- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 4,626
- Points
- 234
So far, national as well as supranational courts and lawmakers have done an okay job reining in attempts to impose unjustifiable restrictions; and whatever powers were granted are generally tied to the non-replicable emergency situation that is a global pandemic. This is what distinguishes the current crisis from anti-terror legislation with its lower thresholds, for example.
I'd worry about something else. Courts in the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden have recently decided their countries must to do more to lower their carbon footprint. Top courts all over the continent now seem on the verge of accepting the absurd notion that not doing enough to fight climate change is tantamount to violating future generations' right to exist.
Mind you, I'm not using the word "absurd" here in order to controvert climate change; clearly, earth's climate has been changing. However, even the most pessimistic of predictions don't expect this world to become uninhabitable anytime soon, and certainly not within the lifetime of the activist douchebags to whom we owe this unfolding mess.
Unless one is to postulate their right to sue in the name of their yet unborn great-great-great-[…]-grandchildren, the courts have essentially drafted a right to be protected from earth's atmosphere warming up a little and from being subjected to more extreme weather events. This is bonkers, especially since it's impossible to prove an individual weather event was caused by climate change.
A week ago, a Dutch court ordered Shell to expedite their carbon footprint reduction plans. They're just one step away from allowing every human being to sue "climate sinners" for damages. Be sure to recognise the implications: So, climate change will increase the frequency of extreme weather events. Alright. The court argued the increased risk infringes human rights. So far, so good.
But even if we assume this to be true, how could anyone possibly establish Shell's individual responsibility? The activists – and also, apparently, the judges – would have you compare Shell's carbon footprint with the overall output. But that's not how liability is determined in a proper court of law. Slapping a guy during a bar fight doesn't make you one-third of a murderer if two other blokes proceeded to cave the poor sod's skull in.
Drôme!
