The persistent belief in certain quarters that the key to good policy is good intentions, superbly assessed in Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions, was prominently on display in a Euronews.green headline “UN's top court says healthy environment is a human right in historic climate ruling”. In the old days, the Battle of Hastings was historic not because William of Normandy said he intended to go conquer England, it was historic because he did it. In much the same way that Hitler’s conquest of Britain was not historic because he didn’t. But now “Experts say the non-binding advisory opinion could mark a turning point in international climate law.” Even giving them an undeserved break on the “non-binding” and “could” and “experts say”, the key point is their assumption that European politicians have not yet done the good thing on climate because of insufficient motivation rather than because they didn’t know how.

This ruling is the best thing since captured carbon, to hear the alarmists tell it. Bloomberg Green Daily emailed “A new era for climate lawsuits” as if any sane person felt that more time in court would be a blessing for anyone. But hey, their friends will cash in… if beggars ride:

“In a first-of-its kind ruling, the International Court of Justice said on Wednesday that countries have an obligation to do all they can to keep global warming below the 1.5C goal outlined by the Paris Agreement, and could face consequences if they don’t. In one of the punchiest elements of the decision, consisting of 140 pages, the court said nations that have contributed most to climate change could be liable for ‘reparations’ to those hardest hit by the impacts of global warming. The likes of the European Union and the US have strongly rejected such calls by developing countries and small island states in the past.”

Reuters “Sustainable Switch” (no, they still haven’t figured out how to post their newsletter online but they can save the planet) switched on the fountain with:

“This week, the United Nations' highest court delivered an opinion set to determine future environmental litigation … the landmark legal opinion by the International Court of Justice [said] countries must address the ‘urgent and existential threat’ of climate change by cooperating to curb emissions. The ICJ said failure by countries to meet their climate obligations could, in specific cases, lead other states affected by climate change to litigate.”

And Climate Home News trills “World court puts fossil fuel backers on notice” because:

“Climate-threatened small island states like Vanuatu had high hopes for this week’s advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on states’ legal obligations with regard to climate change and human rights. The landmark ruling surpassed their expectations. In a two-hour reading of the unprecedented opinion in The Hague, the court’s top judge made clear that states can be held to account if they damage the Earth’s climate – and people’s rights – by allowing the ongoing production and use of fossil fuels.”

Held to account how? Could be liable how? Could face what consequences? Litigate in what forum? Um uh that is to say…

Or rather not to say. We’re not in the world of practicalities here but that of politics in judicial robes with a wizard’s hat. Hence the thundering herd of wish-horses in that Euronews item, including:

“A ‘clean, healthy and sustainable environment’ is a human right and, if countries fail to take ‘appropriate action to protect the climate system’, they could be in violation of international law, according to the UN's top court. Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have just delivered a long-awaited advisory opinion on nations' climate obligations and the consequences they face if they don't fulfil them.”

A major problem, speaking of Europe and England, is the old legal principle in the latter “No right without a remedy”. Anglosphere law doesn’t tell you that you have a right to something unless it gives you a specific practical method, a writ or some such, that enables you to get it. For instance security of the person and habeas corpus. Whereas from the French to the Russian revolution, you were promised endless things that, like a locked candy store, sure appealed but were not accessible.

It's also encapsulated in Buster Scruggs’ question we’ve quoted before, “And iffn I don’t?” Suppose some country doesn’t give its people that “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” the court and the news story so blithely assume is well-defined and now available. What are these famous “consequences”?

None whatsoever. As when Stalin didn’t respect your right to freedom of speech or religion, the only recourse was a bullet. In your brain, from a KGB gun. Not the same.

Another ghost right in the sky that loped on by was that the court:

“also said that countries harmed by climate change could also be entitled to reparations, but what they are owed must be decided on a case-by-case basis.”

By whom? And so what?

There is a sound rule that people who think differently from you think differently from you. And hence, the story reports po-faced and without a hint of skepticism:

“‘Today, the tables have turned,’ Mary Robinson, Member of the Elders, First woman President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said in a statement. ‘The World's highest court provided us with a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of the climate crisis and to deliver justice for the harm their emissions have already caused.’”

A powerful new tool to put in the same box as the tissue-paper jackhammer and cardboard pistol.

In for a penny, in for a pounding, as the Duke of Wellington once said. Hence:

“ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa called climate change an ‘existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet’.”

Do not, we beseech you, ask him whether he really thinks “climate change” might wipe out all bacteria, or how “the very health of our planet” differs from that of the life on it or indeed the mere “health of our planet”. It’s not that kind of a ruling. Or of an ideology.

Oh, and if you were wondering who these experts who say are and what exactly their expertise consists of, it’s the usual suspects thinking words are deeds. Hence:

“Sarah Mead, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network, adds that the ruling validates what a majority of people around the world expect from their governments – meaningful climate action.”

Actual polls worldwide indicate that climate action, let alone meaningful climate action, is way down on people’s priority list. But these people are experts on what they and their friends think should be, not what is. A major reason, ironically, that this ruling was yet more meaningless climate action.