–the difficulty of assigning specific damages to each country when , as is pointed out above, individuals within those countries are differently liable.

–the probability that nations will invoke the soverign immunity defense.

on the other hand, seeking redress against individual polluters in the form of “class action” suits seems entirely reasonable; and the mass filing of these suits agains a large number of polluters in a single country might create a “critical mass” that could push a government into seeking a mass settlement process, not unlike the tobacco settlement in the u.s.

It’s hard enough getting many countries to cough up aid they’ve actually promised to deliver, let alone trying to extort it out of them with hollow threats.

And how many air miles can be saced if we buy local produce instead of NZ lamb, food from Africa – or jerusalem artichokes … not that I buy any of them anyway. 40 million sheep in the uk (how many in NZ). Use African food to feed the hungry in Africa – and jerusalem artichokes … please NO more.

So who is going to sue, and which court is going to enforce it. Alas the land of the free, has flexed it’s military muscle in Iraq – and there’s no one who dare say boo.

PS – If pollution is created by human activity, then childbirth is the root of all pollution. Could childless people (singles and couples) sue child breeding/rearing couples?

But I cannot feel that this “environmental reparations” will not be paid because it will detract from solving the actual problem. Giving money to states is unlikely to help the environment in the short or long term.