Don’t let climate change turn disastrous
On Wednesday the UN General Assembly did something rare. It turned climate science into a legal question and then every nation was made to take the issue seriously. By a vote of 141-8, with 28 abstentions, the 193-member body endorsed the International Court of Justice’s July advisory opinion that failure to protect the planet from climate change violates international law. The resolution is nonbinding, yet its moral and legal weight is hard to overstate.
The resolution precedes the ICJ opinion into three obligations: adopt national climate plans strong enough to keep warming below 1.5°C; phase out subsidies for fossil-fuel exploration, production, and exploitation; and provide full reparation for damage caused by violations.
A fourth element — an International Register of Damage to log claims — was dropped after a dozen rounds of consultations to broaden support. Even without it, the resolution is the closest the UN has come to declaring climate inaction unlawful.
Surprisingly, the no votes came from the United States, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia – four of the world’s top oil and gas producers and biggest emitters. Washington called the measure highly problematic and a major threat to US industry.
Reports suggested that the State Department guidance from February shows the US had quietly pressed Vanuatu, the draft’s original sponsor, to withdraw it. That campaign failed. The 141 yes-votes included the EU, most of Africa, Latin America, and nearly every nation facing existential risk from rising seas.
Resolutions don’t shut coal plants, but they change the rules of argument. The ICJ opinion now carries the explicit support of 141 states. Domestic courts in the Netherlands, Germany, and India have already used climate obligations to strike down weak policies. Litigants from Jakarta to Louisiana will cite Wednesday’s vote and banks, insurers, and pension funds will price it in. For small island states, it converts a plea for survival into a legal lever.
Vanuatu an island nation which brought the draft is already faced with a threat of submerging entirely. In Tuvalu, where average elevation is 6.6 feet, more than a third of citizens have applied for Australia’s climate migration visa. By 2100, most of the country will be underwater at high tide.
Nauru, is selling passports to fund possible relocation. These nations emitted almost none of the 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO₂ now overheating the atmosphere, yet they are paying first. Reparation for them means sea walls today or a new homeland tomorrow.
The call to end fossil-fuel subsidies hits a $7 trillion contradiction. The IMF put global explicit and implicit subsidies at that level in 2022. G20 leaders promised to phase them out in 2009. They haven’t, because subsidies are political. The US no-vote is consistent with current drilling leases; the Saudi vote is consistent with Aramco’s expansion plans. But 141 yes-votes signal that the fiscal and political cover for those subsidies is eroding.
By voting with Russia and Iran, the US surrendered the climate high ground it has claimed since rejoining Paris. The State Department’s own memo admits the ICJ opinion could influence US courts. Cities suing oil majors will quote this vote. Pacific states seeking damages will too. Opposing a register of damage today does not eliminate liability; it just moves the fight to other venues.
Climate change has been a real threat which most of the developed nations tend to ignore. The crisis is huge for the developing or the third world countries where people have to bear with the change at the cost of their livelihood and even lives at times.
Countries like the United States, with 25% of historical emissions will always oppose such resolutions, but should this hegemonic stand be allowed. This is a question for those who tend to suffer due to the climate change.
