I wonder if they truly considered the implications of winning
Climate change: small island states hail ocean court victory
A global maritime court found on Tuesday that greenhouse gases constitute marine pollution, a major breakthrough for small island states threatened by the rise in sea levels caused by global warming.
Cult science. CO2 is necessary for life on Earth
In its first climate-related judgment, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea said emissions from fossil fuels and other planet-warming gases that are absorbed by the oceans count as marine pollution.
Its ruling – an “advisory opinion” that should nevertheless provide a precedent for cases elsewhere – also said countries must go beyond the requirements of the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement to protect the marine environment and the states that depend on it.
“What happened today was that the law and science met together in this tribunal, and both won,” said Cheryl Bazard, ambassador to the European Union of the Bahamas, one of nine Caribbean and Pacific island nations that sought the opinion. (snip)
The court said states have a legal obligation to monitor and reduce the emissions that contribute to climate change and laid out specific requirements for their environmental impact assessments. (snip)
The other nations in the group that brought the case were Palau, Niue, Vanuatu, St.Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines and St. Kitts and Nevis.
So, what exactly do these nations want? There’s nothing really specific in their suit other than “Other Nations must do something.” Nor did the court really offer a ruling on what should be done. So, what happens if nations do Do Something? Perhaps they end the use of fossil fueled planes and ships, which bring tourists and goods to these islands. How well would that work out for them? Every single one of these islands depends heavily on tourism. For instance, tourism accounts for 65% of St. Lucia’s economy. Do they think people will want to sail to the island? The Bahamas depends on tourism and banking. That would utterly dry up.
Will these nations be getting rid of their airports and seaports? Banning fossil fueled vehicles? Will they be catching fish using rowboats and sailboats?
lol Teach I don’t think that the problem of increasing CO2 can be significantly lessened by these island nations giving up fossil fuels. Do you think that is the solution?What percent of global CO2 omissions do you think they are responsible for?
Johnny, first you’d have to come up with verifiable problems of increasing CO2. Another “argument” beginning with a false premise.
Mr Teach typed: Cult science. CO2 is necessary for life on Earth
Teach’s hapless readers should be insulted that he has so little respect for you.
Yes, CO2 is necessary for life! Life on Earth evolved during huge swings in atmospheric CO2 over the past 3+ BILLION years! Animals can tolerate high concentrations of gaseous CO2. Even at 5000 ppm humans survive but have symptoms of sleepiness, headaches, increased heart rate, increased ventilation rate.
Over the past 1 million years, CO2 levels have cycled between about 180ppm and 300ppm correlating with the glacial and interglacial periods. Human civilizations appeared in the latest interglacial period, the Holocene where the CO2 has stayed from 260-280ppm. In only some 10,000 years human life evolved from hunter-gatherer tribes to what you see today! In the past century or so atmospheric CO2 has increased to 425ppm and continues to increase, with the increase from burning fossil fuels. In the past century the mean surface temperature has increased about 2F with no scientific reason to expect the rate to slow or stop.
Mr Teach is foolishly suggesting that cutting these exogenous CO2 emission will cause a catastrophic drop in CO2 to levels to end all life on Earth!! The carbon cycle kept CO2 at 260-280ppm for a million years. No one is talking about destroying the carbon cycle.
And primates began to evolve 55-65 million years ago when CO2 levels were in the 800-1000ppm range, some mammals even earlier with higher CO2 levels.
^^^This from a guy who squandered $50M of investors’ money on a marketing scheme promoting a therapeutic cancer drug at Galera that DIDN’T work.
Hapless and insulted indeed.
BWAHA! LOLGF
The carbon issue is a hoax. To believe that you are modifying the climate by instituting a tax is a cruel joke that only gets more money to our corrupt government. Current CO2 is 0.04& of the atmosphere. At 0.02% plant life begins to die. CO2 has nothing to do with the climate and we actually need more. Watch CLIMATE, THE MOVIE on YouTube.
No. Wrong.
They want what was promised in the Kyoto treaty: Money. Lots and lots of money.
Proving international courts are just as stupid and easily misled as any. Ignorant judges, ignorant plaintiffs, and ignorant public.
I predict it will take centuries before they admit how wrong and foolish they’ve been and continue to be. Just look how long it’s taking for the authorities to admit they were wrong about Covid and mRNA gene therapy. But the truth is slowly leaking out.
Japan’s most senior cancer doctor: Covid shots are ‘essentially murder’.
Being wrong costs them nothing and makes them look good to their 13yo daughters and their cocktail party friends.
Brad Smith – What I would have told the Trump jury (if I was allowed to testify) – Re Post
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2024/05/brad-smith-what-i-would-have-told-trump.html