The main purpose of this ongoing blog will be to track planetary extreme, or record temperatures related to climate change. Any reports I see of ETs will be listed below the main topic of the day. I’ll refer to extreme or record temperatures as ETs (not extraterrestrials).😜
Main Topic: International Court of Justice Denounces Climate Inaction for First Time
Dear Diary. It’s about time but way too late in my opinion for the highest court in the world based out of the Hague to start denouncing countries and states that don’t mitigate climate change. Of course, the International Court of Justice can denounce many things and put out warrants for arrests, such as that for Vladimir Putin because of his war on Ukraine, but holds almost no power to implement its rulings.
Still, the body’s ruling is some progress and may spur more states, particularly in the European Union, towards more action. Even if global temperature averages can’t be held under +2.0°C above preindustrial conditions to keep a somewhat stable climate, we should be fighting against every tenth of a degree above that for humanity’s sake.
Here are more details from the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/climate/icj-hague-climate-change.html
Top U.N. Court Says Countries Must Act on Climate Change
The International Court of Justice called global warming an “urgent and existential threat” at a closely watched case in The Hague.
Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s climate change minister, in The Hague on Wednesday. Credit…John Thys/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
By Karen Zraick and Marlise Simons
July 23, 2025
The International Court of Justice issued a strongly worded opinion on Wednesday saying that states must protect people from the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change, a major moment for the global environmental movement and for the countries at greatest risk of harm.
It was the first time that the court, which is the United Nations’ highest judicial body, has weighed in on climate change.
The unanimous opinion said that the failure of nations to take action to protect the climate system may constitute “an internationally wrongful act.” It also found that protection of the environment is “a precondition” for ensuring human rights and cited government support of fossil-fuel production as a potential violation of these principles.
“The environment is the foundation for human life, upon which the health and well-being of both present and future generations depend,” Judge Iwasawa Yuji, president of the court, said.
Although the International Court of Justice has no mechanism to enforce an advisory opinion like this on nations, as a statement of legal principles the findings nevertheless could have far-reaching influence on litigation in courts around the world as well as on international negotiations over climate policy and funding.
Does the World Court’s Sweeping Climate Opinion Matter? Five Takeaways.
The United Nations General Assembly requested the opinion after a spirited, yearslong campaign organized by law students from Vanuatu and other Pacific islands. That led to a two-week hearing in December at which more than 100 countries, organizations and experts addressed the court, hoping to influence the opinion.
The court’s 15 judges were asked to address two main questions, including what countries are obliged to do, under existing international laws and treaties, to protect the climate system and environment from greenhouse gasses; and what the legal consequences are if, by their acts or omissions, they have caused significant harm. The panel, also known as the World Court, is based in The Hague.
Powerful fossil fuel producers, including the United States and Saudi Arabia, argued before the court that the 2015 Paris accord, in which nearly all countries agreed to limit greenhouse gasses, was sufficient to address climate change.
The U.S. arguments were presented near the end of the Biden administration, and since then, President Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement. More recently, the Trump administration has taken steps to end the federal government’s ability to fight global warming by regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
Other countries argued that the court should take action, saying that because the Paris Agreement has no enforcement mechanism, it would be insufficient to halt the rapid pace of global warming, which is causing higher temperatures, rising oceans and increasingly dangerous storms.
Many argued during the hearings that the countries that have emitted the most planet-warming carbon dioxide should pay reparations to other countries suffering from the effects of global warming. Some low-lying Pacific and Caribbean islands especially vulnerable to storms, flooding and sea level rise have been particularly outspoken.
Trump’s Climate Rollbacks
E.P.A. Is Said to Draft a Plan to End Its Ability to Fight Climate Change
When Ralph Regenvanu, the climate envoy from Vanuatu, addressed the court in December, he said his country was on “the frontline of a crisis we did not create.” He asked the court “for recognition that the conduct which has already caused immense harm to my people and so many others, is unlawful, that it must cease and that its consequences must be repaired.”
The judges also held a private briefing session with a group of scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. body. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels is driving global warming.
The court’s opinion went further than many lawyers had expected. The judges found that all states have the obligation to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial times, a threshold laid out in the Paris Agreement.
The court also left open the possibility that countries could sue each other for damages from historical emissions. “While climate change is caused by cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, it is scientifically possible to determine each state’s total contribution to global emissions,” the court said.
Some experts were struck by some of the language used by what they called a normally cautious court. For example, the court said a state’s failure to protect the climate system, including through production, consumption, or subsidies for fossil fuels, may amount to “wrongful acts,” and that governments could be held responsible for harm caused by corporations.
“Mentioning these actions by their name in this context is remarkable,” said Payam Akhavan, a professor of international law at Massey College of the University of Toronto, who has represented Pacific islands in the court.
Environmental groups hailed the decision. “This decision gives moral and legal heft to all of us around the world fighting for the swift transition off fossil fuels,” said Jean Su, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s energy justice program.
Mr. Regenvanu said that Vanuatu would ask the General Assembly for a resolution to put the opinion into action, arguing that “major polluters, past and present, cannot continue to act with impunity and treat developing countries as sacrifice zones to further feed corporate greed.”
The court said its December hearings had the highest level of participation in its history. The court has issued 29 advisory opinions in its 80-year history, and only four others were unanimous.
But on the way to unanimity, the judges clearly wrestled with the many scientific, political and economic aspects of the climate crisis. The formal opinion was accompanied by more than a dozen separate opinions, some of which said the court should have gone further in its discussion of legal consequences.
The opinion is expected to open the door to more lawsuits over climate damage, and it comes on the heels of other recent notable opinions from international legal bodies. This month the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, based in Costa Rica, found that countries have an obligation to prevent harms from climate change as a matter of human rights. Its decision applies to many countries in the Americas.
Last year, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the world’s highest court dealing with the oceans, concluded that governments must take measures to address greenhouse gas emissions. That specialists’ decision had been expected to influence the judges in The Hague.
In another closely watched case last year, Europe’s top human rights court found that the Swiss government had violated its citizens’ human rights by not doing enough to stop climate change.
The decision in The Hague could also influence proceedings in local courts around the world, which are seeing growing numbers of lawsuits related to climate change. On Monday, for example, Italy’s highest court ruled that judges can hear climate change lawsuits to protect human rights, after a case filed by two nonprofit groups, Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon, against the energy company Eni.
Climate and International Law
Read more about the World Court’s work on climate change.
What to Know About a Landmark Court Case
U.S. Defends Climate Accord as Nations Call for Stronger Global Action
What Can the World’s Top Court Do About Climate Change?
The lawsuit alleges that the company’s strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not in line with the Paris Agreement and that the company’s contribution to climate change violates human rights. In a statement, the company said it looked forward to adjudicating the suit, which it said was driven by “unfounded and often misleading slogans of the two associations.”
The lawsuit alleges that the company’s strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not in line with the Paris Agreement and that the company’s contribution to climate change violates human rights. In a statement, the company said it looked forward to adjudicating the suit, which it said was driven by “unfounded and often misleading slogans of the two associations.”
Around the world, climate-change litigation is increasingly reaching high-level legal venues, such as appellate or supreme courts, according to a recent study by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London. The study noted many cases filed in the United States, where state attorneys general, youth activists and environmental nonprofits have filed lawsuits seeking damages from oil companies or changes in government policy.
But it also found a growing number of lawsuits in the United States by opponents of action on climate, such as challenges to energy-efficiency standards and efforts to restrict investing that gives weight to environmental or social principles, which has become a major target of Republican leaders.
Harj Narulla, a British lawyer who represented the Solomon Islands in the International Court of Justice case, said that the way national courts might use the precedent would depend on the country and case. He said international law was automatically incorporated into domestic law in some countries, such as France and Germany. In other countries, the opinion could be cited in cases challenging governmental climate policies.
He noted, though, that the United States was an outlier among democracies in giving less credence to the decisions of international courts. The United States does not automatically accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. And more generally, U.S. courts do not usually cite international legal authorities, Mr. Narulla said. “This has meant that climate litigation in the U.S., while prolific, is not matching the trends that we see in other jurisdictions around the world,” he said.
Mr. Narulla called Wednesday’s ruling “a direct warning to the fossil fuel industry.” He noted that the court emphasized that even countries that withdraw from the Paris Agreement, like the United States, would still be obliged to reduce their emissions under international law.
He predicted that litigation citing the court’s opinion would seek to stop new oil and gas projects or seek to compel countries to set tougher goals for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Other prospective legal applications of the court’s opinion, he said, might be to support communities adapting to the effects of climate change.
Robert Percival, director of the environmental law program at the University of Maryland’s law school, said that while the court’s findings were largely symbolic, they would still carry weight. “It is the one body that’s the most authoritative in declaring what international law is or should be,” he said. “I think people will pay a lot of attention.”
A correction was made on July 24, 2025
An earlier version of this article identified incorrectly the U.N. body that assesses science related to climate change. It is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change.
When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know at nytnews@nytimes.com.Learn more
Karen Zraick covers legal affairs for the Climate desk and the courtroom clashes playing out over climate and environmental policy.
Marlise Simons is a correspondent in the Paris bureau, focusing on international justice and war-crimes tribunals. In almost four decades at The New York Times, she has been based in France and Italy to report about Europe and previously covered Latin America from posts in Brazil and Mexico.
Here are more “ET’s” recorded from around the planet the last couple of days, their consequences, and some extreme temperature outlooks, as well as any extreme precipitation reports
Here is More Climate News from Friday:
(As usual, this will be a fluid post in which more information gets added during the day as it crosses my radar, crediting all who have put it on-line. Items will be archived on this site for posterity. In most instances click on the pictures of each tweet to see each article. The most noteworthy items will be listed first.)