In an unprecedented move, 99 countries have convened at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague to seek an advisory opinion on climate change. Led by nations like Vanuatu, this legal campaign asks the ICJ to define the obligations of states to combat climate change and protect vulnerable countries. Proponents hail it as a milestone in the fight against global warming, while skeptics question its motives, effectiveness, and potential consequences. Let’s unpack this monumental case and consider whether it’s just another Trojan horse for sweeping global control.
The Case: Climate Liability on Trial
This case stems from a resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly, urging the ICJ to clarify the legal responsibilities of states regarding climate change. It centers on two key questions:
- To what extent are nations legally obligated to curb emissions and mitigate climate change?
- What reparations are owed to nations disproportionately affected by climate impacts, particularly small island states facing rising sea levels?
The ICJ’s advisory opinion, while not legally binding, could set a powerful precedent, influencing future climate negotiations, lawsuits, and policies.
The Driving Force: Island Nations’ Desperate Gamble
Island nations like Vanuatu have long been vocal about their vulnerability to rising sea levels and extreme weather. They argue that wealthy, industrialized nations bear a disproportionate responsibility for a “climate crisis” and must act urgently to rectify the damage.
To those indoctrinated, their case seems compelling: why shouldn’t the major polluters compensate those most affected? But dig deeper, and the waters become murky. Sea level data, for example, shows far less consistent trends than alarmists suggest, with variability influenced by natural phenomena like tectonic activity and ocean circulation. Moreover, pinning global temperature changes solely on human emissions ignores the complexity of climate systems and the significant role of natural variability.
What’s Really at Stake?
This case isn’t just about sea levels or reparations—it’s about power. If the ICJ sides with the claimants, it could embolden future lawsuits and create a de facto global regulatory framework for emissions. Here’s why that should give everyone pause:
- National Sovereignty at Risk
The ICJ’s opinion could undermine the sovereignty of nations, allowing unelected judges to dictate climate policies. Countries like the United States and China, already resistant to binding international agreements, might see this as an overreach that infringes on their right to self-determination. - The Financial Bottomless Pit
A ruling in favor of island nations could pave the way for trillions in climate reparations. Wealthy nations would face increasing demands for funding adaptation projects, potentially diverting resources from domestic priorities. Worse, such payments could incentivize corruption and mismanagement in recipient nations, where transparency and accountability are often lacking. - Legal Chaos
If emissions become a basis for liability, it opens the floodgates for endless litigation. From corporations to individual governments, the potential defendants are countless. This isn’t justice; it’s a lawyer’s dream and a policymaker’s nightmare.
A Dubious Precedent: Historical Climate Lawsuits
The ICJ case isn’t the first attempt to weaponize the courts for climate activism. Similar efforts have had mixed results:
- Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands (2019): Dutch courts ruled that the government must reduce emissions to meet climate targets. The ruling was hailed as a victory but sparked backlash for prioritizing climate targets over democratic processes.
- Juliana v. United States (2015): American youth sued the U.S. government for failing to protect them from climate change. While dramatic, the case has been bogged down in procedural wrangling, highlighting the limits of judicial activism.
These cases show that courts are ill-suited to address complex, multifaceted issues like climate change. Solutions require democratic debate, open scientific inquiry, and technological innovation—not judicial mandates.
Who Benefits?
Follow the money, and the picture becomes clearer. International climate litigation serves the interests of:
- Global Bureaucracies
Organizations like the United Nations thrive on expanding their influence. Turning climate issues into legal obligations strengthens their role as global arbiters of policy. - Developing Nations with Leverage
By framing themselves as victims, some developing nations hope to secure massive payouts from wealthier countries, effectively subsidizing their own development agendas under the guise of climate justice. - Climate Activists
Litigation gives activists a high-profile platform to push their agenda, bypassing political opposition and public skepticism.
The Real Agenda Behind the Lawsuit
The ICJ case might be dressed up as a fight for justice, but scratch the surface, and it looks more like a power grab. This isn’t about protecting vulnerable nations—it’s about imposing a global climate regime that overrides national sovereignty, empties taxpayers’ wallets, and enriches a global elite.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One can tell someone never read Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”, where a lawsuit on behalf of Vanuatu is a plot element. Reality and the novel have the same minor little flaw, that Vanuatu is in fact not sinking due to rising sea levels.
It’s plainly obvious that multiple factors are involved:
“Satellite data indicate the sea level has risen near Vanuatu by about 6 mm per year since 1993. This is larger than the global average of 2.8–3.6 mm per year”
http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org
Given the disagreement of satellite sea level measurements and tide gauge readings, I would discount any satellite measurement, anywhere.
Yes satellite “data” is a joke -attempts to measure changes in millimeters with instruments whose error range is in centimeters.
Kind of like a carpenter’s helper who tells the carpenter “it’s 3 inches, give or take a foot.”
Honiara, the closest tide site, gives 3.65mm/year, but is a very short time period.
Several tide sites on the Queensland coast of Australia with somewhat longer records are all between 1.5mm/year and 2.5mm/year.
And last I looked, human ingenuity allows seawalls to be constructed at a rate far in excess of any of the “mm per year” numbers. It’s not like the pointless CO2 emission reduction “efforts” would change a thing about sea levels, which have been rising at a similar rate for hundreds of years, anyway.
re: “99 countries have convened at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague …”
I understand Jack Smith has been freed up, he has prior DRE (experience) there at The Hague, maybe they’ll find a spot for him chasing down ‘moar’ ‘whirled’-stage bad guys …
/Heavy, heavy sarcasm
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
Existence as you know it is over.
— The Climate Borg
Whereas ‘business as usual’ regarding the continued scale of use of fossil fuels serves the interests of (shown with current market cap.):
Etc….
Well then stop using fossil fuels, and impoverish the greedy robber barons, and the big greedy corporations, and soak the rich, and seize the means of production, and shut it all down because of Climastrology.
Business as usual benefits everybody, not just fossil fuel companies.
On net, more CO2 is highly beneficial to the environment, which means life is better for everyone.
“They” will only continue to make profits on “Their” products … as long as “You” and other hypocrites continue to UTILIZE all the items manufactured by “Their main product” aka Fossil Fuels. You want “Them” to go away? Stop using Fossil Fuels and Petrochemical derivatives.
Nothing electronic (Silicon requires Coal)
Nothing containing Steel (Steel requires Coal)
Nothing containing plastic (Plastics require Gas and Oil)
…cell phones & computers gone
…insulated wiring gone
…lightweight auto components gone
Nothing containing steel
…airplanes gone
…busses gone
…large cargo ships
…automobile chassis gone
…bicycles gone
No synthetic clothing
No synthetic Rubber
…car tires gone
…bicycle tires gone
Asphalt paved streets gone
Many prescriptions gone
Needles for medication injection gone
Surgical steel instruments (scalpels retractors reamers etc) gone
Make-up gone
Ink gone
Enjoy your Privileged Life of plenty and stop being a hypocrite!
Well its not quite as bad as you paint…lets start with chep nucler energy and see how your list looks
In short the only thing I can see a problem with is aeroplanes. And some need for new materials made from other sources than fossil – asphalt and rubber. But silicone can be made from methanol, hydrochloric acid and sand plus a lot of heat.
It seems to me that you have concluded that the way things are done now is the only way they can be done.
This is simply not the case. Given access to cheap reliable nuclear heat and power, nearly everything can be done another way. The real issues fall into one category only. Portable power, Batteries are not good enough for aircraft, or tanks or self propelled guns or anything. Not unless you have a nuclear reactor on the back of a truck to charge them up, and that’s a no go for aircraft. Private cars and trucks will need to grab electricity from the roads.
Or use synthetic fuel. Neither are going to be cheap options.
It probably means back to the frickin’ railways. Drive your POS BEV onto the charge wagon, plug it in and let the electric train take you five hundred miles.
Assuming all those alternatives are feasible and practicable, what are the costs of transitioning?
How can private cars and trucks grab electricity from the roads?
FYI, Coal is needed in the formation of silicon, not as the energy source.
Before a blanket statement about plastics, one has to account for the myriad of plastics, their properties, etc. While it may be true, such a base generalization is indefensible.
Aluminum requires lots of uninterrupted electricity in its manufacture, solar and wind won’t cut it. Nuclear would if you had a nuclear plant close by the smelter.
Perhaps You could demonstrate where ANY of these “alternatives” are currently being used or even tried? I know of no-one attempting to replace hydrocarbon petrochemical manufacturing with any alternative methods. As for Hydrogen reduction of Iron or Silicates, this is currently Not being done as to cost/availability of Hydrogen as a reducing agent. Coal is still the only viable reducing agent for both FeO2 and SiO2.
Your “Optional Methods” are purely Pie in the Sky improbabilities currently and no other viable alternatives currently exist for Fossil Fuels and Petrochemical derivatives.
Sufficient feedstock for the production of plastics would be problematical.
There is only so much such as straw and potato starch available. They already have alternative uses and would need to be transported from widespread locations to processing plants.
IIRC potato starch bags are used for compostaable bags so would not be suitable for long life applications such as electronic insulation.
Pie in the Sky Is definitely the correct description.
As an aside, as far as emmissions are concerned, at a carbon tax of £50 per ton of CO2 each human could be charged £20 per year for their CO2 breathed out, simply for living, let alone for their other emmissions.
Can’t forget the anal inserted Methane Scrubbers.
Soon to arrive at a proctologist near you.
How is a nuclear generator built without the use of fossil fuel products?
A whole lotta structural steel, Rebar, tubing and, of course, concrete!
At least they only need 1 paved road to reach the source of 1.21 gigawatts
I note you made no reference to the National Oil Companies
Saudi Aramco
National Iranian Oil Company
Kuwait Petroleum Company
Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
The Middle East has 5 of the top 10 oil producing countries in the world and Saudi Arabia is the second largest oil producer worldwide. Yet it is only,as ever, western commercial companies that you and your ilk talk about. Why is that?
Oh dear. Oil companies happily support renewable energy because they know it wont dent their sales. They don’t like nuclear though.
They get those incomes from providing goods that every person in western civilisation uses and relies on every minute of their lives.
You are one of those people who is totally reliant on fossil fuels for your whole existence.
Say a big THANKS to these companies.
The largest “oil companies” are state owned, not private corporations, like Saudi Aramco or Rosneft. Your Marxism is showing.
Don’t forget, the main tenet of Marxism is that the government owns all means of production.
You can always tell who the communists are because they never demonize any government production facilities. They save that exclusively for successful, for profit corporations. Nobody else does that as there is no reason to do so.
Funny that you post in the negative using a computer that would not exist were it not for coal and oil.
How does that compare with the multi-$trillions spend on climate change energy transitions?
2021-2022, the estimate is $1.3 trillion, which is greater than the sums you posted. And those are not from sales, but from tax payers.
BTW, gross sales is not the same as profits.
You missed a party whose interests are served by “the continued scale of use of fossil fuels”:
8 billion humans
Yes!
FF are the major reason for life expectancy nearly doubling from ~40 to ~78 from 1900 to the present despite all of its downsides. Factor that into the “social cost of carbon” !
Consider: How much would you be willing to pay to live twice as long?
Business as usual serves the interests of HUMANITY.
UNLESS you prefer Stone Age living.
Kyoto, the last time this was tried in the US congress voted it down by 100%. Countries with nothing to lose and everything to gain will be all in. Western countries, which are the minority, will virtue signal that they agree with the principal but won’t give up their sovereignty.
Kyoto was never presented to the US congress. A Republican led resolution rejecting the treaty passed 99-0 and as a result Clinton abandoned the treaty.
Same difference
The word “Congress” can be misunderstood. Congress is the Legislative Branch made up of 2 parts, The US Senate and The House of Representatives.
Each have some duties spelled out for one or the other. Sometimes “Congress” is used for just one of the parts.
Treaties don’t go before The House but only The Senate and it requires 2/3 of the Senate to be adopted.
Kyoto, as a treaty, was dead in the water. The US was not bound.
That’s one reason Obama began to abuse his office by making “agreements” and acting like they were “treaties”.
(The US is not bound by anything in the Paris thing, not even its own rules for withdrawing.)
Let us hope that Trump can stop this insanity
I think he will, but there is a risk here that worries me.
It is clear to me that the only viable future beyond fossil fuels is an all nuclear one. Forget renewables…now if we discount climate alarmism, which I guess apart from the well known exceptions we all do, otherwise we would be here…it is fairly clear that there is no real problem with continuing to extract fossil fuels until they start to get very scarce and very expensive to extract.
Now that is increasingly the case in other places than the USA. The USA has 20-50 years of gas/oil and ~150 years of cheap coal left.
But it’s not unlimited.
That buys the time to build out a competent nuclear grid.
But the temptation for a politician is to ignore that, create an oil and gas boom and a lot of cash for Americans, just as Britain did with North sea gas. Now its all but run out and we didn’t build any nuclear power plants, either.
I hope the Donald is smarter than that.
“The USA has 20-50 years of gas/oil and ~150 years of cheap coal left”. That we know of.
Great! Lets use it. Just enough time left for me and my adult children’s lifespans, so no worries. Grandkids can change over to Thorium when they need to.
First of all, the known reserves are in excess of 60 years at current consumption rates (oil).
Does that not give us a little time to assess ALL of the alternatives and select the optimum path forward (economics and technology).
Doing a step function causes oscillations and severe negative consequences. Whatever is chosen has to evolved into the existing system for it to be non-disruptive.
Estimates based on known copper reserves indicate that if we were to meet the mandated “green energy” goals, we would run out of copper in less than 5 years. I do not have the numbers for lithium and the other rare earth elements needed.
And… wind towers require oil to operate. Maybe there is another lubricant, but currently oil, as reported, is it.
Olive oil?
I thought a lawsuit seeking reparations needed to prove damages. So far any recent climate change has been provably beneficial.
Wouldn’t they also have to prove that only CO2 from fossil fuels is the definitive cause of the climate change they wish reparations for?
AFAIK, there is no proof of this, only conjecture and climate models
If both questions are based on falsehood, can there be any question as to the purpose? Trojan horse vs outright hijacking?
Neither the UN nor the ICJ have any relevance or credibility.
Who are the lawyers, and who is paying them?
That is something Trump might do. Leave the ICJ and the UN and leave it all looking a bit irrelevant. Perfectly possible to team up with more sensible people in the world and create a mutually agreed set of rules without an independent body imposing them on people. Like NATO.
Trying to reproduce the EU on a global scale. Which itself was a copy of the USSR.
The Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the West behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
That Georgia’s always on
My, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my mind
…
Hey, I’m back In the U.S.S.R
You don’t know how lucky you are, boys
Back in the U.S.S.R
I’m no lawyer, but I would think the first thing any plaintiff would be required to prove is the percent of any damages caused directly by increases in CO^2 vs. those caused by natural climate change. Second, regardless of the IPCC’s mandate, the overall value of increased CO^2 vs. any negatives must be determined. Until these have been proven scientifically, i.e. by methods other than using untested, best guess GCMs, I don’t see how any reparations could be determined.
1 & 2
How much more money can they print?
Not much if you give them chisels and paving stones to work with
They will win, of course. Would any ICJ judge dare to find against them? It would be like banning puppies!
Sadly, in the UK, we already have judges, who’s judgments have been based on the false premise of AGW. They don’t need to consider the legitimacy of the arguments, just refer to the Climate Change Act 2008 and that’s it. If you’re an activist breaking the law, you get off ‘Scot free’, as innocent, but if you’re on the scepticism side, automatically guilty.
So if some judge on the International (kangaroo) Court orders the USA or some other affluent nation to pay an exorbitant sum to Vanuatu, who actually enforces the order?
What happens if the defendant refuses to pay, based on national sovereignty?
Do they send some Vanuatuan cops to break into Fort Knox?
None of the climate treaties from the United Nations or the various COP’s are binding on the USA unless ratified by two-thirds of the Senate.
The last time a climate treaty was sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification in 1995, it was voted down 0-97.
So if the International Court lodged a judgment against the USA on a climate matter, the USA has the absolute right to refuse payment. They might try a strongly-worded motion of censure, which would be vetoed by the USA.
Anyone trying to coerce China into reducing its CO2 emissions would suffer an even worse fate.
They should probably stick to throwing soup at famous paintings.
Yet another useless international organization.
Build on a nearly flat island that is sinking as the oceanic crust beneath it cools and shrinks. Then complain that the variability of weather, tides, and currents gets your feet wet now and then. Demand someone pay on the basis of wackdoodle theories that judges generally have no competence to judge.
Mitigating climate change means that you must first change the weather. Since it has never been apparent that any human activity can actually do that, I’d guess that nobody is legally obligated to perform the impossible.
When a court run by clowns convenes, clowns flock to it to have their clown cases adjudicated. Didn’t see that coming.