Caribbean leaders hail ICJ climate ruling as ‘historic' win for small island states
Several countries in the region had provided evidence to the ICJ case, which ended this week with a landmark advisory opinion that could see states ordered to pay reparations if they fail to tackle fossil fuels and prevent harm to the climate system.
Describing the opinion as a 'historic legal victory for small states' that are bearing the worst impacts of climate change, the prime minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG), Ralph Gonsalves, told the Guardian it would strengthen the Caribbean's negotiating power.
'What is very interesting is that it says that the obligations laid out in the important [climate change] treaties are not simply procedural,' he said. 'They create substantive legal obligations.'
In recent years the Caribbean has been plagued by a string of catastrophic hurricanes. Last year Hurricane Beryl demolished more than 90% of buildings in parts of multi-island SVG and left thousands homeless and without running water, electricity and food.
Gonsalves said the advisory opinion – which said a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right – connects climate action treaties such as the Paris agreement to other international laws such as those governing human rights.
Echoing Gonsalves' sentiments, the Bahamas' attorney general, Ryan Pinder, praised the ICJ for taking a 'very strong position' that allowed countries to 'speak and argue about the adverse effects of the climate crisis on its people' and potentially provided more legal options to small states.
'It certainly opens up the positions of … states like the Bahamas to go into other areas of the United Nations and other multilateral institutions that are human rights-focused,' he told the Guardian.
Referring to the catastrophic Hurricane Dorian in 2019, which killed more than 70 people and caused an estimated US$3.4bn worth of damage, Pinder said: '[This] had a significant impact on the human rights of our people, whether that be displacement … the right to an adequate standard of living … [or] access to food, water and housing.
'All of those are fundamental human rights that the ICJ has now recognised as a significant component of the adverse effects of climate change.'
The advisory opinion's focus on reparations, he said, was important for the Bahamas, because it was about the obligation of major polluters to restore a country and its assets if it suffered the effects of a climate change-related disaster.
Human rights and climate justice lawyer Nikki Reisch said it was possible to connect devastating climatic events to climate change and to the states responsible and pursue justice.
'The science on attribution and causation is strong and only getting stronger. The court made clear that there is no technical barrier to connecting climate destruction to its causes, to the continued pollution from fossil fuels and destruction of carbon sinks,' she said.
'The science is there, and this decision confirms that the law is too.'
Reisch added that countries were responsible for past and present environmental breaches.
'The court really rejected the attempts of the biggest cumulative emitters like the United States and others to sweep history under the rug and ignore the decades of climate destruction, of fossil fuel production and pollution, of colonialism that laid the foundations for the devastation that climate change is wreaking in so many parts of the world.'
In the UK, some MPs criticised the ICJ opinion, with the shadow foreign secretary, Priti Patel, describing it on X as a 'mad' decision, adding that the ICJ had 'lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons'.
Dr Justin Sobion, who coordinated the Caribbean's ICJ submissions, said the opinion was an interpretation of climate obligations under international law, including global agreements that countries such as the UK – which recognise there is a climate emergency – have ratified.
Pinder said: 'I'm not sure, given some of the commentary we've seen from larger developed countries and countries that were in the Industrial Revolution, that [the ICJ advisory] is really going to change their opinions.'
He added that the 'rather unfortunate' comments from some political leaders in the UK on the ICJ opinion indicated that 'multilateralism is still going to be a significant challenge'.
Pinder and Gonsalves said their countries were reviewing the ICJ opinion – which UN member states instructed the ICJ to produce in 2023 after years of campaigning by Pacific island law students and diplomacy led by Vanuatu – and considering how to work with other countries in the region on next steps.
'This has given us an excellent platform,' Gonsalves said. 'We have … to follow through with some heavy lifting, to do negotiations. At the end of the day, this is about life, living and production for all of us on planet Earth.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
After the Spike by Dean Spears and Michael Geruso review – the truth about population
As a member of the 8.23 billion-strong human community, you probably have an opinion on the fact that the global population is set to hit a record high of 10 billion within the next few decades. Chances are, you're not thrilled about it, given that anthropogenic climate change is already battering us and your morning commute is like being in a hot, jiggling sardine-tin. Yet according to Dean Spears and Michael Geruso, academics at the University of Texas, what we really need to be worried about is depopulation. The number of children being born has been declining worldwide for a couple of hundred years. More than half of countries, including India, the most populous nation in the world, now have birthrates below replacement levels. While overall population has been rising due to declining (mainly infant) mortality, we'll hit a peak soon before falling precipitously. This apex and the rollercoaster drop that follows it is the eponymous 'spike'. Most people's lives today are better than they ever were in human history, thanks to the progress, prosperity and brilliant ideas that have come with all those people. The more of us there are, the more human ingenuity there is – 'the ultimate renewable resource'. Spears and Geruso argue that future people who live alongside only a couple of billion others will have significantly worse lives than we have today. Stabilisation, not depopulation, they argue, is the right path for humanity. For that to happen, we need to be having more babies. After the Spike knocks down assumptions like skittles. Population fearmongers from Malthus to Paul Ehrlich are refuted, and evidence laid out to show what worldwide fertility is not linked to: changes in wealth, the invention of contraception or women's rights. Nor can government policies that force people to have, or not have, children do much to change long-term trends. This is as true for China's one-child policy as it is for Ceaușescu's banning of abortion in Romania, which only had short-term effects. Even when non-coercive governments support parents with childcare and comparatively generous parental leave, as in Sweden, these policies have not shifted the needle. Sweden will start to shrink in 2051. The strongest commonsense belief the authors tackle is the idea that lower birthrates are a good thing because the planet is burning and more people means worse climate change. In fact, climate change is such an urgent issue that depopulation will kick in far too late to make any serious impact. Not only that, but the difference between the contribution to climate change made by the current population versus the population at the top of the spike is not significant. Depopulation won't help the climate, then, but it will mean that there are far fewer of us left to deal with part two of cleaning up humanity's mess on Earth: removing excess greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Creating a good life – whether that's finding cures for disease or ways to reverse environmental damage – relies on the ideas, work and progress produced by large, interconnected societies. Why, then, are we increasingly choosing to have fewer children? The answer is likely to be a combination of cultural, biological, economic and social factors, but the best unifying theory in After the Spike is to be found in a satirical headline from the Onion: 'Study Finds American Women Delaying Motherhood Because the Whole Thing Blows'. As life on Earth has come to offer more and more rich and interesting options for how to spend our time, the opportunity cost of parenting has become increasingly less attractive. There are now more ways to make a meaningful life with fewer or no kids, even if you did want them, as gen Z is well aware. If we agree that we ought to make life good for our descendants, and that this means supporting a stable, sizeable human population, how can we achieve this? The solution proposed by Spears and Geruso is no less than a total restructuring of society around care, in which parenting is so well supported socially, culturally, economically and medically that it is seen as a joy, not a relentless struggle. Were this to have been my reality a decade ago, I might have had the football team of tumbling, laughing babies I sometimes feel a pang for. Whether humanity can achieve anything like it in time to avert depopulation seems doubtful, but if there's one thing After the Spike leaves us with, it's the impulse to back ourselves. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion After the Spike: The Risks of Global Depopulation and the Case for People by Dean Spears and Michael Geruso is published by Bodley Head (£20). To order a copy go to Delivery charges may apply.
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Australia's youngest senator, 21, launches a furious attack on Pauline Hanson: 'All I can say is, are you kidding?'
Australia's youngest senator has blasted Pauline Hanson and suggested the One Nation leader is stupid for trying to scrap the nation's net zero target. Ms Hanson, 71, introduced a motion on Monday to scrap Australia's net zero emissions target, claiming the goal continues to 'destroy jobs and the Australian economy.' 'Power bills are out of control. Manufacturing is being wiped out. And ordinary Australians are paying the price, while out-of-touch politicians and inner-city idealists push fantasy policies they'll never have to live under,' Ms Hanson said. 'We are being led by fools. Shame on every politician who continues to push this madness. I will not stand by while Australia is driven into the ground.' But before the vote, new Labor senator for South Australia Charlotte Walker, 21, slammed Ms Hanson — and suggested that Ms Hanson struggled to grasp the concept. 'All I can say is, are you kidding?' she said. 'The motion put forward on net zero indicates a severe lack of knowledge and a complete disregard for the future of our generation, the future of our country. 'Without a net zero target, there will be no Australian farmers, businesses or industries to support us. 'Net zero is waking up to a reality that Senator Hanson has not been able to grasp. In fact, Senator Hanson seems to be hellbent on exacerbating all of the consequences of climate change.' In the end the motion from Ms Hanson ultimately failed with only he four One Nation senators, United Australia Party senator Ralph Babet and Coalition senators Matt Canavan and Alex Antic voting in its favour. 'Labor, the Greens and the crossbench voted it down. And the Liberals? Cowards. They had the notice. They had the time. And they still ran for the exits. Not one of them had the guts to stand and be counted,' Ms Hanson said. Meanwhile, Former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce on Monday launched a seperate bid to repeal the net-zero emissions by 2050 reduction target. But his private member's bill is guaranteed to fail, because it lacks the support of the government which has a majority in the House of Representatives. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley maintains the coalition will wait until after a review of its disastrous May election loss before making formal policy decisions. Despite a growing number of Liberal politicians speaking out against stronger climate change action, she doubled down on waiting for the review. 'We're going to bring all of those views together ... to flesh out the different perspectives, the expert advice and, of course, focus on this government's miserable failure when it comes to energy policy,' she told Sky News. Asked about the political impact of dumping the climate target, Ms Ley said she would not foreshadow the review's outcome. Many Liberal moderates want the net-zero target retained so the party is seen to be taking climate action seriously. But Mr Joyce said there was no reason why abandoning the targets should be off the table. 'This is not about leadership. This is not about trying to create some sort of discordant note,' he told reporters ahead of the bill's introduction. 'There's not anything in this bill that the coalition didn't have the same position we voted for.' Mr Joyce has the backing of his former leadership rival Michael McCormack. The two ex-deputy prime ministers are critical of Nationals leader David Littleproud's handling of the aftermath of the election defeat. The coalition reunited at the end of May following a messy week-long split driven by divisions which included energy policy.
The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
Honolulu's lawsuit against fossil fuel companies leads climate change legal fight
Honolulu is not alone in its effort to sue fossil fuel companies to hold them accountable for climate change harms, but the city's lawsuit is further along than similar litigation across the country. A hearing on Tuesday will indicate how these fights play out in court. In 2020, Hawaii 's capital city sued major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron, arguing they knew for nearly half a century that fossil fuel products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and changes the climate. The companies have also profited from the consumption of oil, coal and natural gas while deceiving the public about the role of their products in causing a global climate crisis, the lawsuit says. Honolulu's lawsuit blames the companies for the sea level rise around the island of Oahu's world-famous coastline. It also warns that hurricanes, heatwaves and other extreme weather will be more frequent, along with ocean warming that will reduce fish stocks and kill coral reefs that tourists love to snorkel over. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Attorneys and media representatives for most of the companies didn't immediately respond to emails and phone messages from The Associated Press seeking comment on the lawsuit. ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 representatives sent emails saying they don't comment on pending litigation. A hearing is scheduled in state court on Tuesday for a defense motion that argues the lawsuit should be dismissed because the state's two-year statute of limitations expired. Honolulu's claims are based on allegations that have been publicly known for decades, the defense motion for summary judgment says. 'The issue of climate change and how to tackle it has long been part of public discussion and ongoing scientific research and debate for many decades,' a Shell spokesperson said in an email. 'There is a vast public record of media articles, scientific journals and government reports for well over 50 years that make this clear. The suggestion that the plaintiffs were somehow unaware of climate change is simply not credible.' While the case is still far from trial, it's much closer than some 30 similar lawsuits nationwide brought by other states, cities and counties. Lawyer arguments and the judge's questions on Tuesday will give a sense of how both sides will present their cases, said Michael Gerrard, founder and faculty director of the Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. 'The first trial in any of these cases will be very significant," he said. 'It will get a large amount of nationwide or even global attention because the oil companies have not yet had to take the stand and defend themselves in a trial.' Honolulu's lawsuit has reached this hearing stage, partly because the Hawaii Supreme Court denied motions to dismiss it, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take it on. Meanwhile, a similar lawsuit by Maui County, where a massive wildfire nearly two years ago burned down most of Lahaina and killed 102 people, is on hold. The state of Hawaii has also filed a similar suit, despite the U.S. Department of Justice in May suing Hawaii and Michigan over their plans for legal action against fossil fuel companies, claiming their climate actions conflict with federal authority and President Donald Trump's energy dominance agenda. Hawaii's attorney general's office filed a motion last week seeking to stop the Department of Justice's federal lawsuit: 'Allowing this case to proceed would give the United States license to wield the federal courts as a weapon against any litigation between nonfederal parties that an incumbent presidential administration dislikes." Honolulu's lawsuit has drawn the attention of Naomi Oreskes, a prominent Harvard University science history professor, who submitted a declaration in a motion opposing the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Oreskes drew parallels between the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. 'The fossil fuel industry and its allies and surrogates created an organized campaign to foster and sustain doubt about anthropogenic global warming and prevent meaningful action," she wrote. "They did this by influencing consumers and the general public.' Soon before a lawsuit by a group of youths against Hawaii's transportation department was scheduled to go to trial, both sides settled the case last year, agreeing on an ambitious requirement to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions across all transportation modes no later than 2045.
