.
From The STRAITSTIMES
Published Jul 30, 2025, 03:58 AM
Updated Jul 30, 2025, 03:58 AM
World Court climate opinion turns up the legal heat on governments
“The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, last Wednesday laid out the duty of states to limit harm from greenhouse gases and to regulate private industry.
It said failure to reduce emissions could be an internationally wrongful act and, found that treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change should be considered legally binding.
****
What wonderful news for those who make money of the hoax of man-made climate change. Those who for some reason think that CO2 is going to burn up the planet well they can celebrate too.
But for me it is another sign that the law has turned into a gigantic ASS. Just one hundred years ago the planet was hotter than it is today, and that is in spite of the huge tracts of earth that have been turned into concrete or asphalt, where cities create heat with huge buildings and masses of people, and yet we are still cooler than even 100 years ago.
What about I million years or maybe 10 million years ago? Were there voices at this so-called court to talk about that and if there were did the court simply ignore them?
But I decided to dig a bit, and this is what I found,
Opinion or ruling?
In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an “advisory opinion” stating that countries have a legal obligation to protect the climate and prevent harm to it. The court emphasized that climate change poses an “urgent and existential threat”. “This ruling” clarifies that countries must uphold international climate laws, including the Paris Agreement‘s goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. “The ICJ’s opinion” also suggests that countries harmed by climate change could potentially seek reparations.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
- Obligation to protect the climate:
The “ICJ affirmed” that countries have a legal duty to protect the climate system and prevent climate change-related harm.
- 1.5°C target is legally binding:
The “court clarified” that the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is a legally binding benchmark.
- Stringent climate plans required:
The “ICJ stated” that national climate plans must be “stringent” and aligned with the 1.5°C target.
- Potential for reparations:
“The opinion” suggests that countries harmed by climate change may be entitled to reparations or compensation.
- Increased legal pressure on governments:
The “ICJ’s ruling” strengthens legal arguments for climate action and may increase the success rate of domestic climate litigation.
“The ruling” is expected to increase pressure on governments to phase out fossil fuels and end subsidies.
- Landmark legal precedent:
“The ICJ’s opinion” is a landmark decision, providing a stronger legal foundation for climate action and holding countries accountable for their climate obligations.
The ICJ determined that the 1.5°C temperature target is legally binding under the Paris Agreement and that all states, in particular the largest emitters, must take ambitious mitigation measures in line with the best available science. “The opinion” arrives 6 years after a group of 27 students from the University of the South Pacific began campaigning on this issue, and more than 2 years since the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution requesting the “advisory opinion”.
While the “ICJ’s opinion” itself is not binding—neither on itself nor on domestic courts—it carries considerable legal weight and political legitimacy.
The ICJ has now “authoritatively interpreted international law” in a way that strengthens the legal foundation for ambitious, science-based climate action
(I highlighted the obvious contradictions.)
That may be but it has not stated or given an opinion of those who claim that this whole thing is a hoax based on Al Gore and his “Inconvenient Truth”. They did not give an opinion on the concept that the planet has gone through more climate changes over the last few million years than any one of these brilliant manmade climate change advocates can or even will imagine.
What is regrettable to me is that those who sought to get justification or applause for their mania will claim that this “Opinion” or “Ruling” will claim victory for them and say that they now have a world court’s opinion that their hoax is real.
Well yes, the hoax is real but the sad thing is that if they actually manage to do away with CO2 they too will perish, and probably claim to the end that they were right and the plants and sea let them down.
As an addition I read an article in Macleans titled Canada in 2060
Canada in the Year 2060
Summers lost to fire and smoke. Biblical floods. Dying forests. Retreating coasts. Economic turmoil and political unrest. It’s going to be a weird century. Here’s what it will look like—and how Canada can get through it.
BY ANNE SHIBATA CASSELMAN
And I confess I was laughing quite hard because by 2050 there will be no CO2, so there will be no oxygen so there will be no people to witness what they were predicting. Oh, there might be a bit of oxygen floating over from China or even the USA, but not enough to sustain Canadians, who will have nothing to eat anyway. But I realized that this will never happen in time because my grandchildren and great grandchildren and their generations will put a stop to this absolute crazy foolishness.
Yes, it’s time to re-read my copy of 1066 and all that.
Jeremy Arney's Blog 