Essay by Eric Worrall
They didn’t actually say “USA”, but we all know what they meant.
General Assembly backs historic World Court climate crisis ruling
20 May 2026 Climate and Environment
…
The Secretary-General said it makes clear Member States’ responsibility to protect their own people from what is an “escalating climate crisis”.
The resolution drawn up by Vanuatu – a Pacific island nation on the frontline of the climate crisis, and several other countries – was adopted after intense discussion including multiple proposed amendments with 141 votes in favour, eight against and 28 abstentions.
…
The Court also ruled that if States breach these obligations, they are legally responsible and may be legally required to stop the wrongful conduct, offer guarantees that it won’t happen again, and make full reparation, depending on the circumstances.
Although the ICJ’s advisory opinions are not binding, they carry significant legal and moral authority – helping to clarify and develop international law by defining States’ legal obligations.
…
The resolution calls on all UN Member States to take all possible steps to avoid causing significant damage to the climate and environment, including emissions produced within their borders, and to follow through on their existing climate pledges under the Paris Agreement.
…
In a statement released after the General Assembly vote, Mr. Guterres declared that those least responsible for climate change are paying the highest price, and that the path to climate justice “runs through a rapid, just, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy.”
…
Read more: https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/05/1167561
Consulting my UN gibberish translator, “carry significant legal and moral authority” = receive money next time a climate activist is in charge of the United States. Because nobody else is going to put up the money to pay for this nonsense.
I was hoping the whole climate movement was on the brink of death, especially with the collapse of the RCP 8.5 narrative, but climate activism may be finding a new lease of life by hitching itself to the anti-data center movement.
The sad thing is the data center issue is entirely solvable – data centers don’t have to be located near where people currently live. A new data center park in some frozen wilderness, to make cooling the high capacity computer servers easier, powered by as many adjacent coal plants or nuclear reactors as were required, would deliver all the AI capacity the USA needs to stay competitive, without messing up everyone elses day.
A quick search suggests there are unexploited or under-exploited regions on the Colorado Plateau which have abundant energy resources and plenty of cold to help keep the data centers running efficiently. Much of the Colorado Plateau is sparsely inhabited, 90% of the Colorado Plateau is federal or tribal land. Places like Page (Arizona) and Green River in Utah might be a good starting point for such a project. Make Data City a federalised special tax zone, and provide Michigan style heated pavements for the cafe district, a fast track approval process for new nuclear plants, and silicon valley would be emptied overnight – billions of dollars and thousands of tech startups would pour in. The USA would have a new innovation center, and a resolution to the growing data center standoff.
