Top UN court says treaties compel wealthy nations to curb global warming

[CousinIT]

(As Trump moves to remove any/all environmental regulations in the US)

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/top-un-court-says-treaties-compel-wealthy-nations-curb-global-warming-2025-07-23/

THE HAGUE, July 23 (Reuters) - The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday told wealthy countries they must comply with their international commitments to curb pollution or risk having to pay compensation to nations hard hit by climate change.

In an opinion hailed by small island states and environmental groups as a legal stepping stone to make big polluters accountable, the International Court of Justice said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change.

. . .

While the decision was stronger than most expected, its impact may be limited by the fact that the United States, the world's biggest historical greenhouse gas emitter, and second biggest current emitter behind China, has moved under President Donald Trump to undo all climate regulations.

With scepticism over climate change spreading in the U.S. and elsewhere, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response in his two-hour reading of the court's opinion.

"Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," he said.

[MrWowWow]

1. 💩 Will Never Pay and

never comply. I wish things were different. Maybe after Nature bats last.

[Passages]

2. Trump era will be known for excess, exploitation, greed and death.

I can't stand his kids. Many people with cretins for parents abandon them, but not Trump's kids.

[fujiyamasan]

3. It won't really matter

Even democratic administrations would likely view this as imposing on sovereignty.

[Igel]

4. The UN has a list of countries that "ratified" the Paris Agreement.

Thing is, what the UN calls "ratification" and what individual countries call "ratification" sometimes differ, if you look at their list of countries.

And the UN loses that tussle. They think otherwise, I'm sure.

It seems to think that President Obama could single-handedly bind the US to the treaty. He couldn't, neither could President Biden--although in many member states the Leader does wield that kind of authority, often granted with a 95-99% democratic vote or by virtue of the Constitution he presented and required to be approved. We, however, require Senate ratification for it to be binding on us. The UN, however, considers his certification of "acceptance" equivalent to "ratification." (Which would seem to imply that 'ratify' means 'to make like a rat.')

As for the actual status in other countries, and whether those pesky details of territorial sovereignty matter in the official entry into force of the agreement, I simply don't know nor care.

[MichMan]

5. How do they plan on making China pay?