Over several decades, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has evolved into a European government in itself. … In the first climate case pending before it, the Court decided, on its own volition, to add “torture” to the charges against 33 states that allegedly do not do enough to combat climate change, as required by the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The Court suggests that these states may have committed “torture” by adopting “inadequate climate policies.” …
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) provides that torture, “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack,” is a crime against humanity. Consequently, not implementing adequate climate policy would be a crime against humanity that can be prosecuted by the ICC. …
International Criminal Court (ICC)
“Torturers” at risk:
Corporate executives of companies deemed to be responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, politicians that do not support ambitious climate policies, and everyone else who advocates against the climate movement’s agenda would be exposed to criminal prosecution and imprisonment of up to 30 years. …
Disputing the carbon dioxide theory of climate change to be punished by up to 30 years in jail:
Needless to say, the threat of life imprisonment is a very powerful disincentive. As an academic author for UNESCO put it: “Criminal sanctions are the most potent tools we have to mark out conduct that lies beyond all limits of toleration. Criminal conduct violates basic rights and destroys human security. We reserve the hard treatment of punishment for conduct that damages the things we hold most fundamentally valuable. Climate change is causing precisely such damage.”
“Ecocide” is a new crime committed by deniers or those with insufficient enthusiasm for curbing carbon emissions:
“Ecocide” refers to the “devastation and destruction of the environment,” but no official legal definition yet exists. For decades, greens have been trying to get ecocide recognized as an international crime …
In June 2021, an expert panel convened by the Stop Ecocide Foundation published a definition of “ecocide” intended to serve as the basis for an amendment to the Rome Statute of the ICC. Once the Rome Statute is amended to include ecocide, individuals suspected of having committed ecocide can be tried before the ICC.
With this amendment, the prohibition of climate denial becomes redundant because the Rome Statute threatens imprisonment against not only those who commit a crime but also anyone who “induces the commission of such a crime,” “aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission,” or “in any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons.” Moreover, the Rome Statute applies equally to all persons, without any distinction based on official capacity; specifically, elected representatives and government officials are not exempt from criminal responsibility.
Thus, politicians, corporate executives, thought leaders, and anyone else can be subject to criminal prosecution if they express an opinion or pursue a policy deemed to be “anti-climate” that therefore may result in ecocide. …
Make no mistake: while the definition of ecocide is broad and vague, the primary target of the ecocide movement is climate change. Civil liability law and human rights law give climate activists the tools to force governments and companies to comply with their demands, but this kind of litigation is expensive and takes time. The new crime of ecocide would give them a powerful instrument to shortcut the process by threatening criminal sanctions against corporate directors and officers, as well as reluctant politicians and opinion leaders, and to force them to change their ways.
Climate activists also believe that the term “ecocide” will have an emotive and stigmatizing effect that “causing climate change” does not have. As one author puts it:
The term “ecocide” sounds dramatic. It is more emotive than “contributing to pollution” or “increasing greenhouse gas emissions” or “investing in fossil fuels.” It communicates the gravity and urgency of the irreversible destruction being inflicted on the environment. It unambiguously casts major polluters as “villains,” perpetrators of a crime (emphasis added).
Yet the global temperature peaked in late 2016, as predicted. More on that soon.
Like most left wing projects, the climate change movement is based on erroneous assumptions. Thus, it will eventually run aground on the shoals of reality.
In fact, the carbon dioxide theory has already been contradicted by observed reality in subtle but definite ways for 50 years — but the propaganda machine was able to cover up those problems.
However, the problems with the theory are going to be undeniable to the common man as it cools going into the mid century. What then? The Soviet Union just fell apart after its economic system was found to be poverty-inducing and unsustainable, despite the left wing utopian word games and the murder of 20 million non-compliant individuals.