President Reagan knew what he was doing when he withdrew the U.S. from the jurisdiction of the UN International Court of Justice (the World Court) in 1986.
The World Court issued an advisory opinion that the UN may require nations to cease and desist from activities it thinks could warm the planet, and it held that we should compensate poor countries that experience “loss and damage” from bad weather.
The UN reports the court held that:
- States have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and act with due diligence and cooperation to fulfill this obligation.
2. This includes the obligation under the Paris Agreement on climate change to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
3. The Court further ruled that if States breach these obligations, they incur legal responsibility and may be required to cease the wrongful conduct, offer guarantees of non-repetition, and make full reparations.
CFACT hates to say we told you so (actually, we love it), but we told you so!
CFACT Senior Policy Advisor Paul Driessen posted an extensive analysis to CFACT.org.
Driessen warns of future lawsuits that “will almost certainly include demands for billions or trillions of dollars in climate change ‘prevention’ funds, ‘reparations’ for past and ongoing damages, and money for ‘adaptation measures’ that ‘victimized’ countries will have to take to minimize horrific damage from climate change caused by developed nations. They will also likely demand an end to fossil fuels and petrochemicals….”
Neither the United States, nor any nation, should permit the UN climate regime to dictate its energy policy via international litigation.
The United States and our free world allies have always aided nations in need when natural disaster strikes. We will do so again.
Let’s be clear—freedom and prosperity did not cause anyone’s bad weather. They do, however, provide the means to cope.
Thank you to Presidents Reagan and Trump for having the foresight and wisdom to withdraw the U.S. from the International Court of Justice and the Paris Climate Accord before these outrageous abuses of the law in the name of climate get any further out of hand.