This was an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a case about nations' obligations to do something about climate emissions and the consequences for non-action.
The ICJ, otherwise known as the World Court, is the principle judicial organ of the U.N. with 15 judges presiding over it. The purpose of the court is to settle legal disputes that are presented from member states in alignment with international law and to advise on legal questions before the U.N.
The court called climate change an "urgent and existential" threat to humanity. The court president added that "failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system ... may constitute an internationally wrongful act."
Many climate change advocates are applauding the U.N. for taking the steps to ensure states keep each other accountable in keeping the environment clean. Some even had a banner outside of the court declaring that “States must ACT Now” since the court has spoken.
Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University, are two scientists that do not buy into the climate change spiel. They co-authored an article in 2021 titled “Climate ‘Emergency’? Not So Fast,” which breaks down the argument for climate change based the dangers of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.
“No scientist familiar with radiation transfer denies that more carbon dioxide is likely to cause some surface warming. But the warming would be small and benign. In fact, history shows that warmings of a few degrees Celsius — which extended growing seasons — have been good for humanity,” they write.
Bonner Cohen, Ph.D. of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is not worried. If asked, he believes this opinion has nothing to do with justice.
"What we have here is a desperate attempt on the part of climate zealots, seeing that the sun is beginning to set on their entire agenda, trying desperately to turn things around and hold countries that have not fulfilled their 'commitments' to combat climate change, to hold those countries accountable," said Cohen. "They can't do that because the court has no enforcement mechanism whatsoever."
Cohen predicts the Trump administration will tell the International Court of Justice to “take a hike.”
During his first term in office, President Donald Trump was opposed to many of the international climate agreements made prior to his arrival at the White House. Trump remains opposed to many of those things today.
