This ruling makes no sense. You cannot manufacture solar PVs or wind turbines or EVs without fossil fuels. Then, as Jason Hinkel points out, countries where mining, smelting and chemical manufacturing for electronics (including solar PVs, batteries, smartphones, EVs and wind turbines) take place...have high emissions. Countries that receive discarded electronics have major environmental problems. Countries that purchase these devices and "renewable" energy systems have low emissions. Ignoring these situations does not lead to climate justice.
Thanks for this, Katie. I agree - apart from your first sentence.
I think there are two reasons that this ruling *could* make a difference:
- It rules that states could be held to account for failing to limit greenhouse gas emissions. So, in theory, countries in the Global South could sue rich countries that are historically responsible for most emissions.
- It specifically mentions fossil fuels as the driver of the climate crisis. It took the UNFCCC nearly 30 years to even mention fossil fuels.
I think Jason Hickel is spot on when he writes, "We know that, in order to meet the Paris Agreement goals, high-income countries must reduce total energy use. Some of this can be achieved through efficiency improvements, yes. But it also requires scaling down damaging and unnecessary forms of production – not just fossil fuels, but also things like SUVs, private jets, mansions, fast fashion, industrial beef, advertising, and the practice of planned obsolescence."
This ruling makes no sense. You cannot manufacture solar PVs or wind turbines or EVs without fossil fuels. Then, as Jason Hinkel points out, countries where mining, smelting and chemical manufacturing for electronics (including solar PVs, batteries, smartphones, EVs and wind turbines) take place...have high emissions. Countries that receive discarded electronics have major environmental problems. Countries that purchase these devices and "renewable" energy systems have low emissions. Ignoring these situations does not lead to climate justice.
Thanks for this, Katie. I agree - apart from your first sentence.
I think there are two reasons that this ruling *could* make a difference:
- It rules that states could be held to account for failing to limit greenhouse gas emissions. So, in theory, countries in the Global South could sue rich countries that are historically responsible for most emissions.
- It specifically mentions fossil fuels as the driver of the climate crisis. It took the UNFCCC nearly 30 years to even mention fossil fuels.
I think Jason Hickel is spot on when he writes, "We know that, in order to meet the Paris Agreement goals, high-income countries must reduce total energy use. Some of this can be achieved through efficiency improvements, yes. But it also requires scaling down damaging and unnecessary forms of production – not just fossil fuels, but also things like SUVs, private jets, mansions, fast fashion, industrial beef, advertising, and the practice of planned obsolescence."
https://jasonhickel.substack.com/p/climate-socialism
And you're absolutely right to point out that the International Court of Justice ruling doesn't even hint at this sort of discussion.
This article by Claire Thomas, director of Minority Rights Group, is interesting: "Can the ICJ opinion bring climate justice for Indigenous peoples?"
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2025/09/01/can-the-icj-opinion-bring-climate-justice-for-indigenous-peoples/