Sinking?
Island states that claim they are being threatened by “climate change” are considering taking the matter to the International Court of Justice:
The International Court of Justice should take action against states unwilling to combat the causes of climate change, according to the President of the Pacific island of Palau.
President Johnson Toribiong was speaking [link to UN document] at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, after meeting the Prime Minister of Grenada to discuss his proposals.
The Palau President wants the International Court of Justice to force states to take action to cut their carbon emissions – a plan he first announced to the General Assembly in September 2011.
“While we continue to negotiate, we should renew our faith in a system of law that has guided States’ actions in the past and gives them legitimacy today,” he said.
“The rule of law must reflect the interests of the entire international community – for us, it’s about survival.”
The proposal would see the International Court of Justice provide an advisory opinion on damages from climate change, a move the President insists would complement the UNFCCC’s efforts to build a binding treaty through negotiation.
Palau’s Permanent Representative to the UN Stuart Beck says roads are unusable and staple crops have been threatened in Palau and other Pacific nations because of the rising sea waters. (source)
An opportunity to get the climate alarmists’ case before a court to be cross-examined in a judicial environment sounds too good to miss. The claimants will have to prove an extremely long chain of causation, namely that the rising sea levels are a result of rising temperatures, which are themselves a result of increased CO2 emissions, which are a result of man’s burning of fossil fuels.
They will also hope they can explain away all the confounding factors – natural climate change, solar variation, sinking landmasses – that might break that chain.
Some states, like the Maldives, will need to explain why they are building new airports whilst at the same time claiming compensation for sinking islands…
Good luck with that. Although with the UN on their side, justice will no doubt disappear out of the window…
Australian Climate Madness 
Mooching emeffers?
someone not getting enough “foreign Aid” : P
I’m not surprised. I noticed a trend of doco’s about ‘islands sinking below the sea’ (maldives etc) that have been sponsored by the rockefeller foundation.
“The proposal would see the International Court of Justice provide an advisory opinion on damages from climate change”
..and then what could they do with such advice, exactly? For example, if Mr Toribiong wanted some action against China for their increased emissions over the past decade or so?
If the outcomes of the COP meetings are anything to go by, we might see an agreement to reach an agreement sometime in the future that may or may not be enforceable.
Good luck with that.
Those ”Island States” are sinking, because of the movement of the tectonic plates. Because of constant erosion on every continent and island – if it wasn’t for the movement / squashing of the tectonic plates – to lift the land higher (others go lower) , to compensate for erosion… if it wasn’t for that – every dry part of every continent would have eroded into the sea – then the currents would have kept eroding – wouldn’t be one dry grain of sand left on the planet. Actually, my calculation says: ALL land would have being covered by minimum of 1,9km of water.
Whoever is guilty for the movement of the tectonic plates, should be brought on the witness stand, under oath. In the same time rewarded for keeping large masses of land dry.
Isn’t that spelled climate ju$tice?
lol joke
‘Climate justice’ is the silliest phrase ever coined — you can tell that by the kind of people who routinely use it — Mary Robinson, Desmond Tutu etc.
What is it supposed to mean? A good definition might be: “The prevention of any group from damaging the environment of any other group.”
Fine. Let’s go after those Indonesian businessmen who burn down entire rainforests, the Chinese coal miners of Linfen, the steel manufacturers of Cubatao in Brazil, or the Russian nickel smelters of Norilsk.
Ah, but no. That’s not what these do-gooders mean. “Climate justice” is shorthand for massive payments from the developed world to the undeveloped world.
Money from poor people in rich countries being sent to rich people in poor countries.
No justice there, and no benefit to the climate, either.
Do they seriously believe the sea level stays at the same height for thousands of years? It’s not compensation, it’s EDUCATION they need!
Yikes, more proof that the global warming scam is only about redistribution of wealth
It’s more to the point that Palau is sinking than it is being inundated by rising sea levels. As this Palau profile from the BBC reports, “More than 200 volcanic and coral islands, many of them surrounded by a single barrier reef, make up the northern Pacific nation of Palau.” I reckon there’s a clue in there somewhere!
Ha! Good luck with that. The ICJ only has juristiction over any case if both respondent countries agree and their advisory opinions are in no way enforceable. If countries don’t like the ruling then they can ignore it. I’ll tell you exactly how this whole thing will play out- the ICJ will drag the case out for a decade or two and at the end will tell the developed countries “You need to compensate these other countries one hundred billion dollars”. The developed countries will say “Bugger off, that’s not going to happen” and that’s going to be the end of the matter.
Funny how the Pacific Islands have coped with the 120 metre sea level rise over the last 18,000 years, since most of them have been inhabited.
The whole “climate change” thing is about socialism. You see it starkly in Australia’s own policy of taxing the richest companies to “compensate” the poorer people. The IPCC even admitted a wealth distribution and for richer countries to pay a “climate debt”, while the laughable Climate Summits each year stagnate in progress because, such is greedy human nature, poorer and smaller countries see an opportunity for freebies, not necessarily any interest in reducing world emissions. Besides, why should they? They were never responsible in the first place.
You know what? Centuries ago if an island was at risk at being swamped, the people moved to higher ground or to another island. Today, since we build buildings right on the beaches, oh, we must try and control the weather to protect them. Oh dear.
Can’t somebody put them out of their misery and explain that it isn’t happen and has only been a political hoax?