mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

354K
active users

"On December 2, the International Court of Justice will begin hearings on an Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. Over 100 countries and organizations will present in 30-minute increments over two weeks. At the request of the UN General Assembly, the will determine the existing of countries for their contribution to climate change and what actions countries must take to prevent ."

forbes.com/sites/jonmcgowan/20

Forbes · 5 Facts To Know About The International Court’s Climate Change HearingsBy Jon McGowan

"The US and China, the world’s biggest emitters, will make statements too, even though neither fully recognises the court’s authority.

The hearing is the culmination of years of campaigning by a group of Pacific island law students and diplomacy spearheaded by ."

theguardian.com/environment/20

The Guardian · Handful of countries responsible for climate crisis, top court toldBy Isabella Kaminski

Internationally wrongful act

"The government asserted before the International Court of Justice () on Tuesday, December 3, that countries most responsible for driving are committing an "internationally wrongful act."

It called on these nations to provide reparations, marking one of the Marcos Jr. administration’s boldest statements on climate justice."

qa.philstar.com/headlines/clim

Fury as US argues against climate obligations at top UN court

“The US is content with its business-as-usual approach and has taken every possible measure to shirk its historical responsibility, disregard human rights and reject justice.”

theguardian.com/environment/20

The US does not recognise the authority of the court.

The Guardian · Fury as US argues against climate obligations at top UN courtBy Nina Lakhani

"These stories serve to highlight the historic injustices that underpin climate change and that continue to make some communities, especially Indigenous peoples, more vulnerable to it."

“Many states at the frontlines of the climate crisis reflected decolonisation struggles and established how decisions being made far away from their islands are unjustly devastating the lives of their people.”

theguardian.com/law/2024/dec/1

The Guardian · ‘A human face on an abstract problem’: ICJ forced to listen to climate victimsBy Isabella Kaminski

"With so many countries speaking at the court, the case has provided an extraordinary insight into climate concerns, grievances and political positions from around the world.

[The ] will deliver an advisory opinion sometime in 2025.

While this opinion won’t be legally binding - and so can’t force nations to act - it will be both legally and politically significant."

euronews.com/green/2024/12/13/

‘We will not go quietly into the sea’: Hearings for world’s biggest climate case conclude at the ICJ
euronews · What did countries argue at the world’s biggest climate case?Vanuatu and other vulnerable states gave impassioned evidence - aided by a few European allies. Now they wait for the World Court's opinion.

"Thanks to the maneuverings of the tiny nation of , the entire industrialized world is effectively on trial in The Hague.

Do countries have a legal as well as a moral obligation to prevent a planetary disaster?

In The Hague, the U.S. has argued that there’s really no need for the case. The world already has a mechanism for dealing with , and that is the travelling road show of international negotiations."
Which has, so far, proved disappointing.

newyorker.com/news/the-lede/th

The New Yorker · The International Court of Justice Takes On Climate ChangeBy Elizabeth Kolbert

@CelloMomOnCars

"
Listen, I don't give a rats ass about anyone but our wealthy elite. They line my pockets, and give me a healthy comfortable life. I'll let everyone die in exasperation, because enough is just a little bit more.
"

@CelloMomOnCars
Seems to me that if you do something knowing there will be bad consequences, you should be liable for those consequences whatever the timescale in which they materialise.
Oil companies, for example, have known for well over half a century that they were causing climate change. That should make them liable for the effects of their products. The sam3 argument could be made about Governments that continue to subsidise fossil fuel production.

@KimSJ

I wonder if this argument will be brought up at the ICJ. If so, that would set a ground-shifting precedence.

So the US , for example, would have no responsibility over its emissions up to, say, 1988, when James Hansen testified about climate change in Congress. After that they would be responsible.

Sounds more practically workable than the traffic laws which hold you responsible whether or not you know about them, e.g. no turn on red.

@KimSJ @CelloMomOnCars Exactly right. These businesses only thrive because they are able to externalize their costs onto the government, taxpayers, and people who breathe and drink water.

@CelloMomOnCars Thinking of that atmospheric CO2 graph with COP dates marked on the rising line.

The line curves upward.

Vanuatu has a point.

@CelloMomOnCars
Dying to see the usual Democratic Party shills try to defend this.