CLIMATE CULT ORGANIZATION OAS says global warming is about to burn up earth and anyone who disagrees must be CENSORED 100 PERCENT

The Ponzi scheming never ends. In a sweeping new legal opinion, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has declared that climate change represents a human rights issue, and that all 35 member nations of the Organization of American States (OAS)—including the United States and Canada—have a legal obligation to combat it.

The Costa Rica-based court’s advisory ruling asserts that individuals have a human right to a stable climate, and that governments must urgently take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to changing conditions, and guard against climate disinformation.

• Climate as a Human Right: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has declared access to a stable climate a human right, ruling that member states of the Organization of American States (OAS), including the U.S. and Canada, have legal obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate change, and cooperate globally.
• Mandate to Censor “Disinformation”: The court calls for states to collaborate with tech platforms, media, and digital actors to combat climate-related “misinformation,” implying restrictions on speech that challenges prevailing climate narratives—raising free speech concerns, especially in countries like the U.S.
• Broad Jurisdiction Overreach: Though the U.S. is not a party to the American Convention on Human Rights, the court asserts its opinion applies to all 35 OAS members, prompting criticism that it seeks to impose international climate and censorship policies on sovereign nations.
• S. Pushback Likely: Past U.S. responses, particularly under President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, indicate strong opposition to international environmental mandates or censorship. Previous threats of retaliation over carbon taxes on U.S. shipping and warnings against regulating platforms like X (formerly Twitter) signal likely resistance to this court’s recommendations.

Inter-American Court Rules Nations Must Reduce Emissions and Censor Skeptics

The court’s 300-page opinion calls for “urgent and effective” state responses to the climate crisis based on the best available science. It emphasizes that these obligations are not limited to signatories of the American Convention on Human Rights, but are binding on all OAS members. The court draws on national, regional, and international laws to argue that protecting current and future generations from climate breakdown is a legal duty of governments.

One of the most controversial aspects of the ruling involves the issue of climate-related disinformation. The court recommends that states actively work with social media platforms, tech developers, and news media to combat misinformation about climate change. It advocates for “media and information literacy” programs and coordinated actions to ensure that digital content is truthful and reliable. In essence, this suggests state-backed censorship or control of online speech deemed to be climate disinformation.

Critics, particularly in the U.S., have expressed alarm over what they see as a foreign attempt to override national sovereignty and the First Amendment. They argue that the court’s call for action against disinformation could open the door to censorship of dissenting voices, including scientists, commentators, and politicians who question prevailing climate narratives.

This is the second international court to issue such a legal opinion. Last year, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled that greenhouse gases constitute pollutants damaging marine ecosystems, and that states have a legal responsibility to control them. That ruling triggered a push for international carbon taxes on shipping—a move the Trump administration strongly opposed. In a leaked diplomatic letter, the administration warned that the U.S. would retaliate against any nation attempting to impose such fees on American vessels, calling the proposals “blatantly unfair.”

Vice President JD Vance recently echoed these sentiments, warning that American support for international alliances like NATO could be threatened if European governments pursue censorship of U.S. platforms such as X (formerly Twitter). Vance referred to past EU threats against Elon Musk for potentially reinstating President Donald Trump’s account, framing them as attacks on American free speech.

In light of the IACHR’s ruling, future tensions are likely between U.S. leaders—especially under a potential second Trump administration—and international legal bodies asserting jurisdiction over climate policy and speech regulation. While the court’s opinion is non-binding, its sweeping scope and assertion of legal norms across the entire Western Hemisphere signal a growing push for supranational climate governance, and possibly, conflict over national sovereignty and free expression.

Check out ClimateAlarmism.news for updates on psychotic billionaires spending big chunks of their money to adulterate the meat and dairy food supply while decreasing the population by a few billion.

Sources for this article include:

NaturalNews.com

BezoEarthFund.org