Wise Up Journal
by Gabriel O’Hara
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Lawyers call for international court for the environment
A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change.
Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.
The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.
But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the “right to a healthy environment”.
The […] idea is being presented to an audience of politicians, scientists and public figures
Mr Hockman, a deputy High Court judge, said that the threat of climate change means it is more important than ever for the law to protect the environment.
The UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland this month is set to begin negotiations that will lead to a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next year. Developed countries are expected to commit to cutting emissions drastically,
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has agreed the concept of an international court will be taken into account when considering how to make these international agreements on climate change binding. The court is also backed by a number of MPs, climate change experts and public figures including the actress Judi Dench.
Mr Hockman said an international court will be needed to enforce and regulate any agreement.
“The time is now ripe to set this up and get it going,” he said. “Its remit will be overall climate change and the need for better regulation of carbon emissions but at the same time the implementation and enforcement of international environmental agreements and instruments.”
As well as providing resolution between states, the court will also be useful for multinational businesses in ensuring environmental laws are kept to in every country.
The court would include a convention on the right to a healthy environment and provide a higher body for individuals or non-governmental organisations to protest against an environmental injustice.
Mr Hockman said the court may be able to fine businesses or states
He said: “Of course regulations and sanctions alone cannot deliver a global solution to problems of climate change, but without such components the incentive for individual countries to address those problems – and to achieve solutions that are politically acceptable within their own jurisdictions – will be much reduced.”
The court would be led by retired judges, climate change experts and public figures. It would include a scientific body to consider evidence and provide access to any data on the environment.
Most importantly, Mr Hockman said an international court on the environment would influence public opinion which in turn would force Governments to take the environment seriously.
Friends of the Earth welcomed the idea.
A spokesman said: “We think any institution that is going to promote and help people enforce their right to a clean and healthy environment is a good thing.”
The right to a “healthy” environment by taking away your other rights
Quote from the UN’s Division for sustainable development: “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.” – Excerpt from attorney Dan Sitarz’s book about the United Nations’ Agenda 21, the blueprint for the 21st century (Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy), written with the cooperation of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
Who Will Control Your Thermostat?
In California, we have 236 pages of state-mandated standards for building energy efficiency, known as Title 24.
What should be controversial in the proposed revisions to Title 24 is the requirement for what is called a “programmable communicating thermostat” or PCT. Every new home and every change to existing homes’ central heating and air conditioning systems will required to be fitted with a PCT beginning next year following the issuance of the revision. Each PCT will be fitted with a “non-removable ” FM receiver that will allow the power authorities to increase your air conditioning temperature setpoint or decrease your heater temperature setpoint to any value they chose. During “price events” those changes are limited to +/- four degrees F and you would be able to manually override the changes. During “emergency events” the new setpoints can be whatever the power authority desires and you would not be able to alter them.
In other words, the temperature of your home will no longer be yours to control. Your desires and needs can and will be overridden by the state of California through its public and private utility organizations. All this is for the common good, of course.
Nokia launches Home Control centre
The Home Control Center, which will go on sale at the end of next year, will mean British consumers are one step closer to living in “networked homes”, where everyday systems and devices are connected to the internet
Nokia’s platform will run the open-source Linux operating system, meaning that third-party manufacturers that make fridges and televisions, will be able to build compatible technology into their devices at minimal cost.
Nokia has signed an agreement with energy company RWE to work on building compatible systems that can be operated remotely by mobile phone or through a computer.
EU Must Build Military in Face of Climate Change
The press reported “the European Union threatens to impose trade sanctions on [developing] nations which fail to join a global climate deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol.” This news report titled “EU Must Build Military in Face of Climate Change“ is about “a joint report from the EU’s two top foreign-policy officials” in which other made up estimates based on bogus info like Al Gore’s movie is published such as, “’significant decreases [in crop yields] are expected to hit Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia and thus affect stability in a vitally strategic region for Europe,’ predicts the report, while ‘water supply in Israel might fall by 60 percent over this century.’” It is interesting to note that the Lisbon Treaty commits the EU to combating climate change and it does not say man-made global warming or man-made climate change.
Time to think before it is an ENFORCED political dogma?
Top rocket scientist and carbon accounting expert Dr. Richard Evans completely reversed his position on man-made Global Warming. “The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect,” he said. Evans explained why he first went along with the agenda, “the evidence was not conclusive” [but] “soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.”