Disagreeable Climate

Today’s episode of Nobody Does Alienation Like America features what is likely to be extreme indifference, if not twin middle fingers, from national leaders in response to combating climate change. 

Last month the world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice at the Hague, issued an advisory opinion that said countries are obligated to protect climate systems and to mitigate the damages caused by climate change for present and future generations. 

“Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences (sic) or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State,” according to the ICJ press release on the decision. 

The Court floated the ideas of cessation of harmful practices, promises by nations to not repeat them and even restitution and reparations to communities and entire nations adversely affected by a particular country’s actions. Just days later, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency went the opposite direction and announced that it aimed to repeal a provision that greenhouse gases endanger public health and that permitted their regulation under the Clean Air Act. 

The proposed repeal of the so-called “endangerment finding” is part of a planned rollback of more than 30 environmental rules dealing with air and water and climate change that EPA chief and arsonist Lee Zeldin announced back in March. “There are people who, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country,” Zeldin said on a conservative podcast. His predecessors under Presidents Obama and Biden, he said, “twisted the law, ignored precedent and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year.” No mention of the increased costs, financially and psychically, of more frequent and severe disasters exacerbated by climate change. 

The “endangerment finding” dates to a 2007 court case brought against the EPA under George W. Bush’s administration in which the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that greenhouse gases qualified as an “air pollutant” under the broad definition in the Clean Air Act. The EPA announced the endangerment finding in 2009. Despite the SCOTUS ruling, Zeldin and the Trump administration are buoyed by a couple of recent court decisions that limited the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases (gee, I wonder what changed between then and now?) 

If you think that resistance to climate change accountability is limited to conservatives and the fossil fuel lobby, consider that last December the U.S. legal advisor to the State Department under Biden, a woman named Margaret Taylor, argued before the ICJ that human rights laws do not provide for a right to a healthy environment, nor should countries be financially responsible for the effects due to past emissions. The Court disagreed. The Court also disagreed with two oft-used arguments against accountability – that climate change is too big and complex to assign blame to individual countries or entities, and that agreements on emissions and pollutants, such as the Paris Agreement or Kyoto Protocol, are largely voluntary and thus not open to legal action. 

The ICJ’s counters to those arguments are that science has advanced to the point that companies’ and countries’ emissions and pollutants can be more accurately measured and thus not an excuse to evade liability. The Court also said that combating climate change can no longer be voluntary because of the increasing damage to communities, individuals, entire regions, and that climate agreements are legally binding. The ICJ also cited customary law – well established fundamental legal principles interwoven with many countries’ own legal systems, such as human rights laws – that a state can be legally liable for failure to reduce climate change practices. 

Granted, an advisory opinion isn’t legally binding, and there’s no global police force to come knocking on the door and perp-walk the accused. But the ICJ’s findings, and our actions, carry symbolic heft. At a time when much of the world leans toward cooperation and consensus on addressing climate change, the U.S. has leaders who respond with a hearty “No thanks,” if not “Piss off.” The current administration, in particular, understands only power and views cooperation and compromise as weakness. Reducing dependency on fossil fuels is inconvenient, if not un-American. 

The Big Dumb Orange Guy hasn’t responded directly to the ICJ’s findings, but as he routinely criticizes domestic courts and judges with which he disagrees and treats the U.S. Constitution as a work-around, he and his enablers aren’t likely to fall in with international court decisions. Globally, we are well on our way to becoming the obnoxious, bullying uncle that the family despises but is forced to endure at holidays because he’s president of the town bank and owns the local hardware store. We are a transactional actor that abandons colleagues (Ukraine), antagonizes allies (NATO), shelves “soft diplomacy” (USAID cuts abroad), slaps tariffs on friend and foe alike, and targets immigrants and the “wrong” sorts of Americans, all while further enriching the wealthy. Many of those actions can be reversed or undone, though not without cost in terms of trust and respect. The costs of denying or ignoring climate change, however, are far greater than scorn and ridicule.