UN’s Highest Court Issues ‘Strongly Worded Letter’ Threatening Climate Reparations for Carbon Emitters
The United Nations: “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.”
In the very early days of my conservative activism, one of my favorite memes was a picture of the United Nations paired with the famous quote from Star Wars: “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.”
The corrupt and pathetic organization continues to live down to my lowest assessment.
The United Nations: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.@un pic.twitter.com/ld0rYzJdc1
— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) July 24, 2025
Legal Insurrection readers are aware that President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda has rolled back many of the economy-crushing requirements of Biden’s de facto “Green New Deal” — that was dressed-up as the Inflation Reduction Act. On the first day of his second term, Trump revoked a slew of Biden-era executive orders, directed agencies to fast-track fossil fuel permitting, and removed the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord.
🚨BREAKING: President Trump has officially withdrawn the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, fulfilling a campaign promise and aligning with his administration’s focus on boosting fossil fuel production.
— Dusty Blue (@DustylBlue) January 21, 2025
The results have been positive — at least for us. As of July 16, 2025, the average U.S. gas price had dropped to $3.16 per gallon, down 10.1% from $3.52 a year earlier. Internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle production is expanding, and whale-killing offshore windfarms are on their way out.
As lucrative green graft opportunities have dried up under the shifting political climate of the Trump era, the United Nation’s highest court issued a strongly worded letter warning member states to remain vigilant about the so-called “climate crisis.”
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.
However, the “climate crisis” is a narrative being driven by climate cultists and those who profit from them. Countries not adhering to the ludicrous climate policies would be threatened with reparations.
Its opinion, which runs to more than 500 pages, said climate change was an “urgent and existential” threat and was unequivocally caused by human activities.
…The court said states must cooperate to reduce planet-heating pollution and that countries harmed by the climate crisis may be entitled to reparations on a case-by-case basis.
The ruling is not legally binding, but the status of the court gives it significant weight. Experts say it could bolster climate negotiations and provide a huge boost to climate lawsuits around the world.
The United Nations’ 🇺🇳 top court said today in a landmark advisory opinion that countries failing to take measures to safeguard the planet from “climate change,” and any nation harmed by its impacts, could be in violation of international law.
Countries in violation would be… pic.twitter.com/CboV9HN3bW
— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) July 23, 2025
The “strongly worded letter” is unlikely to be taken seriously by any nation that values affordable, efficient, and reliable energy. In fact, it’s fueling renewed momentum to disentangle our country from a globalist bureaucracy that increasingly serves as little more than a conduit for wealth redistribution.
The United Nations just ruled that countries could be in VIOLATION of international law if they do not act on CLIMATE CHANGE.
Rep. Roy and @BasedMikeLee have introduced the DEFUND Act of 2025, which would TERMINATE US membership from the UN.https://t.co/idkkBTWJZ4
— Rep. Chip Roy Press Office (@RepChipRoy) July 23, 2025
Terms and conditions that hamper a nation’s independent choices will likely not promote future partnerships or agreements.
As an environmental scientist, this is madness. Countries sueing each other over climate change, incl. that related to historic emissions. Its called human evolution (good,bad & ugly)! Decisions like this encourage exit from UN & ICJ & disincentivize aid. https://t.co/oG9n1W5VfC
— Adam Collinge (@AdamC0llinge) July 23, 2025
Finally, a growing number of people — including policymakers and scientists — are beginning to recognize the distortions and disinformation that have been circulated about carbon dioxide and global temperatures.
CO2 is not a pollutant! Read more here 👇 https://t.co/n0UmmE9wKU
— Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki (@MatthewWielicki) July 23, 2025
Use a dataset unaffected by the Urban Heat Island effect and Global warming vanishes.#ClimateScam #ClimateBrawl #ClimateEmergency pic.twitter.com/lm1vTFLr9O
— DonKeiller (@KeillerDon) March 11, 2023
Still global cooling out there: The estimated average global surface temperature is currently 0.026°C cooler than the average global temperature for 1991-2020.
If every emission warms the planet and drives more warming, how can that be? pic.twitter.com/xdutJDcRS8
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) July 5, 2025
What the ICJ did was merely place a small ball of Silly Putty on the gaping hole of Climate Cult Control created by social media, which is now allowing real climate science analysis to be published, and by Trump (who will undoubtedly laugh at the nonsense in the letter).
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
When I was a teenager in the 1970s I’d drive down Highway 101. Some guy had a sign that said ‘Get the US out of the United Nations.’
I thought he was a fool when I was a teenager.
By the time I was 40 I realized just wrong I was. Now, at 64 I sometime think I should get a billboard and have it say ‘Get the US out of the United Nations.’
It’s completely corrupt at this point.
When I was young it was “settled science” that the John Birch Society was a bunch of geriatric cranks. All the commentators on TV and in the news magazines said so.
The UN is mostly grifting, scheming, loser users. I favor kicking the UN out of America and using those facilities for trying a ever growing list of crooked Dems, including traitors.
Perhaps a good starting point for Hunter’s next business endeavors?
I used to think it was tin foil hat stuff, but I was wrong.
US out of the UN.
UN out of the US.
Past time to kick the UN to the curb. There’s no net positive coming out of the UN. Cut them off financially. Give the org 18 months to find a new home before we withdraw all their diplomatic status and deport them. Auction off the buildings and end the 8 decade farce.
Shutting down the UN should be handled the same way as Biden handled the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The same day.
“Pack your shit boys and girls. The United Nations is hereby closed. You have until midnight to depart the US.”
Remove all protections of diplomatic immunity.
BTW, take your anchor babies with you.
Maybe one floor of it could be retained as a museum.
People could see Khrushchev’s original shoe, the rag Greta was on, and so forth.
Oh, and don’t forget the dungeon tour. That one always packs in the tourists.
Pretty weird timing. I was about to issue a strongly worded letter threatening severe legal and political consequences to the UN’s highest court for promoting the climate fraud. And the really strange thing is that my letter would carry as much authority as theirs, which is to say, absolutely none..
I, for one, take climate change seriously. The globe is warming ever so slightly (it might be cooling) and the sea level is rising 0.14 inches per year (it might be falling). In approximately one thousand years my home will be flooded unless I move and I will only have 999 years warning.
On the other hand, I might purchase a mobile home with a one thousand year warranty and just before the water is high enough to reach it, I could move it to the other end on my lot which is 25 feet higher and then I won’t have to worry about it for another 500 years.
Beach front property. Nice!
Now that’s privilege.
Al gore may end up selling those mobile homes. I wouldn’t trust his warranty.
Strongly worded letter? I’ve got 3 strongly worded letters for ya UN, GFY
I agree with the UN. We must do something, So I propose shutting off the electric power to the UN building in the US and to all UN associated embassies. This will reduce the carbon emission.
Also since drinkable water is a precious resource I also propose cutting off the water supplied to these same buildings.
Furthermore because they emit pollutants I propose impounding all UN vehicles and all vehicles driven by diplomats to the UN.
Finally since video conferencing is sufficient I propose deporting all UN personal back to the country of residence and adding them to the no=fly list. This will save them from travelling and the resulting pollutants. Any meeting they participate in can be remote.
Too timid. How about something more spectacular, like an air strike? think they would take the hint and leave?
And if you’re a little off, it’s only NYC.
Mamdani would have done it eventually anyway.
I’m merely applying Alinsky to make them adhere to their own rules, Since they worship Green they must live by Green. My purpose wasn’t to drive them off although I would love to watch the building implode if the opportunity presenting itself.
We should start with sequestering their carbon.
n.n has entered the chat
They can take their junk science and shove it where the sun don’t shine
How about sequestering wood deadfall there?
Defund and kick out the UN and, given that NY City is a sanctuary city, use the buildings to house illegal aliens pending deportation.
Wasn’t it the earlier Kyoto co2 treaty we exited – Bush thinking we could lower emissions without crippling our economy – despite which we were the ONLY developed country to meet the initial goals?
The US has been reducing our CO2 footprint per capita since then – whereas CHINA is now by far the worst in terms growth of CO2 emissions – with plans to keep building new coal-burning plants full speed ahead.
I’ll believe the new treaty is anything other that a cunning plan to syphon off money from the US to other UN nations when they also go after the other nations in the top 10 list. Which they never will.
Top 10 polluters
China, with more than 14 bn tons of CO2 released.
United States, with 6 bn tons of CO2.
India, with 3.5 bn tons of CO2.
The 27 European Union countries 3.4 bn tons of CO2.
Russia, with 2 bn tons of CO2.
Japan, 1,170 bn tons of CO2.
Brazil, 1.140 bn tons of CO2.
Iran, 1.130 bn tons of CO2.
Your numbers are old.
Energy consumption in the United States produced 4.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) in 2024 – a decrease of 0.4 percent from the previous year.
India emits around four billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO₂e) in 2024
Current trend is US down and India up so they may very well pass US in 2025.
Doesn’t really matter. I don’t think CO2 can be considered a pollutant.
I agree that the climate crisis is only a scam to divert money to poorly managed countries so that those in political power can divert money to their own pockets.
I propose a strongly worded letter stating that climate reparations must come first from the largest and growing producer Of the CO2 (China) and be actually paid by China. And any attempt to collect money from the USA or its companies could be considered an act of war.
If it’s a scam, why would we state “that climate reparations must come first from the largest and growing producer Of the CO2 (China) and be actually paid by China”
Even tongue in cheek, it’s still using their narrative. I agree that any attempt to collect from the US is an act of war.
It’s from the “Rules for Radicals” playbook – drives lefties crazy bonkers when you make them apply the rules they never thought would apply to themselves. Or even just challenge them why you should not.
The idea that CO2 is a dangerous “pollutant” that at any of the predicted levels will kill us all with runaway greenhouse until we’re Venus 2.0 is another issue entirely (hint : it really isn’t – and it really won’t). One false idol at a time – when knocking down false idols of worship – may be best.
Good point!
It’s been run by Dictatorships and Marxists for years. Get rid of their funding will curb the grafting.
One of the constants of human history is that what passes for international law are more habits and mores than anything else. They can only be “enforced” by deadly military force. Whose?
Also, they want “reparations from carbon emitters”. What would the reparations be if all UN personnel were chased out of the building complex and it was burned down?
Finally, to Mutnodjmet: I fear that you missed a step in the folding of the UN flag. Something about micturation or defecation into the trash can after dropping the flag in.
Subotai Bahadur
Thank you for the catch, Subotai. But LI is a classy joint, and there is a limit to how edgy I can be.
I regularly eschew assumptions on principle but I must confess, here I assumed a thorough wiping of private parts with the folded standard prior to its deposit into the wastecan.
Personally, I would not want that thing anywhere near my private parts. Who knows what it is infected with? 😉
Subotai Bahadur
Charge China first, and get them to accept your authority and pay up.
Otherwise, go pound cheese
BTW: How was it strongly worded? Did they bold the letters and increase the font size to 24 point?
I assume it will be paid to blacks.
CO2, has what plants crave.
“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” Some conclusions one can draw from the ICJ’s opinion. 1) The UN seems to ignore the proven ability for humans to adapt to wide ranges of environments. 2) Since it is admitted that this ruling is more about policy than law, the ICJ out of bounds. 3) The ICJ assumes that the Paris Climate accord is international law. In the US, unless it is ratified by the Senate it is not international law. Perhaps something similar is true for other countries. And finally 4) the ICJ assumes without any proof that the only changes are ones resulting in damage. The ICJ does not recognize the benefits resulting in the increased concentration of a plant fertilizer – for free – and freely distributed to all. The ICJ essentially has made fools of themselves.
They did not “make” themselves fools, they were fools to begin with, they just brought it to light.
It is truly sad that Sam Kinison is no longer with us to deliver the FU message to the UN that they so richly deserve.
“The U.N. Building. What a joke! They turned it into low rent housing. It’s a dump.” – Harry Canyon, “Heavy Metal” (1981)
Loved that film and its soundtrack.
The International Court of Justice pronouncement reminds me of this scene from the movie Bananas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV4N2dk0cMk
The court apparently hasn’t read any of the IPCC’s reports to the UN on climate change. It is always very careful to hedge it’s language, with many “if’s”, “may be possible’s”, “could possibly’s”, and a wide range of other dodges that permit it to say unequivocally that the panel’s authors are obfuscating the issue, but not actually lying.
Expropriation of the UN properties under eminent domain, as well all embassies and foreign estates/campuses, would likely provide sufficient wealth to rejuvenate metro-NYC without all the “diplomatic trash”, their inflationary impact and propensity to keep “slaves”. And, proceeds from sale of the properties would offset in part the currently lost funds from scores of years carrying the UN, and return prime, tax-exempt real estate to the annual tax rolls. … It seems to be a “no brainer”. … New Yorkers deserve a break (we might even be able to get rid of the demonrats.
As my lawyer would advise, send them a telegram which says “F. U., strong letter to follow.”
The UN is increasingly showing it is not benign, let alone beneficial, but an active evil.
Conquest’s second law: Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.