Essay by Eric Worrall
“States … have additional obligations to take the lead in combating climate change by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions …”
The press release;
If anyone has the patience, the full 133 page judgement (mostly in English) is available here (backup copy here).
From the advisory opinion press release + judgement;
…
The climate change treaties set forth binding obligations for States parties to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. These obligations include the following:
(a) States parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have an obligation to adopt measures with a view to contributing to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change;
(b) States parties listed in Annex I to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have additional obligations to take the lead in combating climate change by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing their greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs;
(c) States parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have a duty to co-operate with each other in order to achieve the underlying objective of the Convention; (d) States parties to the Kyoto Protocol must comply with applicable provisions of the Protocol;
(e) States parties to the Paris Agreement have an obligation to act with due diligence in taking measures in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities capable of making an adequate contribution to achieving the temperature goal set out in the Agreement;
(f) States parties to the Paris Agreement have an obligation to prepare, communicate and maintain successive and progressive nationally determined contributions which, inter alia, when taken together, are capable of achieving the temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5∞C above pre-industrial levels;
(g) States parties to the Paris Agreement have an obligation to pursue measures which are capable of achieving the objectives set out in their successive nationally determined contributions; and
(h) States parties to the Paris Agreement have obligations of adaptation and co-operation, including through technology and financial transfers, which must be performed in good faith.
– Customary international law sets forth obligations for States to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. These obligations include the following:
(a) States have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence and to use all means at their disposal to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities;
(b) States have a duty to co-operate with each other in good faith to prevent significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, which requires sustained and continuous forms of co-operation by States when taking measures to prevent such harm.
…
Read more: Same link as above
Despite the court claiming the judgement is advisory, the body of the judgement appears to claim that under the UN charter all members of the UN including the USA have an obligation to respect this ICJ judgement, due to customary respect for a rules the USA has not necessarily explicitly embraced.
b) Duty to co-operate for the protection of the environment 140. The duty to co-operate lies at the core of the Charter of the United Nations. Article 1 of the Charter commits States “[t]o achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian characterø. This obligation has been spelled out in the foundational “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970) (hereinafter the “Declaration on Friendly Relations). The Court has held that “the adoption by States of this text affords an indication of their opinio juris as to customary international law (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 101, para. 191). That observation also applies to the duty to co-operate in so far as it finds expression in many binding and non-binding instruments relating specifically to the environment. The duty to co-operate is a central obligation under the climate change treaties and other environmental treaties, as discussed below (see paragraphs 214-218 and 260-267). Other examples include Principle 24 of the Stockholm Declaration and Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (hereinafter the “Rio Declaration”), which both recognize co-operation as an essential element in the protection of the environment. In view of the related practice of States, the Court considers that the duty of States to co-operate for the protection of the environment is a rule whose customary character has been established (see Climate Change, Advisory Opinion, ITLOS Reports 2024, p. 110, para. 296; MOX Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 110, para. 82).
Read more: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf
I’m not a legal expert, but the argument that customary law with respect to international relations carries weight appears to be weak, though not necessarily weak enough to have it immediately dismissed without lots of time and money.
The US Senate did ratify the UN Charter in 1945, though arguably the UN has since granted itself powers which were not part of the original charter. I don’t recall the senate ever ratifying the USA’s alleged climate obligations under that 1945 charter. The claim the USA has a climate obligation under a charter ratified by the US Senate long before the UN got involved in the climate game seems a stretch.
Perhaps the “customary character” argument that states have a duty of compliance is a reference to the acquiescence of previous US administrations to unratified UN extensions of authority. If this is correct, that would make the ICJ advisory an assertion that the USA should shut up and do what they are told.
Obviously this ICJ ruling provides a lot of scope for mischief by NGOs and state governors who disagree with President Trump’s climate policies. I can see this ICJ ruling making a lot of lawyers rich.
Interestingly there has been a recent bump in Lithium prices, from around $8.50 / lb in late June to around $10 / lb today, though the explanations I’ve read claim this is due to a global cleardown of excess inventory rather than speculation the ICJ ruling might boost demand for EVs.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Looks like World Government has finally been established, by the ICJ.
And no one is allowed to disagree…
Luckily, it has zero power except to nag, like the climatistas.
This may blow up in their face. If the USA leaves the UN bye bye all that money and power. Just one more reason…
Really is time to admit that the UN is officially more “cancer” than “answer” to the world’s “problems,” whether real or, in this case, imaginary.
“This may blow up in their face. If the USA leaves the UN bye bye all that money and power.”
________________________
I believe that Trump has already pulled the U.S. out of UNESCO and the WHO if I recall correctly. And now maybe we’ll be leaving the IEA (which I do not think is part of the UN).
I am still waiting patiently for Trump to pull the U.S. out of the UNFCCC (and the IPCC by default). Maybe we will see this happen after the 2009 Endangerment Finding is shot down/debunked at the EPA. Here’s hoping.
Also the Paris Accord, an international treaty that was never ratified by Congress.
The US has made no “donation” to the IPCC in 2023. I couldn’t find the budgets for 2024 and 2025.
Do a search on: Budget for the IPCC.
Many nations have stopped making “donations” to the IPCC.
If you are curious, do a search on the Budgets for the UNFCCC and the UN COP.
When the 2009 CO2 “Endangerment Finding” is rescinded, these organizations should be abolished and all the radical environmental NGOs will go bust.
I check with the AI website Grok. For whatever it is worth, it told me:
“U.S. Contribution: Estimated at $2–3 million per year, with $14 million appropriated in FY 2024 for IPCC and UNFCCC combined, suggesting a similar range for 2023 and 2025.”
It also said that the UNFCC and IPCC don’t generally disclose what their annual budget is, which is probably why such info is difficult to come by.
Thanks for the info. I didn’t consider to use an AI Wizard to search for the info.
President Trump will probably terminate donations to these UN organizations and skip COP30 in Brazil in November
“USA leaves the UN”
UN needs to leave the USA.. find a country they are more suited to.
Wasted real estate.
Withdraw funding and ask them to pay rent for their current premises.
South Georgi Island?
Gott in Himmel!
EU’s 2030 EV Mandate for Rental Fleets Faces German Backlash
The UN sez nations can sue nations over climate change – sue China now.
This will impact the EU only, and maybe some of the signatories to the Treaty of Rome who abide by the rulings of the ICJ kangaroo court. The USA, China, India, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, OPEC countries, and many others don’t recognize the ICJ or abide by their rulings. Their combined GDP dwarfs the EU.
The European Union of Socialist Republics (EUSR) can wreck their economies all they want. It won’t affect the economically sane countries of the world. It will be interesting to see how the EU member countries handle this because they’re already feeling the sting of reliance on fossil fuels from Russia, whom they all consider an enemy for invading Ukraine. They have only themselves to blame for the cognitive dissonance they’ve created by destroying their energy economies and relying on energy from an enemy. You can bet Putin is laughing at their stupidity as they enrich his country.
How many divisions does the ICJ have?
What evidence has the ICJ seen in reaching their decision?
A lot of hockey sticks presumably.
Correction: “What evidence has the ICJ seen in reaching their
decisionadvisory opinion?”It is only an advisory decision. They’ll put us in an advisory jail.
“I advise you to put yourself in jail, Otis.”
“Sure, Andy!”
From a UK perspective this is very bad news indeed. Effectively the way we are governed is largely down to the ideas of three human rights lawyers.
Keir Starmer
Richard (now Lord) Hermer – made a peer and AG the moment Starmer won the election
Phillipe Sands – unelected and in the shadows
“There was national outrage this morning at the news that Sir Keir’s Labour has decided to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius – but perhaps Brits shouldn’t be so shocked by Starmer’s move. It transpires that the Prime Minister is friends with Philippe Sands KC, who also happens to be Mauritius’ chief legal adviser – and a longtime campaigner for the country to control the land. How very curious…”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/starmers-friend-revealed-to-be-mauritius-chief-legal-adviser/
All of them put international law above the national interest. The epitome of self-loathing.
The UN ruling on Chagos was advisory, an opinion and the unholy triumvirate interpreted that as legally binding, nay, essential to remedy at great cost to Britain.
So will it be with any forthcoming climate litigation.
The American military base there- ain’t going anywhere despite what Mauritius have to say about. It’s one of those great choke points the UK should never have given up without a war. It is now America’s.
Yes, but we’ll be paying the rent. Isn’t that obvious?
Besides, Trump could have vetoed a bad deal yet he didn’t.
“Article 1 of the Charter commits States “[t]o achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character.”
Fine. Emissions of CO2 are hereby demonstrated not to be a risk, when the dynamics of the atmosphere’s operation as an energy converter are properly considered.
Problem solved. The States should co-operate with this technical conclusion to the misconception from which the UNFCCC arose in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDurP-4gVrY
Full explanation in the first reply.
Readme: Are CO2 emissions a risk to the climate? No. The static “warming” effect of incremental CO2 (~4 W/m^2 for 2XCO2) disappears as kinetic energy (wind) is converted to/from internal energy (including temperature) + potential energy (altitude).
This time lapse video shows the daily minimum, median, and maximum values of the computed “vertical integral of energy conversion” hourly parameter from the ERA5 reanalysis for 2022. Values for each 1/4 degree longitude gridpoint at 45N latitude are given. The vertical scale is from -10,000 to +10,000 W/m^2. The minor incremental radiative absorbing power of non-condensing GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O vanishes on the vertical scale as the rapidly changing energy conversion in both directions is tens to thousands of times greater.
So what? The assumed GHG “forcings” cannot be isolated for reliable attribution of reported surface warming. And with all the circulation and energy conversion throughout the depth of the troposphere, heat energy need not be expected to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect from incremental non-condensing GHGs. The GHGs add no energy to the land + ocean + atmosphere system. Therefore the radiative properties of CO2, CH4, and N2O, and other molecules of similar nature, should not be assumed to produce a perturbing climate “forcing.” The concept of energy conversion helps us understand the self-regulating delivery of energy to high altitude for just enough longwave radiation to be emitted to space.
References:
The ERA5 reanalysis model is a product of ECMWF, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. The computed parameters “vertical integral of potential + internal energy” and “vertical integral of energy conversion” are described at these links.
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=…
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=…
Further comment:
This is for just one latitude band at 45N. Similar results were observed for 45S, 10N/S, 23.5N/S, and 66N/S.
More Background:
From Edward N. Lorenz (1960) “Energy and Numerical Weather Prediction”
https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v12i4.9420
“2. Energy, available potential energy, and
gross static stability
Of the various forms of energy present in
the atmosphere, kinetic energy has often
received the most attention. Often the total
kinetic energy of a weather system is regarded
as a measure of its intensity. The only other
forms of atmospheric energy which appear
to play a major role in the kinetic energy
budget of the troposphere and lower stratosphere
are potential energy, internal energy, and the
latent energy of water vapor. Potential and
internal energy may be transformed directly
into kinetic energy, while latent energy may
be transformed directly into internal energy,
which is then transformed into kinetic energy.
It is easily shown by means of the hydrostatic
approximation that the changes of the
potential energy P and the internal energy l of
the whole atmosphere are approximately proportional,
so that it is convenient to regard
potential and internal energy as constituting
a single form of energy. This form has been
called total potential energy by Margules (1903).
…
In the long run, there must be a net depletion
of kinetic energy by dissipative processes. It
follows that there must be an equal net
generation of kinetic energy by reversible
adiabatic processes; this generation must occur
at the expense of total potential energy. It
follows in turn that there must be an equal net
generation of total potential energy by heating
of all kinds. These three steps comprise the
basic energy cycle of the atmosphere. The
rate at which these steps proceed is a fundamental
characteristic of the general circulation.”
You should stop wasting time and energy posting all this nonsense. I found another article on the CO2 IR absorption saturation effect. The URL is:
https://climateatglance/carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere.
The saturation of absorption of out-going long wavelength IR light by CO2 occurs when the concentration of CO2 in the air reaches ca. 300 ppmv. What this means is that adding more CO2 into the air from use of fossil fuels will not result in an increase of surface air temperature.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 439 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1.29 kg and contains a mere 0.862 g of CO2 at STP. Most all the people and especially the politicians do no know how little CO2 there is in the air.
This is why the plots of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley are fairly flat from 1922 to 2001. See chart below. The chart was obtained from the late John Daly’s website “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john-daly.com. John Daly found over 200 weather stations that showed no warming up to 2002.
“You should stop wasting time and energy posting all this nonsense.”
Thanks for your friendly reply. You are welcome, of course, to keep making your point about the CO2 absorption saturation effect. No objection from my end.
I regard the dynamic argument, which follows from meteorological fundamentals, to be a more direct refutation of the misconception that an incremental static radiative effect must be expected to produce a “warming” result.
The dynamic explanation is equivalent to the thinking expressed by Simpson and Brunt in 1938 as Callendar’s attribution of reported warming to emissions of CO2 was reviewed. More here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/06/open-thread-138/#comment-4058322
I wish you well, even as we may disagree somewhat about how to address the false climate claims.
I forgot to mention that a major process for warming of the surface air is conduction of surface heat into the air followed by upward convection of the warm air.
You should go to and bookmark the Federal Register website at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/current.
Then page down to Regular Filing Agencies and click on the Environmental Protection Agency. All government agencies are required to post any new proposed rule or regulation as an announcement in the Federal Register for comments and suggestion by the public. There is a 45 day window for making comments.
Any day now, the EPA will place an announcement in the Federal Register rescinding the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding. When this happens what ever will Gov Gavin G. of CA and Gov. Kathy H. of NY do? They will have to abandon the climate action plans, and the taxpayers will demand retribution. Will this announcement rescue the people in the UK from Mad Ed?
Surely all the radical environmental NGOs fearing a massive loss of easy green funds will panic and launch many lawfare suits.
I can’t wait to hear all their wailing.
BTW: Where do you live and do you cold winters? These green enviros never talk about winter and never consider that fossil fuels keep them from freezing to death in winter.
“BTW: Where do you live and do you cold winters?”
I live in rural central NY. Very cold winters. Yes, it is insane to oppose fossil fuels for that reason alone.
Gavin and Kathy, and their minions, will knash their teeth, launch lawsuits, and continue doing what they are doing.
I just went to your posted link and briefly scanned the text. There was no mention of the major greenhouse H2O.
Thank you for following up.
“I just went to your posted link and briefly scanned the text.”
Which text are you referring to? The description of the time-lapse video, or the comment on WUWT I linked to?
“There was no mention of the major greenhouse H2O.”
And… what is your point? There was no need in either case to involve or emphasize H2O in the reasoning.
The trouble is, David that your arguments are not considered. You are clearly in the denialist corner and everything you say will therefor be dismissed whether you are right or wrong or somewhere in between. We are living in a binary world where people are educated and trained in binary thinking where nuance is frowned upon and dissent procecuted.
Thanks for your reply. I have noted and appreciated that you “get” the reasons for making a case from dynamics. And yes, it seems even here at WUWT that there is a strong tendency to tell others what arguments should be emphasized. I try to avoid sounding like that. In any case, I am determined to press on against the unsound “climate” claims.
“Article 1 of the Charter commits States “[t]o achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character.”
What incredible irony! The origin of most, if not all, ‘problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character’ in today’s world can readily be traced to the states’ implementation of socialism in any of its many forms.
I watched a couple hours of droning reading yesterday, until it became obvious where this was headed. If ever there were a time for Jackson’s “Now let them enforce it!” this is it.
Trump’s response: “We are adequately addressing the ‘climate change’ hoax, thank you very much!” should be enough.
I used to dislike Trump’s bluntness- after all, I’ve live my entire 75 years in Wokeachusetts, now I like it very much!
Having grown up in Massachusetts then lived in the SE, SW and NW (never the middle) it seems to me that the NE was either “most blunt” or “least polite” depending on how I choose to look at it. I remember Robert Frost wrote “Good walls make good neighbors” with imagery of stoic, quiet New England farmers stacking frost heave rocks. But if you can get one of those guys talking, look out!
True- but they like to pretend and imagine that they’re the most sophisticated, professional and polite- when they’re not- they’re thinking and talking is now damaged by the woke virus.
‘By their own actions, Yankees showed the world that they viewed the new government merely as a tool for satisfying their own self-interested purposes. Who but the New Englander known as John Adams sanctioned the Sedition Law to punish anti-government speech in clear violation of the Constitution? (By contrast, Jefferson’s dislike for mixing issues of church and state was integral to his dislike of New England’s power-grid of self-appointed “saints.”)’
Reeks somehow of desperation…
Well maybe 47 signs an EO to ban ICJ members and their asociates from entering the US or establish any form of contact with ayone in it’s boundaries.
Law against law…almost like monkeys throwing shit at each other.
“To start with, let’s kill all the “lawyers”…to quote a line of a Shakespear character….maybe the path to a better world sarc?
I thought the US dropped out of this in 1986, at least being bound by the legal enforcement.
I ran to Google search and found the AI’s answer to be super-evasive. It did not want to provide any quote to support or deny but kept paraphrasing “The US has, on occasion, withdrawn its acceptance of the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction or made declarations limiting the scope of its acceptance.”
In the end I ask “or else what?”
You need to find an AI that can be put into ‘thinking’ mode and then ask the appropriate questions.
Just using Google doesnt get you there..
The UN was one of Franklin Roosevelt’s sillier ideas. Following the lead of Wilson into Progressivism usually has bad outcomes.
Time to discard it. Easy to do – just send no money.
FDR started the excessive POTUS power grab using ’emergency’ legislation and increasing executive orders we have to live w today. Theodor kinda kickstarted it and FDR turbocharged it.
It is more of Progressive “Rule By Experts” notions, bypassing such
minor little things as democracy and Congress. Wilson was a proto-Fascist.
They keep yammering about “protection of the environment” as if man’s CO2 has been proven to harm the environment in any way shape or form, and is not, in fact, a benefit to all life, including humans.
“They keep yammering about “protection of the environment” as if . . . “
__________________________________________________________
The benefits of CO2 and its lack of any actual problematic issues needs to
be pointed out over and over and over again. Too bad that’s not happening.
If they wish to pursue “protection of the environment” then, amongst many other things, they should get Russia to stop sending hundreds of drones into Ukraine every day. Those bombs do not help the environment.
‘They’ could by pushing for a proper peace agreement/ resolution that would settle the area. But the US wants to continue the war as it started it ( w the UK close behind) and Trump has no backbone left to push against it. Now he is into selling weapons and seems not to give a damn. We see him deflate day by day. The Great Hope squashed by reality on the ground.
The only “proper” peace proposal Russia/Putin will except it capitulation by Ukraine and integration of Ukrainian territory into Russia.
Technically he is not selling weapons to Ukraine. He is selling them to NATO with permission to forward them to Ukraine.
Hey, i know i produce the heroin but you guys are selling it on the street, so…
Unelected satanists in charge now then.
climasatanists
Yes, the international elites are on the back foot now. It’s time more people woke up. And more, and more, and more… Why on earth have the elites been so worried, for so long, about “extinction?”
They’ve been worried about the extinction of their funding!
LOL, no one person, organization or nations is actively preventing any of the nations of the world to control their own emissions so have at it and leave the rest of us alone.
Next question – Is/Can any of the nations of the world control(ing) their own emissions?
I just stopped reading the above article when I saw the photocopy of the ICJ’s press release with the phrase “Advisory Opinion” at the top in its underlined title.
Such trivial pablum for the public.
This is “trivial pablum for the public”? I think that depends on your point of view. If you don’t mind having your whole life and the lives of your descendants ruled arbitrarily, tyrannically and repressively in minute detail by a clique of sanctimonious, self-accountable, air-headed UN-‘judges’ (for which, read ‘bureaucrats’) who are totally unqualified by temperament, character and personal capability to organise a harmonious booze-up in a brewery let alone the harmoniously-integrated life of the whole planet, then I imagine you probably will see this announcement of their latest move on their path to absolute power and authority over Planet Earth and all that lives and moves upon it as just “trivial pablum for the public”.
However, I don’t think many of us earthlings will share that point of view when they realise what the true purpose of this sneaky bit of bogus “judicial” legerdemain really is, ie. the legitimization of absolute One World Government by UN-WEF-WHO functionaries with a blind centralist, enviro-socialist mindset who have no legitimate authority to rule anywhere on Earth at present (thank heaven!). They are seeking this legitimization not from the general world public, who they have neither canvassed nor consulted on the matter in a worldwide referendum, but they are seeking it from national governments that are sufficiently blind, unwise, reckless, confused, deluded, ego-driven and corrupt as to give it to them by the stroke of a president/prime minister’s pen.
Of course these cases are being brought by assorted low lying island states, one of which no doubt being the Maldives, who go on about rising sea levels while building ever more ostentatious resorts for the stinking rich who will of course fly there in ever greater numbers, burning even more of the hated fossil fuels! It’s surely not hypocrisy, is it!
It would be fun to submit a petition to allow only sailboats and solar-powered airplanes to deliver tourists to the Maldives. Is there a shopping mall on the island to stand in front of and collect signatures for Youtube?
The UN, in its inception, had one worthwhile charter – to get countries to work together to prevent another world war.
The evolution since the US joined has not been ratified by Congress. As such, Constitutionally, voluntary participation is ok, but mandatory participation is indefensible.
Trump is pulling the USA out of many of these global boondoggles. Perhaps it is time? to pull out of the UN and kick them out of NYC? I understand NYC has a need for illegal alien shelters. What better than the UN building?
As I understand it, and I am willing to admit it if I get this wrong, the USA did not sign onto the ICJ and is not beholden to anything it rules on.
“The ICJ was established by the U.N. Charter in 1945 as part of the United Nations, and the ICC was established almost five decades later in a treaty called the Rome Statute. The ICJ’s mandate is to resolve interstate disputes about questions of international law that the states that are parties to a case have consented to the court’s jurisdiction to address, and to answer certain questions of international law that U.N. bodies periodically ask the court to address.”
I think I knw what this actually says but I see how either reading could be argued. I see now why Google AI refused to take a stand – the language it has access to refused to take a stand first.
(quote is from Congress.gov)
I suppose the final answer from congress.gov is hiding in “In contrast to domestic legal systems, there are no centralized mechanisms for enforcing the decisions of international courts such as the ICJ and the ICC. Rather, international courts are dependent on the states that created them—individually and collectively—to comply with, support, and enforce their decisions.”
“When President Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000, he acknowledged that it lacked binding legal force upon the United States until it was ratified with Senate approval,”
+
The US Senate never approved
=
Yet another case where US policy depends on whoever won the last presidential election.
off topic- sorry
What melting glaciers in Norway reveal
What melting glaciers in Norway reveal | Watch
Norway has a huge oil field and now a huge phosphate finding – what a rich country – I will try to move there soon.
Not for the gorgeous blond women? 🙂
No, the “climate change treaties” set forth NON-BINDING “obligations.”
The fact that this Kangaroo Court can’t tell the difference speaks volumes as to why any “judgment” from the ICJ should be pissed on and laughed at.
I agree that greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced if they have a significant effect. However carbon dioxide is not one of them . It is a good gas and essential to the life of people and plants. At cuirrent atmospheric levels its effect is insignificant. De-carbonisation is a total sham imposed by politicians and lefty woke world order perpetrators to line their own pockets.
Which “greenhouse gas” has a significant effect?
Only one I know of is H2O. Try to reduce that puppy.
H20 is a dangerous greenhouse gas. Look what it did to Texas. Every day I see on the news of floods in many countries. In summer, farmers cross their fingers and hope a hail storm won’t destroy their crops. I remember the massive ice storm that took down the entire electrical grid in Quebec
The humor is strong in this one.
Rain is not a gas.
Snow, ice, hail, sleet are not gasses.
Furthermore, no one ever claimed rain to have a greenhouse effect. They were too busy with CO2, methane, SO2, NO2, etc., etc., etc.
High concentration of H2O gas in air, i.e. high RH and high temperature, makes the air very dangerous for many people such as old folks. I see on the TV many reports of killer heat waves.
H2O is a killer gas! /s
US out of UN!
UN out of US!
Decades ago who would have thought that the John Burch Society would have won the argument over that statement you saw while driving on rural byways.
Birch, but yes. We thought they were rubes, but they were right about this issue.
“Burch” should be “Birch”.
An advisory opinion does not have international force of law. ‘Full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.’
And many years ago US withdrew from ‘compulsory’ ICJ jurisdiction. Meaning the US decides whether to agree to ICJ jurisdiction on a case by case basis.
It in effect “gives guns to the Indians.”
“(d) States parties to the Kyoto Protocol must comply with applicable provisions of the Protocol;”
__________________________________________________________
And what are you going to do oh dear ICJ if we here in the U.S. and other countries in the world choose not to comply with your demand? Send us all to bed without any supper?
I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that the Trump administration probably reads this release and laughs.
It is my Advisory Opinion that the ICJ should F off.
All treaties in America are subject to approval by and with the advice and consent of the Senate
Not recalling which climate treaty has that approval.
None. Not even A. Gore could get Congress to ratify the Kyoto Accords.
Far as I know, the US Supreme Court has actually ruled several times that treaties do not override or amend the constitution, and don’t take effect on their own. Congress has to pass implementing legislation, which has to be constitutional.
Of course, “constitutional” only means it has to be approved by the Supreme Court, and they don’t have a very good record in telling the government “No”.
Read Article VI of the Constitution. Valid Treaties have equal standing with the Constitution and Laws as the Supreme Law of the Land.
Key word: “valid” as in ratified by Congress.
Lawfare. after all else has failed. Law requires no reason, just an opinion. Hee Haw!