Guess Who Wins The ICJ Climate (scam) Ruling

I’m kinda surprised that the Washington Post allowed Bjorn Lomborg to publish this

There’s good news for lawyers in a landmark climate ruling. But not for the climate.

Last month, the International Court of Justice issued a sweeping ruling on the legal duties of states to respond to climate change, demanding “deep, rapid and sustained reductions” in emissions and opening the door to lawsuits for climate reparations. The ruling is a landmark moment in international law that deserves more attention than it has gotten: In essence, the United Nations’ highest court has deemed climate inaction a human rights violation and an infringement of international law.

The judgment is sure to cause significant economic harm, with far-reaching consequences for human well-being. Though technically advisory and nonbinding, such statements by the ICJ are considered authoritative interpretations of relevant international agreements and law — and can sway both international and national courts. Thus, the ruling gives nations and activists a powerful tool to advance ever more climate lawsuits. Any country could be sued for falling short of the legal standards it lays out — including the United States, despite its having withdrawn from the Paris agreement’s climate pledges.

The ICJ decision warns, for instance, that “failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from [greenhouse gas] emissions” — including through fossil fuel production and consumption, or even granting exploration licenses — “may constitute an internationally wrongful act.” That is an extraordinarily wide legal net. Simmons & Simmons, a leading international law firm, concluded that the judgment will “redefine the legal landscape of global climate governance” and even shape national court decisions over domestic policies.

But, will any Warmist actually make their own lives carbon neutral?

Everyone should be concerned when judges replace democratically elected representatives but decree higher energy bills. Worse, however, the ICJ’s ruling doesn’t even get the science right. The judges repeat activists’ claims when they conclude that climate change is “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life,” a description that is far from the serious science of the U.N.’s own climate panel, which made no such conclusion. Most forms of life are actually thriving, as the more than 80 percent of global biomass represented by plant life experiences a carbon dioxide-fueled global greening. The judges also claim that hurricanes are becoming more frequent despite global evidence showing otherwise. More seriously, the judges misread the 2015 Paris agreement, replacing its 1.5 degrees Celsius soft ambition with a mandatory “primary temperature goal.” Keeping temperature increases to 1.5 degrees is not, in fact, what nations promised and, moreover, is widely considered unachievable at this stage.

The Warmists tried for 30 years to get people to reduce their own carbon footprints (while the Elites pushing this increased theirs) and push for more and more government control. They scaremongered/taught this in schools, it was on the TV and in the news. But, too many refused to cooperate, and the government folks could only jam so much through, so, they switch to suing to force Other People to comply.

The largest problem with the ruling is one of myopia. By narrowly focusing on climate concerns when discussing human rights, the ICJ ends up downgrading humanity’s many other needs: food, health care, education and jobs. Yet, strong climate policies are among the least efficient ways to improve human welfare, as shown by hundreds of cost-benefit assessments done for my organization, the Copenhagen Consensus Center.

It’s the same with real environmental concerns: they become secondary or lower, when there are things we can do without authoritarian government. Read the whole thing.

The post Guess Who Wins The ICJ Climate (scam) Ruling appeared first on Pirate’s Cove.