Reporting and Opinion by Mathew Carr
Some key bits of climate due diligence ruling
Note the International Court of Justice didn’t name all countries that are to blame and, according to people apparently smarter than me, the ruling isn’t binding.
The Court concluded that while the causal link between the wrongful actions or omissions of a State and the harm arising from climate change is more tenuous than in the case of local sources of pollution, this does not mean that the identification of a causal link is impossible in the climate change context; it merely means that the causal link must be established in each case through an in concreto assessment (paras. 433-438).
The Court observes that causation involves two distinct elements. First, whether a given climatic event or trend can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change; and second, to what extent damage caused by climate change can be attributed to a particular State or group of States. While the second element must be established in concreto in respect of specific claims brought by States in respect of damage, in many cases the first element may be addressed by recourse to science
I smell “loophole” in the “in concreto” bit …sigh. Is this climate ruling actually part of the multi-decade climate cover up by western nations?
Private actors
Wider context
whole thing (press release)
140 pages of it
(Adds documents and comments and earlier, context; more to come)
NOTES — this is all very triggering
I argued back in 2020-2024 before UK employment courts there was a link between private emissions and atmospheric climate damage like there is a link between dumping of poisonous liquids into rivers and polluted rivers. I lost.
Nyt
Click the nyt link above