Reuters: ‘Top UN court says treaties COMPEL wealthy nations to curb global warming’ – UN’s ‘highest

[rangerrebew]

Reuters: ‘Top UN court says treaties COMPEL wealthy nations to curb global warming’ – UN’s ‘highest court’ says USA ‘must comply’ or pay ‘full reparations’ – Media admits ‘skepticism over climate change spreading in U.S. & elsewhere’
By Marc Morano
July 24, 2025
9:38 am

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/top-un-court-says-treaties-compel-wealthy-nations-curb-global-warming-2025-07-23/
 

THE HAGUE, July 23 (Reuters) – The United Nations’ highest court on Wednesday told wealthy countries they must comply with their international commitments to curb pollution or risk having to pay compensation to nations hard hit by climate change.

In an opinion hailed by small island states and environmental groups as a legal stepping stone to make big polluters accountable, the International Court of Justice said countries must address the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change.

“States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets,” Judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failure by countries to comply with the “stringent obligations” placed on them by climate treaties was a breach of international law.

The court said countries were also responsible for the actions of companies under their jurisdiction or control.
Failure to rein in fossil fuel production and subsidies could result in “full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction provided that the general conditions of the law of state responsibility are met.”

https://www.climatedepot.com/2025/07/24/reuters-top-un-court-says-treaties-compel-wealthy-nations-to-curb-global-warming-uns-highest-court-says-usa-must-comply-or-pay-full-reparations-media-admits-skepticism-over-cl/

[rangerrebew]

Who decides when obligations are met and what criteria do they use?

[GtHawk]

I think there is only one proper response to the UN and its top court

The devil made me do it

[Free Vulcan]

Bring forth your armies.

[DefiantMassRINO]

The UN can go screw.

[Sighlass]

[berdie]

I think someone is getting too big for their britches.

[mountaineer]

The NY Times reported the U.N.'s action with this headline: Ignoring the Planet is Now Illegal.
Mike Rowe had some thoughts (posted on his Facebook account):

Mike Rowe
28 July 2025

A Detour to Dachau
I was going to share some more photos of yesterday’s road trip through the German countryside, along with a few thoughts about my five-hour visit to Dachau, where it’s impossible not to reflect on just how easy it is to hurt so many by doing nothing at all. But then, as I was collecting my thoughts over another serving of unidentified breakfast meats, I saw this headline on the front page of The New York Times. 

“Ignoring the Planet is Now Illegal.”

To which I replied to no one in particular, “Ignoring that Headline is Now Impossible!”

I’ve attached the whole article in two photos, since the link will take you behind a paywall. But the opening paragraph sums it up nicely. It reads:

“The science on climate change has long been settled. Now the law is, too. On Wednesday, the judicial branch of the United Nations, recognized for the first time that there is no way to solve the climate crisis or atone for its devastating consequences without confronting its root cause: the burning of fossil fuels.”

If you genuinely believe that the science is truly “settled,” or that the burning of fossil fuels will absolutely lead to “devastating consequences,” than you’re going to enjoy the certainty that informs the rest of this piece, including the assertion that our planet is entirely at the mercy of the people on it, that the current warming conditions now constitute a “global climate crisis,” and that such a climate crisis is nothing less than “a human rights emergency.”

You might not, however, be struck by the conspicuous lack of compassion for the billions of desperately impoverished people all over the world, whose daily misery is NOT a function of a warming climate, but rather, a consequence of being denied access to a reliable source of affordable energy. It would be understandable, I think, in an opinion piece brimming with so much certitude, to overlook the inconvenient fact that the climate has killed millions of people over the centuries, and that our best hope of surviving the elements still relies upon the burning of fossil fuels.

My first thought, over my second pot of German coffee, was to ask the authors if they ever had to burn wood or dung as their primary source of energy, as three billion people currently do. I then planned to suggest – with great respect - that the science around this issue is not in fact, “settled,” and that recent history is filled with examples of people who wind up looking exceedingly foolish for saying so, on a rich variety of topics. But then I thought, wait – why pick a fight with the New York Times from halfway around the world, (along with a sizeable chunk of the world wide web,) when I have in my possession the contact information of an actual expert – a man of far greater intelligence than me, who has dedicated his life to understanding our ever-changing climate, as well as the moral implications of enacting laws that deliberately harm humanity.

So, I texted the attached photos to Alex Epstein.
“Have you seen this,” I asked?
“No,” said Alex. “I have not.”
“Well, give it a look when you have a chance,” I said. “And then, if you're bored, tell me what you would say if The New York Times offered to print your response.”
“Standby,” said Alex.

An hour or so later, I received his reply.
“Mind if I share this with 7 million people?” I asked.
“Be my guest,” he said.
Here then, is a rejoinder that you won’t find in The New York Times. Feel free to share it, if you agree that both sides deserve to be heard. And especially if you do not.

Progress Is Not a Crime
By Alex Epstein

Recent international court rulings have declared that producing and using fossil fuels is now effectively illegal. Activists celebrate this as a victory for “the planet.” In reality, it is a declaration of war on human progress.

These decisions, which seek to criminalize the energy that powers our world, are based on a profoundly anti-human premise: that our goal should be to eliminate human impact on nature. But the proper standard for any policy is not an untouched world, but a thriving human one. By this moral standard, the campaign to eradicate fossil fuels is an attack on the lives and aspirations of billions. This is not justice; it is a sentence of perpetual poverty for the developing world and a crippling blow to the citizens of industrial nations.

A Sentence of Perpetual Poverty

The authors of "Ignoring the planet is now illegal" speak of an “urgent and existential threat” from human climate impact. But they ignore the truly urgent crisis facing billions today: energy deprivation. Three billion people use less electricity than an average American refrigerator. For them, a lack of affordable, reliable energy means hospitals without power, food that cannot be preserved, and no escape from poverty.

Fossil fuels, which still provide over 80% of the world’s energy, are the only source capable of lifting these billions into prosperity in the coming decades. Unreliable solar and wind are nowhere near ready to replace them. To use international law to deny developing nations this energy is to condemn them to a state of suffering that we in the developed world would never accept for ourselves.

The Power to Master Our Environment

The logic behind these court rulings dangerously misrepresents our relationship with the natural world. It assumes Earth is a delicate, nurturing entity that we are harming. The truth is that nature is dynamic, difficult, and often dangerous. Human flourishing requires that we *impact* our environment to make it safer and more livable.

Fossil fuels are the key to this mastery. They power the machines that irrigate deserts, build sturdy homes, and provide heating and air conditioning that make our climates livable. Thanks to this energy-powered resilience, deaths from climate-related disasters have fallen by 98% over the last century, even as CO2 emissions have risen. Banning fossil fuels would not save us from climate danger; it would strip us of our primary means of protection.

The Path Forward Is Energy Freedom

Instead of allowing unelected international bodies to dictate our energy future, we must fight for energy freedom. This means defending the right of individuals and companies to produce and use all forms of energy—including fossil fuels, nuclear, and any evolving alternatives that can prove their worth on a free market.

The campaign to make progress a crime must be rejected. The real work is not to “cease and desist” from producing the energy that improves lives, but to unleash the human ingenuity that will allow all 8 billion of us to flourish. We must demand policies that empower people, not impoverish them.

I think it was Edmund Burke who famously said, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I thought a lot about that quote yesterday, as I toured the concentration camp at Dachau. More specifically, as I drove through the surrounding countryside, where a lot of civilians who saw themselves as “good,” chose to ignore the evil unfolding just down the road, behind all that barbed wire.

Years from now, when The Great Climate Debate is no longer a debate, and the science has been well and truly settled, I suspect we’ll look back at those who got it right, and those who got it wrong, and all the "good men" who stood by and did nothing to save the planet from the people, or the people from the planet.

Time will tell, as it always does, which needed saving.

https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe

[DefiantMassRINO]

I can't ignore the planet.  It's the only home planet I have.

I can ignore self-serving internationalist Marxist diplomats and politicians at the United Nations.  Get real jobs, you UN bums.