International Court of Justice Proceedings in The Hague

Climate change must be brought to the International Court of Justice because young people, developing nations, and indigenous people have nowhere else to turn. The nation states have failed the most vulnerable people, leaving them at the mercy of the most powerful members of the global community, who turn deaf ears and blind eyes to the well-being of the public.

Nations of the world meet at annual COP meetings (Conferences of the Parties), where they promise to reduce emissions to “net zero” at some distant date, an almost meaningless pledge. There is no plan to actually stabilize climate. Instead, there is dickering over potential payments to the most affected nations. Such illusory payments seem more immediate than long-term climate change, so they are dangled out front, like a carrot, as a bribe to continue business-as-usual. Meanwhile, real world emissions remain at a level driving climate inexorably toward conditions out of humanity’s control, leaving a global community increasingly unjust and ungovernable.

[Omit in oral presentation: Reality of the global situation is not lost on young people, developing nations, indigenous people, and the astute public; thus, many begin to despair of the world paying attention. Young people feel anxiety about climate change and their future. A survey of 10,000 16-to-25-year-olds in ten nations found that 60% were “very worried” or “extremely worried.” Two-thirds of them felt that governments are failing them, and, specifically, that governments are not acting according to science. They see growing wars, changing climate, suffering of innocent people, and governments that concoct only ineffectual responses.]

Young people recognize the fecklessness of the current business-as-usual treadmill. They have faith in science and they want to work toward a bright future, but they need help. A clear opinion of the Court just might provide a jolt to the consciousness and the conscience of global leaders.

Global temperature (Fig. 1) took an unprecedented leap of half a degree Celsius in the past two years, which confounded the climate research community. The warming coincided with an El Nino, but the El Nino was weak and could cause warming of only a quarter of a degree, half of the observed warming. Another big factor had to be involved, which we suggested in the Oxford Open paper was the “Great Inadvertent Aerosol Experiment” caused by restrictions on the sulfur content of ship fuels (Fig. 2), imposed in coastal regions in 2015 and on the global ocean in 2020.

Emissions from ships include aerosols that produce a negative forcing, a cooling, by reflecting sunlight, mainly via increased cloud cover, as aerosols serve as condensation nuclei for clouds. Thus, conventional pollution control results in fewer aerosols, which causes a positive forcing, a warming, by reducing cloud cover and enabling more solar radiation to reach Earth’s surface. We evaluated the forcing stemming from controls on maritime emissions as 0.5 W/m² based on satellite observations of increased absorbed sunlight in the North Pacific and North Atlantic.[6] That forcing of half a watt is just what is needed to explain the anomalous warming, as shown in Fig. 3. After the El Nino contribution to global warming is removed, there is still anomalous warming of 0.3°C in 2023 and 2024 (the green curve in Fig. 3b). The ongoing solar maximum contributes 0.1°C warming and decreased aerosols contribute 0.2°C, both as follows from a simple forcing-response calculation,[7] so the entire warming is accounted for. Confirmation is provided by the geographic distribution of the warming (Fig. 4). Warming occurs, beginning especially in 2020, at the latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere where the aerosol forcing occurs. Temperature increase in the North Pacific and North Atlantic already contributes as much to global warming as does the El Nino in the tropics (Fig. 4), and the response to aerosol forcing is still growing.

Why are we not focusing more on this situation at the COP meetings? Why do we pretend that we are still on a path to keep global warming under 2°C? Why do we not have realistic analysis of the situation? The reason greenhouse gas forcing continues to increase is that fossil fuels provide most of the world’s energy, as shown in Fig. 6a. Fossil fuels are an amazing, condensed, form of energy that has raised living standards in much of the world. There is little merit in painting the fossil fuel industry and nations that contain abundant fossil fuels as evil. Whether they are liable is a question before the World Court right now.

All nations give priority to the economic well-being of their citizens. Fossil fuels have been a great benefit to humanity, but fossil fuels emissions are also the main cause of climate change. We need to work together – all people, nations, and industries, on a realistic path to a bright future.

That brings me to my final point, the most important point. We understand why things are going haywire, why climate is a threat, why we are not reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The science is clear, but the COP meetings don’t even talk about it. Economists agree that CO₂ emissions will not decline as long as the waste products of fossil fuels can be dumped in the air without charge.

It is straightforward for any nation to collect a fee from its small number of fossil fuel sources: domestic mines and ports of entry. The funds should be distributed uniformly to the nation’s citizens. This can be done readily via monthly or quarterly additions to debit cards. Most citizens will come out ahead. Wealthy people, with a large “carbon footprint.” would lose some money, but that would help address the universal problem of wealth disparity. The carbon fee can be set to rise at a rate that allows the fossil fuel industry time to invest in clean energies, carbon capture, or other alternatives. In this basic “carbon fee and dividend” system, no funds enter or leave a nation.

However, in addition, justice requires that payments be made to citizens of nations that suffer climate damage that they did little or nothing to bring about. Human-made climate change is caused not by today’s instantaneous emissions, but by cumulative historical emissions,[13],[14] as shown in Figures 7b and 8b. These facts must be considered in our search for justice.