From JoNova

By Jo Nova

It’s a great day for lawyers

A court at the top of the UN Faraway Tree has proclaimed that rich countries have an obligation to “protect the climate system”. 

In full Blob-propaganda mode, the BBC rushed to tell us how this was a win for the people, in “the world’s highest court”.  The BBC-Blob doesn’t mention that the poor people of Britain (and the free world) will pay, and most of the poor islanders cheering in the South Pacific will get nothing. As the BBC says, dripping with Marxist-medicine: ““This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard.”  When they say “us” they mean “the Blob”. When they say “frontline community” they mean the Blob rent-a-crowd protestors. They don’t mean frontline farmers, or small business owners or Christians.

The ruling is “non-binding” which means any sensible government will ignore it, just like the USA, France, Israel and India have in the past, and even Australia did in 2002. China pretty much ignores it every year. But this ruling is very useful for patsy governments who want to do something anyway (like give back the Chagos Islands for no good reason). It will suit sell-out Prime Ministers who want to score a UN job “après politics”. It will suit China because no one will sue them for fear of sparking a trade war, even though it’s the worst “climate troll” on Earth, instead, it will just sell more useless wind turbines, batteries and solar panels to patsy nations that use this symbolic ruling to pretend they must do more “weather-changing” on their national grid (or what’s left of it).

Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change

“Tonight, I’ll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through – our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future,” said Flora Vano, from the Pacific Island Vanuatu, which is considered the country most vulnerable to extreme weather globally.

The ICJ is considered the world’s highest court, and it has global jurisdiction. Lawyers have told BBC News that the opinion could be used as early as next week.

The UK put in a tepid effort to defend its own citizens from the latest UN phishing scam:

But developed countries, including the UK, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark UN Paris deal of 2015, are sufficient and no further legal obligations should be imposed. On Wednesday the court rejected that argument.

Judge Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious possible plans to tackle climate change this would constitute a breach of their promises in the Paris Agreement.

It is all about the money — ka-ching times a trillion:

Previous analysis published in Nature, estimated that between 2000 and 2019 there were $2.8 trillion losses from climate change – or $16 million per hour.

The only solution to the perpetual money funnel is to leave these unelected, unaudited, power hungry black hole institutions who serve no one but themselves and their Blob compatriots. It’s time to exit the UN. Turn off the taps. Axe the funding stream. This starts by embarrassing patsy governments who don’t serve their citizens and the schmuck journalists who serve the Blob and not their country.

The whole world could potentially sue everyone else

It’s a game of ideological roulette with unlimited plaintiffs.

The Pacific Islanders can apparently sue us for warming the world, even if their islands are not sinking (and the sun probably caused the warming). But what if Russia, Poland or the ‘akistans decide to sue The West for trying to cool the climate which could harm their farmers and reduce their crops? What if France sued everyone else for not building nuclear plants. Or Africa sued the West for not giving them nuclear plants? Or Indonesia sued us for cutting back CO2 and reducing their rice yields. The list only ends when Donald Trump puts a tariff on nations that still feed the UN.

We can feel the One World Government breathing in our ears. The ICJ threatens sovereignty — the unelected masters are making up their own rules. The money they eke out will be quietly siphoned through electricity bills and taxes in such a way that no one will be quite sure who paid what and when.

Who decides what “Protecting the Climate” means? Whoever that is, they are the Kings that want to rule over us.

The theatre of the absurd

As the BBC says, without so much as two minutes of analysis, “Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuel”.  As if.

The country that has generated the most carbon dioxide, bar none, is the US, and it withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction from the International Court of Justice 40 years ago, and the ICJ can’t hear a case against the US unless the US consents. (That was Nicaragua v. United States of 1986). In 2005, the US just ignored the ICJ ruling that the US violated the Vienna Convention. (Even Australia withdrew from ICJ jurisdiction over maritime boundary disputes  in 2002 — just before East Timor was about to sue it over the Timor Gap oil field.)

The number two country on the global emitters list, — that has historically burned the most coal on Earth — is China, but good luck getting them to pay. They will, however, offer a Belt and Road climate loan, paid back in harbors, airports and railway lines or just pro-China votes in the UN.

So, who is this legislative theatre aimed at? The only suckers left — Europe, the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.