The first exhibit by the defense should be of the plaintiffs using fossil fuel vehicles. And then of all the clothing and such made with petroleum
Fossil Fuel Exports at Center of UN Human Rights Case Against Australian Government
Ten Australians filed a case with the United Nations Human Rights Committee arguing the Australian government is violating their human rights by failing to limit coal and gas exports — by far Australia’s largest contribution to climate change. The 10 claimants are represented by the Human Rights Law Centre, Environmental Justice Australia, and Earthjustice.
This is the first case filed in an international body against a country for climate harm since the International Court of Justice, the United Nations’ judicial arm, affirmed that all governments have a legal obligation to prevent significant harm to the climate. In May, Australia joined 140 other countries in passing a major United Nations resolution supporting this landmark legal ruling on climate change.
“All governments have a legal duty to act on the climate crisis, as affirmed by the International Court of Justice last year. The Australian government is failing that responsibility by allowing unchecked exports of coal and gas,” said Ramin Pejan, Deputy Managing Attorney of the International Program at Earthjustice. “This case sends a clear message: governments must act to reduce climate pollution from coal and gas and protect their people from harm.”
Each of the claimants has been seriously harmed by extreme weather events, from catastrophic bushfires and heatwaves to sea level rise and flooding. Their claim asks the UN Human Rights Committee to declare that it is unlawful for Australia to continue approving coal and gas projects for export without a plan to keep Australians safe from dangerous climate change.
So the United Nations is now the government of Australia? That’s what the case will boil down to, if the UN has the legal authority to dictate how the sovereign nation of Australia acts. Legislates. How many times have I written that the point of climate alarmism is all about dictatorial government? And what is more controlling that having the UN in charge?
Global Warming Denier Nut typed: “The first exhibit by the defense should be of the plaintiffs using fossil fuel vehicles. And then of all the clothing and such made with petroleum”
That is Teach’s simple-minded go-to “gotcha”!! LOL. It’s the All-or-None fallacy. If those he slurs as warmists do not comply 100% they have done nothing! If they drive a E-car, why are they driving a car that used petrol in its construction? Gotcha! Why do they wear clothes with a some polyester? Gotcha!! Do you heat your home? Gotcha!! Do you eat a burger a week? Gotcha!!
I ask Teach: If you’re a fiscal conservative why do you support Profligate Donny who is spending us into oblivion? Why do you drive on government roads? Breathe government cleaned air? Drink government pure water? Will you collect Social Security and Medicare?
Teach stop using any electricity generated by windmills that kill whales and cause cancer.
Teach is always trying to use a modified ad hominem attack called “Tu Quoque” you also.
It has no relationship if the argument. Climate change, is either valid or sound.
Teach days using solar and wind to generate electricity is wrong. But he himself continues to use it. Yet, he demands his despised youts must immediately end all use of fossil fuel generated electricity.
Tu Quoque arguments are logical fallacies