, small-scale chemical and biological and maybe even nuclear weapons; narco traffickers and organized criminals, and increasingly, all these people sort of working together in lines that are quite blurred.

%d bloggers like this: