Tag Archives: sustainability

Oh no, that’s all we need.

.

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. 

  • Fossil fuel phaseout:

“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.

The Incredible perfidy of a Canadian Minister

The Honourable Steven Guilbeault

Minister of Environment and Climate Change

MP for Laurier – ST Marie

19th December 2024

From Blacklock’s Reporter

Thursday, December 19, 2024

Minister Puts Costs At $690B

“Climate change targets will cost Canadian electrical utilities about two thirds of a trillion dollars,” Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said yesterday. Guilbeault in a legal notice said the country had no choice but to stop burning fossil fuels for electricity.

“Climate change is a growing threat to Canada and the world,” said a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement issued by Guilbeault. “We are already seeing the costs.”

Well, Minister, when are you going to face the truth and stop selling these lies to help promote another international hoax?

I have asked you to define net zero and you clearly cannot.

I have asked you how we will get our oxygen to breathe and stay alive if you manage this absurd goal?   Again, you have no idea.

(Perhaps you could also advise Mr. Van Koeverden, who definitely understands water very well, that CO2 is actually a plant food not a conservative disinformation hoax as I heard him say in the House of Ill Repute.)

I have asked you where you will get all the new hydro from, and you have no idea.

I have asked you how you will get thousands, if not millions, of miles of new hydro lines all over the country to transmit your 100% electricity mode and how you will protect them from winter damage or summer heat, and you have absolutely no idea.

I have asked you how you are going to electrify the railroads across the country, whether it will be by overhead lines or a third rail? And how you will protect either from the Canadian winters?  Again, you have no idea.

All this is bad enough but you still claim the climate changes we are seeing are man made, which any REAL scientist will tell you is false.

The climate on this planet has changed many, many times over the span of the millions of years since it was created, and human behaviour had absolutely nothing to do with it then and it does not now.  Pollution yes, climate change NO.

Your job is not to spread fake news and asinine ideas to deal with that fake news, but instead to find ways to deal with what is coming as surely as the sun will rise in the morning, and to help the world (Canadians too) to figure out how to survive what is coming. At least it is a gradual change.

If you cannot do this then at least concentrate on the environment side of your job and do something about the poisoning of our land, water and sky.   That you can do something about instead of simply ignoring it.

From the Maple


by Jeremy Appel

December 10, 2024 

In the final year of its third term, the Liberal government has a series of significant climate policies in the works aimed at getting Canada to net zero by 2050. 

When he announced the emissions cap framework, Guilbeault explicitly raised the prospect of a Poilievre government bringing down not only that specific measure, but the entire edifice of the Liberals’ climate policy.

“It’s not just the cap that is at risk,” said Guilbeault in December 2023. “The Conservative Party of Canada (and) Pierre Poilievre don’t seem to be willing or able or capable to understand that pollution kills people in Canada.”

This is what prompted my last request, but you too seem to have forgotten that the environment is your port folio as well and that the environment is dangerous because of all the toxic chemicals you are allowing to be put into our waters, land and air, while you are only interested in depleting the life giving CO2. 

(Perhaps you could also advise Mr. Van Koeverden, who definitely understands water very well, that CO2 is actually a plant food not a conservative disinformation hoax as I heard him say in the House of Ill Repute. By the way I am the only one in 4 generations who does not have a university degree in one form of botany or another.)

If this government falls your legacy will be one of dishonest failure and I don’t think you want that.

Have a great Christmas break and please come back with some real ideas instead of following the ignorant crowd.

Jeremy Arney

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/18/climate/world-first-nuclear-fusion-power-plant-commmonwealth/index.html

A forsaken portfolio

The Honourable Stephen Guilbeault

Canadian Minister of Environment and Climate Change

MP for Laurier-Saint Marie

16th March 2024

Minister

The Environment definitions:

Canadian Oxford Dictionary.

The physical surrounding conditions, circumstances, in which a person lives.

Or

The natural world in which people and animals live.

Quite a few million years ago this place we call home was going through climate changes that continue to this day.  You blame carbon for the so-called climate change while ignoring the fact that for those millions of years this little rock has been going though those climate changes is still here and still using carbon as the building block of life on earth. These changes do not happen overnight or even over a few years and instead of panicking about that over which you have no control, perhaps you should be thinking of ways to adapt to the inevitable instead of trying to kill everything.

Why do you deliberately equate carbon and pollution?  You of all people should be aware that carbon is the major building block of almost all life on the planet, and yet clearly you are not aware of that as it is your desire to reach zero carbon.   What this intention of yours amounts to is the end of the human species and I am inclined to agree with you that would be the very best thing that could happen to this planet.

You have a habit of erroneously blaming everything on “Climate Change” while ignoring the more glaring reasons.  Forest fires have increased in direct proportion to the way we look after our forests compared with how they were looked after say 300 years ago. We have created forest floors loaded with tinder dry dead kindling and are surprised when lightning (or careless man ) strikes a match. We have loaded the forests and trees with slivers of aluminium (chemtrails) which burns at a higher temperature than wood thereby creating higher winds to fan the flames among the trees. 

Where is your indignation about this aluminium chaff (along with soo much other junk) being dropped from the sky?

Pollution, the first priority on your portfolio, is mostly ignored I suspect because it is a very real problem but not as propaganda and therefore fear worthy as climate change is a much larger problem than figuring out how to adapt to something over which we/you  have absolutely no control.   Aquafers, rivers, lakes and our oceans are all very sick with toxic chemicals, rubbish, all sorts of metal and of course toxic industrial waste, not to mention mining or fracking retaining ponds.  None of this seems to matter or mean a damn thing to you because you are fixated on something you cannot change.

Where is your indignation about the 5G towers and their effect upon the birds and pollenating insects? I suppose you want to ignore it because with no carbon there will be no flowers to be pollenated will there?  When the world is like Gaza of today will you wake up? I doubt it. When you cannot breathe due to lack of natural oxygen will you wake up to what you have done?  I doubt it.

I would recommend two books to you, both still available – “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson and “Sea Sick” by Alanna Mitchell both of which will help you to understand the other part of your portfolio – pollution. 

Have you even thought about making Imperial Mines clean up – or try to – Quesnell Lake after the Mount Polley mine damn break?  Are you even thinking about the aquafers being destroyed in northern BC and what the ramifications of their destruction will mean? 

Have you given a thought to the wind farms of the east coast? The winds will need to be very strong to turn the turbines – strong enough to bring down trees and hydro pole thus causing electric outages, so where will the wind turbine product go? I have had the answer for this for years but federal governments would rather clean up the mess than avoiding it in the first place.  Why in such a climate are the hydro wires etc., above the ground?  Why should the people on the east coast go cold at least once -for maybe weeks – each year? 

Have you thought about the site C dam and how far the water will flow when it breaks and takes out the other two dams on the Peace River?  Will the water get to the Red River? How long will it take to clean up that mess; on the other hand, of course, there will not be such a huge need for rain to grow the gropes…oh no wait a minute there will not be any because there will be no birds or insects to pollinate them.

Have you figured out how to recycle the batteries from electric cars, buses, trucks, trains and bicycles?   How to maintain enough charging stations?  Even how to generate enough electricity to supply the demand?  How many stations will be required along the railroad tracks and how long will it take to charge up the locomotives? At truck stops there will be bottle necks where hours are need to “fuel up” as opposed to 15 minutes today for passing through trucks. Or will there be charging stations at all sleeping spots as well? 

I do not hear you talk about these problems and I have to wonder why.  There will of course be multiple problems and I suspect that you along with the PM really don’t care because that will be some one else’s problem to deal with in 2025.

Maybe your exploits in the past have affected your mind, but I suggest you stop and think what your responsibilities are not only now, but also to future generations of Canadians, if there are to be any.

I do not approve of your absurd and pathetic actions on climate change nor your non actions on pollution.

Jeremy