Today’s adventure begins in Poland.  Providing further evidence that Polish jokes aren’t entirely off-base, “[t]he 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, while developing countries agree to halt deforestation.”

“Expected” by whom?  Total morons?  What developed country would ever voluntarily “drastically” attack its own businesses (and thus its own lifeblood: tax revenues)?  And what developing country would intentionally agree to restrictions that put further economic pressure on its impoverished citizens?   Predictably, environmental activists at the UN Climate Change Conference blasted the U.S. and other “rich” countries for refusing to commit to drastic emissions reductions.  (Still think the environmental movement isn’t anti-capitalistic?)

Sure, some countries may eventually sign just to receive kudos from the Left.  But who’s going to enforce this agreement?

Well, it’s that very question that led Stephen Hockman, QC to propose a new international court to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.  The court’s primary goal is to enforce such international agreements regarding greenhouse gas emissions.

But wait: there’s more.  This 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.’”  It’s this ‘right to a healthy environment’ that got me interested.  In the USA, we already protect the heck out of endangered species–just ask the snail darter–and we work hard to keep the environment unprofitable pristine.  (Don’t get me wrong: these yahoo UN judges would likely hold that our EPA subsidizes the clubbing of baby seals.  I’m just saying that at least these two concepts aren’t entirely foreign to US law.)

The ‘right’ to a healthy environment is so controversial that even Canada argued against its adoption.  But yet, here it is, because the UN adopted the Aarhus Convention.  This ‘right’ has given rise to frivolous lawsuits like the one filed in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Inuits against the United States.  The Inuit people argue that the United States’ pollution has led to climate change, which has adversely impacted their rights to life, livelihood, and, yes, a healthy environment.  (We’ll leave this notion of the right to a job–and not just any job, but your very first choice of a job–for another column.)

There is one bright spot in this proposed court.  The court may be able to fine businesses or states, but its founders envision its main role as making “declaratory rulings” that influence and embarrass countries into upholding the law.  Embarrass?  Certainly, in the Obama administration, international embarrassment will be pretty potent ammo.  But Americans will eventually come back to their senses and realize that international law exists only to harass the countries that vex the ultra-liberal UN.  Then, for once, the UN’s utter and complete inability to act will be a positive.