UN planning 'International Tribunal of Climate Justice' to take countries to court

If they'd said execute anyone who didn't comply I'd have thought this was a David Suzuki proposal.

What this idiocy will do though is give even more of the UN's favorites another angle to extort money from and punish nations far larger, more advanced and better off than they are.

If we sign on to any of this crap we're going to be sorry, really sorry because we're giving away our sovereignty to a bunch of 3rd world cesspools who have a history of using the UN to exert power far in excess of what they should be able to.

I can see the court composition now. Ghana, China, Mongolia, Egypt and Bangladesh.

Why would you think that?

Haven't read the article yet, but does anyone elae get the heebie-jeebies from when they see the word "tribunal"?

Also, just occurred to me as I was typing, is "heebie-jeebies" an anti-semitic term?

I don't. It has negative connotations, but so does 'trial', and 'tribunal' usually doesn't have the negative outcomes of a 'trial'.



Never heard it referred to as one. Perhaps you need another coffee?

Posted that before my first coffee, so you may be right

Some time back I posted a question that seemed outrageous to many people at the time:

"Are you willing to go to war over an environmental issue?"

The UN is so this isn't quite so outrageous the question it used to be.

Yeah but they have no real military muscle to enforce any of this. As usual they're completely dependent on the willingness of each country to make arrests and bring charges. It won't be like in Bosnia where they had the locals turning each other in left and right in order to claim bounties on war criminals. Pretty sure that the way businesses spread money around will ensure that this thing is just another empty UN bit of propaganda.

I didn't think the question was all that outrageous when you asked it. People have gone to war over many similar things. Water rights, fishing rights, resource rights - all of these could be reasons for war. I could see pollution of a waterway or even airborne pollution that crosses borders as reasons for war.

I wouldn't think that war would be the best way to solve them, but countries can be irrational at times.

If someone was poisoning your water supply, whether it was a military tactic, as the Germans used against France in WW1 or a consequence of irresponsible industry, you might be compelled to go to war, or die of thirst.

Scorched earth is also aguably an environmental military tactic.

They specified climate "justice" though, guys. They didn't mention things like poisoning waterways that cross borders. This is supposed to be some kind of hammer to bring down on countries that have industries that their neighbours or NGOs don't like, like "let's get the Maldives to send the entire government of Alberta to prison because they're making the sea level rise" followed with the unstated (of course) "but if they give us some money we won't make a fuss about it". Whether there's any actual measurable damage being done seems kind of irrelevant.

Can't say that up til now the UN has shown the ability to project that kind of power. Much more likely is that big corps from big countries will rape the Maldives or other powerless country in the name of this. For sure if all the permanent security members don't sign on to this it will be just another piece of paper.

Whataya mean "if?" Prime Minister pretty boy will sign it before he reads it. He's flying over to Paris with his special pen and Elizabeth May as back up.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... nge-summit

And what you're hearing here is tip of the iceberg stuff. In the coming weeks watch for Prog-speak terms like "agenda" and "sustainability", then read carefully.

I guess some people just aren't willing to sell out their children's future for short term monetary gain. Weirdos.

Ahh, feel better now? Ya got that out without the help of psyllium powder. Good boy!