My blog has moved!

You will be automatically redirected to the new address. If that does not occur, visit
and update your bookmarks.

Thursday, 15 April 2010

Climate change: if you don't believe in it, you're an "ecocide"

International Criminal Court (ICC) Haagse ArcImage by ekenitr via Flickr
A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace - alongside genocide and crimes against humanity - is being launched in the UK.
The proposal for the United Nations to accept "ecocide" as a fifth "crime against peace", which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.
The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.
Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.

Wow. Impressive. So man-made climate change is far from being scientifically tested but if you don't believe in it, you're going to be prosecuted (if this is implemented). The ICC cannot even go against Sudanese President Al-Bashir for the Darfurian genocide (they can't even arrest him) but are going to prosecute anyone who doesn't agree with their views on a belief.

The UN, just as deaf as these guys, is pushing the climate change agenda: the last one is the access to water sources. Ban Ki-Moon wants that access to water is considered as a climate change issue:
While access to water is a legitimate issue, it is generally not an issue that is global in scope that requires UN intervention. For instance, tensions between Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan over the Nile River are long standing. Various sources of the Nile extend further into central Africa, so it is a regional issue, but it is hardly global.
The Aral Sea Ban mentions is split between Khazakstan and Uzbekistan. Their countries’ leaders, (as well as some neighboring countries) obviously would share concerns in how that water is used. If they want to bring in the UN to help resolve any disputes (most likely the International Court of Justice) or to provide advice on water management, then that is their call. But there is no natural nexus for UN involvement.
Everything with our own money tax-collected.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be polite. I don't usually erase any comment but I will do if:
1.- It's spam.
2.- You're trolling.
Thanks for leaving your comments.