In a global stunt, a U.S. environmental activist is poised to lodge a $1 billion damages class action lawsuit at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against all world leaders for failing to prevent global warming.
Activist and blogger Dan Bloom says he will sue world leaders for “intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuels to be harvested, burned and sent into the atmosphere as CO2″.
He intends to lodge the lawsuit in the week starting Sunday, Dec. 6.
The prosecutor’s office at the ICC, the world’s first permanent court (pictured below right) for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, says it is allowed to receive 
information on crimes that may fall within the court’s jurisdiction from any source.
“Such information does not per se trigger a judicial proceeding,” the prosecutor’s office hastened to add.
The question is: will or should the prosecutor take on the case?
One might argue in defence that world leaders are in fact trying to impose climate-saving measures. In Vienna last year, almost all rich nations agreed to consider cuts in greenhouse emissions of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Talks on a new climate treaty will be held in Poznan, Poland, from Dec. 1-12.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N. Climate Panel, says the cuts are needed to limit temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, an amount seen by the EU, some other nations and many environmentalists as a threshold for “dangerous” climate change.
Granted then that there is growing consensus that climate change poses a real threat, is it not only world leaders who are failing to prevent global warming?
Perhaps the global collective of individuals, governments and industry is to blame and the ICC lawsuit a valid publicity stunt in the constant battle to raise awareness and prompt action?
Because it’s action we need — and now, right?
Trackback
61 comments so far
Previous | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
I strongly believe that global warming is a huge crisis that needs to be dealt with and new clean energy sources need to be put in. What I dont agree with is the government throwing taxes on this and that just to suck more $ out of the consumer. If they are going to throw a gas tax on, then there better be some other damn alternatives other than gas to use in my car at every local corner.
- Posted by Shane WMDelegates from nearly 190 countries gather for two weeks in Poznan, Poland, meeting for fourth time in the past year. Previous talks have witnessed bickering, clashes and compromise in what the top U.N. climate official calls the most difficult and complex international negotiation in history. They have set a deadline of December 2009 to complete an accord on reducing worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for changing the Earth’s climate. Some 9,000 delegates, activists and researchers will attend the Poznan meeting, which ends with a two-day summit of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, 150 environmental ministers.
- Posted by danny bloomClimate change gathers steam, say scientists, news reports say now. Earth’s climate appears to be changing more quickly and deeply than a benchmark UN report for policymakers predicted, top scientists said ahead of international climate talks starting Monday in Poland.
- Posted by Danny BloomThis would be great if CO2 had anything to do with global warming.. Our sun’s activity is melting our earth poles and causing this climate. This can be seen also as stronger aurora borealis activity. Same thing is happening to every planet in our solar system, is that CO2 too? This CO2 theory is only good business, don’t fall for it. That’s why current US leaders haven’t done anything do fight against it either.
- Posted by johnI am wondering whether anybody is aware that the headline has a big question mark at the end. Why?
1. individuals can not file criminal lawsuits with the ICC. Danny can only provide information to the Prosecutor; nothing more, nothing less. See 4th paragraph of the article and below link.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/w orks.html
2. the Court can only prosecute individuals. World leaders represent governments which in most countries are protected against criminal prosecution.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/j urisdiction_admissibility.html
3. the Court has no universal jurisdiction. See conditions in link.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/j urisdiction_admissibility.html
4. it’s not a civil law “case” and therefore you can’t claim damages. The Court can only penalize the convicted person to imprisonment and in addition may order a fine (article 77 Rome Statute).
And many more.
Reuters has written a balanced article by questioning the validity of the “case” and acknowledge it’s probably only a publicity stunt. And Danny knows that too.
- Posted by Timo van DrutenWhile I do think that it’s a good thing to try to reduce pollution there is no strong link between human activities and the changes that are happening to the Earth’s climate beyond natural cycles as far as I have read.
Sure, we are changing the environment with our technological innovations and uses for natural resources but to say that we are causing a future apocalypse when, as AD Larsen stated previously, current weather models are woefully inadequate to predict even monthly cycles of weather for specific locations or regions is jumping to conclusions based off of faulty assumptions.
Besides, what is the point in suing World Leaders who are, by and large, elected officials who have to worry about more than just the environment? As long as there isn’t some sort of gross negligence or personal crime I can’t see anything coming from this. It’d be like trying to sue all U.S. elected officials for failing to foresee and prevent the current economic crisis even if it seems “obvious” in hind-sight.
- Posted by Justin WeiThe blog post above states: “One might argue in defence that world leaders are in fact trying to impose climate-saving measures. In Vienna last year, almost all rich nations agreed to consider cuts in greenhouse emissions of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Talks on a new climate treaty will be held in Poznan, Poland, from Dec. 1-12.”
What a laugh! Emissions from practically all Kyoto signatory nations are up substantially -in the case of Canada by over 20 percent - despite most of their industry having relocated to China etc., all as a direct result of the economic policies implemented by world leaders.
World leaders have no intention of doing anything to protect the environment or humanity’s future. All policy is directed towards the requirements of money lenders -which amounts to looting the planet as quickly as possible. .
Good on you,sir, for trying to raise public awareness.
– Kevin Smith in New Zealand
- Posted by Kevin MooreClinton Callahan, a climate activist from the USA who now lives in Germany, writes to me today re this lawsuit story post: “Fantastic!
- Posted by Dan BloomI do not consider this to be a ’stunt’ at all.
I consider that it should have been done 20 years ago by all the people who already knew that peak oil and methane clathrates would kill civilization without immediate and compelling new leadership choices for sustainability. That was not done, even though they had the information. Being sued for US$1 billion is the least of the consequences…”
whoa brilliant…. attack the head because the body got a cancer… brilliant!
- Posted by GarthA top scioentist at Stanford University told me today re this lawsuit: “You are like Don Quixote here tilting at windmills, but it’s a useful effort. We each add grains of sand and hope for a landslide.”
- Posted by danny bloomI see this from two sides. On one hand, I can understand and accept the gesture being made. I agree that the environment needs to be protected. My own personal view is that there is not sufficient science to say absolutely that global warming is the direct result of increased CO2 levels. Climatologists are trying to predict future climate change at a time when meteorologists and climatologists cannot accurately predict the winter temperature of Fairbanks, AK within +/- 15 degrees F. Mathematical models are numerical constructs designed to mimic real systems and cannot be accurate unless we do understand the basic mechanics we are trying to model. Putting aside the argument for or against global warming, the real issue in my mind is that humanity must realize that we are not a “natural” animal anymore and cannot act like one. Animals can throw their waste into the environment and the environment will reclaim it. We cannot because the environment cannot. We must find ECONOMICAL ways to reduce our impact. And, like it or not, the economics are an absolute requirement, unless you really want the total collapse of civilization Tsai Chi is talking about.
- Posted by AD LarsenOn the other hand, are you really suing the right people? Last I checked, developed nations pollute the most, by far. And generally speaking, those same developed nations are governed, not by a single leader, but by a large committee. Those sitting on the committees are, generally speaking, elected by the people of the nation, and supposedly represent their will. So, aren’t the “world leaders” you are trying to sue just figure heads with little real power?
On another note, I think it is sad that environmentalists are allowing global warming to become a smoke screen for so many more pressing and more dangerous issues we are facing right now, not thousands of years in the future. It should be kept in mind as an overall goal, but we cannot loose sight of the battles immediately before us. Clean(er) energy, water pollution, ground level air contamination, deforestation, etc. Every other battle seems to be going to way of the proverbial dodo in favor of something that probably cannot be won in our generation, and probably, if technological trends continue and the goal is kept in mind, can be solved much more easily and effectively, and with little or no impact on social organization or living standards. And, it would seem to me, that those same small battles immediately before us are the ones that will bring us closer to the zero carbon footprint goal. What would be the net carbon reduction if, on a global scale, a policy of mandatory recycling was introduced?
The ICC was sold to the world (and especially the U.S.) as a world court that wouldn’t be involved in political issues or driven by politics, yet here the “activist” plaintiff and all the commentators are cheering it on to get involved in a political issue. So funny…
- Posted by pnkearnsTsai Chi says in his comment above:
“If civilisation crashes, it may even happen that the biological descendants of the present elite will be hunted like vermin. Better they go to jail now.”
I’m assuming by “elite” he means folks like Prince Charles, Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, the Entire Government of the UK the UN and the remaining elite in the international financial markets pushing the climate change agenda?
Jail the lot of them before its too late!
- Posted by G GaskellThis is a step in the right direction and will have tremendous symbolic value. If we don’t act now, there will surely come a time when the public will demand criminal prosecution for those who knew when it was still possible to stop the disaster but didn’t do what was required. If civilisation crashes, it may even happen that the biological descendants of the present elite will be hunted like vermin. Better they go to jail now.
- Posted by Tsai ChiThe head of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said that La Nina is likely to trigger a small drop in average global temperatures this year but where he also stated that temperatures in 2008 could still be way above average and that 2008 could in fact exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases. Lets get out full facts right please before we made assumptions!
Dr David Hill
- Posted by dr david hillExecutive Director
World Innovation Foundation Charity (WIFC)
Bern, Switzerland
Global Warming or Climate Change alarmists are so transparently pathetic in their attempt to perpetuate this lie. The only “growing consensus” out there is the ranks of educated and informed people who believe that this is the greatest scam in world history - nothing but another power and money grab with a healthy dose of global social reengineering thrown in. The largest collaboration of liars, thieves and the ignorant ever.
Their desperation is becomming increasingly evident as they are forced to falsify data and aggressively attack the skeptics (anything to avoid debate) - because they realize that in spite of the fact that CO2 has continued to steadily rise the earth has been cooling for over a decade and we are facing rapid, record-breaking global cooling.
- Posted by LeighGreat job, I wish more people would consider the same. To back your case you might want to consider the fact that alternative environmentally clean energy sources are available right now and have been for the last 100 years. Take a look at the prototypes developed by an Australian company Lutec Australia (http://www.lutec.com.au/) and check out the work being done at the Orion Project (http://www.theorionproject.org/en/index .html) to have these energy sources developed to fruition. All the best!
- Posted by Shogenarian“The question is: will or should the prosecutor take on the case?” As the plaintiff for this class-action lawsuit, I do hope the ICC will take the case. I think they should. However, while some readers here might see my lawsuit is futile, it is not pointless. Some will agree with me, others will disagree. Let the worldwide discussion, pro and con, begin. Politely. While some observers might call this a “publicity stunt”, and in many ways it could be seen as such, I prefer to call it a “publicity gesture” or a “publicity outreach”, to say to all world leaders and IPCC conference participants in Poland next month: “Please listen to James Lovelock and Hames Hansen and Tim Flannery and Fred Pearce and Mark Lynas and Sharon Astyk and James Howard Kunstler now. Before it is too late!”
- Posted by Dan BloomTake it to court. At least that way the science will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the globe HAS NOT WARMED in 10 YEARS, even though carbon emissions have continued to rise! Case dismissed. At least the people aren’t fooled. Thank God for democracy.
- Posted by totalkaosdaveFrom a purely legal point of view, he would have to prove that there is some conceivable and legal course of action (so declaring military law and shooting SUV drivers is out), which could have been taken by these leaders, which if taken would have reduced warming.
Clearly, nobody can prove such a proposition. The real problem is that the most likely outcome is that he will simply harden the resolve of all those SUV drivers.
- Posted by Ian Kemmish