Warmists Taking The Recent ICJ Ruling Farther Than Expected

Of course, none of the Warmists want to make their own lives carbon neutral

New global ruling says sovereign states are legally responsible for tackling climate change

Sovereign states are not only responsible for tackling fossil fuel damage, they have to make redress, according to a recent ground-breaking ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ruling makes clear that the court believes states must actively prevent harm to the world’s climate system. States that fail to act accordingly may have to pay compensation, restore damaged ecosystems, rebuild infrastructure or face further legal challenges.

The ruling came in the form of an advisory opinion, which is a legal interpretation provided by a high-level court or tribunal with a special mandate, in response to a specific question of law. Simply put, an advisory opinion is not legally binding in the way a court judgment between two nations would be.

However, as an expert in international relations, I believe the consequences of this ruling are significant, both legally and politically.

Politically, states are now in the firing line as the main agents of harm. States and the public and private sector energy companies that states contract, license or subsidize are now more visible in terms of the kind of climate harm they permit.

Well, if you other countries want to give up their money, have at it. How about you Warmists give up your own and redistribute it?

What the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change means for military emissions

Despite the density of the document, the ICJ did not address everything. Some authors have already identified missed or intentionally avoided opportunities, such as guidance on the legal rights of nature, or deeper engagement with the rights of future generations. Also, the judges themselves have criticised the panel for an overly cautious approach.

The military’s impact on the climate is one such elusive topic. The court did hear about military and conflict emissions in Palestine’s oral statement to the court. That included the emissions caused by the conflict and expected by post-conflict reconstruction, as well as the barriers that occupation can place on climate adaptation and mitigation. (snip)

In defining the duties of states towards their climate obligations, the court indirectly addressed military emissions reporting and decarbonisation measures. While reporting of peacetime military emissions is currently voluntary, keeping at or below 1.5 degrees inevitably demands that military emissions are properly accounted for in national inventories and NDCs, and mitigated. A complete and undistorted picture of the climate crisis requires that states treat their militaries like other high-emitting sectors.

Bugger off. Maybe talk to your Palestinian terrorist pals about not starting wars they keep losing.

The post Warmists Taking The Recent ICJ Ruling Farther Than Expected appeared first on Pirate’s Cove.