Handful of Countries Responsible For Climate Crisis, Top Court Told (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0175589183
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/12/04/0047257/handful-of-countries-responsible-for-climate-crisis-top-court-told
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/02/handful-of-countries-responsible-for-climate-crisis-icj-court-told
> During a hearing at the Peace Palace in The Hague, which began on Monday, Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's special envoy for climate change and environment, said responsibility for the climate crisis lay squarely with "a handful of readily identifiable states" that had produced the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions but stood to lose the least from the impacts.
>
> The court heard how Pacific island states such as Vanuatu were bearing the brunt of rising sea levels and increasingly frequent and severe disasters. "We find ourselves on the frontlines of a crisis we did not create," Regenvanu said. The hearing is the culmination of years of campaigning by a group of Pacific island law students and diplomacy spearheaded by Vanuatu. In March last year the UN general assembly unanimously approved a resolution calling on the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on what obligations states have to tackle climate change and what the legal consequences could be if they fail to do so.
>
> Over the next two weeks, the court will hear statements from 98 countries, including wealthy developed states with the greatest historical responsibility for the climate emergency, such as the UK and Russia, and states that have contributed very little to global greenhouse gas emissions but stand to bear the brunt of their impact, including Bangladesh and Sudan as well as Pacific island countries.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/02/handful-of-countries-responsible-for-climate-crisis-icj-court-told
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>> and states that have contributed very little to global greenhouse gas emissions
> And very little to ... anything good ...
Agreed. You make a very interesting and very good point. The idea that countries like the US should be punished because silly things like CO2 per capita are the real problem does make me wonder.
Thought experiment 1. For all of the h8-red, we here in the USA have done some good, example is sending food to other countries, That takes fuel for growing, harvesting, and shipping. Should that stop?
Side advantage for this - since a lot of people would starve to death, that would lower their per capita CO2 emi
Peaceful solution (Score:2)
Why don't they just calmly and rationally explain their position to the sea and ask if would be so kind as stop encroaching on their beaches and only affect this list of (rich) countries. Their survival is their right after all, I'm sure the sea will understand.
Re: (Score:2)
If the ICJ rules in their favour, countries signed up to it will be obliged to take whatever action is suggested to remedy the situation. Okay, the US can and will ignore it, but for example the EU won't.
It will also be useful for getting legal rulings elsewhere, like at the WTO.
It's far from perfect as we have seen in Palestine, but it's not completely useless either. European countries have been pressured to reduce arms sales to Israel, for example, off the back of the ICJ preliminary ruling of genocide.
Re: (Score:2)
> If the ICJ rules in their favour, countries signed up to it will be obliged to take whatever action is suggested to remedy the situation. Okay, the US can and will ignore it, but for example the EU won't.
The sea is still coming. Can't be reversed or paid off no matter how much money you dump into it, That'd would probably just make it worse though.
Re: (Score:2)
Holland has been paying to hold back the sea for over a thousand years.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the sea is still coming.
Re: (Score:1)
Incorrect.
They expanded their land into the sea.
Because it is super flat surface, and "kind of easy"/
And with wind mills, wind powered pumps they pumped out the water from the land they conquered.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why don't they just calmly and rationally explain their position to the sea and ask if would be so kind as stop encroaching on their beaches and only affect this list of (rich) countries. Their survival is their right after all, I'm sure the sea will understand.
I had to re-read that a few times! Pretty sure I get it now. 8^)
It is kind of distressing that there will be some low lying places that are going to have big issues with sea level rise. Might even disappear under the waves.
But the idea that some nations need to be punished begs the question - Should we have never left the pre-industrial age? We could have settled maybe on 1700 as the sweet spot, kind of becoming global Amish, so to speak.
We need to get off of the Carbon de-sequestering treadmill, as
Vanuatu has bigger problems (Score:3)
Vanuatu is a volcanic archipelago with an average elevation higher than that of the Australian continent.
Sea-level rise is a minor issue compared to corrupt and incompetent government, obesity and high birthrate.
Farmers have been moving away from food crops to the cultivation of the drug kava.
Re: (Score:1)
We in the UK are destroying our energy security and manufacturing whilst producing 0.46% of the man made CO2 in the world.
Why? Because a bunch of clowns who fly multiple** private jets to Davos and COP regularly, told us to...
** Prince Charles takes a separate private jet to the PM. Even if you argue about "security", they could share.
So yes, it's a scam, believed by the gullible.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of companies forbid their executives from flying on the same plane as a security measure. Why would that be different for very senior members of a government?
Also, who is this "Prince Charles"? If you're going to concern troll a country about governance issues, you should probably keep up with who the current sovereign is.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh lol - slip of the typo...He's been Prince Charles for over 50 years of my life.
And nonsense - utter nonsense. They could have these meetings by remote conferencing for a start.
And don't give me that rubbish that Charles has to be on a different plane to Starmer.
They're laughing at us.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why? Because a bunch of clowns who fly multiple** private jets to Davos and COP regularly, told us to
It is possible for them to be right about the crisis, and hypocrites in their own actions, at the same time. Hardly anyone lives their lives fully consistent with their self-professed beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely, they're just laughing at us.
Sounds like a good idea... (Score:3)
...to have some kind of more objective calculation for who's responsible for how much damage & go from there. As we can see from this discussion thread alone, there are too many people making &/or repeating claims by vested interests. It seems to make sense to ask a reasonably independent 3rd party to look over the evidence & come to a reasonable conclusion.
I also expect there to be objections, attacks, misdirection, or just plain ignorance from the countries' govts who don't like the outcomes. But at least we'll know their true positions on the matter because of it. From there, we the people can decide how we are to apply pressure on our govts to secure less dire circumstances for our children & their children & so on.
Re:Sounds like a good idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are some relevant objective facts, like what nations emitted how much over time. But there is no objective answer to whether that makes the present-day inhabitants of those places morally responsible for the situation they were born (or migrated) into.
The ultimate moral question of climate change is how much people should sacrifice in the hopes of making the world a better place after they personally are dead. I never hear this question discussed directly in connection to climate change. People rarely say, "what do I care, I'll be dead by then." Yet I think a lot of people are inclined to deny it's happening, because they don't care, because they'll be dead.
At least Vanuatu can't be accused (Score:4, Interesting)
Happily, Vanuatu imports things like cars, building materials and appliances, so it does not create emissions by any serious manufacturing. I expect that flower garlands for tourists are one of the main products manufactured. Thinking of that, it would help if Vanuatu banned tourists from coming and going on all those polluting aircraft and cruise ships.
Re: At least Vanuatu can't be accused (Score:2)
Shipping by water tends to be quite energy efficient. Aeroplanes of course not, so if they want to be consistent about it and not be sn enabling party to the problem they should of course ban all non-emergency aeroplane traffic to and from the country.
Re: (Score:2)
What bothers me is that their ancestors got so many more coconuts than mine. Let's talk about reparations to settle that score.
Pacific geopolitical hotspot (Score:3)
Solve your climate problems like this: Submit a request for proposal to build sea walls to both China and the USA (the ones most responsible for CO2), the lowest bidder gets a 50 year lease on an unrestricted naval base. Watch them scramble for the lowest bid
The point? (Score:3)
The richest and most powerful countries in the world are not going to agree to be "held responsible" by the weakest and poorest ones beyond saying in effect, "my bad". Don't hold your breath. I hope it makes you feel better about voicing your opinions though. You have been heard. We care, but not enough to give you our stuff. Our ancestors pillaged and stole more than we need while trashing into the air and oceans fair and square.
The poorer countries are fed by the rich (Score:2)
> The richest and most powerful countries in the world are not going to agree to be "held responsible" by the weakest and poorest ones beyond saying in effect, "my bad". Don't hold your breath. I hope it makes you feel better about voicing your opinions though. You have been heard. We care, but not enough to give you our stuff. Our ancestors pillaged and stole more than we need while trashing into the air and oceans fair and square.
Most of these poor countries can't produce enough food to feed themselves. They import from exporters like the USA, Canada, Latin America, Mexico, Eastern Europe, etc. TMK, none of them produce tractors, cars, or serious cargo vessels. They don't produce infrastructure components, like generators to keep the lights on.
There's MANY ways to improve the situation, but the world's top polluters aren't polluting because they're so greedy and living such a decadent life. It's not AC cranked up in the summ
Most emissions are from export industries (Score:3, Interesting)
It's easy to point fingers when you don't do anything useful. These Chinese emissions are primarily to make goods consumed globally. America also produces a lot of goods exported. In the case of India, it's because they're the world's largest nation and building their infrastructure so they can produce stuff.
Looking at the US EPA website, only 31% of CO2 emissions are from transportation and residential/office buildings. 25% are from electricity, 23% from industry, 10% from agriculture.
Vanuatu doesn't produce anything useful, to my knowledge. They rely on all these polluting countries, like China to create their stuff. So cut the sanctimonious shit. You want to sue us?...how about stop consuming all products made from polluting countries first?...oh wait...you like your cars, boats, and iPhones?...OK...well...the shut your mouth. This is the price of progress...our choices are no progress and poverty for developing nations...or climate change...we should absolutely be doing all we can to reduce emissions....but let's not forget the majority of the emissions are from feeding the planet, providing them energy, and making their stuff. Our greedy overconsumption in our homes and suburban sprawl are only a tiny fraction of the problem.
Per Capita - Why It Doesn't Matter. (Score:2)
The top five countries of emissions per capital, and their total percentage of the world's emissions:
Palau - 0%
Qatar - 0.27%
Bahrain - 0.1%
Kuwait - 0.29%
UAE - 0.57%
Total global contributions by the top 5 per capita emitters: 1.23%
If you concentrate on these countries and get them to reduce their emissions by a staggering 30% you will have done NOTHING to fix the climate problem.
If you want to fix the problem, per capita is a complete red herring. Anybody concentrating on that isn't serious about addressing c
Don't worry (Score:2)
I've heard people high up in the next U.S. administration say this climate stuff is a scam, and if anyone knows scams it's these people.
Wealth is the Best Measure of Emissions (Score:2)
This is not an abstract argument. The issue is who should pay to clean up the mess and prevent future harm. Carbon emissions hang around for a very long time. So we are still living with some of the impacts of the industrial revolution 200 years ago.
The question of whose carbon footprint is that is endless and unanswerable as the discussion of China's exports makes clear. If you assign to the United States all the emissions from all the gas and oil it exports, the numbers change dramatically. But I think t
Re: (Score:3)
Now let’s look at reality, since trends do matter.
[1]https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?time=2004..latest&country=EU-28~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~USA~CHN~IND~European+Union+(28)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to discredit your own alleged position with a line like "It's a well known fact"? It may be plausible, reasonable, and likely, but you gotta do better.
Re: (Score:1)
You didn't look at either of the previous 2 links that showed you?
You've been living under a rock? Trying hard to remain ignorant? How do you not know this simple fact?
Here it is a third time for the extra slow people... [1]America is the all time leader in emitting excess CO2 [ourworldindata.org]
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?country=EU-28~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~USA~CHN~IND~European+Union+(28)
Re: (Score:2)
"We're number one! We're number one! We're num..... Oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to know(unless you just love showing your ignorance) that there are different sides to this. You have things like the type of power generation makes a difference. You still have a lot of coal power in use around the world, oil, and natural gas. The more protective of the COAL power plants a government is, the more you can blame that government. Oil and natural gas, the fear of nuclear power to replace the other sources does not help.
You can fault those in the USA who have an obsession with
Re: (Score:2)
You are all greedy b'stards,
Re:yes drnb (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to adjust that graph per capita.
Re: (Score:3)
> You need to adjust that graph per capita.
I love how people find a way to bend stats to their personal villain. So let us put that to the test.
Since you posit the metric is simply per capita, so does it then follow that a nation with 20 people, who produce more pollution per capita than the USA, yet not even a blip on the total - Those are they real criminals in this matter. There is no way around it - they produce more per capita.
If we are to actually do something about it, it is perhaps critical to understand that if we take our individua
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The point of "per capita" should be to make personal responsibility the focus. If you don't point out who are the most wasteful then they don't do anything and blame someone else for the problem e.g. countries with large populations.
Re: (Score:2)
> The point of "per capita" should be to make personal responsibility the focus. If you don't point out who are the most wasteful then they don't do anything and blame someone else for the problem e.g. countries with large populations.
Is sending food to poor nations wasteful? The USA could make a pretty good dent in it's CO2 emissions by not planting, growing, harvesting and shipping food to poor countries. Perhaps stopping exports altogether? Here's some data - imagine how much we could cut our CO2! [1]https://www.ers.usda.gov/topic... [usda.gov]
I'm certain you agree that if the USA went full isolationist, it would be not only a good way to diminish our responsibility and wastefulness, but would make the world a better place. 8^/
Now yes, I'm b
[1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-u-s-trade/u-s-agricultural-trade/u-s-agricultural-trade-at-a-glance/
Re: (Score:2)
Well by that metric China could also significantly decrease their CO2 by no longer manufacturing goods for export to other countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a deal to me!
Re: (Score:2)
And what good - exactly - does that do? Other than give you the self serving satisfaction of blaming individuals?
The climate doesn't give a good god damn how many people it took to produce X quantity of CO2. It just cares that X is present. Only you give a shit what per capita means. It serves you emotionally, and helps not at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up, because this is *exactly* how the numbers need to be viewed - they are complimentary ways of looking at the same data, not an either/or.
The league table of figures on a per-country basis is (mostly) that government's responsibility to figure out how to bring down, although encouraging some personal responsiblity is a part of that too. The per capita league table is (mostly) down to personal responsibility, which will need to be driven by some education/public awareness schemes backed by g
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can take it to extremes and it breaks down, but among major economies (US is no 1, China no 2, EU no 3) they all have large populations and all need to tackle climate change. None of them are doing enough, but by any reasonable metric China is doing more than the other two.
We will get stats for this year soon, but last year China installed more solar PV in the first 8 months than the US has in its entire history. The scale is staggering. Their emissions should peak this or next year too. They
Contradiction [Re:yes drnb] (Score:2)
> Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide does not care the skin color, or nation of origin or socionomic world status. China's CO2, India's CO2, and the CO2 emitted by the US is all the same.
OK so far. You start out by saying that carbon dioxide does not care about nation of origin. Fair enough.
> And if we decide - yes, the USA must be punished because of per capita emissions, and India must be allowed to spew more CO2, because they have so many more people, and that is justice.
Why are you now talking about emissions by nation? You just finished telling us that carbon dioxide does not care about nation of origin,
Re: (Score:2)
> You need to adjust that graph per capita.
But surely over-population is part of the problem. Should it be adjusted per square km?
But India or the US have far more arable land than say China, so maybe they should be expected to have more people. What if we compare emissions per standard arable land area, with more fertile land counting for more. Would that be fair?
Or maybe base it on population levels back when we realised this was a problem, so China gets credit for limiting population growth? There is no one obvious metric.
Re: (Score:2)
China's birth rate is now below replacement level. They had a brutal one child policy for many years. It's hard to see how they could do much more, short of mass murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Per square kilometer would destroy the preferred narrative that per capita provides. Look at Canada compared to other countries.
Per capita: 11th - We like that one. Let's pick on that.
Per square kilometer: 88th - Not useful to the emotional argument
Actual contribution to global emissions: 1.4% - Pretend this doesn't exist.
If you really, truly, want to save the world, India, China, and the United States are your ONLY realistic targets of importance. That is HALF the emissions.
Dinking around with
Re: (Score:1)
Those numbers have to be wrong.
Look at the EU27 vs EU28 numbers; they aren't even close. Croatia was added to the EU in 2007(the 28th member), but it things in that graph don't come close to adding up.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Yes drnb... [1]The US is most responsible [ourworldindata.org]
> Now let’s look at reality, since trends do matter. [2]https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
??
These two graphs are identical; one plotted starting in 1750, while the second only for the last two decades.
They both show that the AC's statement is accurate: the largest amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere was contributed by the US.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?country=EU-28~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~USA~CHN~IND~European+Union+(28)
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?time=2004..latest&country=EU-28~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~EU~USA~CHN~IND~European+Union+(28)
Re:yes drnb (Score:5, Informative)
Note that that data is cumulative, perhaps since 1750 when the graph begins.
It might be more interesting to look at the annual CO2 emissions, and then the main polluters in 2023 are the following:
China 34.0%
USA 12.0%
India 7.6%
European Union 6.4%
Russia 5.3%
Japan 2.4%
Iran 2.0%
Data from copied from [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And the trend for the US, EU and Japan is decreasing emissions, while China, India and Iran have increasing emissions by more than 100%!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe China & co have increased emissions because they are producing evrything you buy in your oh so mighty 'we've got decreasing emissions' countries?
Re:yes drnb (Score:4, Interesting)
China's emissions are expected to peak either this year or by some estimates in 2025, due to the massive investments in renewable energy that the country is doing.
[1]https://www.carbonbrief.org/an... [carbonbrief.org]
I'm not saying China is any kind of model pupil regarding emissions, if someone (I don't claim you are) thinks that they are not doing anything about it, it's time to update your knowledge about the situation.
China was late to set any proper emission reduction targets, mostly because once the government there officially declares that they will accomplish something, they really go for it in order not to lose face. So it was to be expected that when they in 2020 said China's emissions will peak before 2030, that this was not empty promise, and now it seems they will get there several years ahead of schedule. They are still a long way from carbon neutrality though (currently their plan is to do that by 2060 which is not ambitious enough).
[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting if you are looking to direct blame away from the countries that benefited the most from causing climate change, perhaps.
That's the issue here. The Western Lifestyle (TM) is built on a history of massive emissions. Much of our wealth was created from burning fossil fuels. Using some of it to help developing nations that are having to deal with the consequences of climate change, and to help them avoid emitting as much CO2 as we did on the path to modern living, seems entirely fair.
Re: (Score:2)
I just noted the current numbers.
The blame game is interesting but difficult. As you are aware, there are things that should be considered in addition to current emissions: the total historical emissions, emissions per capita, rich people who consume a disproportionate amount of CO2, and don't forget fossil fuel companies who have distorted public opinion about science.
Regardless of where the blame is placed, emissions must be reduced.
Cumulative [Re:yes drnb] (Score:2)
> Note that that data is cumulative, perhaps since 1750 when the graph begins. It might be more interesting to look at the annual CO2 emissions,
Why?
The discussion is about who caused the problem. The current problem is caused by the sum of all the CO2 emissions, not by current emissions.