Fwd: A Legal Win for the Planet and the People

[John Nissen]

Hi all,

We could have the backing of the International Court of Justice for our mission of planetary restoration.  The ICJ says that it is a moral duty to give future generations a "clean, healthy and sustainable environment".  Arguably, a precondition is to return the planet to the norms of the late Holocene which allowed the development and flourishing of our modern global civilisation.  The planet has been accelerating away from these norms; cooling intervention is required to restore them.

Quote:

In a historic moment for climate justice and international law, the International Court of Justice recently declared that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right.

Furthermore, we could have the backing of the Global South.

Quote:

This decision is the result of years of advocacy, particularly by vulnerable nations such as Vanuatu and others in the Caribbean and Pacific who have long warned of the disproportionate impacts of climate change. For them, the ICJ’s opinion offers more than symbolism; it provides a foundation to seek fairness and accountability in an increasingly unequal climate crisis.

Cheers, John

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: VoLo Foundation <vo...@volofoundation.org>
Date: Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 3:00 AM
Subject: A Legal Win for the Planet and the People
To: <johnnis...@gmail.com>

Must-read climate news brought to you by VoLo Foundation.

View this email in your browser A Legal Win for the Planet and the People The International Court of Justice just made clear: climate action isn’t optional. It’s a human right By Thais Lopez Vogel In a historic moment for climate justice and international law, the International Court of Justice recently declared that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right. As an advisory opinion, it does not impose enforceable obligations but serves to clarify international law and guide future decisions. The court’s unanimous ruling marks a significant shift: climate responsibility is no longer seen as an abstract goal or an act of goodwill, but as a legal and moral obligation owed to every person on the planet. This decision is the result of years of advocacy, particularly by vulnerable nations such as Vanuatu and others in the Caribbean and Pacific who have long warned of the disproportionate impacts of climate change. For them, the ICJ’s opinion offers more than symbolism; it provides a foundation to seek fairness and accountability in an increasingly unequal climate crisis. This outcome brings several key benefits. First, it elevates environmental protection to the level of a fundamental human right. This strengthens the legal basis for climate litigation against both governments that fail to act and corporations that profit from pollution without facing consequences. Second, the court states that failing to take meaningful climate action could amount to an “internationally wrongful act,” potentially opening the door to future claims for reparations. This is especially important for communities that have contributed the least to global emissions yet experience the most severe consequences. Third, the ruling emphasizes the responsibility of states to regulate private actors and uphold intergenerational equity. Vague pledges and voluntary targets are not enough; governments must implement enforceable policies and laws that effectively protect both people and the planet. Finally, the opinion offers a moral compass for a world where climate action is often treated as optional. It reinforces the idea that there is no path to sustainable development, peace, or prosperity that ignores the right to a healthy environment.  Read more More Recent Articles: VoLo Foundation Sponsors Climate Change Reports on VPITV Texas Floods Show the Deadly Mix of Heat, Drought, and Rain Warmer Seas Fuel a More Active and Intense Hurricane Season Subscribe now to stay informed and learn more about VoLo Foundation's commitment to climate action through data-driven research. To learn more about VoLo Foundation, visit our website at www.volofoundation.org. Subscribe Now Copyright © 2025 VoLo Foundation, All rights reserved. You are on this list because you have subscribed to receive updates from VoLo Foundation Want to change how you receive these emails? Click here to unsubscribe from this list.

[Tom Goreau]

All you have to do is bring the outlaw nations on board, the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran…….

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_FxqdkMAUv05cKedTsT-EJtr50HN7kkg_b1Y7oMdNYcWvbA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dana Woods]

China and Israel don't recognize its jurisdiction either according to google AI ( which said nada about Iran for whatever reason) . The US (where I am a citizen) is so reprehensible and under any political party 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/BY3PR13MB49947C4CA126EB8A09CC3EEDDD3EA%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[Tim Foresman]

Count the wins. Cheers Tim 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android

---

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 5:29:17 PM
To: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>
Subject: [HPAC] Fwd: A Legal Win for the Planet and the People

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxqdkMAUv05cKedTsT-EJtr50HN7kkg_b1Y7oMdNYcWvbA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Chris]

I wouldn't get too excited about the ICJ decision.  It's not a policymaking entity.  I think we get a better sense of where environmental concerns are on the international agenda by looking at the fiasco of the recent negotiations on plastic pollution. 

The BBC reports this as 'Global plastic talks collapse as countries remain deeply divided', while on the same day the UN optimistically spins it reporting it as 'Plastic pollution treaty talks adjourn, but countries want to ‘remain at the table’ '.  

Fossil fuel interests still reign supreme.  If progress on any of these issues requires the petrostates' agreement, we have some way to go.

Regards

Robert

---

From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Dana Woods <danaj...@gmail.com>
Sent: 25 August 2025 04:41
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Fwd: A Legal Win for the Planet and the People

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAKum48sMm%2BdON4m-qq6OS2dsFz0owBg0NxXjKESC04Ykr%3Dn_Hg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

The same folks who killed the plastics treaty killed CO2 accounting, for the same reason, plastics come from petroleum

 

A Legal Win for the Planet and the People

The International Court of Justice just made clear: climate action isn’t optional. It’s a human right By Thais Lopez Vogel In a historic moment for climate justice and international law, the International Court of Justice recently declared that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right. As an advisory opinion, it does not impose enforceable obligations but serves to clarify international law and guide future decisions. The court’s unanimous ruling marks a significant shift: climate responsibility is no longer seen as an abstract goal or an act of goodwill, but as a legal and moral obligation owed to every person on the planet. This decision is the result of years of advocacy, particularly by vulnerable nations such as Vanuatu and others in the Caribbean and Pacific who have long warned of the disproportionate impacts of climate change. For them, the ICJ’s opinion offers more than symbolism; it provides a foundation to seek fairness and accountability in an increasingly unequal climate crisis. This outcome brings several key benefits. First, it elevates environmental protection to the level of a fundamental human right. This strengthens the legal basis for climate litigation against both governments that fail to act and corporations that profit from pollution without facing consequences. Second, the court states that failing to take meaningful climate action could amount to an “internationally wrongful act,” potentially opening the door to future claims for reparations. This is especially important for communities that have contributed the least to global emissions yet experience the most severe consequences. Third, the ruling emphasizes the responsibility of states to regulate private actors and uphold intergenerational equity. Vague pledges and voluntary targets are not enough; governments must implement enforceable policies and laws that effectively protect both people and the planet. Finally, the opinion offers a moral compass for a world where climate action is often treated as optional. It reinforces the idea that there is no path to sustainable development, peace, or prosperity that ignores the right to a healthy environment.    Read more     More Recent Articles: VoLo Foundation Sponsors Climate Change Reports on VPITV Texas Floods Show the Deadly Mix of Heat, Drought, and Rain Warmer Seas Fuel a More Active and Intense Hurricane Season

Subscribe now to stay informed and learn more about VoLo Foundation's commitment to climate action through data-driven research. To learn more about VoLo Foundation, visit our website at www.volofoundation.org.   Subscribe Now

Copyright © 2025 VoLo Foundation, All rights reserved. You are on this list because you have subscribed to receive updates from VoLo Foundation Want to change how you receive these emails? Click here to unsubscribe from this list.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_FxqdkMAUv05cKedTsT-EJtr50HN7kkg_b1Y7oMdNYcWvbA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/BY3PR13MB49947C4CA126EB8A09CC3EEDDD3EA%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[Robert Chris]

Robin, that's all well and good, but how does an ICJ legal opinion get turned into a widely accepted policy?  It would be good to know of some examples of where this has happened on other contested and controversial policy questions.  Are there any?

Regards

Robert

---

From: Robin Collins <robin.w...@gmail.com>
Sent: 25 August 2025 15:57
To: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: Dana Woods <danaj...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Re: [prag] Fwd: A Legal Win for the Planet and the People

 

The ICJ is the highest level of international law, whether an “advisory opinion” or a “decision” and even absent enforcement capability. Its deliberations are therefore extremely important. 

It is true that states can accept or reject jurisdiction but all UN members are party to the  ICJ. 

Robin 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/VI1P194MB0398912CF0C1960E8608031EFC3EA%40VI1P194MB0398.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Tom Goreau]

Moral suasion, their tool, does not work win amoral emperors.

 

A Legal Win for the Planet and the People

The International Court of Justice just made clear: climate action isn’t optional. It’s a human right By Thais Lopez Vogel In a historic moment for climate justice and international law, the International Court of Justice recently declared that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right. As an advisory opinion, it does not impose enforceable obligations but serves to clarify international law and guide future decisions. The court’s unanimous ruling marks a significant shift: climate responsibility is no longer seen as an abstract goal or an act of goodwill, but as a legal and moral obligation owed to every person on the planet. This decision is the result of years of advocacy, particularly by vulnerable nations such as Vanuatu and others in the Caribbean and Pacific who have long warned of the disproportionate impacts of climate change. For them, the ICJ’s opinion offers more than symbolism; it provides a foundation to seek fairness and accountability in an increasingly unequal climate crisis. This outcome brings several key benefits. First, it elevates environmental protection to the level of a fundamental human right. This strengthens the legal basis for climate litigation against both governments that fail to act and corporations that profit from pollution without facing consequences. Second, the court states that failing to take meaningful climate action could amount to an “internationally wrongful act,” potentially opening the door to future claims for reparations. This is especially important for communities that have contributed the least to global emissions yet experience the most severe consequences. Third, the ruling emphasizes the responsibility of states to regulate private actors and uphold intergenerational equity. Vague pledges and voluntary targets are not enough; governments must implement enforceable policies and laws that effectively protect both people and the planet. Finally, the opinion offers a moral compass for a world where climate action is often treated as optional. It reinforces the idea that there is no path to sustainable development, peace, or prosperity that ignores the right to a healthy environment.    Read more     More Recent Articles: VoLo Foundation Sponsors Climate Change Reports on VPITV Texas Floods Show the Deadly Mix of Heat, Drought, and Rain Warmer Seas Fuel a More Active and Intense Hurricane Season

Subscribe now to stay informed and learn more about VoLo Foundation's commitment to climate action through data-driven research. To learn more about VoLo Foundation, visit our website at www.volofoundation.org.   Subscribe Now

Copyright © 2025 VoLo Foundation, All rights reserved. You are on this list because you have subscribed to receive updates from VoLo Foundation Want to change how you receive these emails? Click here to unsubscribe from this list.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_FxqdkMAUv05cKedTsT-EJtr50HN7kkg_b1Y7oMdNYcWvbA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.

[Robin Collins]

For your convenience, here is the full ICJ list. The ICC also has a (shorter) list. 

https://www.icj-cij.org/decisions

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 8:11 AM Robin Collins <robin.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

Tom, Robert

These are two different questions: Implementation of a legal opinion/decision (enforcement) versus the existence of a law or obligation. 

If there were no Court decision, then those emperors and violators would have nothing to violate. At the same time, there being a body of law in place does not eliminate emperors and violators. 

However, change can be a slow process (but it can also occur rapidly after influencing elements accumulate). The ICJ is a tool and a very important one. I can offer examples of other ICJ opinions and decisions that have been influential but I think the case for a normative influence is obvious. 

Robin 

[Robin Collins]

The ICJ is the highest level of international law, whether an “advisory opinion” or a “decision” and even absent enforcement capability. Its deliberations are therefore extremely important. 

It is true that states can accept or reject jurisdiction but all UN members are party to the  ICJ. 

Robin 

On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 9:08 AM Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/VI1P194MB0398912CF0C1960E8608031EFC3EA%40VI1P194MB0398.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Robin Collins]

Tom, Robert

These are two different questions: Implementation of a legal opinion/decision (enforcement) versus the existence of a law or obligation. 

If there were no Court decision, then those emperors and violators would have nothing to violate. At the same time, there being a body of law in place does not eliminate emperors and violators. 

However, change can be a slow process (but it can also occur rapidly after influencing elements accumulate). The ICJ is a tool and a very important one. I can offer examples of other ICJ opinions and decisions that have been influential but I think the case for a normative influence is obvious. 

Robin