But the key thought in synergizing these relatively unrelated events is that many of the extreme acts taken by trump and musk right now seem to be in pursuit of controlling not just a narrative, but data and facts available to the public. This accusation is not new by any means, but worth repeating

A striking example of the obstruction and destruction of information availability, which will increasing enable lies like those above to gain traction, is the executive order stopping the National Nature Assessment. I will be diving into what was contained in that assessment in the coming weeks 4/?

One example of this is the lies that Tricia McLoughlin (DHS spokesperson) told regarding use of FEMA funds to pay for luxury hotels for migrants (she said funds were used circumventing leadership to pay for luxury hotels for migrants. This is categorically false) 3/?

While they are doing this, they are spewing blatant falsehoods at such speed and volume that the press can barely keep up and the people who rely on the press even less so 2/?

Which is true, the court can’t just set a limit for ff extraction and production, but this is irrelevant to the case at hand asking what nations obligations are to the ecosphere/world as a whole when it comes to climate impact

Two things stand out to me in Saudi’s statement. 1) they reference the NDC process as the most relevant governing process for nations cc obligation. It’s not, the Paris agreement is.
2) when called out on this by the court, they then claim the court has no authority to limit fossil fuel production-

However as the world’s largest polluter, these statements come across as fairly disingenuous. Their desire to rely on COP agreements definitely appears to align with the goal of maintaining business as usual while doing a lot of talking about progressive goals

Saudi is basically saying the court has no right to issue an opinion on this subject since international law and prior UN agreements already determine the scope of nations obligations 3/3 (for now)

China is more succinctly arguing that no decision is needed because UN agreements already account for emissions. In their arguments they effectively say ‘as a developing nation, we understand how hard developing nations are hit by climate change’ which is an angle for sure…2/x

Like a lot of things in the UN, this decision will not be binding. HOWEVER, the world court’s opinions have had a strong influence on policy in the past, so there is hope

Additionally, the court will be issuing its opinion on what UN Countries obligations to protecting the climate actually are, defining a contentious piece of the climate discussion

Interestingly, Vanuatu is seeking clarity on nation’s responsibilities not only the to the present day, but also future generations. This dramatically broadens the scope of any suggested legal consequences regarding climate impact

news.un.org/en/story/202...