Opinion | There’s good news for lawyers in a landmark climate ruling. But not for the climate.

The judgment is sure to cause significant economic harm, with far-reaching consequences for human well-being. While technically advisory and nonbinding, such statements by the ICJ are considered authoritative interpretations of relevant international agreements and law — and can sway both international and national courts. Thus, the ruling gives nations and activists a powerful tool to advance ever more climate lawsuits. Any country could be sued for falling short of the legal standards it lays out — including the United States, despite its having withdrawn from the Paris agreement’s climate pledges.

The ICJ decision warns, for instance, that “failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from [greenhouse gas] emissions” — including through fossil fuel production, consumption or even granting exploration licenses — “may constitute an internationally wrongful act.” That is an extraordinarily wide legal net. Simmons & Simmons, a leading international law firm, concluded that the judgment will “redefine the legal landscape of global climate governance” and even shape national court decisions over domestic policies.

Last month, climate lawsuits worldwide reached 3,099, up from 2,550 two years earlier. Among recent findings, the European Court of Human Rights used a human rights argument to force harsher climate policies on Switzerland — creating a legal precedent expected to unlock even more lawsuits in turn. A German court ruled that firms can face civil action for climate damages, which should frighten any U.S. company operating in Europe. Within the United States, fossil fuel firms are being sued over rising sea levels. Climate activists expect a flood of new lawsuits to be added to this surging global wave.

Everyone should be concerned when judges replace democratically elected representatives to all but decree higher energy bills. Worse, however, the ICJ’s ruling doesn’t even get the science right. The judges repeat activist claims when they conclude that climate change is “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life,” a description that is far from the serious science of the U.N.’s own climate panel, making no such sweeping conclusion. Most forms of life are actually thriving, as the more than 80 percent of global biomass represented by plant life experiences a carbon dioxide-fueled global greening. The judges also claim that hurricanes are becoming more frequent despite global evidence showing otherwise. More seriously, the judges misread the 2015 Paris agreement, replacing its 1.5 degrees Celsius soft ambition for a mandatory “primary temperature goal.” Keeping temperature increases to 1.5 degrees is not in fact what nations promised and, moreover, is widely considered unachievable at this stage.

The largest problem with the ruling is one of myopia. By narrowly focusing on climate concerns when discussing human rights, the ICJ ends up downgrading humanity’s many other needs: food, health care, education and jobs. Yet, strong climate policies are among the least efficient ways to improve human welfare, as shown by hundreds of cost-benefit assessments done for my organization, the Copenhagen Consensus Center.

Further, the call by the court for rich nations to pay restitution to poorer ones assumes fossil fuels are a net evil. Yes, fossil fuels cause global warming, which produces harm. But fossil fuels have overall been a tremendous engine of progress since the Industrial Revolution, powering advances in agriculture, medicine and technology. Synthetic fertilizers, made possible by fossil fuels, feed half the world’s population. Over the past 60 years, China has increased its annual coal consumption 19-fold, which has helped it to virtually eliminate extreme poverty.

And, despite climate change, fossil fuels are likely to continue to improve life, as even the U.N. climate panel scenarios show. Researchers identified various scenarios for the 21st century, with one future dependent on fossil fuels and another with a strong focus on emission reduction. The fossil fuel-driven scenario actually delivers greater human opportunity than its green scenario. For the rest of the century, much higher incomes, driven by reliable energy, will deliver better education, less poverty, lower inequality, more food and longer life expectancy. Even taking into account higher climate damage, fossil fuels will leave people enormously much better off, even in vulnerable Africa.

Climate change requires serious solutions. But the International Court of Justice’s misguided ruling will produce expensive lawsuits instead of focusing attention on the green innovation needed to provide an actual long-term answer — or acknowledge the many ways of helping humanity that have little or nothing to do with climate policy. Across the world, voters and their democratically elected leaders must handle trade-offs between many different policies. Activist judges can only make that harder.