1. We will have oral argumentation for Wednesday.

Each one of you is expected to

participate in this activity as anybody may be called during the exercise.
2. You will be given a hypothetical case and a set of cases to work with.
3. The case is one filed by Tacloban residents against Black Gold Oil Company
(BGOC) in a US district court for damages under the Alien Tort Claims Act. The
residents are suing BGOC for damages caused by Typhoon Yolanda. The residents
contend that Typhoon Yolanda was caused by global warming precipitated by the
large carbon emissions and unabated production of fossil fuels by BGOC.
4. Cases:
a. Nnadili v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 93 (D.D.C. 2006)
b. Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., 452 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2006)
c. Georgia v. Tennessee Copper, 206 U.S. 230 (1907)
d. Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007)
e. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
f. IPCC Synthesis Report
Optional:
g. Minors Oposa v. Factoran
h. Comer v. Murphy Oil
i. Inuit petition
5. Issues
a Is climate change fact or fiction?
a Does the residents have a cause of action against BGOC? (include
conflicts issue in this part)
6. Prepare for an Opening Statement, issue per issue argumentation, and closing
arguments. Start always with the statement, May it please the court . . . . There
will be no giggling, laughing, etc.
7. Procedure:
a
b
c

Speaker I for the residents will make a 5 minute opening statement.

Speaker II for the residents will have 5 minutes to present the residents
position on the issues.
Speaker II for BGOC will be given an opportunity to ask Speaker II of the
residents a max of 5 questions.

e
f
g
h

Speaker III for the residents will present a witness who will testify about the
destruction in Tacloban or the findings in the IPCC Synthesis Report. This is for
10-15 minutes of direct examination. Speaker III for BGOC will have the
opportunity to present objections during the direct examination.
Speaker III for BGOC will then cross-examine the witness for 5-7 minutes.
Speaker I of BGOC will have 5 minutes for their Opening Statement.
Speaker II of BGOC will have 5-7 minutes to present their position on the
issues.
Speaker II of the residents will be given an opportunity to ask Speaker II of
BGOC a max of 5 questions.

SALUD!!!!
Speakers:
5-7 Class:
Tacloban Residents:

v.

BGOC:

Speaker II: Chua

v.

Khan

Speaker III: Pagala

v.

Samson

Witness: Umil (to testify about destruction in Tacloban. Witness may present
pictures and other object evidence)
7-9 Class:
Tacloban Residents:

v.

BGOC:

Speaker II: Dupa

v.

Rivas

Speaker III: Gabot

v.

Manalo

Witness: Calayan (to testify on observed changes in climate, the causes of change,
and impacts.
Witnesses will be allowed to look at their notes and there will be no objection on
this. To look means to GLANCE, not read everything!
Opening Statements: EVERYBODY
Alternates (absent, not prepared, cant answer): EVERYBODY
NNADILI v. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.NOS. CIV.A.02-1620 ESH, CIV.A.03-1593 ESH.
435 F.Supp.2d 93 (2006)
Olachukwu NNADILI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. Defendant. Mary Abney, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Defendant.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
June 1, 2006.
Dennis C. Reich, Michael Todd Howell, Reich & Binstock, Houston, TX, Susan Clare
Silber, Silber & Perlman, PA., Takoma Park; MD, Nicholas A. Migliaccio, The Mason
Law Firm, PL, Alphonse M. Alfano, John M. Luchak, Robert Stuart Bassman,
Bassman, Mitchell & Alfano, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Anthony F. King, Richard E. Wallace, Jr., Susan Vanessa Watson, Wallace King
Marraro & Branson, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HUVELLE, District Judge.
Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases assert various claims against Chevron U.S.A.
Inc. ("Chevron") based upon the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil and
groundwater below certain properties in an area of Washington, D.C. known as
Riggs Park. They contend that the contamination resulted from the discharge or
release of gasoline from a retail service station formerly owned and operated by
Chevron and seek damages for diminution in the value of their properties and for
emotional distress. They also seek injunctive relief under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. ("RCRA").
Chevron has moved for partial summary judgment with respect to the following
claims: (1) emotional distress damages; (2) common law strict liability; (3) statutory
claims under the RCRA; and (4) claims by individuals whose properties are not
situated over subsurface contamination. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
will grant summary judgment as to the
[435 F.Supp.2d 96]
claims for strict liability and for violation of the RCRA, but will deny Chevron's
motion in all other respects.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs include approximately 500 current and former residents of, or property
owners within, the Riggs Park neighborhood of Washington, D.C. (See Nnadili Fifth
Amended Complaint ("Nnadili Compl.") 9-129;Abney Third Amended Complaint
("Abney Compl.") 7-169.) According to plaintiffs, from approximately 1956
through June 21, 1993, Chevron, or its predecessor-in-interest, owned and operated
a retail gasoline service station at 5801 Riggs Road in Chillum, Maryland, which is
on the Maryland side of the border between Maryland and Washington, D.C.
(Nnadili Compl. 130, 131; Abney Compl. 171, 172)1 They allege that during
the time that Chevron owned and operated the service station, gasoline was
discharged or released into the ground from the station's underground storage
tanks ("USTs"). (See, e.g., NnadiliCompl. 133, 134, 139, 140, 144, 146, 149,
150; Abney Compl. 2, 3, 176-78.) Plaintiffs further allege that the gasoline
subsequently migrated into the Riggs Park neighborhood, contaminating the air,
soil, and groundwater of the properties currently or formerly owned or occupied by
plaintiffs. (See, e.g., NnadiliCompl. 136, 144; Abney Compl. 3, 178, 186, 187,
189.)
In their initial complaints, plaintiffs asserted claims for wrongful death, personal
injury, and medical monitoring, in addition to the instant claims for property and
emotional distress damages.2 On October 4, 2004, however, after air sampling
conducted by Chevron indicated that the air quality in selected Riggs Park homes
did not exceed Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") thresholds, plaintiffs

voluntarily dismissed all claims predicated on evidence of actual exposure to

gasoline constituents. (See Oct. 4, 2004 Stipulated Order ("Stip.Order").)
Specifically, plaintiffs stipulated as follows:
All plaintiffs agree that they do not now allege and' will not allege or attempt to
prove in these actions that any plaintiff was exposed to petroleum hydrocarbons or
other contaminants of a nature, intensity and duration that can be linked through
valid scientific evidence to personal injury or to a risk of injury or death. Nor will
plaintiffs attempt to argue or prove that any emotional distress alleged to have
been suffered by any plaintiff is the result of any actual exposure to petroleum
hydrocarbons or other contaminants. In addition, plaintiffs will not attempt to argue
or prove that a valid scientific basis exists for any potential for exposure.
(Id. 1.) In connection with this stipulation, plaintiffs also sought and were
granted leave to file their current amended complaints, which do not include
claims for personal injury, wrongful death, or medical monitoring. (Id. 2.) As a
result, plaintiffs are seeking based on claims of trespass, nuisance, negligence,
and common law strict liability damages only for diminution in the value of their
properties and for emotional distress, as well as injunctive relief under the RCRA.
On December 5, 2005, prior to the close of discovery, the Court entered a Revised
Stipulated Scheduling Order pursuant to which Chevron filed the motion for partial
summary judgment that is presently before
[435 F.Supp.2d 97]
the Court. As agreed to and proposed by the parties, fact and expert discovery has
been stayed pending disposition of the instant motion. (Dec. 5, 2005 Revised
Stipulated Scheduling Order 4.) The Revised Stipulated Scheduling Order further
provides that additional dispositive motions, as appropriate, shall be permitted
following the completion of discovery. (Id. 5.)
ANALYSIS
I. Summary Judgment Standard
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a motion for summary
judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
admissions on file, and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material
fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). To
be material, the fact must be capable of affecting the outcome of the litigation, and
to be genuine, the issue must be supported by admissible evidence sufficient for a
reasonable trier of fact to find in favor of the non-moving party. Id. at 247-48, 106
S.Ct. 2505; see also Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1242-43 (D.C.Cir.1987).
To avoid summary judgment the nonmoving party's opposition must consist of more
than mere unsupported allegations or denials and must be supported by affidavits
or other competent evidence setting forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324,
106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The non-moving party must provide
evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find in the non-moving party's
favor. Laningham, 813 F.2d at 1241. "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not
significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Liberty Lobby, 477
U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citations omitted). Nevertheless, "because summary
judgment is a drastic measure, courts should grant it with caution so that no person
will be deprived of his or her day in court to prove a disputed material factual
issue." Greenberg v. Food & Drug Admin., 803 F.2d 1213, 1216 (D.C.Cir.1986). For
this reason, in considering a motion for summary judgment, the "evidence of the

non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his

favor." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Wash. Post Co. v.
U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 865 F.2d 320, 325 (D.C.Cir.1989).
II. Choice of Law
"When deciding state-law claims under diversity or supplemental jurisdiction,
federal courts apply the choice-of-law rules of the jurisdiction in which they
sit." Ideal Elec. Sec. Co., Inc. v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 143, 148 (D.C.Cir.1997).
The District of Columbia has adopted the "substantial interest" approach to choice
of law questions. Greycoat Hanover F Street Ltd. P'ship v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 657
A.2d 764, 767-68 (D.C.1995). When faced with a choice of law in an action sounding
in tort, a court in the District of Columbia will "balance the competing interests of
the two jurisdictions, and apply the law of the jurisdiction with the more `substantial
interest' in the resolution of the issue." Lamphier v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 524 A.2d 729,
731 (D.C.1987); see also Jaffe v. Pallotta TeamWorks, 374 F.3d 1223, 1227
(D.C.Cir.2004). To determine which jurisdiction maintains a more substantial
interest, District of Columbia courts consider the factors listed in Section 145 of the
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971). See Herbert v. Dist. of Columbia,
[435 F.Supp.2d 98]
808 A.2d 776, 779 (D.C.2002); Estrada v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 488 A.2d 1359,
1361 n. 2 (D.C.1985). These include: (1) the place of injury; (2) the place where the
conduct causing the injury occurred; (3) the domicile, residence, place of
incorporation and place of business of the parties; and (4) the place where the
relationship between the parties is centered. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of
Laws . 145(2).
Applying these factors to the instant facts, the Court finds that between the District
of Columbia and Maryland, the District of Columbia has the greater interest in the
outcome of this litigation.3 While Chevron's conduct occurred mainly in Maryland,
where its former service station and USTs are situated, and a handful of plaintiffs
currently reside in that state, all of the alleged contamination at issue in this
litigation occurred in the District of Columbia, all of the alleged injuries were
sustained in the District of Columbia, and the overwhelming majority of plaintiffs
still reside in the District of Columbia. Accordingly, the Court concludes that all of
the tort claims asserted in these consolidated cases are governed by the laws of the
District of Columbia.
III. Emotional Distress Damages
Chevron first contends that plaintiffs cannot recover damages for emotional distress
as a matter of law. Relying primarily on case law involving claims for intentional and
negligent infliction of emotional distress, Chevron argues that courts in the District
of Columbia consistently have barred such claims absent proof of physical injury or
physical endangerment. (See Def.'s Mem. at 14-17.) To the extent that District of
Columbia case law does not expressly address claims for emotional distress
damages based on property damage alone, however, Chevron further asserts that
the Court should look to the law of Maryland for guidance. See Conesco Indus., Ltd.
v. Conforti & Eisele, Inc., 627 F.2d 312, 315-16 (D.C.Cir.1980);Whitaker v. Wash.
Metro. Area Transit Auth., 889 F.Supp. 505, 506-07 (D.D.C.1995).
According to Chevron, plaintiffs' claims for emotional distress damages cannot
survive under established Maryland precedent. (See Def.'s Mem. at 11-14.) In
support of it position, Chevron principally relies on the Maryland Court of Appeals
decision in Dobbins v. Wash. Suburban Sanitary Comm'n, 338 Md. 341, 658 A.2d
675 (1995). In that case, the court held that "a plaintiff cannot ordinarily recover for

emotional injuries sustained solely as a result of negligently inflicted damage to the

plaintiff's property." Id. at 680. The court reasoned that "emotional injuries are not
the `consequences that ensue in the ordinary and natural course of events' from
negligently inflicted property damage," and that "such injuries should not be
contemplated, in light of all the circumstances, `as a natural and probable
consequence' of a negligently inflicted injury to property." Id. at 679 (quoting State
v. Baltimore Transit Co., 197 Md. 528, 80 A.2d 13, 18 (1951)). For additional support,
Chevron points to instances where the Maryland Court of Appeals has refused
[435 F.Supp.2d 99]
to award emotional distress damages based on property damage caused by
trespass. See Wolf v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 267 Md. 623, 298 A.2d 374, 377-78
(1973); Zeigler v. F St. Corp., 248 Md. 223, 235 A.2d 703, 705 (1967).
Finally, Chevron argues that the October 4, 2004 Stipulated Order independently
bars plaintiffs' claims for emotional distress damages because it eliminates any
factual basis for such claims. (See Def.'s Reply at 6-7.) According to Chevron, not
only have plaintiffs stipulated that they have suffered no emotional distress from
actual exposure to contamination, but they also have stipulated that (1) no plaintiff
has ever been exposed; and (2) no plaintiff will have the potential for exposure.
Chevron thus argues that the Stipulated Order, as a matter of undisputed fact,
removes any reasonable basis for emotional distress.
Stated simply, Chevron contends that property damage alone cannot serve as a
basis for recovering damages for emotional distress. The Court disagrees.
Under District of Columbia law, it is firmly established that a plaintiff may recover
damages for mental suffering unaccompanied by physical injury where the plaintiff
sues for an intentional tort. Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., Inc., 597 A.2d 28,
31 (D.C.1991); Parker v. Stein, 557 A.2d 1319, 1322 (D.C.1989);Barnes v. Dist. of
Columbia, 452 A.2d 1198, 1199 (D.C.1982). It is also clear that trespass is an
intentional tort. E.g., Cleveland Park Club v. Perry, 165 A.2d 485, 488 (D.C.1960).
Although the parties have not cited and the Court has been unable to find a
District of Columbia decision addressing the availability of emotional distress
damages in a trespass case, the decision in Parker is instructive. In that case, the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, applying the established rule
regarding intentional torts, concluded that emotional distress damages are available
in an action for conversion of personal property.Parker, 557 A.2d at 1322-23. Here,
the Court can find no meaningful distinction between personal and real property to
suggest that courts in the District of Columbia would permit recovery of emotional
distress damages for intentional torts involving personal, but not real, property
damage. Accordingly, the Court concludes that emotional distress damages are
recoverable for trespass actions under District of Columbia law. 4
Furthermore, with respect to all of plaintiffs' tort claims, including those sounding in
trespass, the Court concludes that District of Columbia law permits emotional
distress as an element of damages because District of Columbia courts follow the
Restatement (Second) of Torts. (See Pl.'s Mem. at 14-15 nn. 14-16 and cases cited
therein.) Section 905 of the Restatement, which applies to all torts, provides that:
"Compensatory damages that may be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss
include compensation (a) for bodily harm,
[435 F.Supp.2d 100]
and (b) for emotional distress." Restatement (Second) of Torts 905 (1979). Section
929 of the Restatement, which pertains specifically to damages available in actions
sounding in trespass, provides in pertinent part: "If one is entitled to a judgment for

harm to land resulting from a past invasion and not amounting to a total destruction
of value, the damages include compensation for . . . discomfort and annoyance to
him as an occupant." Id. 929.
As Chevron accurately asserts, there is scant case law from the District of Columbia
applying Sections 905 and 929. (See Def.'s Reply at 5.)5 Nevertheless, the District of
Columbia's established rule that a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional
distress for intentional torts, which the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
has endorsed with respect to intentional torts involving personal property, see
Parker, 557 A.2d at 1322-23, and the absence of any contrary suggestion with
respect to real property, lead the Court to conclude that the District of Columbia
would follow Sections 905 and 929 of the Restatement to permit emotional distress
as an element of damages for the tort claims plaintiffs have asserted. Moreover,
courts in other jurisdictions have applied these sections of the Restatement to
permit emotional distress damages in tort cases similar to the instant claims. See,
e.g., French v. Ralph E. Moore, Inc., 203 Mont. 327, 661 P.2d 844, 847-48 (1983)
(holding damages for mental anguish recoverable for claims trespass, nuisance, and
negligence claims arising out of gasoline discharge from USTs).
Chevron's reliance on District of Columbia cases addressing causes of action for
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress is misplaced. Plaintiffs are
not seeking damages for the separate torts of intentional or negligent infliction of
emotional distress.6 Rather, plaintiffs merely claim emotional distress as an element
of damages for the traditional tort claims they have asserted e.g., trespass,
nuisance, negligence. Chevron, in fact, acknowledges as much. (See Def.'s Mem. at
4 ("In their most recent amended complaints, plaintiffs dropped their claims for
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress."); id.at 4 n. 2 (whereas
prior complaints asserted "claims for intentional and negligent infliction of
emotional distress," current versions assert "emotional distress damages as part
of other claims") (emphasis added).)
The distinction between intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress as
independent causes of action and emotional distress as an element of damages for
traditional tort claims is illustrated by the decision in Adams, supra. In that case, the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected plaintiff's claim for intentional
infliction of emotional
[435 F.Supp.2d 101]
distress, because the plaintiff had failed to prove all of the elements for such a
cause of action,7 but permitted the plaintiff to claim, as an element of damages for
the tort of wrongful termination, "compensation for any emotional distress or
mental anguish resulting from the discharge." Adams, 597 A.2d at 35. In other
words, the court permitted emotional distress as an element of damages for a tort
claim, even though the plaintiff could not meet the requirements of an independent
cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id.; see also Williams
v. Baker, 572 A.2d 1062, 1064 (D.C.1990) ("This jurisdiction's requirement that to be
compensable [in claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress] mental
suffering must flow from physical injury is consistent with the historic reluctance of
the common law to allow recovery for mental distress other than as an element of
damages when an independent tort is established.") (emphasis added).
Finally, Chevron's arguments regarding the Stipulated Order are without merit. As
plaintiffs contend, the Stipulated Order has reduced their claims for emotional
distress damages to those arising from:

(1) fear of the unknown, consisting of (a) fear and anxiety over whether plaintiffs or
their families were exposed to toxic chemicals during the 15 year period from 1989,
when the release was discovered, to 2004, when the air test results were disclosed;
and (b) fear and anxiety over future exposure to toxic chemicals; (2) fear and
anxiety over any possible diminution in value of their homes; (3) fear, anxiety, and
annoyance resulting from the loss of the use and enjoyment of certain parts of their
properties; and (4) humiliation over the contaminated state of their neighborhood.
(Pl.'s Opp'n at 7.) Chevron does not argue that these assertions are directly
contradicted by the Stipulated Order but instead argues that plaintiffs' claims are
"irrational and unreasonable" in light of the Order. (Def.'s Reply at 7.) Questions
about the reasonableness of plaintiffs' alleged fear and anxiety, however, are for
the jury.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Chevron's motion for partial summary judgment
with respect to plaintiffs' damage claims based on emotional distress.
IV. Common Law Strict Liability
Plaintiffs allege that Chevron's storage of gasoline in USTs at the specific service
station at issue constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity, thus giving rise to
claims for common law strict liability. (Nnadili Compl. 186; Abney Compl. 230.)
Chevron argues otherwise, and the Court agrees.
In National Telephone Cooperative Ass'n v. Exxon Corp., 38 F.Supp.2d
1 (D.D.C.1998), which is similar to these cases, the district court concluded that the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia "would likely follow the majority of
jurisdictions that have held that a defendant does not engage in abnormally
dangerous conduct by storing gasoline [in] USTs in commercial environments in
which leaks are not likely to jeopardize human safety." Id. at 8; see also id. ("Where
USTs are buried beneath gasoline stations located in commercial settings, the
overwhelming majority of courts have concluded that such conduct is not
`abnormally
[435 F.Supp.2d 102]
dangerous.'") (citing Arlington Forest Assocs. v. Exxon Corp., 774 F.Supp. 387, 391
(E.D.Va.1991);Hudson v. Peavey Oil Co., 279 Or. 3, 566 P.2d 175, 178 (1977); Smith
v. Weaver, 445 Pa.Super. 461, 665 A.2d 1215, 1219-20 (1995); Walker Drug Co. v.
La Sal Oil Co., 902 P.2d 1229, 1233 (Utah 1995); Grube v. Daun, 213 Wis.2d
533, 570 N.W.2d 851, 856-57 (1997)). Applying the factors set forth in the
Restatement for determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, the Court
reasoned:
Unlike archetypical abnormally dangerous activities such as blasting, there is no
evidence to suggest "that the risk of seepage [from USTs] cannot be eliminated by
the exercise of reasonable care, or that the harm to be anticipated from the
underground seepage of gasoline is `grave.'" Hudson, 566 P.2d at 178; see also
Smith, 665 A.2d at 1220 ("Gasoline and other petroleum products can be stored and
dispensed safely with reasonable care. . . ."); Walker Drug Co., 902 P.2d at 1233
("[W]e are not convinced that the risk cannot be eliminated by the exercise of
reasonable care."); Grube, 570 N.W.2d at 857 ("Absent negligence or application of
an outside force, use of a USTS does not create a high degree of risk of harm to the
person, land or chattels of another. Moreover those risks that do exist can be
minimized by the exercise of reasonable care by the owner or possessor of the
tank."). Perhaps because reasonable care will typically guard against any harm that
USTs may inflict, "the storage of [gasoline] in tanks is a common use and is valuable
to a modern society." Smith, 665 A.2d at 1220; see also Walker Drug Co., 902 P.2d

at 1233 ("[T]he operation of a gas station is common, appropriate, and of significant

value to the community."); Arlington Forest, 774 F.Supp. at 391 (holding that
gasoline stations fulfill essential transportation needs in modern society).
Id.
Here too, application of the Restatement factors8 demonstrates that Chevron's
conduct was not abnormally dangerous as a matter of law. Because plaintiffs derive
their water from the District of Columbia's water utility, rather than from the
groundwater in the area, there does not exist a high degree of risk that the
utilization of USTs at the service station location will cause great harm to plaintiffs or
others through exposure to contaminated water. (See, e.g., Def.'s Ex. 6) (EPA Press
Release, Dec. 11, 2002) ("Since the drinking water supply to the residential area is
from a public water supply, there is no known risk to the drinking water from
contamination."). Indeed, plaintiffs have stipulated that there exists no possibility of
harmful exposure to contaminants stemming from Chevron's operations. (See Stip.
Order 1.) There is also no evidence in the record that gasoline cannot be stored in
USTs safely with reasonable care. And finally, although the service station is located
in close proximity to a residential neighborhood, it is also situated among other
commercial properties, including several other retail gasoline service stations and a
dry cleaner.
[435 F.Supp.2d 103]
Nothing in Brennan Construction Co. v. Cumberland, 29 App. D.C. 554 (1907),
and Yommer v. McKenzie,255 Md. 220, 257 A.2d 138 (1969), on which plaintiffs
primarily rely, mandates a contrary result. In Brennan Construction, the defendant
"constructed, almost over the bed of the [Potomac River], two large tanks, and
stored therein some 14,000 gallons of petroleum residuum, and permitted a
considerable quantity to escape to the river, remain thereon for weeks, and injure
innocent persons." Brennan Constr. Co., 29 App. D.C. at 561. Here, Chevron stored
gasoline in USTs away from any potable water supply. In Yommer, the court similarly
concluded that the placement of USTs next to a residential neighborhood and
"virtually on top of a family's drinking-water well," Nat'l Tel. Co-op. Ass'n, 38
F.Supp.2d at 9, constituted an abnormally dangerous activity, Yommer, 257 A.2d at
138. Again, by contrast, Chevron's USTs, While located nearby a residential
neighborhood, are not situated near any sources of drinking water and are in an
area populated with commercial enterprises. As other courts have found, "USTs
located beneath the ground of gasoline stations in commercial zones are
commonplace and are of great utility to the community." Nat'l Tel. Co-op. Ass'n, 38
F.Supp.2d at 9.
Accordingly, the Court will grant Chevron's motion for partial summary judgement
with respect to plaintiffs' claims for common law strict liability and enter judgment
in favor of Chevron on Count One of the NnadiliComplaint and Count v. of
the Abney Complaint.
V. Statutory Claims Under the RCRA
Plaintiffs in the Abney case allege two claims under the RCRA. 9 In Count VII of
the Abney Complaint, plaintiffs assert a citizen suit under 6972(a)(1)(A) to compel
Chevron to comply with unspecified provisions of the RCRA and the regulations
promulgated thereunder. In Count VIII, they assert a citizen suit under 6972(a)(1)
(B) to compel Chevron to perform certain remedial measures. Plaintiffs have,
however, "withdraw[n] their claim for injunctive relief under the RCRA" (Pl.'s Opp'n
at 30), because the EPA, on November 26, 2002, issued an Administrative Order,
pursuant to 6973 of the RCRA, requiring Chevron to investigate and, if necessary,

to develop a remedial approach to the conditions that are the subject of this
litigation. (See Def.'s Ex. 3 at III.) Therefore, because plaintiffs have abandoned
these claims, the Court will grant Chevron's motion for partial summary judgment
with respect to Counts VII and VIII of the AbneyComplaint.
VI. Claims of Individuals Whose Properties Do Not Overlie Subsurface Contamination
According to Chevron, at least some plaintiffs own or reside in homes that are not
situated over the subsurface contamination at issue in this litigation. (Def.'s Facts
13.) For the purposes of its motion, Chevron identifies six plaintiffs who it contends
fall into this category: (1) Mary and Eunice Minor, of 828 Jefferson Street, N.E.,
Washington, DC; (2) Jacob and Gloria Carey, formerly of 5204 12th Street, N.E.,
Washington DC; and (3) Tometta and Fred Dendy, of 618 Oglethorpe Street, N.E.,
Washington, DC. (Id.) In support of this contention, Chevron relies on certain maps
purportedly published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which tend to show that
the properties of these six plaintiffs "and others" are not situated over the plume of
contamination. (Id.; see also
[435 F.Supp.2d 104]
Def.'s Ex. 5.)10 Chevron also notes that, instead of claiming that their properties
directly overlie subsurface contamination, these six plaintiffs merely allege that
their properties are "located adjacent to the underground Plume of contamination."
(Nnadili Compl. 115, 116, 125.)
Chevron argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all claims
asserted by these six plaintiffs and others whose properties are not located over the
subsurface contamination. (See Def.'s Mem. at 29-33.) According to Chevron, a
party cannot recover damages for alleged diminution in value based upon mere
proximity to environmental contamination. Relying primarily on case law from other
jurisdictions, Chevron argues that a plaintiff either must prove actual physical
impact upon the subject property, see, e.g., Adams v. Star Enter., 51 F.3d 417, 42225 (4th Cir.1995) (Virginia law); Berry v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 989 F.2d 822, 829
(5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1117, 114 S.Ct. 1067, 127 L.Ed.2d 386 (1994)
(Mississippi law), or substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the
property, see, e.g., Exxon v. Yarema, 69 Md.App. 124, 516 A.2d 990, 1004 (1986), in
order to maintain a valid claim for tort damages. Chevron asserts that those
plaintiffs whose properties are not situated over the plume cannot prove the
requisite impact, and that under District of Columbia law, diminution of market
value alone, with no accompanying personal or property damage, does not
constitute an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land. See
Nat'l Tel. Coop. Ass'n, 38 F.Supp.2d at 14 (so holding in context of private nuisance
claim).
Without considering the merits of Chevron's legal arguments, the Court must deny
its motion as to these claims because Chevron has failed to submit admissible
evidence to establish, as a factual matter, that one or more plaintiffs own or reside
on property that is not situated over subsurface contamination. It is "well-settled
that only admissible evidence may be considered by the trial court in ruling on a
motion for summary judgment." Bortell v. Eli Lilly Co., 406 F.Supp.2d 1, 11 (D.D.C.
2005) (quoting Beyene v. Coleman Sec. Servs., Inc., 854 F.2d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir.
1988)); see also Simpkins v. Wash. Area Metro. Transit Auth., 2 F.Supp.2d 52, 56-57
(D.D.C.1998). The maps on which Chevron relies are presented without any affidavit
explaining who prepared them, how they were prepared, and whether they attempt
to delineate the current extent of contamination. 11 Without anything to substantiate

their authenticity, the maps would be inadmissible at trial to establish the plume
boundaries and thus cannot be considered for that purpose on a motion
[435 F.Supp.2d 105]
for summary judgment. See Carmona v. Toledo, 215 F.3d 124, 131 (1st Cir.2000)
("To be admissible at the summary judgment stage, documents must be
authenticated by and attached to an affidavit that meets the requirements of Rule
56(e).") (internal quotations and citation omitted); Orsi v. Kirkwood, 999 F.2d 86, 92
(4th Cir.1993) (same); Friedel v. City of Madison, 832 F.2d 965, 970 (7th Cir.1987).
While the Court recognizes that evidence "should not be excluded on summary
judgment on hypertechnical grounds," Fowle v. C & C Cola, 868 F.2d 59, 67 (3d
Cir.1989), strict adherence to the requirements of Rule 56(e) is particularly
appropriate here because the delineation of the plume boundaries is arguably a
matter of expert opinion rather than a pure question of fact, see id. (unsworn expert
report is not competent to be considered on a motion for summary judgment). To
the extent that the maps were prepared by an expert, plaintiffs have not had the
opportunity to depose the expert or assess the facts and methodology on which the
expert relied to form an opinion about the scope of contamination. Moreover, expert
discovery on this issue and others has not yet been completed in this litigation.
In short, because Chevron has failed to support its motion with admissible evidence,
the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist, which preclude it from
granting summary judgment on these claims.12
CONCLUSION
For the reasons presented above, Chevron's motion for partial summary judgment is
granted in part and denied in part. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Chevron'
on Count One of the Nnadili Complaint and Counts V, VII, and VIII of
the Abney Complaint. Its motion is denied in all other respects. A separate Order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [# 110]
is GRANTED IN PART andDENIED IN PART; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that JUDGMENT shall be entered for defendant on Count One of
the Fifth AmendedNnadili Complaint and Counts V, VII, and VIII of the Third
Amended Abney Complaint; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
is DENIED in all other respects; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer on all outstanding
discovery issues and submit to the Court by June 19, 2006, a joint proposal for the
scheduling of the completion of discovery. A status conference is set for June 26,
2006 at 10:30 a.m. Any plaintiff who intends to proceed pro se must attend the
status conference.
SO ORDERED.
Joseph A. PAKOOTAS, an individual and enrolled member of the
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; Donald R. Michel, an
individual and enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation; State of Washington, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.

TECK COMINCO METALS, LTD., a Canadian corporation, DefendantAppellant.

No. 05-35153.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted December 5, 2005.
Filed July 3, 2006.
Kevin M. Fong, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, CA, for
defendant-appellant Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd.
Richard A. Du Bey, Paul J. Dayton (argued) and Daniel F. Johnson, Short Cressman &
Burgess PLLC, Seattle, WA, for plaintiffs-appellees Joseph A. Pakootas and Donald R.
Michel.
Alexandra K. Smith, Steven J. Thiele, and Kristie E. Carevich, Assistant Attorneys
General, Washington State office of the Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for
plaintiff/intervenor-appellee State of Washington.
Loren R. Dunn, Riddell Williams PS, Seattle, WA, for amici Washington Environmental
Council, Washington, Public Interest Research Group, and Citizens for a Clean
Columbia.
Rex S. Heinke, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for amici
Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Mining Association of Canada.
Brian Hembacher, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for amici People of the
State of California ex rel. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General for the State of California,
and the States of Arizona, Idaho, Montana and Oregon.
Margaret K. Pfeiffer, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Washington, D.C., for amicus
Government of Canada.
Carter G. Phillips, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, Washington, D.C., for amicus
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.
Rob Roy Smith, Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & McGaw, Seattle, WA, for amicus
Okanagan National Alliance in support of plaintiffs-appellees.

Catherine E. Stetson, Hogan & Hartson LLP, Washington, D.C., for amici National
Mining Association and the National Association of Manufacturers.
Martin Wagner, Earthjustice, Oakland, CA, for amici Sierra Club and Sierra Club of
Canada.
Shannon D. Work, Funke & Work, Coeur d'Alene, ID, for amicus Spokane Tribe of
Indians.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington;
Alan A. McDonald, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-00256-AAM.
Before: RONALD M. GOULD and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAM W
SCHWARZER,* District Judge.
GOULD, Circuit Judge:
1
Joseph A. Pakootas and Donald R. Michel (collectively "Pakootas") filed suit to
enforce a Unilateral Administrative Order (Order) issued by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. (Teck),
a Canadian corporation. The Order requires Teck to conduct a remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) in a portion of the Columbia River entirely
within the United States, where hazardous substances disposed of by Teck have
come to be located. We decide today whether a citizen suit based on Teck's
alleged non-compliance with the Order is a domestic or an extraterritorial
application of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675. Further, we address Teck's
argument that it is not liable for having "arranged for disposal" of hazardous
substances because it disposed of the hazardous substances itself, rather than
arranging for disposal "by any other party or entity." 9607(a)(3). 1 We hold that
because CERCLA liability is triggered by an actual or threatened release of
hazardous substances, and because a release of hazardous substances took
place within the United States, this suit involves a domestic application of
CERCLA. Further, we reject Teck's contention that it is not liable under 9607(a)
(3) because it disposed of the hazardous substances itself.
2
* We consider an interlocutory appeal of the denial of Teck's motion to
dismiss.2 In August of 1999, the Colville Tribes petitioned the EPA under 9605 to
conduct an assessment of hazardous substance contamination in and along the
Columbia River in northeastern Washington state. The EPA began the site
assessment in October 1999, and found contamination that included "heavy
metals such as arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc." In re Upper
Columbia River Site, Docket No. CERCLA-10-2004-0018, at 2 (Unilateral

Administrative Order for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Dec. 11,

2003),available at http://yosemite .epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF/UCR/
Enforcement [hereinafter UAO]. The "EPA also observed the presence of slag, a
by-product of the smelting furnaces, containing glassy ferrous granules and other
metals, at beaches and other depositional areas at the Assessment Area." Id. at
2-3. The EPA completed its site assessment in March of 2003, and concluded that
the Upper Columbia River Site (the Site)3 was eligible for listing on the National
Priorities List (NPL).4
3
Teck owns and operates a lead-zinc smelter ("Trail Smelter") in Trail, British
Columbia.5Between 1906 and 1995, Teck generated and disposed of hazardous
materials, in both liquid and solid form, into the Columbia River. These wastes,
known as "slag," include the heavy metals arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury,
lead, and zinc, as well as other unspecified hazardous materials. Before mid1995, the Trail Smelter discharged up to 145,000 tons of slag annually into the
Columbia River. Although the discharge took place within Canada, the EPA
concluded that Teck
4
has arranged for the disposal of its hazardous substances from the Trail Smelter
into the Upper Columbia River by directly discharging up to 145,000 tonnes of
slag annually prior to mid-1995. Effluent, such as slag, was discharged into the
Columbia River through several outfalls at the Trail Smelter . . . . The slag was
carried downstream in the passing river current and settled in slower flowing
quiescent areas.6
5
Id. at 3. A significant amount of slag has accumulated and adversely affects the
surface water, ground water, sediments, and biological resources of the Upper
Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt. Technical evidence shows that the Trail
Smelter is the predominant source of contamination at the Site. The physical and
chemical decay of slag is an ongoing process that releases arsenic, cadmium,
copper, zinc, and lead into the environment, causing harm to human health and
the environment.
6
After the EPA determined that the Site was eligible for listing on the NPL, it
evaluated proposing the Site for placement on the NPL for the purpose of
obtaining federal funding for evaluation and future cleanup. At that time Teck
Cominco American, Inc. (TCAI)7 approached the EPA and expressed a willingness
to perform an independent, limited human health study if the EPA would delay
proposing the Site for NPL listing. The EPA and TCAI entered into negotiations,
which reached a stalemate when the parties could not agree on the scope and
extent of the investigation that TCAI would perform. The EPA concluded that
TCAI's proposed study would not provide the information necessary for the EPA to
select an appropriate remedy for the contamination, and as a result the EPA

issued the Order on December 11, 2003. The Order directed Teck to conduct a
RI/FS8 under CERCLA for the Site. To date Teck has not complied with the Order,
and the EPA has not sought to enforce the Order.
7
Pakootas filed this action in federal district court under the citizen suit provision
of CERCLA. 9659(a)(1). Pakootas sought a declaration that Teck has violated the
Order, injunctive relief enforcing the Order against Teck, as well as penalties for
non-compliance and recovery of costs and fees. Teck moved to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a cause of action under CERCLA and lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, on the ground that the district court could not enforce the Order
because it was based on activities carried out by Teck in Canada. Teck also
moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Teck, a Canadian
corporation with no presence in the United States. After Teck filed its motion to
dismiss, the State of Washington moved to intervene as of right as a plaintiff in
the action. The district court granted the motion to intervene, and considered
Teck's pending motion to dismiss to apply to both Pakootas's complaint and the
State of Washington's complaint-in-intervention.
8
The district court denied Teck's motion to dismiss. It held that because the case
arises under CERCLA "there is a federal question which confers subject matter
jurisdiction on this court." Because there was a federal question, and because
Pakootas's claims were not insubstantial or frivolous, the district court held that
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) was inappropriate. The
district court also held that "[t]he facts alleged in plaintiffs' complaints establish
this court's specific, limited personal jurisdiction over the defendant."
9
Much of district court's order was devoted to analyzing Teck's argument that the
suit involved an impermissible extraterritorial application of CERCLA, and thus
whether dismissal for failure to state a claim under CERCLA was appropriate. The
district court first acknowledged that "there is some question whether this case
really involves an extraterritorial application of CERCLA." However, the district
court assumed that the case involved an extraterritorial application of CERCLA,
and considered whether extraterritorial application was permissible here.
10
In addressing the question of extraterritorial application, the district court
acknowledged that "Congress has the authority to enforce its laws beyond the
territorial boundaries of the United States," but that it is "a longstanding principle
of American law `that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is
meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'"

(quoting EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co. ("Aramco"), 499 U.S. 244, 248, 111 S.Ct.
1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991)). However, the district court concluded that the
presumption against extraterritoriality was overcome here, because
11
there is no doubt that CERCLA affirmatively expresses a clear intent by Congress
to remedy `domestic conditions' within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. That
clear intent, combined with the well-established principle that the presumption
[against extraterritoriality] is not applied where failure to extend the scope of the
statute to a foreign setting will result in adverse effects within the United States,
leads this court to conclude that extraterritorial application of CERCLA is
appropriate in this case.
12
Further, the district court held that Teck was a "person" under the meaning of
9601(21), and held that Teck's liability as a "generator" of hazardous waste
and/or as an "arranger" of the disposal of hazardous waste could not be ruled out
under 9607(a)(3).9
13
The district court sua sponte certified its order for immediate appeal to us
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Thereafter, Teck petitioned for permission to
appeal, which we granted. While Teck's petition for permission to appeal was
pending before us, the district court granted Teck's motion to stay further
proceedings in the district court pending the outcome of this interlocutory
appeal.10
14
On this appeal, Teck does not challenge the district court's determination that it
had personal jurisdiction over Teck. And although Teck "disputes the conclusion"
that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, it does not
argue in its briefing that the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction.
Rather, Teck argues that the district court should have dismissed Pakootas's
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for two reasons. First,
Teck argues that to apply CERCLA to Teck's activities in Canada would be an
impermissible extraterritorial application of United States law. Second, Teck
argues that it is not liable as a person who "arranged for disposal" of hazardous
substances under 9607(a)(3).
II
15
We review de novo a district court's decision on a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Decker v.
Advantage Fund Ltd.,362 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir.2004). We review questions
of law de novo. Torres-Lopez v. May, 111 F.3d 633, 638 (9th Cir.1997).

III
16
We begin by considering how this litigation fits within the CERCLA statutory
framework. CERCLA sets forth a comprehensive scheme for the cleanup of
hazardous waste sites, and imposes liability for cleanup costs on the parties
responsible for the release or potential release of hazardous substances into the
environment. See Pinal Creek Group v. Newmont Mining Corp., 118 F.3d 1298,
1300 (9th Cir.1997); see also Gen. Elec. Co. v. Litton Indus. Automation Sys.,
Inc., 920 F.2d 1415, 1422 (8th Cir.1990) (stating that "two . . . main purposes of
CERCLA" are "prompt cleanup of hazardous waste sites and imposition of all
cleanup costs on the responsible party") (cited with approval in Meghrig v. KFC
W., Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 483, 116 S.Ct. 1251, 134 L.Ed.2d 121 (1996)).
17
To ensure the prompt cleanup of hazardous waste sites, CERCLA gives four
options to the EPA:11 (1) the EPA can investigate and remediate hazardous waste
sites itself under 9604, and later seek to recover response costs from the
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under 9607; (2) the EPA can initiate
settlement negotiations with PRPs under 9622; (3) the EPA can file suit in
federal district court to compel the PRPs to abate the threat if there is an
"imminent and substantial" threat to public health or welfare under 9606(a); or
(4) the EPA can issue orders directing the PRPs to clean up the site under
9606(a). In this case, the EPA chose the fourth approach, and issued the Order to
Teck under 9606(a).
18
If a party receives an order and refuses to comply, enforcement options are
available. See generally Solid State Circuits, Inc. v. EPA, 812 F.2d 383, 387 (8th
Cir. 1987). First, the EPA may bring an action in federal district court to compel
compliance, using the contempt powers of the district court as a potential
sanction for non-compliance. 9606(a). Second, the EPA may bring an action in
federal district court seeking to impose fines of up to $25,000 for each day that
the party fails to comply with the order. 9606(b)(1). Third, the EPA may initiate
cleanup of the facility itself under 9604, and the party responsible for the
pollution is potentially liable for the response and cleanup costs, plus treble
damages. 9607(c)(3).
19
Here, the EPA has not sought to enforce the Order through any of the
mechanisms described above.12 Rather, Pakootas initiated this suit in federal
district court under 9659, the citizen suit provision of CERCLA. Section 9659(a)
(1) provides a cause of action for any person to commence a civil action "against
any person. . . who is alleged to be in violation of any standard, regulation,
condition, requirement, or order which has become effective pursuant to this
chapter." Section 9659(c) gives the district court the power "to order such action

as may be necessary to correct the violation, and to impose any civil penalty
provided for the violation." Further, 9613(h)(2), the "timing of review" provision
of CERCLA, grants federal courts jurisdiction to review an order issued under
9606(a) when a party seeks to enforce the order.
20
Having placed this litigation in context, we turn to the merits.
IV
21
Teck's primary argument is that, in absence of a clear statement by Congress
that it intended CERCLA to apply extraterritorially, the presumption against
extraterritorial application of United States law precludes CERCLA from applying
to Teck in Canada. We need to address whether the presumption against
extraterritoriality applies only if this case involves an extraterritorial application
of CERCLA. So a threshold question is whether this case involves a domestic or
extraterritorial application of CERCLA.
22
Unlike other environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 74017671q, Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387, and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k, CERCLA is not a regulatory
statute. Rather, CERCLA imposes liability for the cleanup of sites where there is a
release or threatened release of hazardous substances into the environment. See
Carson Harbor Vill., Ltd. v. Unocal Corp., 270 F.3d 863, 881 (9th Cir.2001) (en
banc) ("CERCLA holds a PRP liable for a disposal that `releases or threatens to
release' hazardous substances into the environment."). CERCLA liability attaches
when three conditions are satisfied: (1) the site at which there is an actual or
threatened release of hazardous substances is a "facility" under 9601(9); (2) a
"release" or "threatened release" of a hazardous substance from the facility has
occurred, 9607(a)(4); and (3) the party is within one of the four classes of
persons subject to liability under 9607(a). 13
23
CERCLA defines the term "facility" as, in relevant part, "any site or area where a
hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed, or
otherwise come to be located." 9601(9). The Order defines the "facility" in this
case as the Site, which is described as the "extent of contamination in the United
States associated with the Upper Columbia River." UAO at 2 (emphasis
added); see also UAO at 5 ("The Upper Columbia River Site is a `facility' as
defined in Section 101(9) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(9)."). 14 The slag has "come
to be located" at the Site, and the Site is thus a facility under 9601(a). See
3550 Stevens Creek Assocs. v. Barclays Bank of California, 915 F.2d 1355, 1360
n. 10 (9th Cir. 1990) ("[T]he term facility has been broadly construed by the

courts, such that in order to show that an area is a facility, the plaintiff need only
show that a hazardous substance under CERCLA is placed there or has otherwise
come to be located there." (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Order defines
the facility as being entirely within the United States, and Teck does not argue
that the Site is not a CERCLA facility. Because the CERCLA facility is within the
United States, this case does not involve an extraterritorial application of CERCLA
to a facility abroad. The theory of Pakootas's complaint, seeking to enforce the
terms of the Order to a "facility" within the United States, does not invoke
extraterritorial application of United States law precisely because this case
involves a domestic facility.
24
The second element of liability under CERCLA is that there must be a "release" or
"threatened release" of a hazardous substance from the facility into the
environment. See 9607(a)(4). To determine if there is an actual or threatened
release here, we consider the statutory definition of release. CERCLA defines a
"release," with certain exceptions not relevant here, as "any spilling, leaking,
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching,
dumping, or disposing into the environment." 9601(22).
25
Here, several events could potentially be characterized as releases. First, there is
the discharge of waste from the Trail Smelter into the Columbia River in Canada.
Second, there is the discharge or escape of the slag from Canada when the
Columbia River enters the United States. And third, there is the leaching of heavy
metals and other hazardous substances from the slag into the environment at the
Site. Although each of these events can be characterized as a release, CERCLA
liability does not attach unless the "release" is from a CERCLA facility.
26
Here, as noted, the Order describes the facility as the Site; not the Trail Smelter
in Canada or the Columbia River in Canada. Pakootas has alleged that the
leaching of hazardous substances from the slag that is in the Site is a CERCLA
release, and Teck has not argued that the slag's interaction with the water and
sediment of the Upper Columbia River is not a release within the intendment of
CERCLA. Our precedents establish that the passive migration of hazardous
substances into the environment from where hazardous substances have come to
be located is a release under CERCLA. See A & W Smelter & Refiners, Inc. v.
Clinton, 146 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that wind blowing particles
of hazardous substances from a pile of waste was a CERCLA release); United
States v. Chapman, 146 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.1998) (affirming summary
judgment where the Government presented evidence that corroding drums were
leaking hazardous substances into the soil);see also Coeur D'Alene Tribe
v. Asarco, Inc., 280 F.Supp.2d 1094, 1113 (D.Idaho 2003) ("Th[e] passive
movement and migration of hazardous substances by mother nature (no human

action assisting in the movement) is still a `release' for purposes of CERCLA in

this case."). We hold that the leaching of hazardous substances from the slag at
the Site is a CERCLA release. That releasea release into the United States from
a facility in the United Statesis entirely domestic.
27
The third element of liability under CERCLA is that the party must be a "covered
person" under 9607(a). Teck argues that it is not a covered person under
9607(a)(3) because it has not "arranged for disposal" of a hazardous substance
"by any other party or entity" as required by 9607(a)(3), because Teck disposed
of the slag itself, and without the aid of another. Alternatively, Teck argues that if
it is an arranger under 9607(a)(3), then basing CERCLA liability on Teck
arranging for disposal of slag in Canada is an impermissible extraterritorial
application of CERCLA.
28
Assuming that Teck is an arranger under 9607(a)(3), 15 we consider whether the
fact that the act of arranging in Canada for disposal of the slag makes this an
extraterritorial application of CERCLA. Teck argues that because it arranged in
Canada for disposal, that is, the act of arranging took place in Canada even
though the hazardous substances came to be located in the United States, it
cannot be held liable under CERCLA without applying CERCLA extraterritorially.
29
The text of 9607(a)(3) applies to "any person" who arranged for the disposal of
hazardous substances. The term "person" includes, inter alia, "an individual, firm,
corporation, association, partnership, consortium, joint venture, [or] commercial
entity." 9601(21). On its face, this definition includes corporations such as Teck,
although the definition does not indicate whether foreign corporations are
covered. Teck argues that because the Supreme Court recently held that the term
"any court" as used in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) does not include foreign courts, we
should interpret the term "any person" so as not to include foreign
corporations. See Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385, 390-91, 125 S.Ct. 1752,
161 L.Ed.2d 651 (2005).
30
The decision in Small was based in part on United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3
Wheat.) 610, 4 L.Ed. 471 (1818), in which Chief Justice Marshall held for the Court
that the words "any person or persons," as used in a statute prohibiting piracy on
the high seas, "must not only be limited to cases within the jurisdiction of the
state, but also to those objects to which the legislature intended to apply
them." Id. at 631. The Court held that "any person or persons" did not include
crimes "committed by a person on the high seas, on board of any ship or vessel
belonging exclusively to subjects of a foreign state, on persons within a vessel
belonging exclusively to subjects of a foreign state." Id. at 633-34. However, the
Court held that even though the statute did not specifically enumerate foreign

parties as "persons," the statute did apply to punish piracy committed by foreign
parties against vessels belonging to subjects of the United States. See id.
31
Palmer relied upon two benchmarks for determining whether terms such as "any
person" apply to foreign persons: (1) the state must have jurisdiction over the
party, and (2) the legislature must intend for the term to apply. See id. at 631.
Regarding jurisdiction, Teck argued in the district court that there was no
personal jurisdiction over it. The district court held that there was personal
jurisdiction, and Teck has not appealed that determination. Because a party can
waive personal jurisdiction, we are not required to consider it sua sponte. See
Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 355 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004) (citing the "longstanding
rule that personal jurisdiction, in the traditional sense, can be waived and need
not be addressed sua sponte"). Nevertheless, we agree with the district court
that there is specific personal jurisdiction over Teck here. 16 Because there is
specific personal jurisdiction over Teck here based on its allegedly tortious act
aimed at the state of Washington, the firstPalmer benchmark is satisfied, and we
can appropriately construe the term "any person" to apply to Teck.
32
The second Palmer benchmark is that the legislature must intend for the statute
to apply to the situation. Except for the statutory definition of "any person,"
CERCLA is silent about whois covered by the Act. But CERCLA is clear about what
is covered by the Act. CERCLA liability attaches upon release or threatened
release of a hazardous substance into the environment. CERCLA defines
"environment" to include "any other surface water, ground water, drinking water
supply, land surface or subsurface strata, or ambient air within the United States
or under the jurisdiction of the United States." 9601(8) (emphasis added).
CERCLA's purpose is to promote the cleanup of hazardous waste sites where
there is a release or threatened release of hazardous substances into the
environment within the United States. See ARC Ecology v. U.S. Dep't of the Air
Force, 411 F.3d 1092, 1096-98 (9th Cir.2005) (citing legislative history
demonstrating that Congress intended CERCLA to apply to cleanup hazardous
waste sites in the United States). Because the legislature intended to hold parties
responsible for hazardous waste sites that release or threaten release of
hazardous substances into the United States environment, the
second Palmer benchmark is satisfied here.
33
Although the Palmer analysis supports the proposition that CERCLA applies to
Teck, Palmerof course does not address the distinction between domestic or
extraterritorial application of CERCLA. The Palmer analysis, however, in what we
have termed its second benchmark, brings to mind the "domestic effects"
exception to the presumption against extraterritorial application of United States
law. See Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280, 287-88, 73 S.Ct. 252, 97
L.Ed. 319 (1952) (finding jurisdiction in a trademark suit against a person in

Mexico who manufactured counterfeit Bulova watches that then entered and
caused harm within the United States). The difference between a domestic
application of United States law and a presumptively impermissible
extraterritorial application of United States law becomes apparent when we
consider the conduct that the law prohibits. In Steele the prohibited conduct, the
unauthorized use and reproduction of Bulova's registered trademark, took place
in Mexico but the harm, the dilution of Bulova's trademark, took place in the
United States.Id. at 287, 73 S.Ct. 252. The Court therefore held that there was
jurisdiction in that case.
34
Here, the operative event creating a liability under CERCLA is the release or
threatened release of a hazardous substance. See 9607(a)(4). Arranging for
disposal of such substances, in and of itself, does not trigger CERCLA liability, nor
does actual disposal of hazardous substances. 17 A release must occur or be
threatened before CERCLA is triggered. A party that "arranged for disposal" of a
hazardous substance under 9607(a)(3) does not become liable under CERCLA
until there is an actual or threatened release of that substance into the
environment. Arranging for disposal of hazardous substances, in itself, is neither
regulated under nor prohibited by CERCLA. Further, disposal activities that were
legal when conducted can nevertheless give rise to liability under 9607(a)(3) if
there is an actual or threatened release of such hazardous substances into the
environment. See Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. United States (Cadillac
Fairview/California I), 41 F.3d 562, 565-66 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that a party
that sold a product to another party "arranged for disposal" of a hazardous
substance); Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co. (Cadillac
Fairview/California II), 299 F.3d 1019, 1029 (9th Cir. 2002) (characterizing the
conduct at issue in Cadillac Fairview/California I as "legal at the time").
35
The location where a party arranged for disposal or disposed of hazardous
substances is not controlling for purposes of assessing whether CERCLA is being
applied extraterritorially, because CERCLA imposes liability for releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and not merely for disposal or
arranging for disposal of such substances. 18Because the actual or threatened
release of hazardous substances triggers CERCLA liability, and because the actual
or threatened release here, the leaching of hazardous substances from slag that
settled at the Site, took place in the United States, this case involves a domestic
application of CERCLA.
36
Our conclusion is reinforced by considering CERCLA's place within the
constellation of our country's environmental laws, and contrasting it with RCRA:
37

Unlike [CERCLA], RCRA is not principally designed to effectuate the cleanup of

toxic waste sites or to compensate those who have attended to the remediation
of environmental hazards. RCRA's primary purpose, rather, is to reduce the
generation of hazardous waste and to ensure the proper treatment, storage, and
disposal of that waste which is nonetheless generated, "so as to minimize the
present and future threat to human health and the environment."
38
Meghrig, 516 U.S. at 483, 116 S.Ct. 1251 (quoting 9602(b)) (internal citation
omitted). RCRA regulates the generation and disposal of hazardous waste,
whereas CERCLA imposes liability to clean up a site when there are actual or
threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment. It is RCRA,
not CERCLA, that governs prospectively how generators of hazardous substances
should dispose of those substances, and it is the Canadian equivalent of RCRA,
not CERCLA, that regulates how Teck disposes of its waste within Canada.
39
Here, the district court assumed, but did not decide, that this suit involved
extraterritorial application of CERCLA because "[t]o find there is not an
extraterritorial application of CERCLA in this case would require reliance on a
legal fiction that the `releases' of hazardous substances into the Upper Columbia
River Site and Lake Roosevelt are wholly separable from the discharge of those
substances into the Columbia River at the Trail Smelter." However, what the
district court dismissed as a "legal fiction" is the foundation of the distinction
between RCRA and CERCLA. If the Trail Smelter were in the United States, the
discharge of slag from the smelter into the Columbia River would potentially be
regulated by RCRA and the Clean Water Act. And that prospective regulation, if
any, would be legally distinct from a finding of CERCLA liability for cleanup of
actual or threatened releases of the hazardous substances into the environment
from the disposal site, here the Upper Columbia River Site. That the Trail Smelter
is located in Canada does not change this analysis, as the district court
recognized.
40
CERCLA is only concerned with imposing liability for cleanup of hazardous waste
disposal sites where there has been an actual or threatened release of hazardous
substances into the environment. CERCLA does not obligate parties (either
foreign or domestic) liable for cleanup costs to cease the disposal activities such
as those that made them liable for cleanup costs; regulating disposal activities is
in the domain of RCRA or other regulatory statutes.
41
We hold that applying CERCLA here to the release of hazardous substances at the
Site is a domestic, rather than an extraterritorial application of CERCLA, even

though the original source of the hazardous substances is located in a foreign

country.
V
42
We next address Teck's only other argumentthat it is not covered by 9607(a)
(3) because it has not "arranged for disposal . . . of hazardous substances. . . by
any other party or entity" because, if the facts in the complaint are taken as true,
Teck disposed of the slag itself. Preliminarily, we note that neither Pakootas, nor
the Order, specifically allege that Teck is an arranger under 9607(a)(3). Rather,
the Order states that Teck is a "responsible party under Sections 104, 107, and
122 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9604, 9607, and 9622." UAO at 6. The parties have,
however, focused in their arguments solely on 9607(a)(3). 19
43
Section 9607(a)(3) holds liable parties that arranged for the disposal of
hazardous substances. It states, in relevant part, the following:
44
any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or
treatment, or arranged with a transporter for the transport for disposal or
treatment, of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person, by any
other party or entity, at any facility or incineration vessel owned or operated by
another party or entity and containing such substances . . . shall be liable for. . .
45
certain costs of cleanup. 9607(a)(3). We have previously said that "neither a
logician nor a grammarian will find comfort in the world of CERCLA," Carson
Harbor Vill., 270 F.3d at 883, a statement that applies with force to 9607(a)(3).
Section 9607(a)(3) does not make literal or grammatical sense as written. It is by
no means clear to what the phrase "by any other party or entity" refers. Pakootas
argues that it refers to a party who owns the waste; and Teck argues that it refers
to a party who arranges for disposal with the owner. To make sense of the
sentence we might read the word "or" into the section, which supports Pakootas's
position, or we might delete two commas, which supports Teck's position. Neither
construction is entirely felicitous.
46
Section 9607(a)(3)'s phrase "by any other party or entity" can be read to refer to
"hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person," such that parties
can be liable if they arranged for disposal of their own waste or if they arranged
for disposal of wastes owned "by any other party or entity." This would mean that
a party need not own the waste to be liable as an arranger. But it would require
reading the word "or" into the provision, so that the relevant language would

read "any person who . . . arranged for disposal or treatment . . . of hazardous

substances owned or possessed by such person [or] by any other party or
entity. . . ." We followed this approach in Cadillac Fairview/California I, where we
said with forcible reasoning:
47
Liability is not limited to those who own the hazardous substances, who actually
dispose of or treat such substances, or who control the disposal or treatment
process. The language explicitly extends liability to persons "otherwise
arrang[ing]" for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances whether owned
by the arranger or "by any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration
vessel owned or operated by another party or entity."
48
41 F.3d at 565 (quoting 9607(a)(3)) (alteration in original); see also Kalamazoo
River Study Group v. Menasha Corp., 228 F.3d 648, 659 (6th Cir.2000) (holding
that defendant was potentially liable as an arranger when it discharged
hazardous substances into a river).
49
The text of 9607(a)(3) can also be modified to support a different meaning, the
one that Teck advances on this appeal. Teck argues that the phrase "by any other
party or entity" refers to "or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment," and
so, the argument runs, arranger liability does not attach unless one party
arranged with another party to dispose of hazardous substances. If we accept
this position, then a generator of hazardous substances who disposes of the
waste alone and with no other participant may defeat CERCLA liability, because
the generator had not "arranged" with a second party for disposal of the waste.
But this interpretation would appear to require the removal of the two commas
that offset the phrase "by any other party or entity," so that the relevant
language would read "any person who . . . arranged for disposal or treatment . . .
of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person[] by any other
party or entity[]." In Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Catellus Development
Corp., 976 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir.1992) we perhaps implicitly, albeit summarily,
suggested that this reading might be appropriate, stating: "Nor has [Plaintiff]
alleged that [Defendant] Ferry arranged for the contaminated soil to be disposed
of `by any other party or entity' under 9607(a)(3). Ferry disposed of the soil itself
by spreading it over the uncontaminated areas of the property." Id. at 1341; see
also Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Capuano, 381 F.3d 6, 24 (1st Cir.2004) ("The clause
`by any other party or entity' clarifies that, for arranger liability to attach, the
disposal or treatment must be performed by another party or entity, as was the
case here."). Thus it can be argued that an implication from Kaiser
Aluminum supports Teck's view.
50

Teck's argument relying on implication from Kaiser Aluminum would create a gap
in the CERCLA liability regime by allowing a generator of hazardous substances
potentially to avoid liability by disposing of wastes without involving a transporter
as an intermediary. If the generator disposed of the waste on the property of
another, one could argue that the generator would not be liable under 9607(a)
(1) or (a)(2) because both subsections apply to the owner of a facility; as we
described above the relevant facility is the site at which hazardous substances
are released into the environment, not necessarily where the waste generation
and dumping took place. Liability as a transporter under 9607(a)(4) might not
attach because transporter liability applies to "any person who accepts or
accepted any hazardous substance for transport." Although we do not here
decide the contours of transporter liability, one could argue that a generator who
owns hazardous substances cannot "accept" such hazardous substances for
transport because they are already held by the generator. We hesitate to endorse
a statutory interpretation that would leave a gaping and illogical hole in the
statute's coverage, permitting argument that generators of hazardous waste
might freely dispose of it themselves and stay outside the statute's cleanup
liability provisions. We think that was not what was intended by Congress's
chosen language and statutory scheme.
51
The ambiguous phrase "by any other party or entity" cannot sensibly be read to
refer both to the language urged by Pakootas and to that urged by Teck in their
differing theories of statutory interpretation. In interpreting the turbid phrase and
punctuation on which the parties have vigorously pressed contradictory theories,
we necessarily navigate a quagmire. Yet, in the face of statutory ambiguity,
9607(a)(3) "must be given `a liberal judicial interpretation . . . consistent with
CERCLA's overwhelmingly remedial statutory scheme.'" Cadillac
Fairview/California I, 41 F.3d at 565 n. 4 (quoting United States v. Aceto Agric.
Chem. Corp.,872 F.2d 1373, 1380 (8th Cir.1989) (alteration in original)).
52
Pakootas and the State of Washington suggest that we can resolve the
inconsistent and mutually-exclusive language in Cadillac Fairview/California
I and Kaiser Aluminum by dismissing as ambiguous or as dicta the statement
in Kaiser Aluminum that "[n]or has [Plaintiff] alleged that Ferry arranged for the
contaminated soil to be disposed of `by any other party or entity' under 9607(a)
(3)." 976 F.2d at 1341. The argument is that it is unclear whether we meant
in Kaiser Aluminum that we did not need to reach the question because Plaintiff
had not alleged that Ferry was an arranger, or instead that Plaintiff had alleged
that Ferry was an arranger but that we rejected that interpretation.
53
We conclude that Pakootas and the State of Washington are correct. The two
sentences from Kaiser Aluminum quoted above are the only two sentences in
that opinion to discuss arranger liability. The opinion contains no analysis of the

text of 9607(a)(3), and does not discuss arguments for or against interpreting
9607(a)(3) to require the involvement of another party or entity for arranger
liability to attach. The ambiguous discussion of 9607(a)(3) liability was not in
our view a holding, but rather a prelude to discussing why the defendant
in Kaiser Aluminum was potentially liable as an owner of a facility under
9607(a)(2) or as a transporter under 9607(a)(4). And perhaps most importantly,
the statement in question may be simply a description of what was not alleged
by a party, rather than our court's choice of a rule of law.
54
Further, the statement in Kaiser Aluminum bears the hallmarks of dicta. See
United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (Kozinski,
J., concurring) ("Where it is clear that a statement is made casually and without
analysis, where the statement is uttered in passing without due consideration of
the alternatives, or where it is merely a prelude to another legal issue that
commands the panel's full attention, it may be appropriate to re-visit the issue in
a later case.").20
55
Because we view the statement in Kaiser Aluminum as offhand, unreasoned, and
ambiguous, rather than as an intended choice of a rule, we consider the Ninth
Circuit's law to be represented by Cadillac Fairview/California I. And
under Cadillac Fairview/California I, the phrase "by any other party or entity"
refers to ownership of the waste, such that one may be liable under 9607(a)(3)
if they arrange for disposal of their own waste or someone else's waste, and that
the arranger element can be met when disposal is not arranged "by any other
party or entity." We hold instead that Teck is potentially liable under 9607(a)(3),
and we reject Teck's argument that it is not liable under 9607(a)(3) because it
did not arrange for disposal of its slag with "any other party or entity."
VI
56
In conclusion, we hold that the district court correctly denied Teck's motion to
dismiss Pakootas's complaint for failure to state a claim, and reject Teck's
arguments to the contrary. Applying CERCLA to the Site, as defined by the Order
issued by the EPA, is a domestic application of CERCLA. The argument that this
case presents an extraterritorial application of CERCLA fails because CERCLA
liability does not attach until there is an actual or threatened release of
hazardous substances into the environment; the suit concerns actual or
threatened releases of heavy metals and other hazardous substances into the
Upper Columbia River Site within the United States. We reject Teck's argument
that it is not liable under 9607(a)(3) because it did not arrange for disposal of
hazardous substances "by any other party or entity."
57

AFFIRMED.
Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230 (1907)
Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company
No. 5, Original
Argued February 25, 26, 1907
Decided May 13, 1907
206 U.S. 230
BILL IN EQUITY
Syllabus
When the states by their union made the forcible abatement of outside nuisances
impossible to each, they did not thereby agree to submit to whatever might be
done. They retained the right to make reasonable demands on the grounds of their
still remaining quasi-sovereign interests, and the alternative to force a suit in this
Court.
This Court has jurisdiction to, and at the suit of a state will, enjoin a corporation,
citizen of another state, from discharging over its territory noxious fumes from
works in another state where it appears that those fumes cause and threaten
damage on a considerable scale to the forests and vegetable life, if not to health,
within the plaintiff's state.
A suit brought by a state to enjoin a corporation having its work in another state
from discharging noxious gases over its territory is not the same as one between
private parties, and although the elements which would form the basis of relief
between private parties are wanting, the state can maintain the suit for injury in a
capacity as quasi-sovereign, in which capacity it has an interest independent of and
behind its citizens in all the earth and air within its domain, and whether insisting
upon bringing such a suit results in more harm than good to its citizen, many of
whom may profit through the maintenance of the works causing the nuisance, is for
the state itself to determine.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Page 206 U. S. 236

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a bill in equity filed in this Court by the State of Georgia, in pursuance of a
resolution of the legislature and by direction of the governor of the state, to enjoin
the defendant copper companies from discharging noxious gas from their works in
Tennessee over the plaintiff's territory. It alleges that, in consequence of such
discharge, a wholesale destruction of forests, orchards, and crops is going on, and
other injuries are done and threatened in five counties of the state. It alleges also a
vain application to the State of Tennessee for relief. A preliminary injunction was
denied; but, as there was ground to fear that great and irreparable damage might
be done, an early day was fixed for the final hearing, and the parties were given
leave, if so minded, to try the case on affidavits. This has been done without
objection, and, although the method would be unsatisfactory if our decision turned
on any nice question of fact, in the view that we take we think it unlikely that either
party has suffered harm.
Page 206 U. S. 237
The case has been argued largely as if it were one between two private parties; but
it is not. The very elements that would be relied upon in a suit between fellowcitizens as a ground for equitable relief are wanting here. The state owns very little
of the territory alleged to be affected, and the damage to it capable of estimate in
money, possibly at least, is small. This is a suit by a state for an injury to it in its
capacity of quasi-sovereign. In that capacity, the state has an interest independent
of and behind the titles of its citizens, in all the earth and air within its domain. It
has the last word as to whether its mountains shall be stripped of their forests and
its inhabitants shall breathe pure air. It might have to pay individuals before it could
utter that word, but with it remains the final power. The alleged damage to the state
as a private owner is merely a makeweight, and we may lay on one side the dispute
as to whether the destruction of forests has led to the gullying of its roads.
The caution with which demands of this sort on the part of a state for relief from
injuries analogous to torts must be examined is dwelt upon in Missouri v.
Illinois, 200 U. S. 496, 200 U. S. 520-521. But it is plain that some such demands
must be recognized, if the grounds alleged are proved. When the states by their
union made the forcible abatement of outside nuisances impossible to each, they
did not thereby agree to submit to whatever might be done. They did not renounce
the possibility of making reasonable demands on the ground of their still

remaining quasi-sovereign interests, and the alternative to force is a suit in this

Court. Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208,180 U. S. 241.
Some peculiarities necessarily mark a suit of this kind. If the state has a case at all,
it is somewhat more certainly entitled to specific relief than a private party might
be. It is not lightly to be required to give up quasi-sovereign rights for pay; and,
apart from the difficulty of valuing such rights in money, if that be its choice, it may
insist that an infraction of them shall be stopped. The states, by entering the Union,
did not sink
Page 206 U. S. 238
to the position of private owners, subject to one system of private law. This Court
has not quite the same freedom to balance the harm that will be done by an
injunction against that of which the plaintiff complains, that it would have in
deciding between two subjects of a single political power. Without excluding the
considerations that equity always takes into account, we cannot give the weight
that was given them in argument to a comparison between the damage threatened
to the plaintiff and the calamity of a possible stop to the defendants' business, the
question of health, the character of the forests as a first or second growth, the
commercial possibility or impossibility of reducing the fumes to sulphuric acid, the
special adaptation of the business to the place.
It is a fair and reasonable demand on the part of a sovereign that the air over its
territory should not be polluted on a great scale by sulphurous acid gas, that the
forests on its mountains, be they better or worse, and whatever domestic
destruction they have suffered, should not be further destroyed or threatened by
the act of persons beyond its control, that the crops and orchards on its hills should
not be endangered from the same source. If any such demand is to be enforced this
must be notwithstanding the hesitation that we might feel if the suit were between
private parties, and the doubt whether, for the injuries which they might be
suffering to their property, they should not be left to an action at law.
The proof requires but a few words. It is not denied that the defendants generate in
their works near the Georgia line large quantities of sulphur dioxide which becomes
sulphurous acid by its mixture with the air. It hardly is denied, and cannot be denied
with success, that this gas often is carried by the wind great distances and over
great tracts of Georgia land. On the evidence, the pollution of the air and the

magnitude of that pollution are not open to dispute. Without any attempt to go into
details immaterial to the suit, it is proper to add that we are satisfied, by a
preponderance of evidence, that the sulphurous fumes cause and threaten damage
on so considerable
Page 206 U. S. 239
a scale to the forests and vegetable life, if not to health, within the plaintiff state, as
to make out a case within the requirements of Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496.
Whether Georgia, by insisting upon this claim, is doing more harm than good to her
own citizens is for her to determine. The possible disaster to those outside the state
must be accepted as a consequence of her standing upon her extreme rights.
It is argued that the state has been guilty of laches. We deem it unnecessary to
consider how far such a defense would be available in a suit of this sort, since, in
our opinion, due diligence has been shown. The conditions have been different until
recent years. After the evil had grown greater in 1904, the state brought a bill in this
Court. The defendants, however, already were abandoning the old method of
roasting ore in open heaps and it was hoped that the change would stop the trouble.
They were ready to agree not to return to that method, and, upon such an
agreement's being made, the bill was dismissed without prejudice. But the plaintiff
now finds, or thinks that it finds, that the tall chimneys in present use cause the
poisonous gases to be carried to greater distances than ever before, and that the
evil has not been helped.
If the State of Georgia adheres to its determination, there is no alternative to issuing
an injunction, after allowing a reasonable time to the defendants to complete the
structures that they now are building, and the efforts that they are making to stop
the fumes. The plaintiff may submit a form of decree on the coming in of this Court
in October next.
Injunction to issue.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring:
The State of Georgia is, in my opinion, entitled to the general relief sought by its bill,
and therefore I concur in the result. With some things, however, contained in the
opinion, or to be implied from its language, I do not concur. When the Constitution
gave this Court original jurisdiction in cases

Page 206 U. S. 240

"in which a state shall be a party," it was not intended, I think, to authorize the
court to apply in its behalf any principle or rule of equity that would not be applied,
under the same facts, in suits wholly between private parties. If this were a suit
between private parties, and if, under the evidence, a court of equity would not give
the plaintiff an injunction, then it ought not to grant relief, under like circumstances,
to the plaintiff, because it happens to be a state, possessing some powers of
sovereignty. Georgia is entitled to the relief sought not because it is a state, but
because it is a party which has established its right to such relief by proof. The
opinion, if I do not mistake its scope, proceeds largely upon the ground that this
Court, sitting in this case as a court of equity, owes some special duty to Georgia as
a state, although it is a party, while, under the same facts, it would not owe any
such duty to the plaintiff if an individual.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United
States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only,
and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make
no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the
information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please
check official sources.

MASSACHUSETTS et al. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT

No. 051120.Argued November 29, 2006Decided April 2, 2007

Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise
in global temperatures and attendant climatological and
environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in
the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, a group of
private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases,
including carbon dioxide, under 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act,
which requires that the EPA shall by regulation prescribe

standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any

class of new motor vehicles which in [the EPA
Administrators] judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air
pollution reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare, 42 U. S. C. 7521(a)(1). The Act defines air pollutant to
include any air pollution agent , including any physical,
chemical substance emitted into the ambient air.
7602(g). EPA ultimately denied the petition, reasoning that (1) the
Act does not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address
global climate change, and (2) even if it had the authority to set
greenhouse gas emission standards, it would have been unwise to
do so at that time because a causal link between greenhouse
gases and the increase in global surface air temperatures was not
unequivocally established. The agency further characterized any
EPA regulation of motor-vehicle emissions as a piecemeal
approach to climate change that would conflict with the
Presidents comprehensive approach involving additional support
for technological innovation, the creation of nonregulatory
programs to encourage voluntary private-sector reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, and further research on climate
change, and might hamper the Presidents ability to persuade key
developing nations to reduce emissions.
Petitioners, now joined by intervenor Massachusetts and
other state and local governments, sought review in the D. C.
Circuit. Although each of the three judges on the panel wrote
separately, two of them agreed that the EPA Administrator
properly exercised his discretion in denying the rulemaking
petition. One judge concluded that the Administrators exercise of
judgment as to whether a pollutant could reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, 7521(a)(1),
could be based on scientific uncertainty as well as other factors,
including the concern that unilateral U. S. regulation of motorvehicle emissions could weaken efforts to reduce other countries
greenhouse gas emissions. The second judge opined that
petitioners had failed to demonstrate the particularized injury to
them that is necessary to establish standing under Article III, but
accepted the contrary view as the law of the case and joined the
judgment on the merits as the closest to that which he preferred.
The court therefore denied review.
Held:
1. Petitioners have standing to challenge the EPAs denial of
their rulemaking petition. Pp. 1223.
(a) This case suffers from none of the defects that would
preclude it from being a justiciable Article III Controvers[y].
See, e.g., Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1. Moreover, the proper
construction of a congressional statute is an eminently suitable

question for federal-court resolution, and Congress has authorized

precisely this type of challenge to EPA action, see 42 U. S. C.
7607(b)(1). Contrary to EPAs argument, standing doctrine
presents no insuperable jurisdictional obstacle here. To
demonstrate standing, a litigant must show that it has suffered a
concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent,
that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, and that a
favorable decision will likely redress that injury.
See Lujanv. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555 . However, a
litigant to whom Congress has accorded a procedural right to
protect his concrete interests, id., at 573, n. 7here, the right to
challenge agency action unlawfully withheld, 7607(b)(1)can
assert that right without meeting all the normal standards for
redressability and immediacy, ibid. Only one petitioner needs to
have standing to authorize review. See Rumsfeld v. Forum for
Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U. S. 47 .
Massachusetts has a special position and interest here. It is a
sovereign State and not, as in Lujan, a private individual, and it
actually owns a great deal of the territory alleged to be affected.
The sovereign prerogatives to force reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions, to negotiate emissions treaties with developing
countries, and (in some circumstances) to exercise the police
power to reduce motor-vehicle emissions are now lodged in the
Federal Government. Because congress has ordered EPA to protect
Massachusetts (among others) by prescribing applicable
standards, 7521(a)(1), and has given Massachusetts a
concomitant procedural right to challenge the rejection of its
rulemaking petition as arbitrary and capricious, 7607(b)(1),
petitioners submissions as they pertain to Massachusetts have
satisfied the most demanding standards of the adversarial
process. EPAs steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both
actual and imminent, Lujan, 504 U. S., at 560, and there is a
substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will
prompt EPA to take steps to reduce that risk, Duke Power
Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U. S. 59 .
Pp. 1217.
(b) The harms associated with climate change are serious and
well recognized. The Governments own objective assessment of
the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified
experts indicate that global warming threatens, inter alia, a
precipitate rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to
natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snowpack
with direct and important economic consequences, and increases
in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events. That
these changes are widely shared does not minimize
Massachusetts interest in the outcome of this litigation.
SeeFederal Election Commn v. Akins, 524 U. S. 11 . According to
petitioners uncontested affidavits, global sea levels rose between

10 and 20 centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global

warming and have already begun to swallow Massachusetts
coastal land. Remediation costs alone, moreover, could reach
hundreds of millions of dollars. Pp. 1719.
(c) Given EPAs failure to dispute the existence of a causal
connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and
global warming, its refusal to regulate such emissions, at a
minimum, contributes to Massachusetts injuries. EPA overstates
its case in arguing that its decision not to regulate contributes so
insignificantly to petitioners injuries that it cannot be haled into
federal court, and that there is no realistic possibility that the relief
sought would mitigate global climate change and remedy
petitioners injuries, especially since predicted increases in
emissions from China, India, and other developing nations will
likely offset any marginal domestic decrease EPA regulation could
bring about. Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve
massive problems in one fell swoop, seeWilliamson v. Lee Optical
of Okla., Inc., 348 U. S. 483 , but instead whittle away over time,
refining their approach as circumstances change and they develop
a more nuanced understanding of how best to proceed,
cf. SEC v. Chenery Corp.,332 U. S. 194 . That a first step might be
tentative does not by itself negate federal-court jurisdiction. And
reducing domestic automobile emissions is hardly tentative.
Leaving aside the other greenhouse gases, the record indicates
that the U. S. transportation sector emits an enormous quantity of
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Pp. 2021.
(d) While regulating motor-vehicle emissions may not by
itself reverse global warming, it does not follow that the Court
lacks jurisdiction to decide whether EPA has a duty to take steps
to slow or reduce it. See Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228 , n. 15.
Because of the enormous potential consequences, the fact that a
remedys effectiveness might be delayed during the (relatively
short) time it takes for a new motor-vehicle fleet to replace an
older one is essentially irrelevant. Nor is it dispositive that
developing countries are poised to substantially increase
greenhouse gas emissions: A reduction in domestic emissions
would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what
happens elsewhere. The Court attaches considerable significance
to EPAs espoused belief that global climate change must be
addressed. Pp. 2123.
2. The scope of the Courts review of the merits of the statutory
issues is narrow. Although an agencys refusal to initiate
enforcement proceedings is not ordinarily subject to judicial
review, Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821 , there are key
differences between nonenforcement and denials of rulemaking
petitions that are, as in the present circumstances, expressly
authorized. EPA concluded alternatively in its petition denial that it

lacked authority under 7521(a)(1) to regulate new vehicle

emissions because carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant under
7602, and that, even if it possessed authority, it would decline to
exercise it because regulation would conflict with other
administration priorities. Because the Act expressly permits review
of such an action, 7607(b)(1), this Court may reverse [it if it finds
it to be] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
not in accordance with law, 7607(d)(9). Pp. 2425.
3. Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Acts capacious
definition of air pollutant, EPA has statutory authority to regulate
emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition
which includes any air pollution agent , includingany physical,
chemical, substance emitted into the ambient air ,
7602(g) (emphasis added)embraces all airborne compounds of
whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases are undoubtedly physical [and] chemical
substance[s]. Ibid. EPAs reliance on postenactment congressional
actions and deliberations it views as tantamount to a command to
refrain from regulating greenhouse gas emissions is unavailing.
Even if postenactment legislative history could shed light on the
meaning of an otherwise-unambiguous statute, EPA identifies
nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPAs power to
treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants. The Court has no
difficulty reconciling Congress various efforts to promote
interagency collaboration and research to better understand
climate change with the agencys pre-existing mandate to regulate
any air pollutant that may endanger the public
welfare.FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120 ,
distinguished. Also unpersuasive is EPAs argument that its
regulation of motor-vehicle carbon dioxide emissions would require
it to tighten mileage standards, a job (according to EPA) that
Congress has assigned to the Department of Transportation. The
fact that DOTs mandate to promote energy efficiency by setting
mileage standards may overlap with EPAs environmental
responsibilities in no way licenses EPA to shirk its duty to protect
the public health and welfare, 7521(a)(1). Pp. 2530.
4. EPAs alternative basis for its decisionthat even if it has
statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it would be
unwise to do so at this timerests on reasoning divorced from the
statutory text. While the statute conditions EPA action on its
formation of a judgment, that judgment must relate to whether
an air pollutant cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. 7601(a)(1). Under the Acts clear terms, EPA can avoid
promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse
gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some
reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its
discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so,

offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including

the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a
response to global warming and impairment of the Presidents
ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions.
These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether
greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not
amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific
judgment. Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the
uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and
concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this
time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes
EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The
statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to
make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the
rulemaking petition based on impermissible considerations. Its
action was therefore arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in
accordance with law, 7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground
its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. Pp. 3032.
415 F. 3d 50, reversed and remanded.

Core Writing Team

Lenny Bernstein, Peter Bosch, Osvaldo Canziani, Zhenlin Chen, Renate Christ,
Ogunlade Davidson, William Hare, Saleemul
Huq, David Karoly, Vladimir Kattsov, Zbigniew Kundzewicz, Jian Liu, Ulrike Lohmann,
Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno,
Bettina Menne, Bert Metz, Monirul Mirza, Neville Nicholls, Leonard Nurse, Rajendra
Pachauri, Jean Palutikof, Martin
Parry, Dahe Qin, Nijavalli Ravindranath, Andy Reisinger, Jiawen Ren, Keywan Riahi,
Cynthia Rosenzweig, Matilde
Rusticucci, Stephen Schneider, Youba Sokona, Susan Solomon, Peter Stott, Ronald
Stouffer, Taishi Sugiyama, Rob Swart,
Dennis Tirpak, Coleen Vogel, Gary Yohe
Extended Writing Team
Terry Barker
Review Editors
Abdelkader Allali, Roxana Bojariu, Sandra Diaz, Ismail Elgizouli, Dave Griggs, David
Hawkins, Olav Hohmeyer,
Bubu Pateh Jallow, Luc4ka Kajfez4-Bogataj, Neil Leary, Hoesung Lee, David Wratt
Climate Change 2007:
Synthesis Report
Synthesis Report
An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
This underlying report, adopted section by section at IPCC Plenary XXVII (Valencia,
Spain, 12-17 November 2007),
represents the formally agreed statement of the IPCC concerning key findings and
uncertainties contained in the Working
Group contributions to the Fourth Assessment Report.

Based on a draft prepared by:

Introduction
Introduction
26
Introduction
This Synthesis Report is based on the assessment carried out
by the three Working Groups (WGs) of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). It provides an integrated view of climate
change as the final part of the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4).
Topic 1 summarises observed changes in climate and their effects
on natural and human systems, regardless of their causes, while
Topic 2 assesses the causes of the observed changes. Topic 3 presents
projections of future climate change and related impacts under
different scenarios.
Topic 4 discusses adaptation and mitigation options over the
next few decades and their interactions with sustainable developFigure I.1. Schematic framework representing anthropogenic drivers, impacts of
and responses to climate change, and their linkages.
Schematic framework of anthropogenic climate change drivers, impacts and
responses
ment. Topic 5 assesses the relationship between adaptation and
mitigation on a more conceptual basis and takes a longer-term perspective.
Topic 6 summarises the major robust findings and remaining
key uncertainties in this assessment.
A schematic framework representing anthropogenic drivers,
impacts of and responses to climate change, and their linkages, is
shown in Figure I.1. At the time of the Third Assessment Report
(TAR) in 2001, information was mainly available to describe the
linkages clockwise, i.e. to derive climatic changes and impacts from
socio-economic information and emissions. With increased understanding
of these linkages, it is now possible to assess the linkages
also counterclockwise, i.e. to evaluate possible development pathways
and global emissions constraints that would reduce the risk
of future impacts that society may wish to avoid.
27
Introduction
1 See http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/ar4-workshops-express-meetings/uncertaintyguidance-note.pdf
Treatment of uncertainty
The IPCC uncertainty guidance note1 defines a framework for the treatment of
uncertainties across all WGs and in this Synthesis Report.
This framework is broad because the WGs assess material from different disciplines
and cover a diversity of approaches to the treatment of
uncertainty drawn from the literature. The nature of data, indicators and analyses
used in the natural sciences is generally different from that
used in assessing technology development or the social sciences. WG I focuses on
the former, WG III on the latter, and WG II covers aspects
of both.

Three different approaches are used to describe uncertainties each with a distinct
form of language. Choices among and within these three
approaches depend on both the nature of the information available and the authors
expert judgment of the correctness and completeness of
current scientific understanding.
Where uncertainty is assessed qualitatively, it is characterised by providing a
relative sense of the amount and quality of evidence (that is,
information from theory, observations or models indicating whether a belief or
proposition is true or valid) and the degree of agreement (that is,
the level of concurrence in the literature on a particular finding). This approach is
used by WG III through a series of self-explanatory terms
such as: high agreement, much evidence; high agreement, medium evidence;
medium agreement, medium evidence; etc.
Where uncertainty is assessed more quantitatively using expert judgement of the
correctness of underlying data, models or analyses, then
the following scale of confidence levels is used to express the assessed chance of a
finding being correct: very high confidence at least 9 out
of 10; high confidence about 8 out of 10; medium confidence about 5 out of 10; low
confidence about 2 out of 10; and very low confidence less
than 1 out of 10.
Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and
statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations
or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the
assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%;
extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%;
about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very
unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.
WG II has used a combination of confidence and likelihood assessments and WG I
has predominantly used likelihood assessments.
This Synthesis Report follows the uncertainty assessment of the underlying WGs.
Where synthesised findings are based on information
from more than one WG, the description of uncertainty used is consistent with that
for the components drawn from the respective WG reports.
Unless otherwise stated, numerical ranges given in square brackets in this report
indicate 90% uncertainty intervals (i.e. there is an
estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square
brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that
range). Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the best
estimate.
1
Observed changes in climate and their effects
Topic 1 Observed changes in climate and their effects
30
1.1 Observations of climate change
Since the TAR, progress in understanding how climate is changing
in space and time has been gained through improvements and
extensions of numerous datasets and data analyses, broader geographical
coverage, better understanding of uncertainties and a wider
variety of measurements. {WGI SPM}

Definitions of climate change

Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state
of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests)
by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties,
and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or
longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether
due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This
usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change
refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly
to human activity that alters the composition of the global
atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability
observed over comparable time periods.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases in global average
air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow
and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure 1.1). {WGI
3.2, 4.8, 5.2, 5.5, SPM}
Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the
twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface
temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005)
of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]C is larger than the corresponding trend of
0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]C (1901-2000) given in the TAR (Figure 1.1). The
linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13
[0.10 to 0.16]C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years
from 1906 to 2005. {WGI 3.2, SPM}
The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is
greater at higher northern latitudes (Figure 1.2). Average Arctic temperatures
have increased at almost twice the global average rate in
the past 100 years. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans
(Figures 1.2 and 2.5). Observations since 1961 show that the average
temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at
least 3000m and that the ocean has been taking up over 80% of the
heat being added to the climate system. New analyses of balloonborne
and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric
temperature show warming rates similar to those observed in surface
temperature. {WGI 3.2, 3.4, 5.2, SPM}
Increases in sea level are consistent with warming (Figure 1.1).
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm
per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4
to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. Whether this faster rate for
1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longerterm
trend is unclear. Since 1993 thermal expansion of the oceans
has contributed about 57% of the sum of the estimated individual
contributions to the sea level rise, with decreases in glaciers and
ice caps contributing about 28% and losses from the polar ice sheets
contributing the remainder. From 1993 to 2003 the sum of these
climate contributions is consistent within uncertainties with the total
sea level rise that is directly observed. {WGI 4.6, 4.8, 5.5, SPM, Table
SPM.1}

Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent

with warming (Figure 1.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual
average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]%
per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]%
per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have
declined in both hemispheres. The maximum areal extent of seasonally
frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern
Hemisphere since 1900, with decreases in spring of up to 15%.
Temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer have generally increased
since the 1980s in the Arctic by up to 3C. {WGI 3.2, 4.5, 4.6,
4.7, 4.8, 5.5, SPM}
At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous longterm
changes in other aspects of climate have also been observed.
Trends from 1900 to 2005 have been observed in precipitation
amount in many large regions. Over this period, precipitation increased
significantly in eastern parts of North and South America,
northern Europe and northern and central Asia whereas precipitation
declined in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and
parts of southern Asia. Globally, the area affected by drought has
likely2 increased since the 1970s. {WGI 3.3, 3.9, SPM}
Some extreme weather events have changed in frequency and/
or intensity over the last 50 years:
_ It is very likely that cold days, cold nights and frosts have become
less frequent over most land areas, while hot days and
hot nights have become more frequent. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
_ It is likely that heat waves have become more frequent over
most land areas. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
_ It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation events (or
proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) has increased over
most areas. {WGI 3.8, 3.9, SPM}
_ It is likely that the incidence of extreme high sea level3 has
increased at a broad range of sites worldwide since 1975. {WGI
5.5, SPM}
There is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropical
cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, and suggestions
of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions
where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability
and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine
satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of longterm
trends in tropical cyclone activity. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second
half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other
50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least
the past 1300 years. {WGI 6.6, SPM}
2 Likelihood and confidence statements in italics represent calibrated expressions of
uncertainty and confidence. See Box Treatment of uncertainty in the
Introduction for an explanation of these terms.
3 Excluding tsunamis, which are not due to climate change. Extreme high sea level
depends on average sea level and on regional weather systems. It is

defined here as the highest 1% of hourly values of observed sea level at a station
for a given reference period.
31
Topic 1 Observed changes in climate and their effects
(a) Global average surface temperature
(b) Global average sea level
(c) Northern Hemisphere snow cover
Figure 1.1. Observed changes in (a) global average surface temperature; (b)
global average sea level from tide gauge (blue) and satellite (red) data; and (c)
Northern Hemisphere snow cover for March-April. All differences are relative to
corresponding averages for the period 1961-1990. Smoothed curves represent
decadal averaged values while circles show yearly values. The shaded areas are the
uncertainty intervals estimated from a comprehensive analysis of
known uncertainties (a and b) and from the time series (c). {WGI FAQ 3.1 Figure 1,
Figure 4.2, Figure 5.13, Figure SPM.3}
Changes in temperature, sea level and Northern Hemisphere snow cover
1.2 Observed effects of climate changes
The statements presented here are based largely on data sets
that cover the period since 1970. The number of studies of observed
trends in the physical and biological environment and their relationship
to regional climate changes has increased greatly since the
TAR. The quality of the data sets has also improved. There is a
notable lack of geographic balance in data and literature on observed
changes, with marked scarcity in developing countries.
{WGII SPM}
These studies have allowed a broader and more confident assessment
of the relationship between observed warming and impacts
than was made in the TAR. That assessment concluded that
there is high confidence2 that recent regional changes in temperature
have had discernible impacts on physical and biological systems.
{WGII SPM}
Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans
shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional
climate changes, particularly temperature increases.
{WGII SPM}
There is high confidence that natural systems related to snow, ice
and frozen ground (including permafrost) are affected. Examples are:
_ enlargement and increased numbers of glacial lakes {WGII 1.3, SPM}
_ increasing ground instability in permafrost regions and rock
avalanches in mountain regions {WGII 1.3, SPM}
_ changes in some Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems, including
those in sea-ice biomes, and predators at high levels of the food
web. {WGII 1.3, 4.4, 15.4, SPM}
Based on growing evidence, there is high confidence that the
following effects on hydrological systems are occurring: increased
runoff and earlier spring peak discharge in many glacier- and snowfed
rivers, and warming of lakes and rivers in many regions, with
effects on thermal structure and water quality. {WGII 1.3, 15.2, SPM}
Topic 1 Observed changes in climate and their effects
32

Figure 1.2. Locations of significant changes in data series of physical systems

(snow, ice and frozen ground; hydrology; and coastal processes) and
biological systems (terrestrial, marine, and freshwater biological systems), are
shown together with surface air temperature changes over the period 19702004. A subset of about 29,000 data series was selected from about 80,000 data
series from 577 studies. These met the following criteria: (1) ending in 1990
or later; (2) spanning a period of at least 20 years; and (3) showing a significant
change in either direction, as assessed in individual studies. These data
series are from about 75 studies (of which about 70 are new since the TAR) and
contain about 29,000 data series, of which about 28,000 are from European
studies. White areas do not contain sufficient observational climate data to estimate
a temperature trend. The 2 x 2 boxes show the total number of data
series with significant changes (top row) and the percentage of those consistent
with warming (bottom row) for (i) continental regions: North America (NAM),
Latin America (LA), Europe (EUR), Africa (AFR), Asia (AS), Australia and New Zealand
(ANZ), and Polar Regions (PR) and (ii) global-scale: Terrestrial
(TER), Marine and Freshwater (MFW), and Global (GLO). The numbers of studies
from the seven regional boxes (NAM, , PR) do not add up to the global
(GLO) totals because numbers from regions except Polar do not include the numbers
related to Marine and Freshwater (MFW) systems. Locations of largearea
marine changes are not shown on the map. {WGII Figure SPM.1, Figure 1.8, Figure
1.9; WGI Figure 3.9b}
Physical Biological
Number of
significant
observed
changes
Number of
significant
observed
changes
Observed data series
Physical systems (snow, ice and frozen ground; hydrology; coastal processes)
Biological systems (terrestrial, marine, and freshwater)
,
,,
Percentage
of significant
changes
consistent
with warming
Percentage
of significant
changes
consistent
with warming
94% 92% 98% 100% 94% 89% 100%100% 96% 100% 100% 91% 100% 94% 90%
100% 99% 94% 90%
355 455 53 119
NAM LA EUR AFR AS ANZ PR* TER MFW** GLO

5 5 2 106 8 6 0 120 24 764 1 85 765

28,115 28,586 28,671
Changes in physical and biological systems and surface temperature 1970-2004
33
Topic 1 Observed changes in climate and their effects
There is very high confidence, based on more evidence from a
wider range of species, that recent warming is strongly affecting
terrestrial biological systems, including such changes as earlier timing
of spring events, such as leaf-unfolding, bird migration and
egg-laying; and poleward and upward shifts in ranges in plant and
animal species. Based on satellite observations since the early 1980s,
there is high confidence that there has been a trend in many regions
towards earlier greening of vegetation in the spring linked to longer
thermal growing seasons due to recent warming. {WGII 1.3, 8.2, 14.2,
SPM}
There is high confidence, based on substantial new evidence,
that observed changes in marine and freshwater biological systems
are associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related
changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation. These
include: shifts in ranges and changes in algal, plankton and fish
abundance in high-latitude oceans; increases in algal and zooplankton
abundance in high-latitude and high-altitude lakes; and range
changes and earlier fish migrations in rivers. While there is increasing
evidence of climate change impacts on coral reefs, separating
the impacts of climate-related stresses from other stresses (e.g. overfishing
and pollution) is difficult. {WGII 1.3, SPM}
Other effects of regional climate changes on natural and
human environments are emerging, although many are difficult
to discern due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers.
{WGII SPM}
Effects of temperature increases have been documented with
medium confidence in the following managed and human systems:
_ agricultural and forestry management at Northern Hemisphere
higher latitudes, such as earlier spring planting of crops, and
alterations in disturbances of forests due to fires and pests {WGII
1.3, SPM}
_ some aspects of human health, such as excess heat-related
mortality in Europe, changes in infectious disease vectors in
parts of Europe, and earlier onset of and increases in seasonal
production of allergenic pollen in Northern Hemisphere high
and mid-latitudes {WGII 1.3, 8.2, 8.ES, SPM}
_ some human activities in the Arctic (e.g. hunting and shorter
travel seasons over snow and ice) and in lower-elevation alpine
areas (such as limitations in mountain sports). {WGII 1.3, SPM}
Sea level rise and human development are together contributing
to losses of coastal wetlands and mangroves and increasing
damage from coastal flooding in many areas. However, based on
the published literature, the impacts have not yet become established
trends. {WGII 1.3, 1.ES, SPM}
1.3 Consistency of changes in physical and

biological systems with warming

Changes in the ocean and on land, including observed decreases
in snow cover and Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, thinner sea
ice, shorter freezing seasons of lake and river ice, glacier melt, decreases
in permafrost extent, increases in soil temperatures and
borehole temperature profiles, and sea level rise, provide additional
evidence that the world is warming. {WGI 3.9}
Of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies,
that show significant change in many physical and biological
systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change
expected as a response to warming (Figure 1.2). {WGII 1.4, SPM}
1.4 Some aspects of climate have not been
observed to change
Some aspects of climate appear not to have changed and, for
some, data inadequacies mean that it cannot be determined if they
have changed. Antarctic sea ice extent shows inter-annual variability
and localised changes but no statistically significant average
multi-decadal trend, consistent with the lack of rise in near-surface
atmospheric temperatures averaged across the continent. There is
insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in some other
variables, for example the meridional overturning circulation (MOC)
of the global ocean or small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes,
hail, lightning and dust storms. There is no clear trend in the annual
numbers of tropical cyclones. {WGI 3.2, 3.8, 4.4, 5.3, SPM}
2
Causes of change
Topic 2 Causes of change
36
Causes of change
This Topic considers both natural and anthropogenic drivers of
climate change, including the chain from greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions to atmospheric concentrations to radiative forcing4 to
climate responses and effects.
2.1 Emissions of long-lived GHGs
The radiative forcing of the climate system is dominated by the
long-lived GHGs, and this section considers those whose emissions
are covered by the UNFCCC.
Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown
since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between
1970 and 2004 (Figure 2.1).5 {WGIII 1.3, SPM}
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG.
Its annual emissions have grown between 1970 and 2004 by about
80%, from 21 to 38 gigatonnes (Gt), and represented 77% of total
anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004 (Figure 2.1). The rate of
growth of CO2-eq emissions was much higher during the recent
10-year period of 1995-2004 (0.92 GtCO2-eq per year) than during
the previous period of 1970-1994 (0.43 GtCO2-eq per year). {WGIII
1.3, TS.1, SPM}

4 Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance
of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and
is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change
mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to
preindustrial
conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square metre (W/m2).
5 Includes only carbon dioxide (CO2 ), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphurhexafluoride
(SF6), whose emissions are covered by the UNFCCC. These GHGs are weighted by
their 100-year Global Warming Potentials (GWPs), using values
consistent with reporting under the UNFCCC.
6 This report uses 100-year GWPs and numerical values consistent with reporting
under the UNFCCC.
7 Such values may consider only GHGs, or a combination of GHGs and aerosols.
Carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2-eq) emissions and
concentrations
GHGs differ in their warming influence (radiative forcing) on
the global climate system due to their different radiative properties
and lifetimes in the atmosphere. These warming influences
may be expressed through a common metric based on
the radiative forcing of CO2.
CO2-equivalent emission is the amount of CO2 emission
that would cause the same time-integrated radiative forcing,
over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of a longlived
GHG or a mixture of GHGs. The equivalent CO2 emission
is obtained by multiplying the emission of a GHG by its
Global Warming Potential (GWP) for the given time horizon.6
For a mix of GHGs it is obtained by summing the equivalent
CO2 emissions of each gas. Equivalent CO2 emission is a
standard and useful metric for comparing emissions of different
GHGs but does not imply the same climate change
responses (see WGI 2.10).
CO2-equivalent concentration is the concentration of CO2
that would cause the same amount of radiative forcing as a
given mixture of CO2 and other forcing components.7
Figure 2.1. (a) Global annual emissions of anthropogenic GHGs from 1970 to
2004.5 (b) Share of different anthropogenic GHGs in total emissions in 2004
in terms of CO2-eq. (c) Share of different sectors in total anthropogenic GHG
emissions in 2004 in terms of CO2-eq. (Forestry includes deforestation.) {WGIII
Figures TS.1a, TS.1b, TS.2b}
Global anthropogenic GHG emissions
F-gases
CO2 from fossil fuel use and other sources
CH4 from agriculture, waste and energy
CO2 from deforestation, decay and peat
N2O from agriculture and others
GtCO2-eq / yr
28.7
35.6
39.4

44.7
49.0
The largest growth in GHG emissions between 1970 and 2004
has come from energy supply, transport and industry, while residential
and commercial buildings, forestry (including deforestation)
and agriculture sectors have been growing at a lower rate. The
37
Topic 2 Causes of change
Figure 2.2. (a) Distribution of regional per capita GHG emissions according to the
population of different country groupings in 2004 (see appendix for
definitions of country groupings). (b) Distribution of regional GHG emissions per US$
of GDPPPP over the GDP of different country groupings in 2004. The
percentages in the bars in both panels indicate a regions share in global GHG
emissions. {WGIII Figures SPM.3a, SPM.3b}
Regional distribution of GHG emissions by population and by GDPPPP
and M&T
and M&T
sectoral sources of GHGs in 2004 are considered in Figure 2.1c.
{WGIII 1.3, SPM}
The effect on global emissions of the decrease in global energy
intensity (-33%) during 1970 to 2004 has been smaller than the combined
effect of global income growth (77%) and global population
growth (69%); both drivers of increasing energy-related CO2 emissions.
The long-term trend of declining CO2 emissions per unit of energy
supplied reversed after 2000. {WGIII 1.3, Figure SPM.2, SPM}
Differences in per capita income, per capita emissions and
energy intensity among countries remain significant. In 2004,
UNFCCC Annex I countries held a 20% share in world population,
produced 57% of the worlds Gross Domestic Product based on
Purchasing Power Parity (GDPPPP) and accounted for 46% of global
GHG emissions (Figure 2.2). {WGIII 1.3, SPM}
2.2 Drivers of climate change
Changes in the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and aerosols,
land cover and solar radiation alter the energy balance of the
climate system and are drivers of climate change. They affect the
absorption, scattering and emission of radiation within the atmosphere
and at the Earths surface. The resulting positive or negative
changes in energy balance due to these factors are expressed as
radiative forcing4, which is used to compare warming or cooling
influences on global climate. {WGI TS.2}
Human activities result in emissions of four long-lived GHGs:
CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and halocarbons (a group
of gases containing fluorine, chlorine or bromine). Atmospheric
concentrations of GHGs increase when emissions are larger than
removal processes.
Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O
have increased markedly as a result of human activities
since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined
from ice cores spanning many thousands of years
(Figure 2.3). The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4

in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000
years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily
to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing
another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely
that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly
due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. The increase
in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture. {WGI
2.3, 7.3, SPM}
The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased from a
pre-industrial value of about 280ppm to 379ppm in 2005. The annual
CO2 concentration growth rate was larger during the last 10
years (1995-2005 average: 1.9ppm per year) than it has been since
the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements
(1960-2005 average: 1.4ppm per year), although there is year-toyear
variability in growth rates. {WGI 2.3, 7.3, SPM; WGIII 1.3}
The global atmospheric concentration of CH4 has increased from
a pre-industrial value of about 715ppb to 1732ppb in the early 1990s,
and was 1774ppb in 2005. Growth rates have declined since the
early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic
and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. {WGI
2.3, 7.4, SPM}
The global atmospheric N2O concentration increased from a
pre-industrial value of about 270ppb to 319ppb in 2005. {WGI 2.3,
7.4, SPM}
Many halocarbons (including hydrofluorocarbons) have increased
from a near-zero pre-industrial background concentration,
primarily due to human activities. {WGI 2.3, SPM; SROC SPM}
There is very high confidence that the global average net
effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming,
with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W/m2
(Figure 2.4). {WGI 2.3, 6.5, 2.9, SPM}
The combined radiative forcing due to increases in CO2, CH4
and N2O is +2.3 [+2.1 to +2.5] W/m2, and its rate of increase during
Topic 2 Causes of change
38
the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more
than 10,000 years (Figures 2.3 and 2.4). The CO2 radiative forcing
increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any
decade in at least the last 200 years. {WGI 2.3, 6.4, SPM}
Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate,
organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a
cooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to
-0.1] W/m2 and an indirect cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to
-0.3] W/m2. Aerosols also influence precipitation. {WGI 2.4, 2.9, 7.5,
SPM}
In comparison, changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated
to have caused a small radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to
+0.30] W/m2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR.
{WGI 2.7, SPM}
2.3 Climate sensitivity and feedbacks

The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate

system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is defined as the
equilibrium global average surface warming following a doubling
of CO2 concentration. Progress since the TAR enables an assessment
that climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5C
with a best estimate of about 3C, and is very unlikely to be less
than 1.5C. Values substantially higher than 4.5C cannot be excluded,
but agreement of models with observations is not as good
for those values. {WGI 8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2, SPM}
Feedbacks can amplify or dampen the response to a given forcing.
Direct emission of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) by human
activities makes a negligible contribution to radiative forcing. However,
as global average temperature increases, tropospheric water
vapour concentrations increase and this represents a key positive
feedback but not a forcing of climate change. Water vapour changes
represent the largest feedback affecting equilibrium climate sensitivity
and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks
remain the largest source of uncertainty. Spatial patterns of
climate response are largely controlled by climate processes and
feedbacks. For example, sea-ice albedo feedbacks tend to enhance
the high latitude response. {WGI 2.8, 8.6, 9.2, TS.2.1.3, TS.2.5, SPM}
Warming reduces terrestrial and ocean uptake of atmospheric
CO2, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic emissions remaining
in the atmosphere. This positive carbon cycle feedback leads to
larger atmospheric CO2 increases and greater climate change for a
given emissions scenario, but the strength of this feedback effect
varies markedly among models. {WGI 7.3, TS.5.4, SPM; WGII 4.4}
2.4 Attribution of climate change
Attribution evaluates whether observed changes are quantitatively
consistent with the expected response to external forcings
(e.g. changes in solar irradiance or anthropogenic GHGs) and inconsistent
with alternative physically plausible explanations. {WGI
TS.4, SPM}
Figure 2.3. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O over the last
10,000 years (large panels) and since 1750 (inset panels). Measurements
are shown from ice cores (symbols with different colours for different studies)
and atmospheric samples (red lines). The corresponding radiative
forcings relative to 1750 are shown on the right hand axes of the large
panels. {WGI Figure SPM.1}
Changes in GHGs from ice core and modern data
39
Topic 2 Causes of change
Radiative forcing components
Figure 2.4. Global average radiative forcing (RF) in 2005 (best estimates and 5 to
95% uncertainty ranges) with respect to 1750 for CO2, CH4, N2O and other
important agents and mechanisms, together with the typical geographical extent
(spatial scale) of the forcing and the assessed level of scientific understanding
(LOSU). Aerosols from explosive volcanic eruptions contribute an additional episodic
cooling term for a few years following an eruption. The range for

linear contrails does not include other possible effects of aviation on cloudiness.
{WGI Figure SPM.2}
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.8
This is an advance since the TARs conclusion that most
of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to
have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations (Figure
2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM}
The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean,
together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely
unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can
be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not
due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of
solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling,
not warming. Warming of the climate system has been detected in
changes in surface and atmospheric temperatures and in temperatures
of the upper several hundred metres of the ocean. The observed
pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling
is very likely due to the combined influences of GHG increases and
stratospheric ozone depletion. It is likely that increases in GHG
concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed
because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset
some warming that would otherwise have taken place. {WGI 2.9, 3.2,
3.4, 4.8, 5.2, 7.5, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7, TS.4.1, SPM}
It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic
warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent
(except Antarctica) (Figure 2.5). {WGI 3.2, 9.4, SPM}
The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming
over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are
simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcing. No
coupled global climate model that has used natural forcing only
has reproduced the continental mean warming trends in individual
continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century.
{WGI 3.2, 9.4, TS.4.2, SPM}
8 Consideration of remaining uncertainty is based on current methodologies.
Topic 2 Causes of change
40
Global and continental temperature change
Figure 2.5. Comparison of observed continental- and global-scale changes in
surface temperature with results simulated by climate models using either
natural or both natural and anthropogenic forcings. Decadal averages of
observations are shown for the period 1906-2005 (black line) plotted against the
centre of the decade and relative to the corresponding average for the 1901-1950.
Lines are dashed where spatial coverage is less than 50%. Blue shaded
bands show the 5 to 95% range for 19 simulations from five climate models using
only the natural forcings due to solar activity and volcanoes. Red shaded
bands show the 5 to 95% range for 58 simulations from 14 climate models using
both natural and anthropogenic forcings. {WGI Figure SPM.4}
Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature

changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate

variability is relatively larger, making it harder to distinguish changes
expected due to external forcings. Uncertainties in local forcings,
such as those due to aerosols and land-use change, and feedbacks
also make it difficult to estimate the contribution of GHG increases
to observed small-scale temperature changes. {WGI 8.3, 9.4, SPM}
Advances since the TAR show that discernible human influences
extend beyond average temperature to other aspects
of climate, including temperature extremes and wind
patterns. {WGI 9.4, 9.5, SPM}
Temperatures of the most extreme hot nights, cold nights and
cold days are likely to have increased due to anthropogenic forcing.
It is more likely than not that anthropogenic forcing has increased
the risk of heat waves. Anthropogenic forcing is likely to have contributed
to changes in wind patterns, affecting extra-tropical storm
tracks and temperature patterns in both hemispheres. However, the
observed changes in the Northern Hemisphere circulation are larger
than simulated by models in response to 20th century forcing change.
{WGI 3.5, 3.6, 9.4, 9.5, 10.3, SPM}
It is very likely that the response to anthropogenic forcing contributed
to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century.
There is some evidence of the impact of human climatic influence
models using only natural forcings
models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings
observations
41
Topic 2 Causes of change
on the hydrological cycle, including the observed large-scale patterns
of changes in land precipitation over the 20th century. It is
more likely than not that human influence has contributed to a global
trend towards increases in area affected by drought since the
1970s and the frequency of heavy precipitation events. {WGI 3.3,
5.5, 9.5, TS.4.1, TS.4.3}
Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has
likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed
changes in many physical and biological systems.
{WGII 1.4}
A synthesis of studies strongly demonstrates that the spatial
agreement between regions of significant warming across the globe
and the locations of significant observed changes in many natural
systems consistent with warming is very unlikely to be due solely
to natural variability of temperatures or natural variability of the
systems. Several modelling studies have linked some specific responses
in physical and biological systems to anthropogenic warming,
but only a few such studies have been performed. Taken together
with evidence of significant anthropogenic warming over
the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica),
it is likely that anthropogenic warming over the last three decades
has had a discernible influence on many natural systems. {WGI 3.2,
9.4, SPM; WGII 1.4, SPM}

Limitations and gaps currently prevent more complete attribution

of the causes of observed natural system responses to anthropogenic
warming. The available analyses are limited in the number
of systems, length of records and locations considered. Natural temperature
variability is larger at the regional than the global scale,
thus affecting identification of changes to external forcing. At the regional
scale, other non-climate factors (such as land-use change, pollution
and invasive species) are influential. {WGII 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, SPM}
3
Climate change and its impacts in the near and
long term under different scenarios
Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under
different scenarios
44
3.1 Emissions scenarios
There is high agreement and much evidence9 that with current
climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable
development practices, global GHG emissions will continue
to grow over the next few decades. Baseline emissions
scenarios published since the IPCC Special Report
on Emissions Scenarios (SRES, 2000) are comparable in
range to those presented in SRES (see Box on SRES scenarios
and Figure 3.1).10 {WGIII 1.3, 3.2, SPM}
The SRES scenarios project an increase of baseline global GHG
emissions by a range of 9.7 to 36.7 GtCO2-eq (25 to 90%) between
2000 and 2030. In these scenarios, fossil fuels are projected to
maintain their dominant position in the global energy mix to 2030
and beyond. Hence CO2 emissions from energy use between 2000
and 2030 are projected to grow 40 to 110% over that period. {WGIII
1.3, SPM}
Studies published since SRES (i.e. post-SRES scenarios) have
used lower values for some drivers for emissions, notably population
projections. However, for those studies incorporating these new
population projections, changes in other drivers, such as economic
growth, result in little change in overall emission levels. Economic
growth projections for Africa, Latin America and the Middle East
to 2030 in post-SRES baseline scenarios are lower than in SRES,
but this has only minor effects on global economic growth and overall
emissions. {WGIII 3.2, TS.3, SPM}
Aerosols have a net cooling effect and the representation of
aerosol and aerosol precursor emissions, including sulphur dioxide,
black carbon and organic carbon, has improved in the postSRES scenarios. Generally, these emissions are projected to be lower
than reported in SRES. {WGIII 3.2, TS.3, SPM}
Available studies indicate that the choice of exchange rate for
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Market Exchange Rate, MER or
9 Agreement/evidence statements in italics represent calibrated expressions of
uncertainty and confidence. See Box Treatment of uncertainty in the Introduction
for an explanation of these terms.

10 Baseline scenarios do not include additional climate policies above current ones;
more recent studies differ with respect to UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol
inclusion. Emission pathways of mitigation scenarios are discussed in Topic 5.
11 Since the TAR, there has been a debate on the use of different exchange rates in
emissions scenarios. Two metrics are used to compare GDP between
countries. Use of MER is preferable for analyses involving internationally traded
products. Use of PPP is preferable for analyses involving comparisons of
income between countries at very different stages of development. Most of the
monetary units in this report are expressed in MER. This reflects the large
majority of emissions mitigation literature that is calibrated in MER. When monetary
units are expressed in PPP, this is denoted by GDPPPP. {WGIII SPM}
SRES scenarios
SRES refers to the scenarios described in the IPCC Special Report on Emissions
Scenarios (SRES, 2000). The SRES scenarios are
grouped into four scenario families (A1, A2, B1 and B2) that explore alternative
development pathways, covering a wide range of
demographic, economic and technological driving forces and resulting GHG
emissions. The SRES scenarios do not include additional
climate policies above current ones. The emissions projections are widely used in
the assessments of future climate change, and their
underlying assumptions with respect to socio-economic, demographic and
technological change serve as inputs to many recent climate
change vulnerability and impact assessments. {WGI 10.1; WGII 2.4; WGIII TS.1,
SPM}
The A1 storyline assumes a world of very rapid economic growth, a global
population that peaks in mid-century and rapid introduction
of new and more efficient technologies. A1 is divided into three groups that describe
alternative directions of technological change:
fossil intensive (A1FI), non-fossil energy resources (A1T) and a balance across all
sources (A1B). B1 describes a convergent world,
with the same global population as A1, but with more rapid changes in economic
structures toward a service and information economy.
B2 describes a world with intermediate population and economic growth,
emphasising local solutions to economic, social, and environmental
sustainability. A2 describes a very heterogeneous world with high population
growth, slow economic development and slow
technological change. No likelihood has been attached to any of the SRES scenarios.
{WGIII TS.1, SPM}
Figure 3.1. Global GHG emissions (in GtCO2-eq per year) in the absence of
additional climate policies: six illustrative SRES marker scenarios (coloured
lines) and 80th percentile range of recent scenarios published since SRES
(post-SRES) (gray shaded area). Dashed lines show the full range of postSRES scenarios. The emissions include CO2, CH4, N2O and F-gases. {WGIII
1.3, 3.2, Figure SPM.4}
Scenarios for GHG emissions from 2000 to 2100 in the
absence of additional climate policies
Global GHG emissions (Gt CO2-eq / yr)
post-SRES (max)
post-SRES (min)
Purchasing Power Parity, PPP) does not appreciably affect the projected

emissions, when used consistently.11 The differences, if any,

are small compared to the uncertainties caused by assumptions on
other parameters in the scenarios, e.g. technological change. {WGIII
3.2, TS.3, SPM}
45
Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under
different scenarios
3.2 Projections of future changes in climate
For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2C per decade
is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios.
Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had
been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of
about 0.1C per decade would be expected. Afterwards, temperature
projections increasingly depend on specific emissions
scenarios (Figure 3.2). {WGI 10.3, 10.7; WGIII 3.2}
Since the IPCCs first report in 1990, assessed projections have
suggested global averaged temperature increases between about 0.15
and 0.3C per decade from 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared
with observed values of about 0.2C per decade, strengthening
confidence in near-term projections. {WGI 1.2, 3.2}
3.2.1 21st century global changes
Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would
cause further warming and induce many changes in the global
climate system during the 21st century that would very
likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.
{WGI 10.3}
Advances in climate change modelling now enable best estimates
and likely assessed uncertainty ranges to be given for projected
warming for different emissions scenarios. Table 3.1 shows
best estimates and likely ranges for global average surface air warming
for the six SRES marker emissions scenarios (including climatecarbon cycle feedbacks). {WGI 10.5}
Although these projections are broadly consistent with the span
quoted in the TAR (1.4 to 5.8C), they are not directly comparable.
Assessed upper ranges for temperature projections are larger than
in the TAR mainly because the broader range of models now available
suggests stronger climate-carbon cycle feedbacks. For the A2
scenario, for example, the climate-carbon cycle feedback increases
the corresponding global average warming at 2100 by more than
1C. Carbon feedbacks are discussed in Topic 2.3. {WGI 7.3, 10.5,
SPM}
Because understanding of some important effects driving sea
level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood,
nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.
Model-based projections of global average sea level rise at the end
of the 21st century (2090-2099) are shown in Table 3.1. For each
scenario, the mid-point of the range in Table 3.1 is within 10% of
the TAR model average for 2090-2099. The ranges are narrower
than in the TAR mainly because of improved information about
some uncertainties in the projected contributions.12 The sea level

projections do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle

feedbacks nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice
sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking. Therefore
the upper values of the ranges given are not to be considered
upper bounds for sea level rise. The projections include a contribution
due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the
rates observed for 1993-2003, but these flow rates could increase
or decrease in the future. If this contribution were to grow linearly
with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea
level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table 3.1 would increase by
0.1 to 0.2m.13 {WGI 10.6, SPM}
Table 3.1. Projected global average surface warming and sea level rise at the end
of the 21st century. {WGI 10.5, 10.6, Table 10.7, Table SPM.3}
Temperature change Sea level rise
(C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999) a, d (m at 2090-2099 relative to 19801999)
Case Best estimate Likely range Model-based range
excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow
Constant year 2000
concentrationsb 0.6 0.3 0.9 Not available
B1 scenario 1.8 1.1 2.9 0.18 0.38
A1T scenario 2.4 1.4 3.8 0.20 0.45
B2 scenario 2.4 1.4 3.8 0.20 0.43
A1B scenario 2.8 1.7 4.4 0.21 0.48
A2 scenario 3.4 2.0 5.4 0.23 0.51
A1FI scenario 4.0 2.4 6.4 0.26 0.59
Notes:
a) These estimates are assessed from a hierarchy of models that encompass a
simple climate model, several Earth Models of Intermediate
Complexity, and a large number of Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models
(AOGCMs) as well as observational constraints.
b) Year 2000 constant composition is derived from AOGCMs only.
c) All scenarios above are six SRES marker scenarios. Approximate CO2-eq
concentrations corresponding to the computed radiative forcing due to
anthropogenic GHGs and aerosols in 2100 (see p. 823 of the WGI TAR) for the SRES
B1, AIT, B2, A1B, A2 and A1FI illustrative marker scenarios
are about 600, 700, 800, 850, 1250 and 1550ppm, respectively.
d) Temperature changes are expressed as the difference from the period 1980-1999.
To express the change relative to the period 1850-1899 add
0.5C.
12 TAR projections were made for 2100, whereas the projections for this report are
for 2090-2099. The TAR would have had similar ranges to those in
Table 3.1 if it had treated uncertainties in the same way.
13 For discussion of the longer term see Sections 3.2.3 and 5.2.
Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under
different scenarios
46
3.2.2 21st century regional changes
There is now higher confidence than in the TAR in projected
patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including

changes in wind patterns, precipitation and some

aspects of extremes and sea ice. {WGI 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9.4, 9.5,
10.3, 11.1}
Projected warming in the 21st century shows scenario-independent
geographical patterns similar to those observed over the past
several decades. Warming is expected to be greatest over land and
at most high northern latitudes, and least over the Southern Ocean
(near Antarctica) and northern North Atlantic, continuing recent
observed trends (Figure 3.2 right panels). {WGI 10.3, SPM}
Snow cover area is projected to contract. Widespread increases
in thaw depth are projected over most permafrost regions. Sea ice
is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all
SRES scenarios. In some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice
disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century. {WGI
10.3, 10.6, SPM; WGII 15.3.4}
It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation
events will become more frequent. {SYR Table 3.2; WGI
10.3, SPM}
Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones
(typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with
larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated
with ongoing increases of tropical sea-surface temperatures. There
is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of
tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very
intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated
by current models for that period. {WGI 3.8, 9.5, 10.3, SPM}
Extra-tropical storm tracks are projected to move poleward, with
consequent changes in wind, precipitation and temperature patterns,
continuing the broad pattern of observed trends over the last halfcentury.
{WGI 3.6, 10.3, SPM}
Since the TAR there is an improving understanding of projected
patterns of precipitation. Increases in the amount of precipitation
are very likely in high-latitudes, while decreases are likely in most
subtropical land regions (by as much as about 20% in the A1B scenario
in 2100, Figure 3.3), continuing observed patterns in recent
trends. {WGI 3.3, 8.3, 9.5, 10.3, 11.2-11.9, SPM}
3.2.3 Changes beyond the 21st century
Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue
for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate
processes and feedbacks, even if GHG concentrations were
to be stabilised. {WGI 10.4, 10.5, 10.7, SPM}
If radiative forcing were to be stabilised, keeping all the radiative
forcing agents constant at B1 or A1B levels in 2100, model
experiments show that a further increase in global average temperature
of about 0.5C would still be expected by 2200. In addition,
thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to 0.8m of sea
level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980-1999). Thermal expansion would
continue for many centuries, due to the time required to transport
heat into the deep ocean. {WGI 10.7, SPM}
Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model projections of surface warming

Figure 3.2. Left panel: Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface
warming (relative to 1980-1999) for the SRES scenarios A2, A1B and B1,
shown as continuations of the 20th century simulations. The orange line is for the
experiment where concentrations were held constant at year 2000 values.
The bars in the middle of the figure indicate the best estimate (solid line within each
bar) and the likely range assessed for the six SRES marker scenarios
at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999. The assessment of the best estimate and likely
ranges in the bars includes the Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation
Models (AOGCMs) in the left part of the figure, as well as results from a hierarchy of
independent models and observational constraints.
Right panels: Projected surface temperature changes for the early and late 21st
century relative to the period 1980-1999. The panels show the multi-AOGCM
average projections for the A2 (top), A1B (middle) and B1 (bottom) SRES scenarios
averaged over decades 2020-2029 (left) and 2090-2099 (right). {WGI
10.4, 10.8, Figures 10.28, 10.29, SPM}
A2
A1B
B1
Year 2000 constant
concentrations
20 century
47
Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under
different scenarios
Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue
to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest
ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains
due to increased precipitation and that the surface mass balance
becomes negative (net ice loss) at a global average warming (relative
to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9 to 4.6C. If such a
negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that
would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice
sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7m. The
corresponding future temperatures in Greenland (1.9 to 4.6C global)
are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period
125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions
of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6m of sea level rise. {WGI
6.4, 10.7, SPM}
Dynamical processes related to ice flow which are not included
in current models but suggested by recent observations
could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing
future sea level rise. Understanding of these processes is
limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude. {WGI 4.6, 10.7,
SPM}
Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet
will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and gain mass
due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur
if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance.
{WGI 10.7, SPM}
Both past and future anthropogenic CO2 emissions will continue

to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a

millennium, due to the time scales required for the removal of this
gas from the atmosphere. {WGI 7.3, 10.3, Figure 7.12, Figure 10.35, SPM}
Estimated long-term (multi-century) warming corresponding to
the six AR4 WG III stabilisation categories is shown in Figure 3.4.
Multi-model projected patterns of precipitation changes
Figure 3.3. Relative changes in precipitation (in percent) for the period 2090-2099,
relative to 1980-1999. Values are multi-model averages based on the
SRES A1B scenario for December to February (left) and June to August (right). White
areas are where less than 66% of the models agree in the sign of the
change and stippled areas are where more than 90% of the models agree in the
sign of the change. {WGI Figure 10.9, SPM}
%
-20 -10 -5 5 10 20
Figure 3.4. Estimated long-term (multi-century) warming corresponding to the six
AR4 WG III stabilisation categories (Table 5.1). The temperature scale has
been shifted by -0.5C compared to Table 5.1 to account approximately for the
warming between pre-industrial and 1980-1999. For most stabilisation levels
global average temperature is approaching the equilibrium level over a few
centuries. For GHG emissions scenarios that lead to stabilisation at levels
comparable to SRES B1 and A1B by 2100 (600 and 850 ppm CO2-eq; category IV
and V), assessed models project that about 65 to 70% of the estimated
global equilibrium temperature increase, assuming a climate sensitivity of 3C,
would be realised at the time of stabilisation. For the much lower stabilisation
scenarios (category I and II, Figure 5.1), the equilibrium temperature may be
reached earlier. {WGI 10.7.2}
Estimated multi-century warming relative to 1980-1999 for AR4 stabilisation
categories
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 C
Global average temperature change relative to 1980-1999 (C)
Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under
different scenarios
48
3.3 Impacts of future climate changes
More specific information is now available across a wide
range of systems and sectors concerning the nature of future
impacts, including some fields not covered in previous
assessments. {WGII TS.4, SPM}
The following is a selection of key findings14 regarding the
impacts of climate change on systems, sectors and regions, as well
as some findings on vulnerability15, for the range of climate changes
projected over the 21st century. Unless otherwise stated, the confidence
level in the projections is high. Global average temperature
increases are given relative to 1980-1999. Additional information
on impacts can be found in the WG II report. {WGII SPM}
3.3.1 Impacts on systems and sectors
Ecosystems
_ The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this
century by an unprecedented combination of climate change,
associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects,

ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. landuse

change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, overexploitation
of resources). {WGII 4.1-4.6, SPM}
_ Over the course of this century, net carbon uptake by terrestrial
ecosystems is likely to peak before mid-century and then weaken
or even reverse16, thus amplifying climate change. {WGII 4.ES,
Figure 4.2, SPM}
_ Approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessed
so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases
in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5C (medium confidence).
{WGII 4.ES, Figure 4.2, SPM}
_ For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5 to
2.5C and in concomitant atmospheric CO2 concentrations, there
are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and
function, species ecological interactions and shifts in species
geographical ranges, with predominantly negative consequences
for biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services, e.g. water
and food supply. {WGII 4.4, Box TS.6, SPM}
Food
_ Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid- to
high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1
to 3C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in
some regions (medium confidence). {WGII 5.4, SPM}
_ At lower latitudes, especially in seasonally dry and tropical
regions, crop productivity is projected to decrease for even small
local temperature increases (1 to 2C), which would increase
the risk of hunger (medium confidence). {WGII 5.4, SPM}
_ Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase
with increases in local average temperature over a range
of 1 to 3C, but above this it is projected to decrease (medium
confidence). {WGII 5.4, 5.5, SPM}
Coasts
_ Coasts are projected to be exposed to increasing risks, including
coastal erosion, due to climate change and sea level rise.
The effect will be exacerbated by increasing human-induced
pressures on coastal areas (very high confidence). {WGII 6.3, 6.4,
SPM}
_ By the 2080s, many millions more people than today are projected
to experience floods every year due to sea level rise. The
numbers affected will be largest in the densely populated and
low-lying megadeltas of Asia and Africa while small islands
are especially vulnerable (very high confidence). {WGII 6.4, 6.5,
Table 6.11, SPM}
Industry, settlements and society
_ The most vulnerable industries, settlements and societies are
generally those in coastal and river flood plains, those whose
economies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resources
and those in areas prone to extreme weather events, especially
where rapid urbanisation is occurring. {WGII 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5,
SPM}

_ Poor communities can be especially vulnerable, in particular

those concentrated in high-risk areas. {WGII 7.2, 7.4, 5.4, SPM}
Health
_ The health status of millions of people is projected to be affected
through, for example, increases in malnutrition; increased
deaths, diseases and injury due to extreme weather events; increased
burden of diarrhoeal diseases; increased frequency of
cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of
ground-level ozone in urban areas related to climate change;
and the altered spatial distribution of some infectious diseases.
{WGI 7.4, Box 7.4; WGII 8.ES, 8.2, 8.4, SPM}
_ Climate change is projected to bring some benefits in temperate
areas, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure, and some
mixed effects such as changes in range and transmission potential
of malaria in Africa. Overall it is expected that benefits will
be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures,
especially in developing countries. {WGII 8.4, 8.7, 8ES, SPM}
_ Critically important will be factors that directly shape the health
of populations such as education, health care, public health initiatives,
and infrastructure and economic development. {WGII
8.3, SPM}
Water
_ Water impacts are key for all sectors and regions. These are
discussed below in the Box Climate change and water.
14 Criteria of choice: magnitude and timing of impact, confidence in the
assessment, representative coverage of the system, sector and region.
15 Vulnerability to climate change is the degree to which systems are susceptible
to, and unable to cope with, adverse impacts.
16 Assuming continued GHG emissions at or above current rates and other global
changes including land-use changes.
49
Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under
different scenarios
Climate change and water
Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from
population growth and economic and land-use
change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers
and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater
availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover
over recent decades are projected to accelerate
throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and
changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by
meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where
more than one-sixth of the world population currently
lives. {WGI 4.1, 4.5; WGII 3.3, 3.4, 3.5}
Changes in precipitation (Figure 3.3) and temperature (Figure 3.2) lead to changes
in runoff (Figure 3.5) and water availability.
Runoff is projected with high confidence to increase by 10 to 40% by mid-century at
higher latitudes and in some wet tropical areas,

including populous areas in East and South-East Asia, and decrease by 10 to 30%
over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and dry
tropics, due to decreases in rainfall and higher rates of evapotranspiration. There is
also high confidence that many semi-arid areas
(e.g. the Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and northeastern Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resources
due to climate change. Drought-affected areas are projected to increase in extent,
with the potential for adverse impacts on
multiple sectors, e.g. agriculture, water supply, energy production and health.
Regionally, large increases in irrigation water demand as
a result of climate changes are projected. {WGI 10.3, 11.2-11.9; WGII 3.4, 3.5,
Figure 3.5, TS.4.1, Box TS.5, SPM}
The negative impacts of climate change on freshwater systems outweigh its
benefits (high confidence). Areas in which runoff is
projected to decline face a reduction in the value of the services provided by water
resources (very high confidence). The beneficial
impacts of increased annual runoff in some areas are likely to be tempered by
negative effects of increased precipitation variability and
seasonal runoff shifts on water supply, water quality and flood risk. {WGII 3.4, 3.5,
TS.4.1}
Available research suggests a significant future increase in heavy rainfall events in
many regions, including some in which the mean
rainfall is projected to decrease. The resulting increased flood risk poses challenges
to society, physical infrastructure and water quality.
It is likely that up to 20% of the world population will live in areas where river flood
potential could increase by the 2080s. Increases in
the frequency and severity of floods and droughts are projected to adversely affect
sustainable development. Increased temperatures
will further affect the physical, chemical and biological properties of freshwater
lakes and rivers, with predominantly adverse impacts on
many individual freshwater species, community composition and water quality. In
coastal areas, sea level rise will exacerbate water
resource constraints due to increased salinisation of groundwater supplies. {WGI
11.2-11.9; WGII 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.4}
Projections and model consistency of relative changes in runoff by the end of the
21st century
Figure 3.5. Large-scale relative changes in annual runoff (water availability, in
percent) for the period 2090-2099, relative to 1980-1999. Values
represent the median of 12 climate models using the SRES A1B scenario. White
areas are where less than 66% of the 12 models agree on the sign of
change and hatched areas are where more than 90% of models agree on the sign of
change. The quality of the simulation of the observed large-scale
20th century runoff is used as a basis for selecting the 12 models from the multimodel ensemble. The global map of annual runoff illustrates a large
scale and is not intended to refer to smaller temporal and spatial scales. In areas
where rainfall and runoff is very low (e.g. desert areas), small changes
in runoff can lead to large percentage changes. In some regions, the sign of
projected changes in runoff differs from recently observed trends. In some
areas with projected increases in runoff, different seasonal effects are expected,
such as increased wet season runoff and decreased dry season

runoff. Studies using results from few climate models can be considerably different
from the results presented here. {WGII Figure 3.4, adjusted to match
the assumptions of Figure SYR 3.3; WGII 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1}
Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under
different scenarios
50
17 Unless stated explicitly, all entries are from WG II SPM text, and are either very
high confidence or high confidence statements, reflecting different sectors
(agriculture, ecosystems, water, coasts, health, industry and settlements). The WG
II SPM refers to the source of the statements, timelines and temperatures.
The magnitude and timing of impacts that will ultimately be realised will vary with
the amount and rate of climate change, emissions scenarios,
development pathways and adaptation.
Studies since the TAR have enabled more systematic understanding
of the timing and magnitude of impacts related
to differing amounts and rates of climate change. {WGII SPM}
Examples of this new information for systems and sectors are
presented in Figure 3.6. The upper panel shows impacts increasing
with increasing temperature change. Their estimated magnitude and
timing is also affected by development pathways (lower panel).
{WGII SPM}
Depending on circumstances, some of the impacts shown in Figure
3.6 could be associated with key vulnerabilities, based on a number
of criteria in the literature (magnitude, timing, persistence/
reversibility, the potential for adaptation, distributional aspects, likelihood
and importance of the impacts) (see Topic 5.2). {WGII SPM}
3.3.2 Impacts on regions17
Africa
_ By 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people are projected
to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change.
{WGII 9.4, SPM}
_ By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture
could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including
access to food, in many African countries is projected
to be severely compromised. This would further adversely affect
food security and exacerbate malnutrition. {WGII 9.4, SPM}
_ Towards the end of the 21st century, projected sea level rise
will affect low-lying coastal areas with large populations. The
cost of adaptation could amount to at least 5 to 10% of GDP.
{WGII 9.4, SPM}
_ By 2080, an increase of 5 to 8% of arid and semi-arid land in
Africa is projected under a range of climate scenarios (high
confidence). {WGII Box TS.6, 9.4.4}
Asia
_ By the 2050s, freshwater availability in Central, South, East
and South-East Asia, particularly in large river basins, is projected
to decrease. {WGII 10.4, SPM}
_ Coastal areas, especially heavily populated megadelta regions
in South, East and South-East Asia, will be at greatest risk due
to increased flooding from the sea and, in some megadeltas,

flooding from the rivers. {WGII 10.4, SPM}

_ Climate change is projected to compound the pressures on natural
resources and the environment associated with rapid
urbanisation, industrialisation and economic development. {WGII
10.4, SPM}
_ Endemic morbidity and mortality due to diarrhoeal disease primarily
associated with floods and droughts are expected to rise
in East, South and South-East Asia due to projected changes in
the hydrological cycle. {WGII 10.4, SPM}
Australia and New Zealand
_ By 2020, significant loss of biodiversity is projected to occur
in some ecologically rich sites, including the Great Barrier Reef
and Queensland Wet Tropics. {WGII 11.4, SPM}
_ By 2030, water security problems are projected to intensify in
southern and eastern Australia and, in New Zealand, in
Northland and some eastern regions. {WGII 11.4, SPM}
_ By 2030, production from agriculture and forestry is projected
to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia, and
over parts of eastern New Zealand, due to increased drought
and fire. However, in New Zealand, initial benefits are projected
in some other regions. {WGII 11.4, SPM}
_ By 2050, ongoing coastal development and population growth
in some areas of Australia and New Zealand are projected to
exacerbate risks from sea level rise and increases in the severity
and frequency of storms and coastal flooding. {WGII 11.4,
SPM}
Europe
_ Climate change is expected to magnify regional differences in
Europes natural resources and assets. Negative impacts will
include increased risk of inland flash floods and more frequent
coastal flooding and increased erosion (due to storminess and
sea level rise). {WGII 12.4, SPM}
_ Mountainous areas will face glacier retreat, reduced snow cover
and winter tourism, and extensive species losses (in some areas
up to 60% under high emissions scenarios by 2080). {WGII 12.4,
SPM}
_ In southern Europe, climate change is projected to worsen conditions
(high temperatures and drought) in a region already vulnerable
to climate variability, and to reduce water availability,
hydropower potential, summer tourism and, in general, crop
productivity. {WGII 12.4, SPM}
_ Climate change is also projected to increase the health risks
due to heat waves and the frequency of wildfires. {WGII 12.4,
SPM}
Latin America
_ By mid-century, increases in temperature and associated decreases
in soil water are projected to lead to gradual replacement
of tropical forest by savanna in eastern Amazonia. Semiarid
vegetation will tend to be replaced by arid-land vegetation.
{WGII 13.4, SPM}

_ There is a risk of significant biodiversity loss through species

extinction in many areas of tropical Latin America. {WGII 13.4,
SPM}
_ Productivity of some important crops is projected to decrease
and livestock productivity to decline, with adverse consequences
for food security. In temperate zones, soybean yields are projected
to increase. Overall, the number of people at risk of hunger
is projected to increase (medium confidence). {WGII 13.4,
Box TS.6}
_ Changes in precipitation patterns and the disappearance of glaciers
are projected to significantly affect water availability for
human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. {WGII
13.4, SPM}
51
Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under
different scenarios
Examples of impacts associated with global average temperature change
(Impacts will vary by extent of adaptation, rate of temperature change and socioeconomic pathway)
Figure 3.6. Examples of impacts associated with global average temperature
change. Upper panel: Illustrative examples of global impacts projected for
climate changes (and sea level and atmospheric CO2 where relevant) associated
with different amounts of increase in global average surface temperature
in the 21st century. The black lines link impacts; broken-line arrows indicate impacts
continuing with increasing temperature. Entries are placed so that the
left-hand side of text indicates the approximate level of warming that is associated
with the onset of a given impact. Quantitative entries for water scarcity and
flooding represent the additional impacts of climate change relative to the
conditions projected across the range of SRES scenarios A1FI, A2, B1 and B2.
Adaptation to climate change is not included in these estimations. Confidence levels
for all statements are high. The upper right panel gives the WG II
references for the statements made in the upper left panel.* Lower panel: Dots
and bars indicate the best estimate and likely ranges of warming assessed
for the six SRES marker scenarios for 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999. {WGI Figure
SPM.5, 10.7; WGII Figure SPM.2; WGIII Table TS.2, Table 3.10}
*Where ES = Executive Summary, T = Table, B = Box and F = Figure. Thus B4.5
indicates Box 4.5 in Chapter 4 and 3.5.1 indicates Section 3.5.1 in Chapter 3.
Warming by 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999 for non-mitigation scenarios
6.4C
5.4C
0 1 2 3 4 5 C
Global average annual temperature change relative to 1980-1999 (C)
0 1 2 3 4 5 C
About 30% of
global coastal
wetlands lost
Increased water availability in moist tropics and high latitudes
Decreasing water availability and increasing drought in mid-latitudes and semi-arid
low latitudes
Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress

Up to 30% of species at
increasing risk of extinction
Increased coral bleaching Most corals bleached Widespread coral mortality
Increasing species range shifts and wildfire risk
Terrestrial biosphere tends toward a net carbon source as:
~15% ~40% of ecosystems affected
Tendencies for cereal productivity
to decrease in low latitudes
Productivity of all cereals
decreases in low latitudes
Cereal productivity to
decrease in some regions
Complex, localised negative impacts on small holders, subsistence farmers and
fishers
Tendencies for some cereal productivity
to increase at mid- to high latitudes
Significant extinctions
around the globe
Changed distribution of some disease vectors
Increasing burden from malnutrition, diarrhoeal, cardio-respiratory and infectious
diseases
Increased morbidity and mortality from heat waves, floods and droughts
Substantial burden on health services
Ecosystem changes due to weakening of the meridional
overturning circulation
Millions more people could experience
coastal flooding each year
Increased damage from floods and storms
WATER
ECOSYSTEMS
FOOD
COASTS
HEALTH
0 1 2 3 4 5 C
Significant is defined here as more than 40%. Based on average rate of sea level
rise of 4.2mm/year from 2000 to 2080.
WGII 3.4.1, 3.4.3
3.ES, 3.4.1, 3.4.3
3.5.1, T3.3, 20.6.2,
TS.B5
4.ES, 4.4.11
4.ES, T4.1, F4.2,
F4.4
19.3.5
4.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.4,
4.4.5, 4.4.6, 4.4.10,
B4.5
5.ES, 5.4.7
5.ES, 5.4.2, F5.2
5.ES, 5.4.2, F5.2

6.ES, 6.3.2, 6.4.1,

6.4.2
6.4.1
T6.6, F6.8, TS.B5
8.ES, 8.4.1, 8.7,
T8.2, T8.4
8.ES, 8.2.2, 8.2.3,
8.4.1, 8.4.2, 8.7,
T8.3, F8.3
8.ES, 8.2.8, 8.7,
B8.4
T4.1, F4.4, B4.4,
6.4.1, 6.6.5, B6.1
8.6.1
Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under
different scenarios
52
North America
_ Warming in western mountains is projected to cause decreased
snowpack, more winter flooding and reduced summer flows,
exacerbating competition for over-allocated water resources.
{WGII 14.4, SPM}
_ In the early decades of the century, moderate climate change is
projected to increase aggregate yields of rain-fed agriculture
by 5 to 20%, but with important variability among regions. Major
challenges are projected for crops that are near the warm
end of their suitable range or which depend on highly utilised
water resources. {WGII 14.4, SPM}
_ Cities that currently experience heat waves are expected to be
further challenged by an increased number, intensity and duration
of heat waves during the course of the century, with potential
for adverse health impacts. {WGII 14.4, SPM}
_ Coastal communities and habitats will be increasingly stressed
by climate change impacts interacting with development and
pollution. {WGII 14.4, SPM}
Polar Regions
_ The main projected biophysical effects are reductions in thickness
and extent of glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice, and changes
in natural ecosystems with detrimental effects on many organisms
including migratory birds, mammals and higher predators.
{WGII 15.4, SPM}
_ For human communities in the Arctic, impacts, particularly those
resulting from changing snow and ice conditions, are projected
to be mixed. {WGII 15.4, SPM}
_ Detrimental impacts would include those on infrastructure and
traditional indigenous ways of life. {WGII 15.4, SPM}
_ In both polar regions, specific ecosystems and habitats are projected
to be vulnerable, as climatic barriers to species invasions
are lowered. {WGII 15.4, SPM}
Small Islands

_ Sea level rise is expected to exacerbate inundation, storm surge,

erosion and other coastal hazards, thus threatening vital infrastructure,
settlements and facilities that support the livelihood
of island communities. {WGII 16.4, SPM}
_ Deterioration in coastal conditions, for example through erosion
of beaches and coral bleaching, is expected to affect local
resources. {WGII 16.4, SPM}
_ By mid-century, climate change is expected to reduce water
resources in many small islands, e.g. in the Caribbean and Pacific,
to the point where they become insufficient to meet demand
during low-rainfall periods. {WGII 16.4, SPM}
_ With higher temperatures, increased invasion by non-native
species is expected to occur, particularly on mid- and high-latitude
islands. {WGII 16.4, SPM}
3.3.3 Especially affected systems, sectors and regions
Some systems, sectors and regions are likely to be especially
affected by climate change.18 {WGII TS.4.5}
Systems and sectors: {WGII TS.4.5}
_ particular ecosystems:
- terrestrial: tundra, boreal forest and mountain regions because
of sensitivity to warming; mediterranean-type ecosystems
because of reduction in rainfall; and tropical rainforests
where precipitation declines
- coastal: mangroves and salt marshes, due to multiple stresses
- marine: coral reefs due to multiple stresses; the sea-ice biome
because of sensitivity to warming
_ water resources in some dry regions at mid-latitudes19 and in
the dry tropics, due to changes in rainfall and evapotranspiration,
and in areas dependent on snow and ice melt
_ agriculture in low latitudes, due to reduced water availability
_ low-lying coastal systems, due to threat of sea level rise and
increased risk from extreme weather events
_ human health in populations with low adaptive capacity.
Regions: {WGII TS.4.5}
_ the Arctic, because of the impacts of high rates of projected
warming on natural systems and human communities
_ Africa, because of low adaptive capacity and projected climate
change impacts
_ small islands, where there is high exposure of population and
infrastructure to projected climate change impacts
_ Asian and African megadeltas, due to large populations and
high exposure to sea level rise, storm surges and river flooding.
Within other areas, even those with high incomes, some people
(such as the poor, young children and the elderly) can be particularly
at risk, and also some areas and some activities. {WGII 7.1, 7.2,
7.4, 8.2, 8.4, TS.4.5}
3.3.4 Ocean acidification
The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the
ocean becoming more acidic with an average decrease in pH of 0.1
units. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to further

acidification. Projections based on SRES scenarios give a reduction

in average global surface ocean pH of between 0.14 and 0.35
units over the 21st century. While the effects of observed ocean acidification
on the marine biosphere are as yet undocumented, the progressive
acidification of oceans is expected to have negative impacts
on marine shell-forming organisms (e.g. corals) and their dependent
species. {WGI SPM; WGII SPM}
3.3.5 Extreme events
Altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, together
with sea level rise, are expected to have mostly adverse
effects on natural and human systems (Table 3.2). {WGII SPM}
Examples for selected extremes and sectors are shown in Table 3.2.
18 Identified on the basis of expert judgement of the assessed literature and
considering the magnitude, timing and projected rate of climate change,
sensitivity and adaptive capacity.
19 Including arid and semi-arid regions.
53
Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under
different scenarios
Table 3.2. Examples of possible impacts of climate change due to changes in
extreme weather and climate events, based on projections to the
mid- to late 21st century. These do not take into account any changes or
developments in adaptive capacity. The likelihood estimates in column two
relate to the phenomena listed in column one. {WGII Table SPM.1}
Phenomenona and Likelihood of Examples of major projected impacts by sector
direction of trend future trends
based on Agriculture, forestry Water resources Human health Industry, settlement
projections and ecosystems {WGII 3.4} {WGII 8.2, 8.4} and society
for 21st century {WGII 4.4, 5.4} {WGII 7.4}
using SRES
scenarios
Over most land Virtually Increased yields in Effects on water Reduced human
Reduced energy demand for
areas, warmer and certain b colder environments; resources relying on mortality
from heating; increased demand
fewer cold days decreased yields in snowmelt; effects on decreased cold for cooling;
declining air quality
and nights, warmer warmer environments; some water supplies exposure in cities;
reduced disruption to
and more frequent increased insect transport due to snow, ice;
hot days and nights outbreaks effects on winter tourism
Warm spells/heat Very likely Reduced yields in Increased water Increased risk of
Reduction in quality of life for
waves. Frequency warmer regions demand; water heat-related people in warm
areas without
increases over most due to heat stress; quality problems, mortality, especially
appropriate housing; impacts
land areas increased danger of e.g. algal blooms for the elderly, on the elderly, very
young and
wildfire chronically sick, poor

very young and

socially isolated
Heavy precipitation Very likely Damage to crops; Adverse effects on Increased risk
of Disruption of settlements,
events. Frequency soil erosion, inability quality of surface deaths, injuries and
commerce, transport and
increases over most to cultivate land due and groundwater; infectious, respiratory
societies due to flooding:
areas to waterlogging of contamination of and skin diseases pressures on urban and
rural
soils water supply; water infrastructures; loss of property
scarcity may be
relieved
Area affected by Likely Land degradation; More widespread Increased risk of Water
shortage for settlements,
drought increases lower yields/crop water stress food and water industry and
societies;
damage and failure; shortage; increased reduced hydropower generation
increased livestock risk of malnutrition; potentials; potential for
deaths; increased increased risk of population migration
risk of wildfire water- and foodborne
diseases
Intense tropical Likely Damage to crops; Power outages Increased risk of Disruption
by flood and high
cyclone activity windthrow (uprooting) causing disruption deaths, injuries, winds;
withdrawal of risk
increases of trees; damage to of public water supply water- and food- coverage in
vulnerable areas
coral reefs borne diseases; by private insurers; potential
post-traumatic for population migrations; loss
stress disorders of property
Increased incidence Likely d Salinisation of Decreased fresh- Increased risk of Costs
of coastal protection
of extreme high irrigation water, water availability due deaths and injuries versus
costs of land-use
sea level (excludes estuaries and fresh- to saltwater intrusion by drowning in floods;
relocation; potential for
tsunamis)c water systems migration-related movement of populations and
health effects infrastructure; also see tropical
cyclones above
Notes:
a) See WGI Table 3.7 for further details regarding definitions.
b) Warming of the most extreme days and nights each year.
c) Extreme high sea level depends on average sea level and on regional weather
systems. It is defined as the highest 1% of hourly values of observed
sea level at a station for a given reference period.
d) In all scenarios, the projected global average sea level at 2100 is higher than in
the reference period. The effect of changes in regional weather
systems on sea level extremes has not been assessed. {WGI 10.6}
3.4 Risk of abrupt or irreversible changes

Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that

are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and
magnitude of the climate change. {WGII 12.6, 19.3, 19.4, SPM}
Abrupt climate change on decadal time scales is normally
thought of as involving ocean circulation changes. In addition on
longer time scales, ice sheet and ecosystem changes may also play
a role. If a large-scale abrupt climate change were to occur, its impact
could be quite high (see Topic 5.2). {WGI 8.7, 10.3, 10.7; WGII
4.4, 19.3}
Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land and/or the thermal expansion
of seawater over very long time scales could imply metres
of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of
low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying
Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under
different scenarios
54
islands. Current models project that such changes would occur over
very long time scales (millennial) if a global temperature increase
of 1.9 to 4.6C (relative to pre-industrial) were to be sustained.
Rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded.
{SYR 3.2.3; WGI 6.4, 10.7; WGII 19.3, SPM}
Climate change is likely to lead to some irreversible impacts.
There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30% of species
assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if
increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5C (relative
to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds
about 3.5C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40
to 70% of species assessed) around the globe. {WGII 4.4, Figure SPM.2}
Based on current model simulations, it is very likely that the
meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean
will slow down during the 21st century; nevertheless temperatures
in the region are projected to increase. It is very unlikely that the
MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the 21stcentury.
Longer-term changes in the MOC cannot be assessed with confidence.
{WGI 10.3, 10.7; WGII Figure, Table TS.5, SPM.2}
Impacts of large-scale and persistent changes in the MOC are
likely to include changes in marine ecosystem productivity, fisheries,
ocean CO2 uptake, oceanic oxygen concentrations and terrestrial
vegetation. Changes in terrestrial and ocean CO2 uptake may
feed back on the climate system. {WGII 12.6, 19.3, Figure SPM.2}
4
Adaptation and mitigation options and responses,
and the inter-relationship with sustainable
development, at global and regional levels
Topic 4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the interrelationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels
56
4.1 Responding to climate change
Societies can respond to climate change by adapting to its impacts
and by reducing GHG emissions (mitigation), thereby reducing the

rate and magnitude of change. This Topic focuses on adaptation and

mitigation options that can be implemented over the next two to three
decades, and their inter-relationship with sustainable development.
These responses can be complementary. Topic 5 addresses their complementary
roles on a more conceptual basis over a longer timeframe.
The capacity to adapt and mitigate is dependent on socio-economic
and environmental circumstances and the availability of information
and technology20 . However, much less information is
available about the costs and effectiveness of adaptation measures
than about mitigation measures. {WGII 17.1, 17.3; WGIII 1.2}
4.2 Adaptation options
Adaptation can reduce vulnerability, both in the short and
the long term. {WGII 17.2, 18.1, 18.5, 20.3, 20.8}
Vulnerability to climate change can be exacerbated by other
stresses. These arise from, for example, current climate hazards,
poverty, unequal access to resources, food insecurity, trends in economic
globalisation, conflict and incidence of diseases such as HIV/
AIDS. {WGII 7.2, 7.4, 8.3, 17.3, 20.3, 20.4, 20.7, SPM}
Societies across the world have a long record of adapting and
reducing their vulnerability to the impacts of weather- and climaterelated
events such as floods, droughts and storms. Nevertheless,
additional adaptation measures will be required at regional and local
levels to reduce the adverse impacts of projected climate change
and variability, regardless of the scale of mitigation undertaken over
the next two to three decades. However, adaptation alone is not
expected to cope with all the projected effects of climate change,
especially not over the long term as most impacts increase in magnitude.
{WGII 17.2, SPM; WGIII 1.2}
A wide array of adaptation options is available, but more extensive
adaptation than is currently occurring is required to reduce
vulnerability to climate change. There are barriers, limits and costs,
which are not fully understood. Some planned adaptation is already
occurring on a limited basis. Table 4.1 provides examples of planned
20 Technology is defined as the practical application of knowledge to achieve
particular tasks that employs both technical artefacts (hardware, equipment)
and (social) information (software, know-how for production and use of artefacts).
adaptation options by sector. Many adaptation actions have multiple
drivers, such as economic development and poverty alleviation,
and are embedded within broader development, sectoral, regional
and local planning initiatives such as water resources planning,
coastal defence and disaster risk reduction strategies. Examples
of this approach are the Bangladesh National Water Management
Plan and the coastal defence plans of The Netherlands
and Norway, which incorporate specific climate change scenarios.
{WGII 1.3, 5.5.2, 11.6, 17.2}
Comprehensive estimates of the costs and benefits of adaptation
at the global level are limited in number. However, the number
of adaptation cost and benefit estimates at the regional and project
levels for impacts on specific sectors, such as agriculture, energy
demand for heating and cooling, water resources management and

infrastructure, is growing. Based on these studies there is high confidence

that there are viable adaptation options that can be implemented
in some of these sectors at low cost and/or with high benefitcost ratios. Empirical research also suggests that higher benefitcost ratios can be achieved by implementing some adaptation
measures at an early stage compared to retrofitting long-lived infrastructure
at a later date. {WGII 17.2}
Adaptive capacity is intimately connected to social and economic
development, but it is not evenly distributed across
and within societies. {WGII 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 17.3}
The capacity to adapt is dynamic and is influenced by a societys
productive base, including natural and man-made capital assets,
social networks and entitlements, human capital and institutions,
governance, national income, health and technology. It is also affected
by multiple climate and non-climate stresses, as well as development
policy. {WGII 17.3}
Recent studies reaffirm the TAR finding that adaptation will be
vital and beneficial. However, financial, technological, cognitive,
behavioural, political, social, institutional and cultural constraints limit
both the implementation and effectiveness of adaptation measures.
Even societies with high adaptive capacity remain vulnerable to climate
change, variability and extremes. For example, a heat wave in
2003 caused high levels of mortality in European cities (especially
among the elderly), and Hurricane Katrina in 2005 caused large human
and financial costs in the United States. {WGII 7.4, 8.2, 17.4}
57
Topic 4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the interrelationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels
Table 4.1. Selected examples of planned adaptation by sector.
Adaptation option/strategy
Expanded rainwater harvesting; water
storage and conservation techniques; water
reuse; desalination; water-use and irrigation
efficiency
Adjustment of planting dates and crop variety;
crop relocation; improved land management,
e.g. erosion control and soil protection through
tree planting
Relocation; seawalls and storm surge barriers;
dune reinforcement; land acquisition and
creation of marshlands/wetlands as buffer
against sea level rise and flooding; protection
of existing natural barriers
Heat-health action plans; emergency
medical services; improved climate-sensitive
disease surveillance and control; safe water
and improved sanitation
Diversification of tourism attractions and
revenues; shifting ski slopes to higher altitudes
and glaciers; artificial snow-making

Realignment/relocation; design standards and

planning for roads, rail and other infrastructure
to cope with warming and drainage
Strengthening of overhead transmission and
distribution infrastructure; underground cabling
for utilities; energy efficiency; use of renewable
sources; reduced dependence on single
sources of energy
Underlying policy framework
National water policies and integrated water
resources management; water-related hazards
management
R&D policies; institutional reform; land tenure
and land reform; training; capacity building;
crop insurance; financial incentives, e.g.
subsidies and tax credits
Standards and regulations that integrate
climate change considerations into design;
land-use policies; building codes; insurance
Public health policies that recognise climate
risk; strengthen health services; regional and
international cooperation
Integrated planning (e.g. carrying capacity;
linkages with other sectors); financial incentives,
e.g. subsidies and tax credits
Integrating climate change considerations into
national transport policy; investment in R&D for
special situations, e.g. permafrost areas
National energy policies, regulations, and fiscal
and financial incentives to encourage use of
alternative sources; incorporating climate
change in design standards
Key constraints and opportunities to
implementation (Normal font = constraints;
italics = opportunities)
Financial, human resources and physical
barriers; integrated water resources
management; synergies with other sectors
Technological and financial constraints;
access to new varieties; markets; longer
growing season in higher latitudes; revenues
from new products
Financial and technological barriers;
availability of relocation space; integrated
policies and management; synergies with
sustainable development goals
Limits to human tolerance (vulnerable
groups); knowledge limitations; financial
capacity; upgraded health services;
improved quality of life

Appeal/marketing of new attractions;

financial and logistical challenges; potential
adverse impact on other sectors (e.g.
artificial snow-making may increase energy
use); revenues from new attractions;
involvement of wider group of stakeholders
Financial and technological barriers;
availability of less vulnerable routes;
improved technologies and integration with
key sectors (e.g. energy)
Access to viable alternatives; financial and
technological barriers; acceptance of new
technologies; stimulation of new technologies;
use of local resources
Note:
Other examples from many sectors would include early warning systems.
Sector
Water
{WGII, 5.5, 16.4;
Tables 3.5, 11.6,17.1}
Agriculture
{WGII 10.5, 13.5;
Table 10.8}
Infrastructure/
settlement (including
coastal zones)
{WGII 3.6, 11.4; Tables
6.11, 17.1}
Human health
{WGII 14.5, Table 10.8}
Tourism
{WGII 12.5, 15.5, 17.5;
Table 17.1}
Transport
{WGII 7.6, 17.2}
Energy
{WGII 7.4, 16.2}
Topic 4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the interrelationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels
58
4.3 Mitigation options
Both bottom-up and top-down studies21 indicate that there
is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic
potential21 for the mitigation of global GHG emissions
over the coming decades that could offset the projected
growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current
levels. {WGIII 11.3, SPM}
Figure 4.1 compares global economic mitigation potential in
2030 with the projected emissions increase from 2000 to 2030.
Bottom-up studies suggest that mitigation opportunities with net

negative costs22 have the potential to reduce emissions by about 6

GtCO2-eq/yr in 2030. Realising these requires dealing with implementation
barriers. The economic mitigation potential, which is
generally greater than the market mitigation potential, can only be
achieved when adequate policies are in place and barriers removed.21
{WGIII 11.3, SPM}
Sectoral estimates of economic mitigation potential and marginal
costs derived from bottom-up studies corrected for double
counting of mitigation potential are shown in Figure 4.2. While
top-down and bottom-up studies are in line at the global level, there
are considerable differences at the sectoral level. {WGIII 11.3, SPM}
No single technology can provide all of the mitigation
potential in any sector. Table 4.2 lists selected examples of key technologies,
policies, constraints and opportunities by sector. {WGIII SPM}
Future energy infrastructure investment decisions, expected to
total over US$20 trillion23 between 2005 and 2030, will have longterm
impacts on GHG emissions, because of the long lifetimes of
energy plants and other infrastructure capital stock. The widespread
diffusion of low-carbon technologies may take many decades, even
if early investments in these technologies are made attractive. Initial
estimates show that returning global energy-related CO2 emissions
to 2005 levels by 2030 would require a large shift in the pattern
of investment, although the net additional investment required
ranges from negligible to 5 to 10%. {WGIII 4.1, 4.4, 11.6, SPM}
21 The concept of mitigation potential has been developed to assess the scale
of GHG reductions that could be made, relative to emission baselines, for
a given level of carbon price (expressed in cost per unit of carbon dioxide equivalent
emissions avoided or reduced). Mitigation potential is further differentiated
in terms of market mitigation potential and economic mitigation potential.
Market mitigation potential is the mitigation potential based on private costs
and private discount rates (reflecting the perspective of private consumers
and companies ), which might be expected to occur under forecast market
conditions, including policies and measures currently in place, noting that
barriers limit actual uptake.
Economic mitigation potential is the mitigation potential that takes into account
social costs and benefits and social discount rates (reflecting the
perspective of society; social discount rates are lower than those used by private
investors ), assuming that market efficiency is improved by policies and
measures and barriers are removed.
Mitigation potential is estimated using different types of approaches. Bottom-up
studies are based on assessment of mitigation options, emphasising
specific technologies and regulations. They are typically sectoral studies taking the
macro-economy as unchanged. Top-down studies assess the
economy-wide potential of mitigation options. They use globally consistent
frameworks and aggregated information about mitigation options and capture
macro-economic and market feedbacks.
22 Net negative costs (no regrets opportunities) are defined as those options whose
benefits such as reduced energy costs and reduced emissions of local/
regional pollutants equal or exceed their costs to society, excluding the benefits of
avoided climate change.

23 20 trillion = 20,000 billion = 201012

Comparison between global economic mitigation potential and projected emissions
increase in 2030
Figure 4.1. Global economic mitigation potential in 2030 estimated from bottomup (Panel a) and top-down (Panel b) studies, compared with the projected
emissions increases from SRES scenarios relative to year 2000 GHG emissions of
40.8 GtCO2-eq (Panel c). Note: GHG emissions in 2000 are exclusive of
emissions of decay of above-ground biomass that remains after logging and
deforestation and from peat fires and drained peat soils, to ensure consistency
with the SRES emissions results. {WGIII Figures SPM.4, SPM.5a, SPM.5b}
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
A1FI A2 A1B A1T B2 B1
Gt CO2-eq
c)
< 0 < 20 < 50 < 100 US$/tCO2-eq
low end of range high end of range
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
a)
low end of range high end of range
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
< 20 < 50 < 100 US$/tCO2-eq
b) Increase in GHG emissions
above year 2000 levels
Bottom-up Top-down
Gt CO2-eq Gt CO2-eq
Estimated mitigation potential in 2030
Estimated mitigation potential in 2030
59

Topic 4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the interrelationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels
Economic mitigation potentials by sector in 2030 estimated from bottom-up studies
Figure 4.2. Estimated economic mitigation potential by sector and region using
technologies and practices expected to be available in 2030. The potentials
do not include non-technical options such as lifestyle changes. {WGIII Figure SPM.6}
Notes:
a) The ranges for global economic potentials as assessed in each sector are shown
by vertical lines. The ranges are based on end-use allocations of
emissions, meaning that emissions of electricity use are counted towards the enduse sectors and not to the energy supply sector.
b) The estimated potentials have been constrained by the availability of studies
particularly at high carbon price levels.
c) Sectors used different baselines. For industry the SRES B2 baseline was taken, for
energy supply and transport the World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2004
baseline was used; the building sector is based on a baseline in between SRES B2
and A1B; for waste, SRES A1B driving forces were used to construct
a waste-specific baseline; agriculture and forestry used baselines that mostly used
B2 driving forces.
d) Only global totals for transport are shown because international aviation is
included.
e) Categories excluded are non-CO2 emissions in buildings and transport, part of
material efficiency options, heat production and cogeneration in energy
supply, heavy duty vehicles, shipping and high-occupancy passenger transport,
most high-cost options for buildings, wastewater treatment, emission
reduction from coal mines and gas pipelines, and fluorinated gases from energy
supply and transport. The underestimation of the total economic potential
from these emissions is of the order of 10 to 15%.
2.4-4.7 1.6-2.5 5.3-6.7 2.5-5.5 2.3-6.4 1.3-4.2 0.4-1.0
total sectoral potential at <US$100/tCO2 -eq in GtCO2 -eq/yr:
Energy supply Transport Buildings Industry Agriculture Forestry Waste
World total
While studies use different methodologies, there is high
agreement and much evidence that in all analysed world
regions near-term health co-benefits from reduced air pollution,
as a result of actions to reduce GHG emissions, can
be substantial and may offset a substantial fraction of mitigation
costs. {WGIII 11.8, SPM}
Energy efficiency and utilisation of renewable energy offer synergies
with sustainable development. In least developed countries,
energy substitution can lower mortality and morbidity by reducing
indoor air pollution, reduce the workload for women and children
and decrease the unsustainable use of fuelwood and related deforestation.
{WGIII 11.8, 11.9, 12.4}
Literature since the TAR confirms with high agreement and
medium evidence that there may be effects from Annex I
countries action on the global economy and global emissions,
although the scale of carbon leakage remains uncertain.
{WGIII 11.7, SPM}
Fossil fuel exporting nations (in both Annex I and non-Annex I

countries) may expect, as indicated in the TAR, lower demand and

prices and lower GDP growth due to mitigation policies. The extent
of this spillover depends strongly on assumptions related to
policy decisions and oil market conditions. {WGIII 11.7, SPM}
Critical uncertainties remain in the assessment of carbon leakage.
Most equilibrium modelling supports the conclusion in the
TAR of economy-wide leakage from Kyoto action in the order of 5
to 20%, which would be less if competitive low-emissions technologies
were effectively diffused. {WGIII 11.7, SPM}
There is also high agreement and medium evidence that
changes in lifestyle and behaviour patterns can contribute
to climate change mitigation across all sectors. Management
practices can also have a positive role. {WGIII SPM}
Examples that can have positive impacts on mitigation include
changes in consumption patterns, education and training, changes
in building occupant behaviour, transport demand management and
management tools in industry. {WGIII 4.1, 5.1, 6.7, 7.3, SPM}
Policies that provide a real or implicit price of carbon could
create incentives for producers and consumers to significantly
invest in low-GHG products, technologies and processes.
{WGIII SPM}
An effective carbon-price signal could realise significant mitigation
potential in all sectors. Modelling studies show that global
carbon prices rising to US$20-80/tCO2-eq by 2030 are consistent
with stabilisation at around 550ppm CO2-eq by 2100. For the same
Topic 4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the interrelationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels
60
Table 4.2 Selected examples of key sectoral mitigation technologies, policies and
measures, constraints and opportunities. {WGIII Tables SPM.3, SPM.7}
Key mitigation technologies and practices currently commercially
available.
Key mitigation technologies and practices projected to be commercialised
before 2030 shown in italics.
Improved supply and distribution efficiency; fuel switching from coal to gas; nuclear
power; renewable heat and power (hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and
bioenergy); combined heat and power; early applications of carbon dioxide capture
and storage (CCS) (e.g. storage of removed CO2 from natural gas); CCS for gas,
biomass and coal-fired electricity generating facilities; advanced nuclear power;
advanced renewable energy, including tidal and wave energy, concentrating solar,
and solar photovoltaics
More fuel-efficient vehicles; hybrid vehicles; cleaner diesel vehicles; biofuels; modal
shifts from road transport to rail and public transport systems; non-motorised
transport (cycling, walking); land-use and transport planning; second generation
biofuels; higher efficiency aircraft; advanced electric and hybrid vehicles with more
powerful and reliable batteries
Efficient lighting and daylighting; more efficient electrical appliances and heating
and cooling devices; improved cook stoves, improved insulation; passive and active
solar design for heating and cooling; alternative refrigeration fluids, recovery and
recycling of fluorinated gases; integrated design of commercial buildings including

technologies, such as intelligent meters that provide feedback and control; solar
photovoltaics integrated in buildings
More efficient end-use electrical equipment; heat and power recovery; material
recycling and substitution; control of non-CO2 gas emissions; and a wide array of
process-specific technologies; advanced energy efficiency; CCS for cement,
ammonia, and iron manufacture; inert electrodes for aluminium manufacture
Improved crop and grazing land management to increase soil carbon storage;
restoration of cultivated peaty soils and degraded lands; improved rice cultivation
techniques and livestock and manure management to reduce CH4 emissions;
improved nitrogen fertiliser application techniques to reduce N2O emissions;
dedicated energy crops to replace fossil fuel use; improved energy efficiency;
improvements of crop yields
Afforestation; reforestation; forest management; reduced deforestation; harvested
wood product management; use of forestry products for bioenergy to replace fossil
fuel use; tree species improvement to increase biomass productivity and carbon
sequestration; improved remote sensing technologies for analysis of vegetation/soil
carbon sequestration potential and mapping land-use change
Landfill CH4 recovery; waste incineration with energy recovery; composting of
organic waste; controlled wastewater treatment; recycling and waste minimisation;
biocovers and biofilters to optimise CH4 oxidation
Policies, measures and instruments shown to be
environmentally effective
Reduction of fossil fuel subsidies; taxes or carbon charges
on fossil fuels
Feed-in tariffs for renewable energy technologies;
renewable energy obligations; producer subsidies
Mandatory fuel economy; biofuel blending and CO2
standards for road transport
Taxes on vehicle purchase, registration, use and motor
fuels; road and parking pricing
Influence mobility needs through land-use regulations and
infrastructure planning; investment in attractive public
transport facilities and non-motorised forms of transport
Appliance standards and labelling
Building codes and certification
Demand-side management programmes
Public sector leadership programmes, including
procurement
Incentives for energy service companies (ESCOs)
Provision of benchmark information; performance
standards; subsidies; tax credits
Tradable permits
Voluntary agreements
Financial incentives and regulations for improved land
management; maintaining soil carbon content; efficient use
of fertilisers and irrigation
Financial incentives (national and international) to
increase forest area, to reduce deforestation and to
maintain and manage forests; land-use regulation and
enforcement

Financial incentives for improved waste and wastewater

management
Renewable energy incentives or obligations
Waste management regulations
Key constraints or opportunities
(Normal font = constraints; italics = opportunities)
Resistance by vested interests may make them
difficult to implement
May be appropriate to create markets for lowemissions
technologies
Partial coverage of vehicle fleet may limit
effectiveness
Effectiveness may drop with higher incomes
Particularly appropriate for countries that are
building up their transportation systems
Periodic revision of standards needed
Attractive for new buildings. Enforcement can be
difficult
Need for regulations so that utilities may profit
Government purchasing can expand demand for
energy-efficient products
Success factor: Access to third party financing
May be appropriate to stimulate technology uptake.
Stability of national policy important in view of
international competitiveness
Predictable allocation mechanisms and stable
price signals important for investments
Success factors include: clear targets, a baseline
scenario, third-party involvement in design and
review and formal provisions of monitoring, close
cooperation between government and industry
May encourage synergy with sustainable
development and with reducing vulnerability to
climate change, thereby overcoming barriers to
implementation
Constraints include lack of investment capital and
land tenure issues. Can help poverty alleviation.
May stimulate technology diffusion
Local availability of low-cost fuel
Most effectively applied at national level with
enforcement strategies
Sector
Energy Supply
{WGIII 4.3, 4.4}
Transport
{WGIII 5.4}
Buildings
{WGIII 6.5}
Industry
{WGIII 7.5}

Agriculture
{WGIII 8.4}
Forestry/forests
{WGIII 9.4}
Waste {WGIII 10.4}
61
Topic 4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the interrelationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels
stabilisation level, studies since the TAR that take into account induced
technological change may lower these price ranges to US$565/tCO2-eq in 2030.24 {WGIII 3.3, 11.4, 11.5, SPM}
There is high agreement and much evidence that a wide
variety of national policies and instruments are available to
governments to create the incentives for mitigation action.
Their applicability depends on national circumstances and
an understanding of their interactions, but experience from
implementation in various countries and sectors shows
there are advantages and disadvantages for any given instrument.
{WGIII 13.2, SPM}
Four main criteria are used to evaluate policies and instruments:
environmental effectiveness, cost effectiveness, distributional
effects including equity, and institutional feasibility. {WGIII 13.2, SPM}
General findings about the performance of policies are: {WGIII
13.2, SPM}
_ Integrating climate policies in broader development policies
makes implementation and overcoming barriers easier.
_ Regulations and standards generally provide some certainty
about emission levels. They may be preferable to other instruments
when information or other barriers prevent producers and
consumers from responding to price signals. However, they may
not induce innovations and more advanced technologies.
_ Taxes and charges can set a price for carbon, but cannot guarantee
a particular level of emissions. Literature identifies taxes
as an efficient way of internalising costs of GHG emissions.
_ Tradable permits will establish a carbon price. The volume of
allowed emissions determines their environmental effectiveness,
while the allocation of permits has distributional consequences.
Fluctuation in the price of carbon makes it difficult to estimate
the total cost of complying with emission permits.
_ Financial incentives (subsidies and tax credits) are frequently
used by governments to stimulate the development and diffusion
of new technologies. While economic costs are generally
higher than for the instruments listed above, they are often critical
to overcome barriers.
_ Voluntary agreements between industry and governments are
politically attractive, raise awareness among stakeholders and
have played a role in the evolution of many national policies.
The majority of agreements have not achieved significant emissions
reductions beyond business as usual. However, some recent
agreements, in a few countries, have accelerated the application

of best available technology and led to measurable emission

reductions.
_ Information instruments (e.g. awareness campaigns) may positively
affect environmental quality by promoting informed
choices and possibly contributing to behavioural change, however,
their impact on emissions has not been measured yet.
_ Research, development and demonstration (RD&D) can stimulate
technological advances, reduce costs and enable progress
toward stabilisation.
Some corporations, local and regional authorities, NGOs and
civil groups are adopting a wide variety of voluntary actions. These
voluntary actions may limit GHG emissions, stimulate innovative
policies and encourage the deployment of new technologies. On
their own, they generally have limited impact on national- or regionallevel emissions. {WGIII 13.4, SPM}
4.4 Relationship between adaptation and
mitigation options and relationship with
sustainable development
There is growing understanding of the possibilities to
choose and implement climate response options in several
sectors to realise synergies and avoid conflicts with other
dimensions of sustainable development. {WGIII SPM}
Climate change policies related to energy efficiency and renewable
energy are often economically beneficial, improve energy security
and reduce local pollutant emissions. Reducing both loss of
natural habitat and deforestation can have significant biodiversity,
soil and water conservation benefits, and can be implemented in a
socially and economically sustainable manner. Forestation and
bioenergy plantations can restore degraded land, manage water runoff,
retain soil carbon and benefit rural economies, but could compete
with food production and may be negative for biodiversity, if
not properly designed. {WGII 20.3, 20.8; WGIII 4.5, 9.7, 12.3, SPM}
There is growing evidence that decisions about macro-economic
policy, agricultural policy, multilateral development bank lending,
insurance practices, electricity market reform, energy security and
forest conservation, for example, which are often treated as being
apart from climate policy, can significantly reduce emissions (Table
4.3). Similarly, non-climate policies can affect adaptive capacity
and vulnerability. {WGII 20.3; WGIII SPM, 12.3}
Both synergies and trade-offs exist between adaptation and
mitigation options. {WGII 18.4.3; WGIII 11.9)
Examples of synergies include properly designed biomass production,
formation of protected areas, land management, energy
use in buildings, and forestry, but synergies are rather limited in
other sectors. Potential trade-offs include increased GHG emissions
due to increased consumption of energy related to adaptive responses.
{WGII 18.4.3, 18.5, 18.7, TS.5.2; WGIII 4.5, 6.9, 8.5, 9.5, SPM}
24 Studies on mitigation portfolios and macro-economic costs assessed in this
report are based on top-down modelling. Most models use a global least-cost

approach to mitigation portfolios, with universal emissions trading, assuming

transparent markets, no transaction cost, and thus perfect implementation of
mitigation measures throughout the 21st century. Costs are given for a specific
point in time. Global modelled costs will increase if some regions, sectors (e.g.
land use), options or gases are excluded. Global modelled costs will decrease with
lower baselines, use of revenues from carbon taxes and auctioned
permits, and if induced technological learning is included. These models do not
consider climate benefits and generally also co-benefits of mitigation
measures, or equity issues. Significant progress has been achieved in applying
approaches based on induced technological change to stabilisation studies;
however, conceptual issues remain. In the models that consider induced
technological change, projected costs for a given stabilisation level are reduced; the
reductions are greater at lower stabilisation level.
Topic 4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the interrelationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels
62
4.5 International and regional cooperation
There is high agreement and much evidence that notable
achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are
the establishment of a global response to the climate change
problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the
creation of an international carbon market and the establishment
of new institutional mechanisms that may provide
the foundation for future mitigation efforts. Progress has
also been made in addressing adaptation within the UNFCCC
and additional initiatives have been suggested. {WGII 18.7;
WGIII 13.3, SPM}
The impact of the Protocols first commitment period relative
to global emissions is projected to be limited. Its economic impacts
on participating Annex-B countries are projected to be smaller than
presented in the TAR, which showed 0.2 to 2% lower GDP in 2012
without emissions trading and 0.1 to 1.1% lower GDP with emissions
trading among Annex-B countries. To be more environmentally
effective, future mitigation efforts would need to achieve deeper
reductions covering a higher share of global emissions (see Topic
5). {WGIII 1.4, 11.4, 13.3, SPM}
The literature provides high agreement and much evidence
of many options for achieving reductions of global GHG
emissions at the international level through cooperation. It
also suggests that successful agreements are environmentally
effective, cost-effective, incorporate distributional considerations
and equity, and are institutionally feasible. {WGIII
13.3, SPM}
Greater cooperative efforts to reduce emissions will help to reduce
global costs for achieving a given level of mitigation, or will
improve environmental effectiveness. Improving and expanding the
scope of market mechanisms (such as emission trading, Joint Implementation
and Clean Development Mechanism) could reduce overall
mitigation costs. {WGIII 13.3, SPM}
Efforts to address climate change can include diverse elements

such as emissions targets; sectoral, local, sub-national and regional

actions; RD&D programmes; adopting common policies; implementing
development-oriented actions; or expanding financing instruments.
These elements can be implemented in an integrated
fashion, but comparing the efforts made by different countries
quantitatively would be complex and resource intensive. {WGIII 13.3,
SPM}
Actions that could be taken by participating countries can be
differentiated both in terms of when such action is undertaken, who
participates and what the action will be. Actions can be binding or
non-binding, include fixed or dynamic targets, and participation
can be static or vary over time. {WGIII 13.3, SPM}
Table 4.3. Integrating climate change considerations into development policies
selected examples in the area of mitigation. {WGIII 12.2.4.6}
Selected sectors Non-climate change policy instruments and actions Potentially
affects:
Macro-economy Implement non-climate taxes/subsidies and/or other fiscal and Total
global GHG emissions
regulatory policies that promote sustainable development
Forestry Adoption of forest conservation and sustainable management practices
GHG emissions from deforestation
Electricity Adoption of cost-effective renewables, demand-side management
Electricity sector CO2 emissions
programmes, and transmission and distribution loss reduction
Petroleum imports Diversifying imported and domestic fuel mix and reducing
Emissions from crude oil and product
economys energy intensity to improve energy security imports
Insurance for building, Differentiated premiums, liability insurance exclusions,
Transport and building sector GHG
transport sectors improved terms for green products emissions
International finance Country and sector strategies and project lending that reduces
emissions Emissions from developing countries
5
The long-term perspective: scientific and
socio-economic aspects relevant to adaptation
and mitigation, consistent with the objectives and
provisions of the Convention, and in the context of
sustainable development
Topic 5 The long-term perspective
64
5.1 Risk management perspective
Responding to climate change involves an iterative risk
management process that includes both mitigation and adaptation,
taking into account actual and avoided climate
change damages, co-benefits, sustainability, equity and attitudes
to risk. {WGII 20. 9, SPM; WGIII SPM}
Risk management techniques can explicitly accommodate sectoral,
regional and temporal diversity, but their application requires information
about not only impacts resulting from the most likely climate scenarios,
but also impacts arising from lower-probability but higher-consequence

events and the consequences of proposed policies and measures.

Risk is generally understood to be the product of the likelihood
of an event and its consequences. Climate change impacts depend on
the characteristics of natural and human systems, their development
pathways and their specific locations. {SYR 3.3, Figure 3.6; WGII 20.2,
20.9, SPM; WGIII 3.5, 3.6, SPM}
5.2 Key vulnerabilities, impacts and risks
long-term perspectives
The five reasons for concern identified in the TAR are now
assessed to be stronger with many risks identified with
higher confidence. Some are projected to be larger or to
occur at lower increases in temperature. This is due to (1)
better understanding of the magnitude of impacts and risks
associated with increases in global average temperature and
GHG concentrations, including vulnerability to present-day
climate variability, (2) more precise identification of the circumstances
that make systems, sectors, groups and regions
especially vulnerable and (3) growing evidence that the risk
of very large impacts on multiple century time scales would
continue to increase as long as GHG concentrations and
temperature continue to increase. Understanding about the
relationship between impacts (the basis for reasons for concern
in the TAR) and vulnerability (that includes the ability
to adapt to impacts) has improved. {WGII 4.4, 5.4, 19.ES, 19.3.7,
TS.4.6; WGIII 3.5, SPM}
The TAR concluded that vulnerability to climate change is a function
of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Adaptation can reduce
sensitivity to climate change while mitigation can reduce the
exposure to climate change, including its rate and extent. Both conclusions
are confirmed in this assessment. {WGII 20.2, 20.7.3}
No single metric can adequately describe the diversity of key
vulnerabilities or support their ranking. A sample of relevant impacts
is provided in Figure 3.6. The estimation of key vulnerabilities
in any system, and damage implied, will depend on exposure
(the rate and magnitude of climate change), sensitivity, which is
determined in part and where relevant by development status, and
adaptive capacity. Some key vulnerabilities may be linked to thresholds;
in some cases these may cause a system to shift from one state
to another, whereas others have thresholds that are defined subjectively
and thus depend on societal values. {WGII 19.ES, 19.1}
The five reasons for concern that were identified in the TAR
were intended to synthesise information on climate risks and key
vulnerabilities and to aid readers in making their own determination
about risk. These remain a viable framework to consider key
vulnerabilities, and they have been updated in the AR4. {TAR WGII
Chapter 19; WGII SPM}
_ Risks to unique and threatened systems. There is new and
stronger evidence of observed impacts of climate change on
unique and vulnerable systems (such as polar and high mountain
communities and ecosystems), with increasing levels of

adverse impacts as temperatures increase further. An increasing

risk of species extinction and coral reef damage is projected
with higher confidence than in the TAR as warming proceeds.
There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30% of
plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased
risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature
exceed 1.5 to 2.5C over 1980-1999 levels. Confidence
has increased that a 1 to 2C increase in global mean temperature
above 1990 levels (about 1.5 to 2.5C above pre-indus25 Key Vulnerabilities can be identified based on a number of criteria in the
literature, including magnitude, timing, persistence/reversibility, the
potential for adaptation, distributional aspects, likelihood and importance of the
impacts.
Key Vulnerabilities and Article 2 of the UNFCCC
Article 2 of the UNFCCC states:
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that
the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to
achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilisation
of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system. Such a level should be achieved
within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate
change, to ensure that food production is not threatened
and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.
Determining what constitutes dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system in relation to Article 2 of the UNFCCC
involves value judgements. Science can support informed decisions on this issue,
including by providing criteria for judging which
vulnerabilities might be labelled key. {SYR 3.3, WGII 19.ES}
Key vulnerabilities25 may be associated with many climate-sensitive systems,
including food supply, infrastructure, health, water
resources, coastal systems, ecosystems, global biogeochemical cycles, ice sheets
and modes of oceanic and atmospheric circulation.
{WGII 19.ES}
More specific information is now available across the regions of the world
concerning the nature of future impacts, including for some
places not covered in previous assessments. {WGII SPM}
65
Topic 5 The long-term perspective
trial) poses significant risks to many unique and threatened systems
including many biodiversity hotspots. Corals are vulnerable
to thermal stress and have low adaptive capacity. Increases
in sea surface temperature of about 1 to 3C are projected to
result in more frequent coral bleaching events and widespread
mortality, unless there is thermal adaptation or acclimatisation
by corals. Increasing vulnerability of Arctic indigenous communities
and small island communities to warming is projected.
{SYR 3.3, 3.4, Figure 3.6, Table 3.2; WGII 4.ES, 4.4, 6.4, 14.4.6, 15.ES,
15.4, 15.6, 16.ES, 16.2.1, 16.4, Table 19.1, 19.3.7, TS.5.3, Figure TS.12,
Figure TS.14}

_ Risks of extreme weather events. Responses to some recent

extreme climate events reveal higher levels of vulnerability in
both developing and developed countries than was assessed in
the TAR. There is now higher confidence in the projected increases
in droughts, heat waves and floods, as well as their adverse
impacts. As summarised in Table 3.2, increases in drought,
heat waves and floods are projected in many regions and would
have mostly adverse impacts, including increased water stress
and wild fire frequency, adverse effects on food production,
adverse health effects, increased flood risk and extreme high
sea level, and damage to infrastructure. {SYR 3.2, 3.3, Table 3.2;
WGI 10.3, Table SPM.2; WGII 1.3, 5.4, 7.1, 7.5, 8.2, 12.6, 19.3, Table
19.1, Table SPM.1}
_ Distribution of impacts and vulnerabilities. There are sharp
differences across regions and those in the weakest economic
position are often the most vulnerable to climate change and
are frequently the most susceptible to climate-related damages,
especially when they face multiple stresses. There is increasing
evidence of greater vulnerability of specific groups such as the
poor and elderly not only in developing but also in developed
countries. There is greater confidence in the projected regional
patterns of climate change (see Topic 3.2) and in the projections
of regional impacts, enabling better identification of particularly
vulnerable systems, sectors and regions (see Topic 3.3).
Moreover, there is increased evidence that low-latitude and lessdeveloped
areas generally face greater risk, for example in dry
areas and megadeltas. New studies confirm that Africa is one
of the most vulnerable continents because of the range of projected
impacts, multiple stresses and low adaptive capacity.
Substantial risks due to sea level rise are projected particularly
for Asian megadeltas and for small island communities. {SYR
3.2, 3.3, 5.4; WGI 11.2-11.7, SPM; WGII 3.4.3, 5.3, 5.4, Boxes 7.1 and
7.4, 8.1.1, 8.4.2, 8.6.1.3, 8.7, 9.ES, Table 10.9, 10.6, 16.3, 19.ES, 19.3,
Table 19.1, 20.ES, TS.4.5, TS.5.4, Tables TS.1, TS.3, TS.4, SPM}
_ Aggregate impacts. Compared to the TAR, initial net marketbased
benefits from climate change are projected to peak at a
lower magnitude and therefore sooner than was assessed in the
TAR. It is likely that there will be higher damages for larger
magnitudes of global temperature increase than estimated in
the TAR, and the net costs of impacts of increased warming are
projected to increase over time. Aggregate impacts have also
been quantified in other metrics (see Topic 3.3): for example,
climate change over the next century is likely to adversely affect
hundreds of millions of people through increased coastal
flooding, reductions in water supplies, increased malnutrition
and increased health impacts. {SYR 3.3, Figure 3.6; WGII 19.3.7,
20.7.3, TS.5.3}
_ Risks of large-scale singularities.26 As discussed in Topic 3.4,
during the current century, a large-scale abrupt change in the
meridional overturning circulation is very unlikely. There is high

confidence that global warming over many centuries would lead

to a sea level rise contribution from thermal expansion alone
that is projected to be much larger than observed over the 20th
century, with loss of coastal area and associated impacts. There
is better understanding than in the TAR that the risk of additional
contributions to sea level rise from both the Greenland
and possibly Antarctic ice sheets may be larger than projected
by ice sheet models and could occur on century time scales.
This is because ice dynamical processes seen in recent observations
but not fully included in ice sheet models assessed in
the AR4 could increase the rate of ice loss. Complete
deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet would raise sea level
by 7m and could be irreversible. {SYR 3.4; WGI 10.3, Box 10.1;
WGII 19.3.7, SPM}
5.3 Adaptation and mitigation
There is high confidence that neither adaptation nor mitigation
alone can avoid all climate change impacts. Adaptation
is necessary both in the short term and longer term to address
impacts resulting from the warming that would occur
even for the lowest stabilisation scenarios assessed. There
are barriers, limits and costs that are not fully understood.
Adaptation and mitigation can complement each other and
together can significantly reduce the risks of climate change.
{WGII 4.ES, TS 5.1, 18.4, 18.6, 20.7, SPM; WGIII 1.2, 2.5, 3.5, 3.6}
Adaptation will be ineffective for some cases such as natural
ecosystems (e.g. loss of Arctic sea ice and marine ecosystem viability),
the disappearance of mountain glaciers that play vital roles
in water storage and supply, or adaptation to sea level rise of several
metres27. It will be less feasible or very costly in many cases for
the projected climate change beyond the next several decades (such
as deltaic regions and estuaries). There is high confidence that the
ability of many ecosystems to adapt naturally will be exceeded this
century. In addition, multiple barriers and constraints to effective
adaptation exist in human systems (see Topic 4.2). {SYR 4.2; WGII
17.4.2, 19.2, 19.4.1}
Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely
to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to
adapt. Reliance on adaptation alone could eventually lead to a magnitude
of climate change to which effective adaptation is not possible,
or will only be available at very high social, environmental
and economic costs. {WGII 18.1, SPM}
26 See glossary
27 While it is technically possible to adapt to several metres of sea level rise, the
resources required are so unevenly distributed that in reality this risk is
outside the scope of adaptation. {WGII 17.4.2, 19.4.1}
Topic 5 The long-term perspective
66
28 Peaking means that the emissions need to reach a maximum before they decline
later.

29 For the lowest mitigation scenario category assessed, emissions would need to
peak by 2015 and for the highest by 2090 (see Table 5.1). Scenarios that
use alternative emission pathways show substantial differences on the rate of global
climate change. {WGII 19.4}
Efforts to mitigate GHG emissions to reduce the rate and
magnitude of climate change need to account for inertia in
the climate and socio-economic systems. {SYR 3.2; WGI 10.3,
10.4, 10.7, SPM; WGIII 2.3.4}
After GHG concentrations are stabilised, the rate at which the
global average temperature increases is expected to slow within a
few decades. Small increases in global average temperature could
still be expected for several centuries. Sea level rise from thermal
expansion would continue for many centuries at a rate that eventually
decreases from that reached before stabilisation, due to ongoing
heat uptake by oceans. {SYR 3.2, WGI 10.3, 10.4, 10.7, SPM}
Delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the opportunities
to achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the risk
of more severe climate change impacts. Even though benefits of
mitigation measures in terms of avoided climate change would take
several decades to materialise, mitigation actions begun in the short
term would avoid locking in both long-lived carbon intensive infrastructure
and development pathways, reduce the rate of climate
change and reduce the adaptation needs associated with higher levels
of warming. {WGII 18.4, 20.6, 20.7, SPM; WGIII 2.3.4, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6,
SPM}
5.4 Emission trajectories for stabilisation
In order to stabilise the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere,
emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter.
28 The lower the stabilisation level, the more quickly this
peak and decline would need to occur (Figure 5.1).29 {WGIII
3.3, 3.5, SPM}
Advances in modelling since the TAR permit the assessment of
multi-gas mitigation strategies for exploring the attainability and
costs for achieving stabilisation of GHG concentrations. These
scenarios explore a wider range of future scenarios, including
lower levels of stabilisation, than reported in the TAR. {WGIII 3.3,
3.5, SPM}
Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will
have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower
stabilisation levels (Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1). {WGIII 3.5,
SPM}
Table 5.1 summarises the required emission levels for different
groups of stabilisation concentrations and the resulting equilibrium
CO2 emissions and equilibrium temperature increases for a range of stabilisation
levels
Figure 5.1. Global CO2 emissions for 1940 to 2000 and emissions ranges for
categories of stabilisation scenarios from 2000 to 2100 (left-hand panel); and
the corresponding relationship between the stabilisation target and the likely
equilibrium global average temperature increase above pre-industrial (righthand

panel). Approaching equilibrium can take several centuries, especially for scenarios
with higher levels of stabilisation. Coloured shadings show
stabilisation scenarios grouped according to different targets (stabilisation category
I to VI). The right-hand panel shows ranges of global average temperature
change above pre-industrial, using (i) best estimate climate sensitivity of 3C
(black line in middle of shaded area), (ii) upper bound of likely range of
climate sensitivity of 4.5C (red line at top of shaded area) (iii) lower bound of likely
range of climate sensitivity of 2C (blue line at bottom of shaded area).
Black dashed lines in the left panel give the emissions range of recent baseline
scenarios published since the SRES (2000). Emissions ranges of the
stabilisation scenarios comprise CO2-only and multigas scenarios and correspond to
the 10th to 90th percentile of the full scenario distribution. Note: CO2
emissions in most models do not include emissions from decay of above ground
biomass that remains after logging and deforestation, and from peat fires
and drained peat soils. {WGIII Figures SPM.7 and SPM.8}
Equilibrium global average temperature
increase above pre-industrial (C)
Year GHG concentration stabilisation level (ppm CO2 -eq)
World CO2 emissions (GtCO2 /yr)
67
Topic 5 The long-term perspective
Table 5.1. Characteristics of post-TAR stabilisation scenarios and resulting longterm equilibrium global average temperature and the sea level rise
component from thermal expansion only.a {WGI 10.7; WGIII Table TS.2, Table 3.10,
Table SPM.5}
Category Change in global
CO2 emissions
in 2050
(percent of 2000
emissions)a,c
Global average
temperature increase
above pre-industrial at
equilibrium, using
best estimate climate
sensitivityd,e
Global average sea
level rise above
pre-industrial at
equilibrium from
thermal expansion
onlyf
ppm ppm year percent C metres
I 350 400 445 490 2000 2015 -85 to -50 2.0 2.4 0.4 1.4 6
II 400 440 490 535 2000 2020 -60 to -30 2.4 2.8 0.5 1.7 18
III 440 485 535 590 2010 2030 -30 to +5 2.8 3.2 0.6 1.9 21
IV 485 570 590 710 2020 2060 +10 to +60 3.2 4.0 0.6 2.4 118
V 570 660 710 855 2050 2080 +25 to +85 4.0 4.9 0.8 2.9 9
VI 660 790 855 1130 2060 2090 +90 to +140 4.9 6.1 1.0 3.7 5
Notes:

a) The emission reductions to meet a particular stabilisation level reported in the

mitigation studies assessed here might be underestimated due to
missing carbon cycle feedbacks (see also Topic 2.3).
b) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 379ppm in 2005. The best estimate of
total CO2-eq concentration in 2005 for all long-lived GHGs is about
455ppm, while the corresponding value including the net effect of all anthropogenic
forcing agents is 375ppm CO2-eq.
c) Ranges correspond to the 15th to 85th percentile of the post-TAR scenario
distribution. CO2 emissions are shown so multi-gas scenarios can be
compared with CO2-only scenarios (see Figure 2.1).
d) The best estimate of climate sensitivity is 3C.
e) Note that global average temperature at equilibrium is different from expected
global average temperature at the time of stabilisation of GHG
concentrations due to the inertia of the climate system. For the majority of
scenarios assessed, stabilisation of GHG concentrations occurs
between 2100 and 2150 (see also Footnote 30).
f) Equilibrium sea level rise is for the contribution from ocean thermal expansion
only and does not reach equilibrium for at least many centuries.
These values have been estimated using relatively simple climate models (one lowresolution AOGCM and several EMICs based on the best
estimate of 3C climate sensitivity) and do not include contributions from melting
ice sheets, glaciers and ice caps. Long-term thermal expansion
is projected to result in 0.2 to 0.6m per degree Celsius of global average warming
above pre-industrial. (AOGCM refers to Atmosphere-Ocean
General Circulation Model and EMICs to Earth System Models of Intermediate
Complexity.)
global average temperature increases, using the best estimate of
climate sensitivity (see Figure 5.1 for the likely range of uncertainty).
Stabilisation at lower concentration and related equilibrium
temperature levels advances the date when emissions need to peak
and requires greater emissions reductions by 2050.30 Climate sensitivity
is a key uncertainty for mitigation scenarios that aim to meet
specific temperature levels. The timing and level of mitigation to
reach a given temperature stabilisation level is earlier and more
stringent if climate sensitivity is high than if it is low. {WGIII 3.3,
3.4, 3.5, 3.6, SPM}
Sea level rise under warming is inevitable. Thermal expansion
would continue for many centuries after GHG concentrations have
stabilised, for any of the stabilisation levels assessed, causing an
eventual sea level rise much larger than projected for the 21st century
(Table 5.1). If GHG and aerosol concentrations had been
stabilised at year 2000 levels, thermal expansion alone would be
expected to lead to further sea level rise of 0.3 to 0.8m. The eventual
contributions from Greenland ice sheet loss could be several
metres, and larger than from thermal expansion, should warming in
excess of 1.9 to 4.6C above pre-industrial be sustained over many
centuries. These long-term consequences would have major implications
for world coastlines. The long time scale of thermal expansion
and ice sheet response to warming imply that mitigation strategies
that seek to stabilise GHG concentrations (or radiative forcing)

at or above present levels do not stabilise sea level for many

centuries. {WG1 10.7}
Feedbacks between the carbon cycle and climate change affect
the required mitigation and adaptation response to climate change.
Climate-carbon cycle coupling is expected to increase the fraction
of anthropogenic emissions that remains in the atmosphere as the
climate system warms (see Topics 2.3 and 3.2.1), but mitigation
studies have not yet incorporated the full range of these feedbacks.
As a consequence, the emission reductions to meet a particular
stabilisation level reported in the mitigation studies assessed in Table
5.1 might be underestimated. Based on current understanding of
climate-carbon cycle feedbacks, model studies suggest that
stabilising CO2 concentrations at, for example, 450ppm31 could require
cumulative emissions over the 21st century to be less than
1800 [1370 to 2200] GtCO2, which is about 27% less than the 2460
[2310 to 2600] GtCO2 determined without consideration of carbon
cycle feedbacks. {SYR 2.3, 3.2.1; WGI 7.3, 10.4, SPM}
30 Estimates for the evolution of temperature over the course of this century are
not available in the AR4 for the stabilisation scenarios. For most stabilisation
levels global average temperature is approaching the equilibrium level over a few
centuries. For the much lower stabilisation scenarios (category I and II,
Figure 5.1), the equilibrium temperature may be reached earlier.
31 To stabilise at 1000ppm CO2, this feedback could require that cumulative
emissions be reduced from a model average of approximately 5190 [4910 to
5460] GtCO2 to approximately 4030 [3590 to 4580] GtCO2. {WGI 7.3, 10.4, SPM}
CO2
concentration
at stabilisation
(2005 = 379
ppm)b
CO2-equivalent
concentration at
stabilisation
including GHGs
and aerosols
(2005=375 ppm)b
Peaking year
for CO2
emissionsa,c
Number of
assessed
scenarios
Topic 5 The long-term perspective
68
Illustrative mitigation portfolios for achieving stabilisation of GHG concentrations
Figure 5.2 Cumulative emissions reductions for alternative mitigation measures for
2000-2030 (left-hand panel) and for 2000-2100 (right-hand panel). The
figure shows illustrative scenarios from four models (AIM, IMAGE, IPAC and
MESSAGE) aiming at the stabilisation at low (490 to 540ppm CO2-eq) and

intermediate levels (650ppm CO2-eq) respectively. Dark bars denote reductions for
a target of 650ppm CO2-eq and light bars denote the additional reductions
to achieve 490 to 540ppm CO2-eq. Note that some models do not consider
mitigation through forest sink enhancement (AIM and IPAC) or CCS (AIM)
and that the share of low-carbon energy options in total energy supply is also
determined by inclusion of these options in the baseline. CCS includes CO2
capture and storage from biomass. Forest sinks include reducing emissions from
deforestation. The figure shows emissions reductions from baseline
scenarios with cumulative emissions between 6000 to 7000 GtCO2-eq (2000-2100).
{WGIII Figure SPM.9}
5.5 Technology flows and development
There is high agreement and much evidence that all
stabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deployment
of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently
available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades,
assuming appropriate and effective incentives are
in place for development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion
of technologies and addressing related barriers. {WGIII
SPM}
Worldwide deployment of low-GHG emission technologies as
well as technology improvements through public and private RD&D
would be required for achieving stabilisation targets as well as cost
reduction.32 Figure 5.2 gives illustrative examples of the contribution
of the portfolio of mitigation options. The contribution of different
technologies varies over time and region and depends on the
baseline development path, available technologies and relative costs,
and the analysed stabilisation levels. Stabilisation at the lower of
the assessed levels (490 to 540ppm CO2-eq) requires early investments
and substantially more rapid diffusion and commercialisation
of advanced low-emissions technologies over the next decades
(2000-2030) and higher contributions across abatement options in
the long term (2000-2100). This requires that barriers to development,
acquisition, deployment and diffusion of technologies are
effectively addressed with appropriate incentives. {WGIII 2.7, 3.3,
3.4, 3.6, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, SPM}
Without sustained investment flows and effective technology
transfer, it may be difficult to achieve emission reduction at a significant
scale. Mobilising financing of incremental costs of lowcarbon
technologies is important. {WGIII 13.3, SPM}
There are large uncertainties concerning the future contribution
of different technologies. However, all assessed stabilisation
scenarios concur that 60 to 80% of the reductions over the course
of the century would come from energy supply and use and industrial
processes. Including non-CO2 and CO2 land-use and forestry
mitigation options provides greater flexibility and cost-effectiveness.
Energy efficiency plays a key role across many scenarios for
most regions and time scales. For lower stabilisation levels, scenarios
put more emphasis on the use of low-carbon energy sources,
such as renewable energy, nuclear power and the use of CO2 capture
and storage (CCS). In these scenarios, improvements of carbon

intensity of energy supply and the whole economy needs to be

much faster than in the past (Figure 5.2). {WGIII 3.3, 3.4, TS.3, SPM}
32 By comparison, government funding in real absolute terms for most energy
research programmes has been flat or declining for nearly two decades (even
after the UNFCCC came into force) and is now about half of the 1980 level. {WGIII
2.7, 3.4, 4.5, 11.5, 13.2}
69
Topic 5 The long-term perspective
5.6 Costs of mitigation and long-term
stabilisation targets
The macro-economic costs of mitigation generally rise with
the stringency of the stabilisation target and are relatively
higher when derived from baseline scenarios characterised
by high emission levels. {WGIII SPM}
There is high agreement and medium evidence that in 2050 global
average macro-economic costs for multi-gas mitigation towards
stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1%
gain to a 5.5% decrease of global GDP (Table 5.2). This corresponds
to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than
0.12 percentage points. Estimated GDP losses by 2030 are on average
lower and show a smaller spread compared to 2050 (Table 5.2).
For specific countries and sectors, costs vary considerably from the
global average.33 {WGIII 3.3, 13.3, SPM}
5.7 Costs, benefits and avoided climate
impacts at global and regional levels
Impacts of climate change will vary regionally. Aggregated
and discounted to the present, they are very likely to impose
net annual costs, which will increase over time as global
temperatures increase. {WGII SPM}
For increases in global average temperature of less than 1 to 3C
above 1980-1999 levels, some impacts are projected to produce
market benefits in some places and sectors while, at the same time,
imposing costs in other places and sectors. Global mean losses could
be 1 to 5% of GDP for 4C of warming, but regional losses could
be substantially higher. {WGII 9.ES, 10.6, 15.ES, 20.6, SPM}
Peer-reviewed estimates of the social cost of carbon (net economic
costs of damages from climate change aggregated across the
globe and discounted to the present) for 2005 have an average value
of US$12 per tonne of CO2, but the range from 100 estimates is
large (-$3 to $95/tCO2). The range of published evidence indicates
that the net damage costs of climate change are projected to be
significant and to increase over time. {WGII 20.6, SPM}
It is very likely that globally aggregated figures underestimate
the damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable
impacts. It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costs
mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countries
and populations. In some locations and amongst some groups
of people with high exposure, high sensitivity and/or low adaptive
capacity, net costs will be significantly larger than the global average.
{WGII 7.4, 20.ES, 20.6, 20.ES, SPM}

Limited and early analytical results from integrated analyses

of the global costs and benefits of mitigation indicate
that these are broadly comparable in magnitude, but do not
as yet permit an unambiguous determination of an emissions
pathway or stabilisation level where benefits exceed
costs. {WGIII SPM}
Comparing the costs of mitigation with avoided damages would
require the reconciliation of welfare impacts on people living in
different places and at different points in time into a global aggregate
measure of well-being. {WGII 18.ES}
Choices about the scale and timing of GHG mitigation involve
balancing the economic costs of more rapid emission reductions
now against the corresponding medium-term and long-term climate
risks of delay. {WGIII SPM}
Many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation.
{WGII SPM}
Although the small number of impact assessments that evaluate
stabilisation scenarios do not take full account of uncertainties
in projected climate under stabilisation, they nevertheless provide
indications of damages avoided and risks reduced for different
Table 5.2. Estimated global macro-economic costs in 2030 and 2050. Costs are
relative to the baseline for least-cost trajectories
towards different long-term stabilisation levels. {WGIII 3.3, 13.3, Tables SPM.4 and
SPM.6}
Stabilisation levels Median GDP reductiona (%) Range of GDP reductionb (%)
Reduction of average annual GDP
(ppm CO2-eq) growth rates (percentage points)c,e
2030 2050 2030 2050 2030 2050
445 535d Not available <3 <5.5 < 0.12 < 0.12
535 590 0.6 1.3 0.2 to 2.5 slightly negative to 4 < 0.1 < 0.1
590 710 0.2 0.5 -0.6 to 1.2 -1 to 2 < 0.06 < 0.05
Notes:
Values given in this table correspond to the full literature across all baselines and
mitigation scenarios that provide GDP numbers.
a) Global GDP based on market exchange rates.
b) The 10th and 90th percentile range of the analysed data are given where
applicable. Negative values indicate GDP gain. The first row (445-535ppm
CO2-eq) gives the upper bound estimate of the literature only.
c) The calculation of the reduction of the annual growth rate is based on the
average reduction during the assessed period that would result in the
indicated GDP decrease by 2030 and 2050 respectively.
d) The number of studies is relatively small and they generally use low baselines.
High emissions baselines generally lead to higher costs.
e) The values correspond to the highest estimate for GDP reduction shown in
column three.
33 See Footnote 24 for further details on cost estimates and model assumptions.
Topic 5 The long-term perspective
70
amounts of emissions reduction. The rate and magnitude of future
human-induced climate change and its associated impacts are determined

by human choices defining alternative socio-economic

futures and mitigation actions that influence emission pathways.
Figure 3.2 demonstrates that alternative SRES emission pathways
could lead to substantial differences in climate change throughout
the 21st century. Some of the impacts at the high temperature end of
Figure 3.6 could be avoided by socio-economic development pathways
that limit emissions and associated climate change towards
the lower end of the ranges illustrated in Figure 3.6. {SYR 3.2, 3.3;
WGIII 3.5, 3.6, SPM}
Figure 3.6 illustrates how reduced warming could reduce the
risk of, for example, affecting a significant number of ecosystems,
the risk of extinctions, and the likelihood that cereal productivity
in some regions would tend to fall. {SYR 3.3, Figure 3.6; WGII 4.4, 5.4,
Table 20.6}
5.8 Broader environmental and
sustainability issues
Sustainable development can reduce vulnerability to climate
change, and climate change could impede nations abilities
to achieve sustainable development pathways. {WGII SPM}
It is very likely that climate change can slow the pace of progress
toward sustainable development either directly through increased
exposure to adverse impacts or indirectly through erosion of the
capacity to adapt. Over the next half-century, climate change could
impede achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. {WGII
SPM}
Climate change will interact at all scales with other trends in
global environmental and natural resource concerns, including
water, soil and air pollution, health hazards, disaster risk, and deforestation.
Their combined impacts may be compounded in future
in the absence of integrated mitigation and adaptation measures.
{WGII 20.3, 20.7, 20.8, SPM}
Making development more sustainable can enhance mitigative
and adaptive capacities, reduce emissions, and reduce
vulnerability, but there may be barriers to implementation.
{WGII 20.8; WGIII 12.2, SPM}
Both adaptive and mitigative capacities can be enhanced through
sustainable development. Sustainable development can, thereby,
reduce vulnerability to climate change by reducing sensitivities
(through adaptation) and/or exposure (through mitigation). At
present, however, few plans for promoting sustainability have explicitly
included either adapting to climate change impacts, or promoting
adaptive capacity. Similarly, changing development paths
can make a major contribution to mitigation but may require resources
to overcome multiple barriers. {WGII 20.3, 20.5, SPM; WGIII
2.1, 2.5, 12.1, SPM}
6
Robust findings, key uncertainties
Topic 6 Robust findings, key uncertainties
72
Robust findings, key uncertainties

As in the TAR, a robust finding for climate change is defined

as one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models
and assumptions, and is expected to be relatively unaffected by
uncertainties. Key uncertainties are those that, if reduced, could
lead to new robust findings. {TAR SYR Q.9}
Robust findings do not encompass all key findings of the AR4.
Some key findings may be policy-relevant even though they are
associated with large uncertainties. {WGII 20.9}
The robust findings and key uncertainties listed below do not
represent an exhaustive list.
6.1 Observed changes in climate and their
effects, and their causes
Robust findings
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident
from observations of increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global
average sea level. {WGI 3.9, SPM}
Many natural systems, on all continents and in some oceans,
are being affected by regional climate changes. Observed changes
in many physical and biological systems are consistent with warming.
As a result of the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 since 1750, the
acidity of the surface ocean has increased. {WGI 5.4, WGII 1.3}
Global total annual anthropogenic GHG emissions, weighted
by their 100-year GWPs, have grown by 70% between 1970 and
2004. As a result of anthropogenic emissions, atmospheric concentrations
of N2O now far exceed pre-industrial values spanning many
thousands of years, and those of CH4 and CO2 now far exceed the
natural range over the last 650,000 years. {WGI SPM; WGIII 1.3}
Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is
very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely that
there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each
continent (except Antarctica). {WGI 9.4, SPM}
Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely
had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes
in many physical and biological systems. {WGII 1.4, SPM}
Key uncertainties
Climate data coverage remains limited in some regions and there
is a notable lack of geographic balance in data and literature on
observed changes in natural and managed systems, with marked
scarcity in developing countries. {WGI SPM; WGII 1.3, SPM}
Analysing and monitoring changes in extreme events, including
drought, tropical cyclones, extreme temperatures and the frequency
and intensity of precipitation, is more difficult than for climatic
averages as longer data time-series of higher spatial and temporal
resolutions are required. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
Effects of climate changes on human and some natural systems
are difficult to detect due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers.
{WGII 1.3}
Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed
temperature changes to natural or human causes at smaller

than continental scales. At these smaller scales, factors such as landuse

change and pollution also complicate the detection of anthropogenic
warming influence on physical and biological systems. {WGI
8.3, 9.4, SPM; WGII 1.4, SPM}
The magnitude of CO2 emissions from land-use change and
CH4 emissions from individual sources remain as key uncertainties.
{WGI 2.3, 7.3, 7.4; WGIII 1.3, TS.14}
6.2 Drivers and projections of future climate
changes and their impacts
Robust findings
With current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable
development practices, global GHG emissions will continue
to grow over the next few decades. {WGIII 3.2, SPM}
For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2C per decade
is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. {WGI 10.3,
10.7, SPM}
Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause
further warming and induce many changes in the global climate
system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than
those observed during the 20th century. {WGI 10.3, 11.1, SPM}
The pattern of future warming where land warms more than the
adjacent oceans and more in northern high latitudes is seen in all
scenarios. {WGI 10.3, 11.1, SPM}
Warming tends to reduce terrestrial ecosystem and ocean uptake
of atmospheric CO2, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic
emissions that remains in the atmosphere. {WGI 7.3, 10.4, 10.5, SPM}
Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for
centuries even if GHG emissions were to be reduced sufficiently
for GHG concentrations to stabilise, due to the time scales associated
with climate processes and feedbacks. {WGI 10.7, SPM}
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very unlikely to be less than
1.5C. {WGI 8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2, SPM}
Some systems, sectors and regions are likely to be especially
affected by climate change. The systems and sectors are some ecosystems
(tundra, boreal forest, mountain, mediterranean-type, mangroves,
salt marshes, coral reefs and the sea-ice biome), low-lying
coasts, water resources in some dry regions at mid-latitudes and in
the dry topics and in areas dependent on snow and ice melt, agriculture
in low-latitude regions, and human health in areas with low
adaptive capacity. The regions are the Arctic, Africa, small islands
and Asian and African megadeltas. Within other regions, even those
with high incomes, some people, areas and activities can be particularly
at risk. {WGII TS.4.5}
Impacts are very likely to increase due to increased frequencies
and intensities of some extreme weather events. Recent events have
demonstrated the vulnerability of some sectors and regions, including
in developed countries, to heat waves, tropical cyclones, floods
and drought, providing stronger reasons for concern as compared
to the findings of the TAR. {WGII Table SPM.2, 19.3}
73

Topic 6 Robust findings, key uncertainties

Key uncertainties
Uncertainty in the equilibrium climate sensitivity creates uncertainty
in the expected warming for a given CO2-eq stabilisation
scenario. Uncertainty in the carbon cycle feedback creates uncertainty
in the emissions trajectory required to achieve a particular
stabilisation level. {WGI 7.3, 10.4, 10.5, SPM}
Models differ considerably in their estimates of the strength of
different feedbacks in the climate system, particularly cloud feedbacks,
oceanic heat uptake and carbon cycle feedbacks, although
progress has been made in these areas. Also, the confidence in projections
is higher for some variables (e.g. temperature) than for
others (e.g. precipitation), and it is higher for larger spatial scales
and longer time averaging periods. {WGI 7.3, 8.1-8.7, 9.6, 10.2, 10.7,
SPM; WGII 4.4}
Aerosol impacts on the magnitude of the temperature response,
on clouds and on precipitation remain uncertain. {WGI 2.9, 7.5, 9.2,
9.4, 9.5}
Future changes in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet mass,
particularly due to changes in ice flow, are a major source of uncertainty
that could increase sea level rise projections. The uncertainty
in the penetration of the heat into the oceans also contributes to the
future sea level rise uncertainty. {WGI 4.6, 6.4, 10.3, 10.7, SPM}
Large-scale ocean circulation changes beyond the 21st century
cannot be reliably assessed because of uncertainties in the meltwater
supply from the Greenland ice sheet and model response to the
warming. {WGI 6.4, 8.7, 10.3 }
Projections of climate change and its impacts beyond about 2050
are strongly scenario- and model-dependent, and improved projections
would require improved understanding of sources of uncertainty and
enhancements in systematic observation networks. {WGII TS.6}
Impacts research is hampered by uncertainties surrounding regional
projections of climate change, particularly precipitation.
{WGII TS.6}
Understanding of low-probability/high-impact events and the
cumulative impacts of sequences of smaller events, which is required
for risk-based approaches to decision-making, is generally
limited. {WGII 19.4, 20.2, 20.4, 20.9, TS.6}
6.3 Responses to climate change
Robust findings
Some planned adaptation (of human activities) is occurring now;
more extensive adaptation is required to reduce vulnerability to climate
change. {WGII 17.ES, 20.5, Table 20.6, SPM}
Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely
to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to
adapt. {WGII 20.7, SPM}
A wide range of mitigation options is currently available or projected
to be available by 2030 in all sectors. The economic mitigation
potential, at costs that range from net negative up to US$100/
tCO2-equivalent, is sufficient to offset the projected growth of global

emissions or to reduce emissions to below current levels in 2030.

{WGIII 11.3, SPM}
Many impacts can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation.
Mitigation efforts and investments over the next two to three
decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower
stabilisation levels. Delayed emissions reductions significantly constrain
the opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels and
increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts. {WGII SPM,
WGIII SPM}
The range of stabilisation levels for GHG concentrations that
have been assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio
of technologies that are currently available and those that are expected
to be commercialised in coming decades, provided that appropriate
and effective incentives are in place and barriers are removed.
In addition, further RD&D would be required to improve
the technical performance, reduce the costs and achieve social acceptability
of new technologies. The lower the stabilisation levels,
the greater the need for investment in new technologies during the
next few decades. {WGIII 3.3, 3.4}
Making development more sustainable by changing development
paths can make a major contribution to climate change mitigation
and adaptation and to reducing vulnerability. {WGII 18.7, 20.3,
SPM; WGIII 13.2, SPM}
Decisions about macro-economic and other policies that seem
unrelated to climate change can significantly affect emissions. {WGIII
12.2}
Key uncertainties
Understanding of how development planners incorporate information
about climate variability and change into their decisions
is limited. This limits the integrated assessment of vulnerability.
{WGII 18.8, 20.9}
The evolution and utilisation of adaptive and mitigative capacity
depend on underlying socio-economic development pathways.
{WGII 17.3, 17.4, 18.6, 19.4, 20.9}
Barriers, limits and costs of adaptation are not fully understood,
partly because effective adaptation measures are highly dependent
on specific geographical and climate risk factors as well as institutional,
political and financial constraints. {WGII SPM}
Estimates of mitigation costs and potentials depend on assumptions
about future socio-economic growth, technological change
and consumption patterns. Uncertainty arises in particular from
assumptions regarding the drivers of technology diffusion and the
potential of long-term technology performance and cost improvements.
Also little is known about the effects of changes in behaviour
and lifestyles. {WGIII 3.3, 3.4, 11.3}
The effects of non-climate policies on emissions are poorly
quantified. {WGIII 12.2}
LUJAN, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHT CIRCUIT

No. 90-1424. Argued December 3, 1991 Decided June 12, 1992

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 divides
responsibilities regarding the protection of endangered species
between petitioner Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Commerce, and requires each federal agency to consult with the
relevant Secretary to ensure that any action funded by the agency
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence or habitat of any
endangered or threatened species. Both Secretaries initially
promulgated a joint regulation extending 7(a)(2)'s coverage to
actions taken in foreign nations, but a subsequent joint rule limited
the section's geographic scope to the United States and the high
seas. Respondents, wildlife conservation and other environmental
organizations, filed an action in the District Court, seeking a
declaratory judgment that the new regulation erred as to 7(a)
(2)'s geographic scope, and an injunction requiring the Secretary
of the Interior to promulgate a new rule restoring his initial
interpretation. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's
dismissal of the suit for lack of standing. Upon remand, on cross
motions for summary judgment, the District Court denied the
Secretary's motion, which renewed his objection to standing, and
granted respondents' motion, ordering the Secretary to publish a
new rule. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.
911 F. 2d 117, reversed and remanded.
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part
III-B, concluding that respondents lack standing to seek judicial
review of the rule. Pp. 3-11, 15-23.
(a) As the parties invoking federal jurisdiction, respondents bear
the burden of showing standing by establishing, inter alia, that
theyhave suffered an injury in fact, i. e., a concrete and
particularized, actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected
interest. To survive a summary judgment motion, they must set
forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts to support their
claim. Standing is particularly difficult to show here, since third
parties, rather than respondents, are the object of the Government
action or inaction to which respondents object. Pp. 3-6.
(b) Respondents did not demonstrate that they suffered an injury
in fact. Assuming that they established that funded activities

abroad threaten certain species, they failed to show that one or

more of their members would thereby be directly affected apart
from the members' special interest in the subject. See Sierra
Clubv. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 735, 739. Affidavits of members
claiming an intent to revisit project sites at some indefinite future
time, at which time they will presumably be denied the
opportunity to observe endangered animals, do not suffice, for
they do not demonstrate an "imminent" injury. Respondents also
mistakenly rely on a number of other novel standing theories.
Their theory that any person using any part of a contiguous
ecosystem adversely affected by a funded activity has standing
even if the activity is located far away from the area of their use is
inconsistent with this Court's opinion in Lujan v. National Wildlife
Federation, 497 U.S. 871. And they state purely speculative,
nonconcrete injuries when they argue that suit can be brought by
anyone with an interest in studying or seeing endangered animals
anywhere on the globe and anyone with a professional interest in
such animals. Pp. 6-11.
(c) The Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondents had
standing on the ground that the statute's citizen suit provision
confers on all persons the right to file suit to challenge the
Secretary's failure to follow the proper consultative procedure,
notwithstanding their inability to allege any separate concrete
injury flowing from that failure. This Court has consistently held
that a plaintiff claiming only a generally available grievance about
government, unconnected with a threatened concrete interest of
his own, does not state an Article III case or controversy. See, e. g.,
Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129-130. Vindicating the public
interest is the function of the Congress and the Chief Executive. To
allow that interest to be converted into an individual right by a
statute denominating it as such and permitting all citizens to sue,
regardless of whether they suffered any concrete injury, would
authorize Congress to transfer from the President to the courts the
Chief Executive's most important constitutional duty, to "take Care
that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, 3. Pp. 15-23.
Scalia, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the
opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-A, and IV, in which
Rehnquist, C. J., and White, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, JJ.,
joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III-B, in which
Rehnquist, C. J., and White and Thomas, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J.,
filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment,
in which Souter, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring

in the judgment. Blackmun, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which

O'Connor, J., joined.
Oposa Law Office for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and
healthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin
concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice."
Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the said petitioners have a cause of
action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests and
"arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and
continued rape of Mother Earth."
The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed before
Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital
Judicial Region. The principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all
minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as an
additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, nonstock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in
concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural
resources. The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). His
substitution in this petition by the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala,
was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners. 1 The
complaint 2was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit 3 and alleges that the plaintiffs
"are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full
benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's
virgin tropical forests." The same was filed for themselves and others who are
equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so numerous
that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court." The minors further
asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as generations yet
unborn." 4 Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be rendered:
. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons
acting in his behalf to
(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;

(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or

approving new timber license agreements.
and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and equitable under the
premises." 5
The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine archipelago
of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty million (30,000,000) hectares and is
endowed with rich, lush and verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and unique
species of flora and fauna may be found; these rainforests contain a genetic,
biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceable; they are also the habitat of
indigenous Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and flourished since
time immemorial; scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced
and healthful ecology, the country's land area should be utilized on the basis of a
ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for
agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and other uses; the distortion and
disturbance of this balance as a consequence of deforestation have resulted in a
host of environmental tragedies, such as (a) water shortages resulting from drying
up of the water table, otherwise known as the "aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks
and streams, (b) salinization of the water table as a result of the intrusion therein of
salt water, incontrovertible examples of which may be found in the island of Cebu
and the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion and the consequential
loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of soil eroded
estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters per annum approximately
the size of the entire island of Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and extinction of
the country's unique, rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance and
dislocation of cultural communities, including the disappearance of the Filipino's
indigenous cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers and seabeds and consequential
destruction of corals and other aquatic life leading to a critical reduction in marine
resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells of drought as is presently experienced by
the entire country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result from the
absence of windbreakers, (i) the floodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arising
from the absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, (j) the siltation and
shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso dams constructed and operated for
the purpose of supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of
electric power, and (k) the reduction of the earth's capacity to process carbon
dioxide gases which has led to perplexing and catastrophic climatic changes such as
the phenomenon of global warming, otherwise known as the "greenhouse effect."
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued
and deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same
may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they
expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as well as documentary,
photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial.

As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:

CAUSE OF ACTION
7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.
8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen (16)
million hectares of rainforests constituting roughly 53% of the
country's land mass.
9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no more
than 1.2 million hectares of said rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of
the country's land area.
10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin
old-growth rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the entire land mass of
the Philippine archipelago and about 3.0 million hectares of immature
and uneconomical secondary growth forests.
11. Public records reveal that the defendant's, predecessors have
granted timber license agreements ('TLA's') to various corporations to
cut the aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares for commercial logging
purposes.
A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas covered is
hereto attached as Annex "A".
12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares
per annum or 25 hectares per hour nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays
and holidays included the Philippines will be bereft of forest
resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if not earlier.
13. The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and
irreparable damage of this continued trend of deforestation to the
plaintiff minor's generation and to generations yet unborn are evident
and incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, the environmental damages
enumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are already being felt, experienced
and suffered by the generation of plaintiff adults.
14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and
deforest the remaining forest stands will work great damage and
irreparable injury to plaintiffs especially plaintiff minors and their
successors who may never see, use, benefit from and enjoy this rare
and unique natural resource treasure.

This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment

of the natural resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of
plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its
capacity as the parens patriae.
16. Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies with the
defendant's office. On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant
a final demand to cancel all logging permits in the country.
A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990 is hereto attached
as Annex "B".
17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing TLA's
to the continuing serious damage and extreme prejudice of plaintiffs.
18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the TLA's
is an act violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especially plaintiff minors
who may be left with a country that is desertified (sic), bare, barren
and devoid of the wonderful flora, fauna and indigenous cultures which
the Philippines had been abundantly blessed with.
19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is
manifestly contrary to the public policy enunciated in the Philippine
Environmental Policy which, in pertinent part, states that it is the policy
of the State
(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which
man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with
each other;
(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and
future generations of Filipinos and;
(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is
conductive to a life of dignity and well-being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977)
20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the
aforementioned TLA's is contradictory to the Constitutional policy of
the State to

a. effect "a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and

wealth" and "make full and efficient use of natural resources (sic)."
(Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution);
b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid);
c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and resources
(sic)" (Section 14, Article XIV,id.);
d. "protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature."
(Section 16, Article II, id.)
21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of humankind
the natural law and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation
and perpetuation.
22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other
than the instant action to arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the
country's vital life support systems and continued rape of Mother
Earth. 6
On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to
Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no
cause of action against him and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political
question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of
Government. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners maintain
that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, (2) the
motion is dilatory and (3) the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the
defendant's abuse of discretion.
On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned
motion to dismiss. 7 In the said order, not only was the defendant's claim that the
complaint states no cause of action against him and that it raises a political
question sustained, the respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the
relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by
the fundamental law of the land.
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal
order on the ground that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in
dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the plaintiffs-minors not only represent
their children, but have also joined the latter in this case. 8

On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the petition and required the
parties to submit their respective Memoranda after the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) filed a Comment in behalf of the respondents and the petitioners
filed a reply thereto.
Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of
action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound
environment based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations),
Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating the DENR, Section 3 of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy), Section 16,
Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the
concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation
embodied in natural law. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative
obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the people's right to a
healthful environment.
It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave
abuse of discretion in granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more
areas for logging than what is available involves a judicial question.
Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-impairment
clause, petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs
are not contracts. They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be considered
protected by the said clause, it is well settled that they may still be revoked by the
State when the public interest so requires.
On the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their
complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any
relief is provided by law. They see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous
allegations concerning an "environmental right" which supposedly entitles the
petitioners to the "protection by the state in its capacity as parens patriae." Such
allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. They then
reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging should be permitted in the
country is a political question which should be properly addressed to the executive
or legislative branches of Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners'
resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby before Congress for the
passage of a bill that would ban logging totally.
As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit that the same
cannot be done by the State without due process of law. Once issued, a TLA remains
effective for a certain period of time usually for twenty-five (25) years. During its
effectivity, the same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has
been found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the terms of the

agreement or other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners' proposition to have all
the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative
of the requirements of due process.
Before going any further, We must first focus on some procedural matters.
Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant
and the present respondents did not take issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We
hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the
complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of
the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes
impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We
likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough
to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for
the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court
are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but
an incident to the former.
This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that
they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no
difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and
for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of
the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers
the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its
entirety. 9 Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's
forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural
resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably
accessible to the present as well as future generations. 10 Needless to say, every
generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for
the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the
minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same
time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for
the generations to come.
The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, We shall now
proceed to the merits of the petition.
After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a meticulous consideration
and evaluation of the issues raised and arguments adduced by the parties, We do
not hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule against the respondent Judge's
challenged order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent portions of the said order reads as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court
cannot help but agree with the defendant. For although we believe that
plaintiffs have but the noblest of all intentions, it (sic) fell short of
alleging, with sufficient definiteness, a specific legal right they are
seeking to enforce and protect, or a specific legal wrong they are
seeking to prevent and redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2, RRC). Furthermore, the
Court notes that the Complaint is replete with vague assumptions and
vague conclusions based on unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to
state a cause of action in its Complaint against the herein defendant.
Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter before it, being
impressed with political color and involving a matter of public policy,
may not be taken cognizance of by this Court without doing violence to
the sacred principle of "Separation of Powers" of the three (3) co-equal
branches of the Government.
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how
we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the
plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the
country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to do
otherwise would amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by
the fundamental law. 11
We do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege
with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong
committed, and that the complaint is replete with vague assumptions and
conclusions based on unverified data. A reading of the complaint itself belies these
conclusions.
The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional
history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of the
1987 Constitution explicitly provides:
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to
a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature.
This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the
preceding section of the same article:

Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among them.
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does
not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights
enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights
altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation
aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement of which may
even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact,
these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed
to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the
fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless
the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state
policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance
and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect
and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost
not only for the present generation, but also for those to come generations which
stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the environment. During the debates on this right in one of
the plenary sessions of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the following exchange
transpired between Commissioner Wilfrido Villacorta and Commissioner Adolfo
Azcuna who sponsored the section in question:
MR. VILLACORTA:
Does this section mandate the State to provide sanctions
against all forms of pollution air, water and noise
pollution?
MR. AZCUNA:
Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic)
environment necessarily carries with it the correlative
duty of not impairing the same and, therefore, sanctions
may be provided for impairment of environmental
balance. 12
The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and
conservation of the country's forests.

Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be

irreversiby disrupted.
Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the
right to health, as well as the other related provisions of the Constitution concerning
the conservation, development and utilization of the country's natural
resources, 13 then President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O.
No. 192, 14 Section 4 of which expressly mandates that the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government agency
responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the
country's environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands,
mineral, resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of
the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as
may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits
derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos."
Section 3 thereof makes the following statement of policy:
Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the
State to ensure the sustainable use, development, management,
renewal, and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, offshore areas and other natural resources, including the protection and
enhancement of the quality of the environment, and equitable access
of the different segments of the population to the development and the
use of the country's natural resources, not only for the present
generation but for future generations as well. It is also the policy of the
state to recognize and apply a true value system including social and
environmental cost implications relative to their utilization,
development and conservation of our natural resources.
This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book IV of the
Administrative Code of 1987, 15specifically in Section 1 thereof which reads:
Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. (1) The State shall ensure, for the
benefit of the Filipino people, the full exploration and development as
well as the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and
conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries,
wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources, consistent with
the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting
and enhancing the quality of the environment and the objective of
making the exploration, development and utilization of such natural
resources equitably accessible to the different segments of the present
as well as future generations.

(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value system
that takes into account social and environmental cost implications
relative to the utilization, development and conservation of our natural
resources.
The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological
balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment." Section 2 of
the same Title, on the other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR;
however, it makes particular reference to the fact of the agency's being subject to
law and higher authority. Said section provides:
Sec. 2. Mandate. (1) The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of the
foregoing policy.
(2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying
out the State's constitutional mandate to control and supervise the
exploration, development, utilization, and conservation of the country's
natural resources.
Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives
which will serve as the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers
and functions of the DENR.
It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987
Constitution, specific statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental
right" of the present and future generations. On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151
(Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code)
were issued. The former "declared a continuing policy of the State (a) to create,
develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in
productive and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic
and other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos, and (c) to
insure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of
dignity and well-being." 16 As its goal, it speaks of the "responsibilities of each
generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding
generations." 17 The latter statute, on the other hand, gave flesh to the said policy.
Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and
healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty under its mandate and by virtue
of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987
to protect and advance the said right.
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or
obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners

maintain that the granting of the TLAs, which they claim was done with grave abuse
of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence, the full
protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted.
A cause of action is defined as:
. . . an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or
rights of the other; and its essential elements are legal right of the
plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or omission of
the defendant in violation of said legal right. 18
It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that
the complaint fails to state a cause of action, 19 the question submitted to the court
for resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. No
other matter should be considered; furthermore, the truth of falsity of the said
allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed hypothetically
admitted. The only issue to be resolved in such a case is: admitting such alleged
facts to be true, may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the
prayer in the complaint? 20 In Militante vs. Edrosolano, 21 this Court laid down the
rule that the judiciary should "exercise the utmost care and circumspection in
passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of the absence thereof [cause of
action] lest, by its failure to manifest a correct appreciation of the facts alleged and
deemed hypothetically admitted, what the law grants or recognizes is effectively
nullified. If that happens, there is a blot on the legal order. The law itself stands in
disrepute."
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We find the statements
under the introductory affirmative allegations, as well as the specific averments
under the sub-heading CAUSE OF ACTION, to be adequate enough to show, prima
facie, the claimed violation of their rights. On the basis thereof, they may thus be
granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs prayed for. It bears stressing, however, that
insofar as the cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is the need to implead, as
party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties.
The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to raise a political question.
Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of
Government is not squarely put in issue. What is principally involved is the
enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in
legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question doctrine
is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the
impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial
inquiry or review. The second paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution
states that:

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Political Law,
Isagani A. Cruz, a distinguished member of this Court, says:

22

Mr. Justice

The first part of the authority represents the traditional concept of

judicial power, involving the settlement of conflicting rights as
conferred as law. The second part of the authority represents a
broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice to review
what was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the
political departments of the government.
As worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and particularly the
Supreme Court, the power to rule upon even the wisdom of the
decisions of the executive and the legislature and to declare their acts
invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because tainted with grave
abuse of discretion. The catch, of course, is the meaning of "grave
abuse of discretion," which is a very elastic phrase that can expand or
contract according to the disposition of the judiciary.
In Daza vs. Singson,

23

Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this Court, noted:

In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even
less tenable and decisive. The reason is that, even if we were to
assume that the issue presented before us was political in nature, we
would still not be precluded from revolving it under the expanded
jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases, even
the political question. Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly
provides: . . .
The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the nonimpairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution. The court a quo declared
that:
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how
we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the
plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the
country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to do

otherwise would amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by

the fundamental law. 24
We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed, if not shocked, by
such a sweeping pronouncement. In the first place, the respondent Secretary did
not, for obvious reasons, even invoke in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment
clause. If he had done so, he would have acted with utmost infidelity to the
Government by providing undue and unwarranted benefits and advantages to the
timber license holders because he would have forever bound the Government to
strictly respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions regardless
of changes in policy and the demands of public interest and welfare. He was aware
that as correctly pointed out by the petitioners, into every timber license must be
read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides:
. . . Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the President
may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession,
permit, licenses or any other form of privilege granted herein . . .
Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive
action. It is not a contract, property or a property right protested by the due
process clause of the Constitution. In Tan vs. Director of Forestry, 25 this Court
held:
. . . A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the
utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public
welfare is promoted. A timber license is not a contract within the
purview of the due process clause; it is only a license or privilege,
which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or
public welfare as in this case.
A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be
unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or
municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted; neither is
it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested right; nor is it
taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this Court held that the granting of license
does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property
rights (People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576).
We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy
Executive Secretary: 26
. . . Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal
instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition
of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. And it

can hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted

by the State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a
permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and
the forest products therein. They may be validly amended, modified,
replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so
require. Thus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview of the
due process of law clause [See Sections 3(ee) and 20 of Pres. Decree
No. 705, as amended. Also, Tan v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302].
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, which reads:
Sec. 10. No law impairing, the obligation of contracts shall be
passed. 27
cannot be invoked.
In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the
instant case does not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the
cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses. Hence, the non-impairment
clause cannot as yet be invoked. Nevertheless, granting further that a law has
actually been passed mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot
still be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because by
its very nature and purpose, such as law could have only been passed in the
exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of
the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, promoting their health and
enhancing the general welfare. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler
Corp. 28 this Court stated:
The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not
meant to be absolute. The same is understood to be subject to
reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public
health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the constitutional
guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the
exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public
health, safety, moral and general welfare.
The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New York, 29 quoted
in Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General, 30 to wit:
Under our form of government the use of property and the making of
contracts are normally matters of private and not of public concern.
The general rule is that both shall be free of governmental
interference. But neither property rights nor contract rights are

absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his
property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of
contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental with the private right
is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest.
In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.

31

Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-impairment
clause could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent Secretary
from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber licenses
for, save in cases of renewal, no contract would have as of yet existed in the other
instances. Moreover, with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a
matter of right.
WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED,
and the challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case
No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their
complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned
timber license agreements.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-60756
NED COMER, ET AL.
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
MURPHY OIL USA, ET AL.
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
DENNIS, Circuit Judge:
The plaintiffs, residents and owners of lands and property along the
Mississippi Gulf coast, filed this putative class action in the district court against
the named defendants, corporations that have principal offices in other states
but are doing business in Mississippi. The plaintiffs allege that defendants
operation of energy, fossil fuels, and chemical industries in the United States
caused the emission of greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming,
viz., the increase in global surface air and water temperatures, that in turn
caused a rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, which
combined to destroy the plaintiffs private property, as well as public property
useful to them. The plaintiffs putative class action asserts claims for
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 16, 2009
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 07-60756
We have subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2), which provides 1
[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the
matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, and is a
class action in which . . . any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State
different
from any defendant. 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2). Plaintiffs suit satisfies the elements of
1332(d)
because the suit is a class action, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000,
and at least
one member of the class of plaintiffs is diverse from at least one defendant. See
Frazier v.
Pioneer Americas LLC, 455 F.3d 542, 545 (5th Cir. 2006).
Though plaintiffs complaint does not seek recovery of a specific amount, the large
class
of plaintiffs, residents of and/or property owners in the state of Mississippi who
suffered loss
and harm as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and the extent of damages sought,
including
personal injury and property damage resulting from Hurricane Katrina, makes it
facially
apparent that at least $5 million is in controversy. Frazier, 455 F.3d at 545; see also
Allen
v. R&H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that when a
complaint
alleges no specific amount of damages, the amount in controversy requirement may
be met if
it is facially apparent that the claims are likely above [the requisite amount]).
The district court did not issue a written opinion in this case but rather offered its 2
ruling from the bench. The district court's reasoning is recorded in the hearing
transcripts.
The district court began its analysis of the political question doctrine by stating
that
the problem [in this case] is one in which this court is simply ill-equipped or
unequipped with
the power that it has to address these issues. Describing this suit as a debate
about global
warming, the district court further reasoned:
[I]t is a debate which simply has no place in the court, until such time as
Congress enacts legislation which sets appropriate standards by which this
court can measure conduct . . . and develops standards by which . . . juries can
adjudicate facts and apply the law. . . . Under the circumstances, I think that
the plaintiffs are asking the court to develop those standards, and it is

something that this court simply is not empowered to do.

2
compensatory and punitive damages based on Mississippi common-law actions
of public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, unjust enrichment,
fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs invoked the
district courts subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. The 1
plaintiffs do not assert any federal or public law actions and do not seek
injunctive relief.
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs claims on the grounds that the
plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims and that their claims present
nonjusticiable political questions. The district court granted the motion and
dismissed the claims. The plaintiffs timely appealed. For the reasons discussed 2
No. 07-60756
Finally, the district court concluded:
[Plaintiffs complaint asks] this court to do what Baker v. Carr told me not to
do, and that is to balance economic, environmental, foreign policy, and national
security interests and make an initial policy determination of a kind which is
simply nonjudicial. Adjudication of Plaintiffs claims in this case would
necessitate the formulation of standards dictating, for example, the amount of
greenhouse gas emissions that would be excessive and the scientific and policy
reasons behind those standards. These policy decisions are best left to the
executive and legislative branches of the government, who are not only in the
best position to make those decisions but are constitutionally empowered to do
so.
3
herein, we conclude that the plaintiffs have standing to assert their public and
private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims, and that none of these claims
present nonjusticiable political questions; but we conclude that their unjust
enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy claims must be
dismissed for prudential standing reasons. Accordingly, we reverse the district
courts judgment, dismiss the plaintiffs suit in part, and remand the case to the
district court for further proceedings.
I.
Plaintiffs public and private nuisance claims assert that defendants
intentionally and unreasonably used their property so as to produce massive
amounts of greenhouse gasses and thereby injure both plaintiffs and the general
public by contributing to global warming, which caused the sea level rise and
added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, the combined effects of which
resulted in the destruction of plaintiffs private property, as well as their loss of
use of certain public property in the vicinity of their dwellings. Plaintiffs
trespass claim asserts that defendants greenhouse gas emissions caused
saltwater, debris, sediment, hazardous substances, and other materials to enter,
remain on, and damage plaintiffs property. Plaintiffs negligence claim asserts
that defendants have a duty to conduct their businesses so as to avoid
No. 07-60756
4
unreasonably endangering the environment, public health, public and private
property, and the citizens of Mississippi; that defendants breached this duty by
emitting substantial quantities of greenhouse gasses; and that these emissions
caused plaintiffs lands and property to be destroyed or damaged.

Additionally, the plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim asserts that certain

defendants artificially inflated the price of petrochemicals, such as gasoline,
diesel fuel, and natural gas, and realized profits to which they are not lawfully
entitled and which, in part, rightfully belong to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs civil
conspiracy claim asserts that certain defendants were aware for many years of
the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions, but they unlawfully disseminated
misinformation about these dangers in furtherance of a civil conspiracy to
decrease public awareness of the dangers of global warming. Finally, plaintiffs
fraudulent misrepresentation claim asserts that defendants knowingly made
materially false statements in public relations campaigns to divert attention
from the dangers of global warming, so as to dissuade government regulation,
public discontent and consumer repulsion; that both government actors and the
general public were unaware that these statements were false; that government
officials and the general public acted upon defendants statements; and that
plaintiffs suffered injuries as a result of that reliance.
The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter
spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States
and is inflexible and without exception. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Envt,
523 U.S. 83, 95 (1998) (quoting Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S.
379, 382 (1884)); see also Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 331 (1977) ([W]e are
first obliged to examine the standing of appellees, as a matter of the
case-or-controversy requirement associated with Art. III) The standing inquiry
is both plaintiff-specific and claim-specific. Thus, a reviewing court must
determine whether each particular plaintiff is entitled to have a federal court
No. 07-60756
5
adjudicate each particular claim that he asserts. Pagan v. Calderon, 448 F.3d
16, 26 (1st Cir. 2006) (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752 (1984)).
Because this is a diversity case involving state common-law rights of
action, plaintiffs must satisfy both state and federal standing requirements. See
Mid-Hudson Catskill Rural Migrant Ministry, Inc. v. Fine Host Corp., 418 F.3d
168, 173 (2d Cir. 2005) (Where, as here, jurisdiction is predicated on diversity
of citizenship, a plaintiff must have standing under both Article III of the
Constitution and applicable state law in order to maintain a cause of action.);
see also Metro. Exp. Services, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 23 F.3d 1367, 136970
(8th Cir. 1994); City of Moore v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 699 F.2d
507, 511 (10th Cir. 1983); Owen of Georgia, Inc. v. Shelby County, 648 F.2d 1084,
108890 (6th Cir. 1981); 13B Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice &
Procedure 3531.14 n.28 (3d ed. 2009).
Plaintiffs claims easily satisfy Mississippis liberal standing
requirements. See Van Slyke v. Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher
Learning, 613 So.2d 872, 875 (1993) (Van Slyke II). The Mississippi
Constitution provides that [a]ll courts shall be open; and every person for an
injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by
due course of law, and right and justice shall be administered without sale,
denial, or delay, Miss. Const. art. III 24. Because Mississippis Constitution
does not limit the judicial power to cases or controversies, its courts have been
more permissive than federal courts in granting standing to parties. See Van
Slyke II, 613 So.2d at 875 (citing Board of Trustees v. Van Slyke, 510 So.2d 490,
496 (Miss. 1987) (Van Slyke I); Dye v. State ex rel. Hale, 507 So.2d 332, 338

(Miss. 1987); Canton Farm Equip., Inc. v. Richardson, 501 So.2d 1098,
1106-1107 (Miss. 1987)). In Mississippi, parties have standing to sue when they
assert a colorable interest in the subject matter of the litigation or experience an
adverse effect from the conduct of the defendant, or as otherwise provided by
No. 07-60756
6
law. State v. Quitman County, 807 So.2d 401, 405 (Miss. 2001) (quoting Fordice
v. Bryan, 651 So.2d 998, 1003 (Miss. 1995); State ex rel. Moore v. Molpus, 578
So.2d 624, 632 (Miss. 1991)). The plaintiffs clearly allege that their interests in
their lands and property have been damaged by the adverse effects of
defendants greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, they have standing to assert
all of their claims under Mississippi law.
In our federal standing inquiry, more rigorous standards apply. Article III
of the United States Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to Cases and
Controversies. Those two words confine the business of federal courts to
questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed
as capable of resolution through the judicial process. Massachusetts v. E.P.A.,
549 U.S. 497, 516 (2007) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968)).
Article III standing is an irreducible constitutional minimum, which
requires plaintiffs to demonstrate: they have suffered an injury in fact; the
injury is fairly traceable to the defendants actions; and the injury will likely
. . . be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.
555, 560-61 (1992) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The claimant
bears the burden of establishing standing, and each element [of the three-part
standing inquiry] must be supported in the same way as any other matter on
which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree
of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation. Lujan, 504 U.S.
at 560-61. When considering standing [a]t the pleading stage, general factual
allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice, for on
a motion to dismiss we presum[e] that general allegations embrace those specific
facts that are necessary to support the claim. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154,
168 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561);
see also Metro. Wash. Airports Auth. v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise,
Inc., 501 U.S. 252, 264-65 (1991) (For purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss
No. 07-60756
7
for want of standing, both the trial and reviewing courts must accept as true all
material allegations of the complaint. (citations omitted)); Gladstone Realtors
v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 109-10 (1979); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490,
501 (1975); Rohm & Hass Tex., Inc. v. Ortiz Bros. Insulation, Inc., 32 F.3d 205,
207 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Warth, 422 U.S. at 501).
In our federal standing analysis in this case, it is helpful to divide the
plaintiffs claims into two sets and apply the standards in turn to each group:
First, the plaintiffs public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims,
all of which rely on allegations of a causal link between greenhouse gas
emissions, global warming, and the destruction of the plaintiffs property by
rising sea levels and the added ferocity of Hurricane Katrina; and, second, the
plaintiffs unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent misrepresentation
claims based on plaintiffs alleged injuries caused by defendants public relations
campaigns and pricing of petrochemicals.

In their nuisance, trespass and negligence claims, the plaintiffs have

clearly satisfied the first and third constitutional minimum standing
requirements. These state common-law tort claims, in which plaintiffs allege
that they sustained actual, concrete injury in fact to their particular lands and
property, can be redressed by the compensatory and punitive damages they seek
No. 07-60756
For the first set of claims, the plaintiffs assert private, common-law claims of the
sort 3
that have been long recognized to give rise to standing, see, e.g., Erwin
Chemerinsky, Federal
Jurisdiction 69 (5th ed. 2007) (Injury to rights recognized at common law
property,
contracts, and torts are sufficient for standing purposes.); the plaintiffs do not
assert any
public-law claims that might raise concerns the standing doctrine is designed to
guard against,
see Charles A. Wright & Mary Kay Kane, Law of Federal Courts 69 (6th ed. 2002)
(The law
of standing is almost exclusively concerned with public-law questions involving
determinations
of constitutionality and review of administrative or other governmental action. In
theory, of
course, it is not so limited. The person suing for breach of contract or for a tort must
be found
to be the real party of interest, but in practice those suits are brought only by a
person harmed
by the supposed wrong, and standing to sue is self-evident. It is only when a
question is of a
public nature that the interested bystander is likely to attempt suit.).
As a number of scholars have noted, throughout American history lawsuits between
private parties over private rights, such as the common-law claims asserted here,
have not
triggered the standing concerns that public-law cases, calling for vindication of
constitutional
or statutory policies, have. See, e.g., Abram Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public
Law
Litigation, 89 Harv. L. Rev. 1281, 1290-91 (1976) (The standing issue could hardly
arise at
common law or under early code pleading rules, that is, under the traditional model.
There the
question of plaintiff's standing merged with the legal merits: On the facts pleaded,
does this
particular plaintiff have a right to the particular relief sought from the particular
defendant
from whom he is seeking it?); Ann Woolhandler & Caleb Nelson, Does History
Defeat
Standing Doctrine?, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 689, 690-94 (2004) (noting that throughout
American
history private litigation asserting private rights, including individuals rights in
property and

bodily integrity, has not raised standing concerns); Cass R. Sunstein, Standing and
the
Privatization of Public Law, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1432, 1439 (1988) (observing that
the existence
of an interest protected at common law [has been] sufficient to confer standing).
This case presents common-law tort claims with allegations of actual injury and is
therefore distinguishable from Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of
Interior,
563 F.3d 466, 479 (D.C. Cir. 2009), for example. In Center for Biological Diversity,
the
plaintiffs sued the Department of Interior in respect to its leasing program, which
permitted
drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, because more drilling will cause more oil
consumption,
causing more emissions, and, in turn, increase global warming and hurt animals and
their
habitats thereby harming the plaintiffs enjoyment. Id. at 478-79. The D.C. Circuit, in
an
alternative holding, found no standing because the claims failed to satisfy the
traceability
requirement. Id. However, the D.C. Circuit found that the plaintiffs could only
speculate that
the damages will occur only if many different actors (oil companies, consumers, car
manufacturers, and the department of Interior) all acted in a way that would
increase global
warming to cause damage. Id. Here, the plaintiffs, instead, make allegations, taken
as true,
that a past causation link led to their particularized damage therefore, the alleged
harms
to the plaintiffs specific property and persons are traceable to the Defendants
without
speculation as to the Defendants and third parties future actions and interactions.
See id. at
489 (Rogers, J., concurring) (noting that if the Plaintiffs had alleged particular harms
caused
by global warming, they may have standing); see also City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
461 U.S.
95, 111 (1983) (differentiating for standing purposes the speculative nature of
potential future
harm created by a policy with suit for actual damages from an alleged past
application of that
8
for those injuries. As to these claims, defendants do not contest standing on the 3
No. 07-60756
policy).
9
first and third prongs of the tripartite test.
Defendants instead challenge the plaintiffs standing at the second prong
of the federal standing inquiry. They argue that the plaintiffs have not shown
that the harms alleged are fairly traceable to defendants actions. Defendants

contend that the plaintiffs theory tracing their injuries to defendants actions is
too attenuated. However, this argument, which essentially calls upon us to
evaluate the merits of plaintiffs causes of action, is misplaced at this threshold
standing stage of the litigation. It is firmly established that the absence of a
valid (as opposed to arguable) cause of action does not implicate subject-matter
jurisdiction, i.e., the courts statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the
case. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89 (citing generally 5A Wright & Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure 1350 n.8 and cases cited (2d ed. 1990)). As the Supreme
Court stated in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 685 (1946), [j]urisdiction . . . is not
defeated . . . by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of
action on which petitioners could actually recover. More specifically, for issues
of causation, the Article III traceability requirement need not be as close as the
proximate causation needed to succeed on the merits of a tort claim. Rather, an
indirect causal relationship will suffice, so long as there is a fairly traceable
connection between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged conduct of the
defendant. Toll Bros., Inc. v. Township of Readington, 555 F.3d 131, 142 (3d
Cir. 2009); see also Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 168 (1997) ([P]roximate
cause of [plaintiffs] harm is not equivalent with their injury fairly traceable
to the defendant for standing purposes); Friends for Ferrell Parkway, LLC v.
Stasko, 282 F.3d 315, 324 (4th Cir. 2002) ([T]he fairly traceable standard is not
equivalent to a requirement of tort causation.); Tozzi v. U.S. Dept of Health
No. 07-60756
10
and Human Servs.,271 F.3d 301, 308 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ([W]e have never applied
a tort standard of causation to the question of traceability.).
Plaintiffs complaint, relying on scientific reports, alleges a chain of
causation between defendants substantial emissions and plaintiffs injuries, and
while plaintiffs will be required to support these assertions at later stages in the
litigation, at this pleading stage we must take these allegations as true. Cf.
Bennett, 520 U.S. at 154 (accepting plaintiffs pleadings as true and holding that
the alleged injury, loss of water for irrigation, was fairly traceable to a Fish and
Wildlife Service biological opinion recommending that water in lakes be
maintained at a minimum level to protect endangered fish); Metro. Wash.
Airport Auth., 501 U.S. at 264-65 (accepting plaintiffs pleadings as true and
holding, in an action challenging the constitutionality of the airport authoritys
veto power over increased airport construction, that allegations that the
construction plan would result in increased airport noise, pollution, and danger
of accidents constituted a personal injury to plaintiffs that was fairly traceable
to the review boards veto power).
What is more, the defendants main contentions are similar to those
recently rejected by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. Essentially,
they argue that traceability is lacking because: (1) the causal link between
emissions, sea level rise, and Hurricane Katrina is too attenuated, and (2) the
defendants actions are only one of many contributions to greenhouse gas
emissions, thereby foreclosing traceability.
In holding that Massachusetts had standing to challenge the EPAs
decision not to regulate the emission of greenhouse gasses, see Massachusetts,
549 U.S. at 522-23, the Court accepted as plausible the link between man-made
greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, id. at 523 (noting the causal
connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

in finding that EPA does not dispute the existence of a causal connection
No. 07-60756
The Court also recognized that the impact of Hurricane Katrina is arguably a result 4
of this causation link. See Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 522 n.18.
11
between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. At a
minimum, therefore, EPAs refusal to regulate such emissions contributes to
Massachusetts injuries), as well as the nexus of warmer climate and rising
ocean temperatures with the strength of hurricanes, id. at 521-24. The Supreme
Court noted that
[t]he harms associated with climate change are serious and well
recognized. . . . [R]ising ocean temperatures may contribute to the
ferocity of hurricanes. . . . According to petitioners unchallenged
affidavits, global sea levels rose somewhere between 10 and 20
centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global warming. .
. . These rising seas have already begun to swallow Massachusetts
coastal land.
Id. at 521-23 (citing a scientific report from a climate scientist). Thus, the Court
accepted a causal chain virtually identical in part to that alleged by plaintiffs,
viz., that defendants greenhouse gas emissions contributed to warming of the
environment, including the oceans temperature, which damaged plaintiffs
coastal Mississippi property via sea level rise and the increased intensity of
Hurricane Katrina. In fact, the Massachusetts Court recognized a causal chain 4
extending one step further i.e., that because the EPA did not regulate
greenhouse gas emissions, motor vehicles emitted more greenhouse gasses than
they otherwise would have, thus contributing to global warming, which injured
No. 07-60756
The Massachusetts Court stated that Massachusetts was entitled to special
solicitude 5
in our standing analysis because it is a state. 549 U.S. at 520. However, the chain
of
causation at issue here is one step shorter than the one recognized in
Massachusetts, so these
plaintiffs need no special solicitude.
Indeed, unlike in other cases in which courts have held that traceability was lacking,
e.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 757-59 (1984), the causal chain alleged by these
plaintiffs
does not depend on independent superseding actions by parties that are not before
the court.
Cf. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Nor does it rely on
speculation
about what the effects of the defendants actions will be, or about the actions
anyone will take
in the future. Cf. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 157-58 (1990). It involves
only the
predictable effects of the defendants past actions on the natural environment, and
the
resulting harm to the plaintiffs property.
12
Massachusetts lands through sea level rise and increased storm ferocity.5

Accordingly, the defendants contention here is without merit.

Defendants contention that traceability is lacking because their emissions
contributed only minimally to plaintiffs injuries is also similar to another EPA
argument rejected by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts. In rejecting the
EPAs argument that its regulation of domestic new car emissions would have
insignificant, if any, salutary effect on global warming, the Court concluded that
[a]t a minimum . . . EPAs refusal to regulate [greenhouse gas] emissions
contributes to Massachusetts injuries, and therefore sufficiently demonstrates
traceability so as to support Massachusetts standing. 549 U.S. at 523. Thus, the
Court recognized, in the same context as the instant case, that injuries may be
fairly traceable to actions that contribute to, rather than solely or materially
cause, greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
This holding -- that alleged contribution to the harm is sufficient for
traceability purposes -- is consistent with the standing case-law in other
contexts. [T]he fact that the defendant is only one of several persons who caused
the harm does not preclude a finding of causation sufficient to support standing.
15 James Wm. Moore et al., Moores Federal Practice 101.41[1] (3d ed. 2008)
(citing Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior v. Norton, 422 F.3d 490,
500-501 (7th Cir. 2005)). We have held, agreeing with the Third and Fourth
No. 07-60756
13
Circuits, that to satisfy the fairly traceable element of standing plaintiffs need
not show to a scientific certainty that defendant's [pollutants], and defendants
[pollutants] alone, caused the precise harm suffered by the plaintiffs. Save Our
Community v. E.P.A., 971 F.2d 1155, 1161 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Pub. Interest
Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Powell Duffryn Terminals Inc., 913 F.2d
64, 72 (3d Cir. 1990); Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc. v. Watkins, 954 F.2d
974, 980 n.7 (4th Cir. 1992)); see also Natural Res. Defense Council v. Sw.
Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 995 (9th Cir. 2000). In other words, this Circuit has
articulated the fairly traceable test not as an inquiry into whether a
defendants pollutants are the sole cause of an injury but rather whether the
pollutant causes or contributes to the kinds of injuries alleged by the plaintiffs.
Sierra Club v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F.3d 546, 557 (5th Cir. 1996) (emphasis
added) (quoting Powell Duffryn Terminals Inc., 913 F.2d at 72); see Texans
United for a Safe Economy Educ. Fund v. Crown Cent. Petroleum, 207 F.3d 789,
793 (5th Cir. 2000); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp.,
95 F.3d 358, 361 (5th Cir. 1996); accord. Powell Duffryn, 913 F.2d at 72; Piney
Run Pres. Assn v. County Commrs of Carroll County, 268 F.3d 255, 263-64 (4th
Cir. 2001) (Traceability does not mean that plaintiffs must show to a scientific
certainty that defendants [pollution] caused the precise harm suffered by the
plaintiffs. Rather, a plaintiff must merely show that a defendant discharges a
pollutant that causes or contributes to the kinds of injuries alleged. (internal
citations and quotations omitted)); Am. Canoe Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Louisa Water
& Sewer Comm'n, 389 F.3d 536, 543 (6th Cir. 2004) (adopting the reasoning of
Piney Run, 268 F.3d at 263-64); Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia
County, 148 F.3d 1231, 1247 (11th Cir. 1998) ([S]tanding is not defeated merely
because the alleged injury can be fairly traced to the actions of both parties and
non-parties. (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560)). The en banc Fourth Circuit
concluded: Rather than pinpointing the origins of particular molecules, a
No. 07-60756

Defendants try to distinguish the above precedents on the ground that they are 6
unique Clean Water Act (CWA) cases. Contrary to defendants' argument or
suggestion, the
Clean Water Act could not and did not lower the constitutional minimum standing
requirements and make CWA cases inapposite here. The CWAs grant of standing
reaches the
outer limits of Article III . . . Thus, if a Clean Water Act plaintiff meets the
constitutional
requirements for standing, then he ipso facto satisfies the statutory threshold as
well.
Friends of the Earth, 204 F.3d at 155; accord Save Our Community, 971 F.2d at 1161
n.11;
Envtl. Conservation Org. v. City of Dallas, 529 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008). In other
words,
constitutional minimum standing requirements cannot be lowered by Congress and
the
constitutional standing jurisprudence under the CWA is fully applicable in this case.
See
Friends of the Earth, 204 F.3d at 155. Moreover, the reasoning of these standing
decisions has
been applied to other contexts. See, e.g., Interfaith Community Org. v. Honeywell
Intl, Inc., 399
F.3d 248, 257 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Powell Duffryn, 913 F.2d at 72); Ocean
Advocates v. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 402 F.3d 846, 860 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that
contribution to the
injury is sufficient to satisfy the constitutional traceability requirement); St. Pierre v.
Dyer,
208 F.3d 394, 402 (2d Cir. 2000) (same). By satisfying standing under the tests
announced in
the precedents above, the plaintiffs have satisfied constitutional standing
requirements.
14
plaintiff must merely show that a defendant discharges a pollutant that causes
or contributes to the kinds of injuries alleged in the specific geographic area of
concern. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 204 F.3d
149, 161 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). 6
Here, the plaintiffs complaint alleges that defendants emissions caused
the plaintiffs property damage, which is redressable through monetary
damages; for example, the plaintiffs allege that defendants willful, unreasonable
use of their property to emit greenhouse gasses constituted private nuisance
under Mississippi law because it inflicted injury on the plaintiffs land by
causing both land loss due to sea level rise and property damage due to
Hurricane Katrina. See, e.g., Comet Delta, Inc. v. Pate Stevedore Co. of
Pascagoula, Inc., 521 So.2d 857, 859 (Miss. 1988) (One is subject to liability for
a private nuisance if, but only if, his conduct is a legal cause of an invasion of
another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land, and the invasion is
. . . intentional and unreasonable. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts
822)). Similarly, the plaintiffs allege that defendants emissions constituted a

No. 07-60756
15
public nuisance because they unreasonably interfered with a common right of
the general public by causing the loss of use and enjoyment of public property
through erosion of beaches, rising sea levels, saltwater intrusion, habitat
destruction, and storm damage. See id. at 860 (A public nuisance is an
unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public. (quoting
Restatement (Second) of Torts 821B)). Because the injury can be traced to the
defendants contributions, the plaintiffs first set of claims satisfies the
traceability requirement and the standing inquiry.
The plaintiffs second set of claims (unjust enrichment, fraudulent
misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy) do not satisfy federal prudential
standing requirements. The Supreme Court has described the prudential
standing doctrine in this way:
[O]ur standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III
standing, which enforces the Constitution's case-or-controversy
requirement, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
559-562(1992); and prudential standing, which embodies judicially
self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, Allen, 468
U.S., at 751. The Article III limitations are familiar: The plaintiff
must show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him
to suffer an injury in fact that a favorable judgment will redress.
See Lujan, 504 U.S., at 560-561. Although we have not exhaustively
defined the prudential dimensions of the standing doctrine, we have
explained that prudential standing encompasses the general
prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, the
rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more
appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the
requirement that a plaintiff's complaint fall within the zone of
interests protected by the law invoked. Allen, 468 U.S., at 751. See
also Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S.
947, 955-956 (1984). Without such limitations -- closely related to
Art. III concerns but essentially matters of judicial self-governance
-- the courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions of
wide public significance even though other governmental
institutions may be more competent to address the questions and
No. 07-60756
The nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims are clearly not barred by any aspect
of 7
the prudential standing doctrine. The plaintiffs do not seek to raise anyone elses
legal rights;
they have asserted particularized injuries, not generalized grievances; and their
injuries
involve the type of interests that have traditionally been protected by the body of
law they
invoke, namely the common law of Mississippi.
16
even though judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect
individual rights. Warth, 422 U.S., at 500.
Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11-12 (2004). Each of the 7

plaintiffs second set of claims presents a generalized grievance that is more

properly dealt with by the representative branches and common to all consumers
of petrochemicals and the American public. [N]o matter how well intended,
Plaintiffs have done little more than present a generalized grievance, common
to all citizens or litigants in [the United States], and as such, lack standing.
Public Citizen, Inc. v. Bomer, 274 F.3d 212, 219 (5th Cir. 2001); see also
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997) (An interest
shared generally with the public at large in the proper application of the
Constitution and laws will not [create standing].); Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74
(We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available
grievance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen's
interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief
[that] no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large
-- does not state an Article III case or controversy.); see generally Hein v.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 2553, 2564 & n.2 (2007)
(listing cases). Unlike the first set of claims, the plaintiffs do not identify a
particularized injury [that] must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual
way. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 & n.1. The source of the plaintiffs second set of
grievances is the alleged failure of the government to properly regulate and
enforce environmental laws (caused by the defendants engagement in an
allegedly false public marketing campaign and wrongful dissuasion of
No. 07-60756
17
government regulation) and therefore enabled the defendants to increase their
prices and profits. As the plaintiffs allege in their complaint:
At the time Defendants made these materially false statements
[about Global Warming], the public and State and Federal
Governments did not know that Defendants statements were false.
The State and Federal Governments, acting upon Defendants
statements and representations, refused to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions. The public had a right to rely and did rely upon
Defendants statements, and continued to consume products in ways
that increased Global Warming, all of which resulted in continued
and increased profits to the Defendants. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff
Classs injuries were proximately caused by that reliance.
The interests at stake involve every purchaser of petrochemicals and the entire
American citizenry because the plaintiffs are essentially alleging a massive
fraud on the political system resulting in the failure of environmental regulators
to impose proper costs on the defendants. Cf. In re Multidistrict Vehicle Air
Pollution M.D.L. No. 31, 481 F.2d 122, 130 (9th Cir. 1973) (Insofar as the
common weal was injured the federal government was the proper party to seek
redress . . . . If the Government did not prosecute its action with sufficient vigor,
the remedy lies in executive or legislative reform, not in judicial overreaching.).
Such a generalized grievance is better left to the representative branches; we
refuse to entertain the second set of claims based on the prudential standing
doctrine.
II.
Since the plaintiffs have standing to bring their nuisance, trespass, and
negligence claims, we must determine whether any of those claims present a
nonjusticiable political question, as the district court believed they did. Because

those claims do not present any specific question that is exclusively committed
by law to the discretion of the legislative or executive branch, we hold that they
are justiciable.
No. 07-60756
18
To begin with, it is useful to define the terms justiciability and political
question. A question, issue, case or controversy is justiciable when it is
constitutionally capable of being decided by a federal court. Conversely, a
question, etc., is nonjusticiable when it is not constitutionally capable of being
judicially decided. Under the separation of powers of the Constitution and the
Supreme Courts cases, a question or subject matter that is committed by the
Constitution, or by constitutional federal laws or regulations, exclusively to
Congress or the president is not capable of being decided by a federal court.
Thus, whether a question is constitutionally capable of being decided by a
federal court depends ultimately on the separation of powers, other applicable
constitutional provisions, and federal laws or regulations, not upon federal
judges capability, intellect, knowledge, expertise or training, nor upon the
inherent difficulty, complexity, novelty or esotery of the matter to be resolved.
A nonjusticiable question is also known as a political question, denoting
that it has been constitutionally entrusted exclusively to either or both the
executive or the legislative branch, which are called the political or elected
branches. Correspondingly, the federal judiciary, whose members are appointed,
is known as the unelected or non-majoritarian branch. Thus, in this context,
political does not broadly relate to government, government policy, partisan or
party politics, or the political system. A case or question that is political only
in the broad sense, i.e., that it has political implications or ramifications, is
capable of being decided constitutionally by a federal court, so long as the
question has not been committed by constitutional means exclusively to the
elected or political branches.
The questions posed by this case, viz., whether defendants are liable to
plaintiffs in damages under Mississippis common law torts of nuisance, trespass
or negligence, are justiciable because they plainly have not been committed by
the Constitution or federal laws or regulations to Congress or the president.
No. 07-60756
19
There is no federal constitutional or statutory provision making such a
commitment, and the defendants do not point to any provision that has such
effect. The most that the defendants legitimately could argue is that in the
future Congress may enact laws, or federal agencies may adopt regulations, so
as to comprehensively govern greenhouse gas emissions and that such laws or
regulations might preempt certain aspects of state common law tort claims.
Until Congress, the president, or a federal agency so acts, however, the
Mississippi common law tort rules questions posed by the present case are
justiciable, not political, because there is no commitment of those issues
exclusively to the political branches of the federal government by the
Constitution itself or by federal statutes or regulations.
A.
Initially, the Supreme Court formulated a narrow but clear political
question or nonjusticiability theory. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice
Marshall stated: By the Constitution of the United States, the President is

invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is

to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political
character, and to his own conscience. . . . The subjects are political. They respect
the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the
decision of the executive is conclusive. . . . 5 U.S. (1 Cranch ) 137, 165-66 (1803).
The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to
enquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they
have a discretion. Questions, in their nature political, or which are by the
constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this
court. Id. at 170. In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall contrasted political
questions with instances in which individual rights are at stake; the latter,
according to the Court, never could be political questions. If there was a claim
No. 07-60756
Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction 2.6, at 149 n.7 (5th ed. 2007) (But notice
8
the effect of Marburys classification: Standing is just the obverse of political
questions. If a
litigant claims that an individual right has been invaded, the lawsuit by definition
does not
involve a political question.) (quoting Howard Fink & Mark Tushnet, Federal
Jurisdiction:
Policy and Practice 231 (2d ed. 1987)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
See, e.g., Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How. ) 1 (1849) (declaring nonjusticiable a
suit 9
brought under the republican form of government clause even though the effect
was to leave
people in jail who contested the constitutionality of their conviction).
20
of an infringement of an individual right in other words, if the plaintiff had
standing there was not a political question under the Marbury formulation.8
After Marbury, however, the Court blurred Chief Justice Marshalls sharp
line between individual rights violations and questions committed to the political
branches. The Court held some cases to be committed to the political branches
for resolution, and therefore nonjusticiable, even though individuals claimed
concrete injuries by specific constitutional violations. The Courts citation to 9
Marbury in those cases, without explaining why Chief Justice Marshalls theory
was not strictly adhered to, caused confusion.
Eventually, in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), in which the Court held
justiciable an equal protection challenge to the malapportionment of a state
legislature, Justice Brennan attempted to clarify why that alleged constitutional
violation was justiciable whereas those alleged in other cases had been held to
be nonjusticiable political questions. He confirmed that it is the relationship
between the judiciary and the coordinate branches of the Federal Government,
and not the federal judiciarys relationship with the States, which gives rise to
the political question, id. at 210; that the separation of powers is the source of
the political question doctrine, id. at 210, 217; that the purpose of the doctrine
is to prevent judicial interference with the exercise of powers committed to the
political branches, see id. at 217; that the doctrine applies only when the federal
court is required to decide a question that has been committed by the
Constitution to another branch of government, id. at 211; and that a court

No. 07-60756
21
determining such a commitment must analyze representative cases and . . .
infer from them the analytical threads that make up the political question
doctrine, id.
After a survey of the Courts cases, Justice Brennan identified the
categories in which the political question doctrine had been discussed: foreign
relations; dates of duration of hostilities; validity of enactments; status of Indian
tribes; and republican form of government. From these cases, he derived Baker
v. Carrs classic, oft-quoted formulations setting forth criteria to aid in
determining whether a case would require a federal court to decide a question
that is committed to a political branch and is therefore nonjusticiable. The
Court stated:
It is apparent that several formulations which vary slightly
according to the settings in which the questions arise may describe
a political question, although each has one or more elements which
identify it as essentially a function of the separation of powers.
Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political
question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional
commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a
lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for
resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the
impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution
without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of
government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a
political decision already made; or the potentiality of
embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various
departments on one question.
Unless one of these formulations is inextricable from the case
at bar, there should be no dismissal for non-justiciability on the
ground of a political question's presence. The doctrine of which we
treat is one of political questions, not one of political cases. The
courts cannot reject as no law suit a bona fide controversy as to
whether some action denominated political exceeds constitutional
authority. The cases we have reviewed show the necessity for
discriminating inquiry into the precise facts and posture of the
No. 07-60756
See Lane v. 10 Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 559 (5th Cir. 2008) (Although the Baker
formulations provide useful analytical guideposts in our analysis, [w]hether an
issue presents
a nonjusticiable political question cannot be determined by a precise formula.)
(quoting
Saldano v. OConnell, 322 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2003)).
22
particular case, and the impossibility of resolution by any semantic
cataloguing.
Id. at 217.
Plainly, the Baker v. Carr formulations were not written as stand-alone
definitions of a political question. They are open-textured, interpretive

guides to aid federal courts in deciding whether a question is entrusted by the 10

Constitution or federal laws exclusively to a federal political branch for its
decision. The Baker formulations are not self-sufficient definitions, but must be
used together with the Constitution and federal laws to decide whether a
particular constitutional or statutory provision commits a question solely to a
political branch for decision. Consequently, if a party moving to dismiss under
the political question doctrine is unable to identify a constitutional provision or
federal law that arguably commits a material issue in the case exclusively to a
political branch, the issue is clearly justiciable and the motion should be denied
without applying the Baker formulations.
In deciding whether a case should be dismissed as a nonjusticiable
political question, we must bear in mind the principles that govern the
jurisdiction of federal courts: It is emphatically the province and duty of the
judicial department to say what the law is. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1
Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). [F]ederal courts lack the authority to
abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction that has been conferred. New Orleans
Public Service, Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 358
(1989). In Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008), the Supreme Courts
reasoning reflected the principle that when a decision is committed exclusively
to Congress, as the suspension of habeas corpus is, federal courts must consider
No. 07-60756
23
the issue nonjusticiable; but when the an issue is not so committed, federal
courts are not free to abstain, and must exercise their jurisdiction if they have
it. See id. at 2262 (This Court may not impose a de facto suspension by
abstaining from these controversies.). We have no more right to decline the
exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The
one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur
which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. Cohens v. Virginia, 19
U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404 (1821). In sum, [w]hen a Federal court is properly
appealed to in a case over which it has by law jurisdiction, it is its duty to take
such jurisdiction. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. of New York, 212 U.S. 19, 40
(1909).
The political question doctrine is a limited exception to the rule that
federal courts lack the authority to abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction that
has been conferred, New Orleans Public Service, 491 U.S. at 358. Where the
Constitution assigns a particular function wholly and indivisibly to another
department, the federal judiciary does not intervene. Baker, 369 U.S. at 246
(Douglas, J., concurring). The converse of this proposition is that a federal court
must not abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction that has been conferred, unless
it has been asked to conclusively resolve a question that is wholly and
indivisibly committed by the Constitution to a political branch of government.
Zivotofsky v. Secretary of State, 571 F.3d 1227, 1235 (Edwards, J., concurring).
Underlying these assertions is the undisputed constitutional principle that
Congress, and not the Judiciary, defines the scope of federal jurisdiction within
the constitutionally permissible bounds. New Orleans Public Service, 491 U.S.
at 359. Therefore, the federal courts are not free to invoke the political question
doctrine to abstain from deciding politically charged cases like this one, but must
exercise their jurisdiction as defined by Congress whenever a question is not
exclusively committed to another branch of the federal government.

No. 07-60756
The Ninth Circuit observed in 1992 that we have found no Supreme Court or Court
11
of Appeals decisions which have dismissed a suit brought against a private party on
the basis
of the political question doctrine. Koohi v. United States, 976 F.2d 1328, 1332 n.3
(1992).
24
Unsurprisingly, federal cases in which subject matter jurisdiction and
standing are properly asserted are rarely dismissed as nonjusticiable pursuant
to the political question doctrine. Indeed, since Baker, the Supreme Court has
only dismissed two cases as presenting nonjusticiable political questions. See
Zivotofsky, 571 F.3d at 1236 (Edwards, J., concurring) (discussing Gilligan v.
Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 5 (1973) (declining a broad call on judicial power to assume
continuing regulatory jurisdiction over the activities of the Ohio National Guard
on the basis of an explicit constitutional textual commitment of that power to
Congress and president), and Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)
(finding a request to review Senate impeachment proceedings nonjusticiable in
light of the explicit textual constitutional commitment of the impeachment
power to the Senate)).
A federal courts dismissal of litigation between private citizens based on
state common law, as presenting a nonjusticiable political question, has rarely,
if at all, been affirmed by a federal court of appeals. See 13C Charles Alan 11
Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure
3534.3, at 806 (3d ed. 2008) (It seems unlikely that . . . one private citizen
suing another . . . call[s] for resolution of a political question. Challenges to
official action or inaction are the stuff of the separation of powers concerns that
underlie political question reasoning.) (citing, as illustration, In re
African-American Slave Descendants Litigation, 471 F.3d 754, 758 (7th Cir.
2006) (per Posner, J.) (holding that no political question was presented when the
slave descendant plaintiffs carefully cast their diversity suits against
No. 07-60756
See also Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 560-61 (5th Cir. 2008) (observing that 12
the first Baker formulation is primarily concerned with direct challenges to actions
taken by
a coordinate branch of the federal government, whereas American courts have
resolved such
matters between private litigants since before the adoption of the Constitution).
See also Koohi, 976 F.2d at 1332 (A key element in our conclusion that the
plaintiffs 13
action is justiciable is the fact that the plaintiffs seek only damages for their injuries.
Damage
actions are particularly judicially manageable.). Compare Gilligan v. Morgan, 413
U.S. 1, 11
(1973) (refusing to take cognizance of a suit seeking judicial supervision of the
operation and
training of the Ohio National Guard in the wake of the Kent State shootings), with id.
at 5
(suggesting that the Court might allow a suit against the National Guard for
damages), and

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 247-49 (1974) (allowing such a suit).
25
corporations for reparations under state common law as a quest for
conventional legal relief)).12
Common-law tort claims are rarely thought to present nonjusticiable
political questions. Three Circuits have stated, in the political question context,
that the common law of tort provides clear and well-settled rules on which the
district court can easily rely. McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc., 502 F.3d
1331, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007); Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 410 F.3d 532, 554 (9th Cir.
2005); Linder v. Portocarrero, 963 F.2d 332, 337 (11th Cir. 1992); Klinghoffer v.
S.N.C. Achille Lauro, 937 F.2d 44, 49 (2d Cir. 1991). The Fifth Circuit has
similarly observed that, when faced with an ordinary tort suit, the textual
commitment factor actually weighs in favor of resolution by the judiciary. Lane
v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 560 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Klinghoffer, 937 F.2d
at 49). And the Tenth Circuit, in a case governed by state negligence law, stated
that the political question theory . . . do[es] not ordinarily prevent individual
tort recoveries. McKay v. United States, 703 F.2d 464, 470 (1983). Claims for
damages are also considerably less likely to present nonjusticiable political
questions, compared with claims for injunctive relief. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit
in Gordon v. Texas categorically stated that [m]onetary damages . . . do not . .
. constitute a form of relief that is not judicially manageable. 153 F.3d 190, 195
(5th Cir. 1998). 13
No. 07-60756
26
Although federal courts may not decide an issue whose resolution is
committed by the Constitution to the exclusive authority of a political branch of
government, see Baker, 369 U.S. at 217; Gilligan, 413 U.S. at 6-7; Nixon, 506
U.S. at 228, a federal court may decide a case that merely implicates a matter
within the authority of a political branch. For example, Congress alone has the
authority to pass legislation, but the courts have authority to assess the
constitutionality of a statute that has been properly challenged. [T]he political
question doctrine bars judicial review only when the precise matter to be decided
has been constitutionally committed to the exclusive authority of a political
branch of government. Zivotofsky, 571 F.3d at 1238 (Edwards, J., concurring).
Compare Nixon, 506 U.S. at 229-36 (holding that a claim for review of Senate
impeachment proceedings was nonjusticiable), with Powell v. McCormack, 395
U.S. 486, 519-22 (1969) (holding that a claim for review of the Houses refusal
to seat an elected representative did not present a nonjusticiable political
question).
Further, federal courts may decide whether and to what extent a matter
is reserved to the exclusive authority of a political branch. Baker, 369 U.S. at
211 (Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the
Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that
branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate
exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as
ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.); Powell, 395 U.S. at 521 ([W]hether
there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a
coordinate political department of government and what is the scope of such
commitment are questions we must resolve . . . .); Nixon, 506 U.S. at 238
([C]ourts possess power to review either legislative or executive action that

transgresses identifiable textual limits.).

No. 07-60756
27
The federal courts must decide matters of statutory construction,
constitutional interpretation, and, when applicable, state common law and
statutes, and cannot avoid this responsibility when their decisions may have
political implications. Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society,
478 U.S. 221, 230 (1986) ([U]nder the Constitution, one of the Judiciarys
characteristic roles is to interpret statutes, and we cannot shirk this
responsibility merely because our decision may have significant political
overtones.); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (Resolution of litigation
challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches cannot be
evaded by courts because the issues have political implications . . . .).
Following the framework laid out in Nixon v. United States, we must
begin by interpret[ing] the [constitutional] text in question and determin[ing]
whether and to what extent the issue is textually committed to a political
branch. 506 U.S. 224, 228 (1993); see also Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486,
519 (1969). Thus, we need to know both the issue presented by the case at
hand and the federal constitutional or statutory text asserted to have
committed that issue exclusively to a political branch. Only then can we decide
whether that issue has been committed by the Constitution solely to the political
branches or whether it is a proper matter for the judiciary to resolve.
Zivotofsky, 571 F.3d at1230 (majority opinion) (citing Nixon, 506 U.S. at 228).
In this case the only issues are those inherent in the adjudication of
plaintiffs Mississippi common law tort claims for damages. There is no federal
constitutional or statutory provision committing any of those issues exclusively
to a federal political branch. The district courts adjudication of this case is well
within the authority of the federal judiciary. Under the Constitution and federal
laws, one of the judiciarys characteristic roles is to adjudicate diversity cases
based on state law.
No. 07-60756
See, e.g., 14 George W. Pugh, The Federal Declaratory Remedy: Justiciability,
Jurisdiction and Related Problems, 6 Vand. L. Rev. 79, 86 (1952) (In any judicial
adjudication,
the court is furnished by precedent or legislation with at least the broad outlines of
policy. It
is quite true that the judiciary must ascertain the broad applicable policy, but it
does not itself
make that policy in the specific case. It finds it.).
28
Because the defendants have failed to articulate how any material issue
is exclusively committed by the Constitution or federal laws to the federal
political branches, the application of the Baker formulations is not necessary or
properly useful in this case. Even if applied, the formulations do not make the
defendants argument for nonjusticiability any more persuasive. The defendants
have not shown any exclusive textual commitment of the issues in this case to
a federal political branch. Nor have they shown the absence of judicially
discoverable or manageable standards with which to decide this case.
Mississippi and other states common law tort rules provide long-established
standards for adjudicating the nuisance, trespass and negligence claims at issue.

The policy determinations underlying those common law tort rules present no
need for nonjudicial policy determinations to adjudicate this case. Nor would 14
the district courts adjudication of this case express or imply any lack of the
respect due coordinate branches of the federal government. Even when a court
finds that Congress has passed an unconstitutional law, there is no lack of
respect for Congresss judgment. See United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S.
385, 390 (1990). There is no unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a
federal political branch decision already made, and no potentiality of
embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various federal
departments on one question. For example, this is not a case in which, for those
reasons, federal courts must completely defer to the executives recognition of or
refusal to recognize a foreign government.
B.
No. 07-60756
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed the district court's decision
15
in American Electric, holding that the case was justiciable. No. 05-5104-cv, 05-5119cv
(September 21, 2009). Although we arrived at our own decision independently, the
Second
Circuits reasoning is fully consistent with ours, particularly in its careful analysis of
whether
the case requires the court to address any specific issue that is constitutionally
committed to
another branch of government. The reversal of American Electric casts additional
doubt on
the persuasiveness of General Motors, whose reasoning drew heavily from that of
the district
court in American Electric.
As the Courts cases make clear, the historic and traditional function of the federal
16
judiciary is not legislation, but adjudication of controversies between adversaries
based on
29
The defendants reliance upon the district courts decisions in California
v. General Motors Corp., 2007 WL 2726871 (N.D. Cal. 2007), and Connecticut v.
American Electric Power Co., 406 F. Supp. 2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) is misplaced. 15
Those decisions are legally flawed and clearly distinguishable from the present
case.
First, the decisions in both American Electric and General Motors are
based on a serious error of law. In each case, the district court incorrectly read
the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. as holding that federal courts in air pollution cases must balance
social and economic interests like a legislative body. They mistook Chevron to
state that:
to resolve typical air pollution cases, courts must strike a balance
between interests seeking strict schemes to reduce pollution
rapidly to eliminate its social costs and interests advancing the
economic concern that strict schemes [will] retard industrial
development with attendant social costs.

General Motors, 2007 WL 2726871 at *7 (quoting American Electric, 406 F.

Supp. 2d at 272 (quoting Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 847 (1984))). But the Court did not so state.
Instead, the Chevron Court, in the language quoted, was simply referring to and
describing the balancing of interests in Congresss legislative process. Chevron
does not require federal courts to imitate the legislative process. 16
No. 07-60756
rules furnished by precedent or legislated law. Neither judges nor Congress can
assign the
courts a legislative or non-judicial function. Justice Scalia, writing for the plurality in
Vieth
v. Jubelirer, explained the difference between the branches traditional roles as
follows:
The judicial Power created by Article III, 1, of the Constitution is not
whatever judges choose to do, see Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 487 (1982); cf.
Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308,
332-333 (1999), or even whatever Congress chooses to assign them, see Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 576-577 (1992); Chicago & Southern Air
Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 110-114 (1948). It is the
power to act in the manner traditional for English and American courts. One
of the most obvious limitations imposed by that requirement is that judicial
action must be governed by standard, by rule. Laws promulgated by the
Legislative Branch can be inconsistent, illogical, and ad hoc; law pronounced by
the courts must be principled, rational, and based upon reasoned distinctions.
541 U.S. 267, 278 (2004) (plurality opinion) (parallel citations omitted).
Indeed, under the district courts erroneous premise and reasoning, all typical air
17
pollution cases would pose nonjusticiable political questions and would have to be
dismissed
at the outset.
Even if a particular case involves a claim for injunctive or other equitable relief that
the court finds to be impracticable, a court sitting in equity has the discretion to
limit or mold
relief for reasons of practicality. There is no need or authority to invoke the political
question
doctrine for such reasons. For instance, in Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S.
305 (1982),
the plaintiffs sought an injunction ordering the Navy to cease violation of the
Federal Water
Pollution Control Act through its training operations near Puerto Rico. See id. at 30607. The
Court noted that a federal judge sitting as chancellor is not mechanically obligated
to grant
an injunction for every violation of law, id. at 313, and remanded the case for
consideration
30
From their erroneous premise, the two district courts reasoned in a circle:
In this case, balancing those interests, together with the other interests
involved, is impossible without an initial policy determination first having been

made by the elected branches to which our system commits such policy decisions,
viz., Congress and the President. American Electric, 406 F. Supp. 2d at 272; see
also General Motors, 2007 WL 2726871 at *7 (using almost identical language).
Because they took an erroneous reading of Chevron as their premise, their
conclusion as to the nature of the questions presented in the cases before them
was erroneous also. Neither Chevron nor any other Supreme Court decision
requires federal courts to imitate the functions of legislative or regulatory bodies
in typical air pollution cases. 17
No. 07-60756
of whether the federal courts in their equitable discretion should grant an
injunction, see id.
at 320. Despite the cases obvious political implications, the Court analyzed it in
terms of
equitable discretion, not the political question doctrine. See also Kimberly Breedon,
Remedial
Problems at the Intersection of the Political Question Doctrine, the Standing
Doctrine, and the
Doctrine of Equitable Discretion, 34 Ohio N. U. L. Rev. 523, 552-57 (2008) (pointing
out that
many cases that might be thought to implicate the Baker formulation requiring
judicially
manageable standards can best be addressed through the exercise of equitable
discretion).
See Philip Weinberg, Political Questions: An Invasive Species Infecting The Courts,
18
19 Duke Envtl. L. & Poly F. 155,162-63 (2008). The General Motors court attempted
to
distinguish the transboundary nuisance cases, 2007 WL 2726871 at *15, but its
reasoning on
this point is unpersuasive. The court did not explain why it believed that those cases
were
somehow more justiciable rather than less so because they involved injunctive relief
rather
than damages. As discussed above, the Fifth Circuit in Gordon v. Texas found
monetary
damages to be more judicially manageable than injunctions. 153 F.3d 190, 195 (5th
Cir. 1998).
The General Motors court also failed to explain how the national and international
policy
issues implicated by global warming, or the impossibility of attributing pollution to
specific
external sources in the global warming context, would render the political question
doctrine
applicable. See 2007 WL 2726871 at *15. Although the worldwide effects of
greenhouse gas
emissions may, for instance, make it difficult for the plaintiffs to show proximate
causation,
it does not follow that the issue has been committed exclusively to the political
branches for
decision.

Id. at 496 (distinguishing Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475 (1867) (suit 19
to enjoin the president from executing the Reconstruction Acts), and Georgia v.
Stanton, 73
U.S. (6 Wall.) 50 (1868) (same, but against the Secretary of War and other officials)).
31
Second, the American Electric and General Motors courts application of
the political question doctrine appears to be at odds with the Supreme Courts
and Congresss treatment of the analogous issue of transboundary water quality
control. In Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U.S. 493 (1971), the State 18
of Ohio sought to enjoin chemical manufacturers in other states and Canada
from discharging mercury into the tributaries of Lake Erie as a public nuisance.
While ultimately declining to hear the suit as an original jurisdiction action, the
Court explicitly distinguished cases in which the political question defense was
sustained ; recognized that it had often adjudicated controversies between 19
States and between a State and citizens of another State seeking to abate a
nuisance that exists in one State yet produces noxious consequences in
No. 07-60756
Id. (citing Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496 (1906), Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co.,
20
206 U.S. 230 (1907), New York v. New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296 (1921), and New Jersey
v. New
York City, 283 U.S. 473 (1931)).
Id. 21
32
another ; and ruled that precedent leads almost ineluctably to the conclusion 20
that we are empowered to resolve this dispute.21
Moreover, [t]he courts have long and consistently rejected assertions that
the enactment of regulatory statutes like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act
preempt states from public nuisance actions. Weinberg, supra note 10, at 163
n.72. In City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981), the Court held that
the federal common law of nuisance was preempted by the 1972 amendments to
the Clean Water Act, which comprehensively occupied the field. Id. at 327-32.
In doing so, however, the Court noted that the CWA preserved nuisance suits
under state common law, see id. at 327-29, and stated further that:
[T]he appropriate analysis in determining if federal statutory law
governs a question previously the subject of federal common law is
not the same as that employed in deciding if federal law pre-empts
state law. In considering the latter question we start with the
assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to
be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and
manifest purpose of Congress. Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S.
519, 525 (1977) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S.
218, 230 (1947)). While we have not hesitated to find pre-emption
of state law, whether express or implied, when Congress has so
indicated, see Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 157
(1978), or when enforcement of state regulations would impair
federal superintendence of the field, Florida Lime & Avocado
Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 (1963), our analysis has
included due regard for the presuppositions of our embracing
federal system, including the principle of diffusion of power not as

a matter of doctrinaire localism but as a promoter of democracy.

San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 243
(1959).
No. 07-60756
33
Id. at 316 (parallel citations omitted). The Clean Air Act and other federal
legislation on air quality are much less comprehensive than the CWA, as
amended. The defendants here do not contend, and the district courts in
American Electric and General Motors did not hold, that any act of Congress has
preempted state law with respect to global warming. Even if Congress does
eventually enact a comprehensive federal law concerning greenhouse gas
emissions, it might very well preserve state common law remedies, as the CWA
did. The defendants briefs in this case fall far short of showing the clear and
manifest purpose of Congress that the Supreme Court in Milwaukee v. Illinois
stated was necessary to overcome the assumption that the historic police
powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act[s], id. Given
the clear inapplicability of federal preemption in this case, we will not employ
the political question doctrine in a way that would amount to a de facto
preemption of state law.
Third, American Electric and General Motors were not diversity suits
under state common law between private parties for damages only (i.e.,quest[s]
for conventional legal relief, In re African American Slave Descendants
Litigation, 471 F.3d 754, 758 (7th Cir. 2006)). Rather, they were actions brought
by state attorneys general for their state governments based partly on federal
common law. Unlike the present plaintiffs damages only state law tort suit,
the American Electric suit asked for an injunction explicitly imposing future
emissions standards and allowances, and the General Motors suit pressed for a
declaratory judgment having future effects in addition to damages. Despite
these distinguishing characteristics, American Electric and General Motors did
not genuinely present nonjusticiable political questions, because neither court
could demonstrate (rather than assume as a false premise) that a specific issue
that had been exclusively committed to a political branch by a federal
constitutional or statutory provision.
No. 07-60756
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 246 (1962). 22
34
We need not decide whether the district courts in American Electric and
General Motors properly decided the federal common law questions with which
they were presented. It suffices to recognize that the initial flaw or false premise
in those decisions is essentially the same as that which undermines the
defendants argument in this case. Similarly to those district courts, the
defendants here have failed to follow the method laid out by the Supreme Court
in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 228 (1993), which requires, first,
carefully identifying the issues that the plaintiffs claims pose for decision, and,
second, interpret[ing] the [constitutional] text in question and determin[ing]
whether and to what extent the issue[s are] textually committed to a political
branch. Id. Like the district courts in American Electric and General Motors,
the defendants begin with an assumption they cannot support, viz., that the
adjudication of plaintiffs claims will require the district court to fix and impose
future emission standards upon defendants and all other emitters. Then, again

in a fashion similar to those district courts, the defendants proclaim that it

would be impossible for a court to perform such an obviously legislative or
regulatory task so that the case must present a nonjusticiable political question.
The defendants have failed to show how any of the issues inherent in the
plaintiffs nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims have been committed by the
Constitution or federal laws wholly and indivisibly to a federal political 22
branch.
CONCLUSION
The plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to demonstrate standing for
their public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims. We decline
to find standing for the unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent
No. 07-60756
35
misrepresentation claims and DISMISS these claims. We find that the
plaintiffs remaining claims are justiciable and do not present a political
question. We do not hazard, at this early procedural stage, an Erie guess into
whether these claims actually state all the elements of a claim under Mississippi
tort law, e.g., whether the alleged chain of causation satisfies the proximate
cause requirement under Mississippi state common law; we leave this analysis
to the district court in the first instance. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we
REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case to the
district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
No. 07-60756
36
DAVIS, Specially Concurring:
I agree with the panel opinion that the plaintiffs in this case have standing
to bring their claims. In addition, because there is no clear authority dictating
that we do not have jurisdiction over this case under the political question
doctrine, I agree as well with the result the panel reaches on that point.
The defendants argued an alternative basis for dismissal to the district
court that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under common law.
Specifically, the defendants argued to the district court that the plaintiffs failed
to allege facts that could establish that the defendants actions were a proximate
cause of the plaintiffs alleged injuries. If it were up to me, I would affirm the
district court on this alternative ground.
I recognize however that the panel has discretion whether to decide this
case on a ground other than one relied on by the district court and I defer to the
panels discretion not to address that argument. With this reservation, I
concur.
Petitioners Legal Representative:
Paul Crowley
P.O. Box 1630
Iqaluit, Nunavut X0A 0H0
Canada
(867) 979-3396
pcrowley@nv.sympatico.ca
DECEMBER 7, 2005
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

SEEKING RELIEF FROM VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL

WARMING CAUSED BY ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
SUBMITTED BY SHEILA WATT-CLOUTIER,
WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE,
ON BEHALF OF ALL INUIT OF THE ARCTIC REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA,
INCLUDING:
Pitseolak Alainga, Iqaluit, Nunavut
Heather Angnatok, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador
Evie Anilniliak, Pangnirtung, Nunavut
Louis Autut, Chesterfield Inlet, Nunavut
Christine Baikie, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador
Eugene Brower, Barrow, Alaska
Ronald Brower, Barrow, Alaska
Johnnie Cookie, Umiujaq, Quebec
Sappa Fleming, Kuujjuarapik, Qubec
Lizzie Gordon, Kuujjuaq, Qubec
Sandy Gordon, Kuujjuaq, Qubec
David Haogak, Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories
Edith Haogak, Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories
Julius Ikkusek, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador
Lucas Ittulak, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador
Sarah Ittulak, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador
Willie Jooktoo, Kuujjuarapik, Qubec
Mina Jooktoo, Kuujjuarapik, Qubec
Irving Kava, Savoonga, Alaska
John Keogak, Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories
David Koneak, Kuujjuaq, Qubec
George Koneak, Kuujjuaq, Quebec
Ben Kovic, Iqaluit, Nunavut
Frank Kudlak, Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories
Nora Kuzuguk, Shishmaref, Alaska
John Lucas, Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories
Samantha Lucas, Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories
Pauloosie Lucassie, Iqaluit, Nunavut
Trevor Lucas, Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories
Tony Manernaluk, Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
Jack Maniapik, Mayor, Pangnirtung, Nunavut
Rosemund Martin, Savoonga, Alaska
Warren Matumeak, Barrow, Alaska
Jamesie Mike, Pangnirtung, Nunavut
Meeka Mike, Iqaluit, Nunavut
Roy Nageak, Barrow, Alaska
Annie Napayok, Whale Cove, Nunavut
Enosilk Nashalik, Pangnirtung, Nunavut
Simon Nattaq, Iqaluit, Nunavut
Herbert Nayokpuk, Shishmaref, Alaska
George Noongwook, Savoonga, Alaska
Peter Paneak, Clyde River, Nunavut
Uqallak Panikpak, Clyde River, Nunavut

Joanasie Qappik, Pangnirtung, Nunavut

Apak Qaqqasiq, Clyde River, Nunavut
James Qillaq, Clyde River, Nunavut,
Paul Rookok, Savoonga, Alaska
Joshua Sala, Umiujaq, Qubec
Akittiq Sanguya, Clyde River, Nunavut
John Sinnok, Shishmaref, Alaska
Jerome Tattuinee, Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
Stanley Tocktoo, Shishmaref, Alaska
Robbie Tookalak, Umiujaq, Qubec
Kenneth Toovak, Barrow, Alaska
Alec Tuckatuck, Kuujjuarapik, Qubec
Clara Tumic, Umiujaq, Qubec
Isaac Tumic, Umiujaq, Qubec
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Iqaluit, Nunavut
Moses Weetaltuk, Kuujjuarapik, Qubec
Stephen Weyiouanna, Shishmaref, Alaska
Geddes Wolki, Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories
Lena Wolki, Sachs Harbour Northwest Territories
Jerry Wongitillin, Savoonga, Alaska
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
i
CONTENTS
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
SEEKING
RELIEF FROM VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY
ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
I. SUMMARY OF THE PETITION ..1
II. JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION..9
III. PETITIONER AND INDIVIDUALSWHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN
VIOLATED..9
A. PETITIONER..9
B. INDIVIDUALS WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED..10
IV. FACTS: GLOBAL WARMING IS HARMING EVERY ASPECT OF INUIT LIFE
AND CULTURE..13
A. THE LIFE AND CULTURE OF THE INUIT ARE COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON
THE ARCTIC
ENVIRONMENT..13
1. HISTORY OF THE INUIT..13
2. INUIT CULTURE TODAY..15
a. Hunting and gathering..15
b. Inuit economy..16
c. Social and cultural conditions and practices..17
i. Living on the land.....17
ii. Sharing the hunt..18
d. Inuit traditional knowledge regarding climate..19

B. GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED BY HUMAN

EMISSIONS OF
GREENHOUSE GASES ARE DAMAGING THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT..20
1. GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE RISING AND THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING..21
a. Global Temperature Trends..21
b. Key Indicators Confirm that the Earth Is Warming..23
i. Melting sea ice..23
ii. Thawing permafrost..24
iii. Sea-level rise..25
iv. Melting ice sheets and glaciers..25
v. Alterations in species and habitat..26
2. GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY..27
a. The Greenhouse Effect..28
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
ii
b. IPCC Third Assessment Report..29
c. Scientific Studies..30
d. Statements by U.S. Scientific Organizations..30
e. Research and Reports by the U.S. Government..30
i. Report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (2001)..31
ii. Report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences ..31
iii. U.S. State Department Report to the UNFCCC..32
iv. Report to the U.S. Interagency Climate Change Science Program..32
3. GLOBAL WARMING IS MOST SEVERE IN THE ARCTIC..33
C. GLOBAL WARMING HARMS EVERY ASPECT OF INUIT LIFE AND
CULTURE..35
1. GLOBAL WARMING IS DESTROYING THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT..35
a. Global Warming has already altered the Arctic..35
b. Global Warming will continue to damage the Arctic environment in the
future.....38
2. CHANGES IN ICE AND SNOW CONDITIONS HAVE HARMED THE INUITS
SUBSISTENCE
HARVEST, TRAVEL, SAFETY, HEALTH AND EDUCATION, AND HAVE PERMANENTLY
DAMAGED INUIT CULTURE..39
a. Deteriorating ice and snow conditions have diminished the Inuits ability to travel
in safety and comfort, damaging their health, safety, subsistence harvest, and
culture..39
b. Changes in ice and snow have affected animals on which the Inuit rely, damaging
their subsistence harvest, safety, and health..45
c. Deteriorating ice and snow conditions have undermined the Inuits traditional way
of life..48
3. THAWING PERMAFROST HAS CAUSED LANDSLIDES AND SLUMPING, AND
COMPLICATED
FOOD STORAGE, HARMING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, CULTURE AND PROPERTY OF THE
INUIT..49
4. COASTAL EROSION, STORM SURGES AND FLOODING ARE THREATENING INUIT
HOMES,

CAMPS, COMMUNITIES, AND CULTURAL SITES, JEOPARDIZING THEIR PROPERTY, AND

CULTURE..51
5. CHANGING SPECIES DISTRIBUTION HAS HARMED THE NUTRITION, HEALTH AND
SUBSISTENCE HARVEST OF THE INUIT..54
6. INCREASINGLY UNPREDICTABLE WEATHER IN THE ARCTIC HAS DIMINISHED THE
INUITS
ABILITY TO FORECAST THE WEATHER ACCURATELY, CREATING PROBLEMS FOR
HARVESTERS AND TRAVELERS, AND HARMING INUIT CULTURE..56
a. Travel and subsistence harvest have become more dangerous and difficult
because
of the unpredictable weather..56
b. The increasingly unpredictable weather has also harmed Inuit culture..58
7. INCREASED TEMPERATURES HAVE LED TO AN INCREASE IN HEAT-RELATED
HEALTH
PROBLEMS, AND HAVE IMPEDED THE HARVEST AND PROCESSING OF ESSENTIAL
FOOD AND
HIDES..59
8. THE COMBINED IMPACTS OF CHANGES IN ICE, LAND, SNOW, AND WEATHER
CONDITIONS ARE FURTHER JEOPARDIZING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, TRAVEL, PROPERTY,
HARVEST, AND CULTURE OF THE INUIT..61
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
iii
a. The health and safety impacts stemming from the combination of changing
conditions include decreased drinking water quality and quantity, changes in the
Inuits diet, illness resulting from increased pest populations, and damage to overall
mental health..61
b. Travel, subsistence, and culture have been damaged as a result of the
combination
of changes..64
D. THE UNITED STATES IS THE WORLDS LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO
GLOBAL WARMING
AND ITS DAMAGING EFFECTS ON THE INUIT..68
1. HISTORICAL EMISSIONS OF CO2.....68
2. CONTRIBUTION TO TEMPERATURE INCREASE..68
3. CURRENT EMISSIONS..69
4. PER CAPITA EMISSIONS..69
V. VIOLATIONS: THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING CONSTITUTE
VIOLATIONS OF INUIT HUMAN RIGHTS, FOR WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS
RESPONSIBLE..70
A. THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED
IN THE
CONTEXT OF INDIGENOUS CULTURE AND HISTORY, WHICH REQUIRES
PROTECTION OF
THEIR LAND AND ENVIRONMENT..70
1. [E]NSURING THE FULL AND EFFECTIVE ENJOYMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS BY
INDIGENOUS

PEOPLES REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF THEIR PARTICULAR HISTORICAL, CULTURAL,

SOCIAL
AND ECONOMIC SITUATION AND EXPERIENCE..70
2. BECAUSE OF THEIR CLOSE TIES TO THE LAND AND THE ENVIRONMENT,
PROTECTION OF
THE INUITS HUMAN RIGHTS NECESSARILY REQUIRES PROTECTION OF THE ARCTIC
ENVIRONMENT..72
B. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE INUIT HUMAN RIGHTS..74
1. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHT TO ENJOY THE
BENEFITS OF THEIR CULTURE..74
a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuits right to the benefits of
culture..74
b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to enjoy the benefits of their
culture..76
2. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHT TO USE AND
ENJOY
THE LANDS THEY HAVE TRADITIONALLY USED AND OCCUPIED..79
a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuits right to use and enjoy the lands
they have traditionally occupied..79
b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to use and enjoy the lands
they have traditionally occupied..81
3. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHT TO USE AND
ENJOY
THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY..83
a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuits right to use and enjoy their
personal and intellectual property..83
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
iv
b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to use and enjoy their
personal and intellectual property..84
4. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHT TO THE
PRESERVATION OF HEALTH ..85
a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuit the right to the preservation of
health..85
b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to the preservation of
health..87
5. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHT TO LIFE,
PHYSICAL
INTEGRITY AND SECURITY..89
a. The American Declaration protects the Inuits right to life, physical protection and
security..89
b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to life, physical protection
and security..90
6. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHT TO THEIR OWN
MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE..92
a. The American Declaration protects the Inuits right to their own means of
subsistence..92

b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to their own means of
subsistence..93
7. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHTS TO RESIDENCE
AND
MOVEMENT AND INVIOLABILITY OF THE HOME..94
a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuits right to residence and
movement
and inviolability of the home..94
b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to residence and movement
and inviolability of the home..95
C. THE AMERICAN DECLARATION SHOULD BE APPLIED IN THE CONTEXT OF
RELEVANT
INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND PRINCIPLES..96
1. THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS BEARS ON INTERPRETATION OF
THE
AMERICAN DECLARATION..96
2. DEVELOPMENTS IN OTHER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEMS SHOULD BE
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE AMERICAN
DECLARATION..96
3. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL NORMS AND PRINCIPLES ARE RELEVANT TO
THE
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE AMERICAN DECLARATION..97
a. The United States is violating its obligations under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol..97
b. The United States is violating its obligation to avoid transboundary harm and to
respect the principle of sustainable development..99
c. The United States is violating its obligation to act with precaution..101
4. THE UNITED STATES HAS A DUTY TO REMEDY BREACHES OF ITS INTERNATIONAL
OBLIGATIONS..102
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
v
D. BY ITS ACTS AND OMISSIONS, THE UNITED STATES VIOLATES THE
HUMAN RIGHTS OF
THE INUIT..103
1. THE UNITED STATES IS THE WORLDS LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL
WARMING
AND ITS DAMAGING EFFECTS ON THE INUIT..103
2. U.S. CLIMATE POLICY DOES NOT REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS..103
a. U.S. climate policy..103
b. U.S. climate policy is not effective..105
i. Misleading and ineffective targets..105
ii. No mandatory controls..106
iii. U.S. research cannot ensure adequate reductions..106
c. Indirect regulation..107
i. Power Plants..107
ii. Vehicles..107
d. State and Local Measures are not enough.....108

3. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS OBSCURED CLIMATE SCIENCE, MISLEADING BOTH

THE
PUBLIC AND INDUSTRY AS TO THE SCALE AND URGENCY OF THE PROBLEM OF
GLOBAL
WARMING ..109
4. THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS
TO
REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS..110
VI. EXCEPTION TO EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES..111
A. U.S. LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE OR EFFECTIVE PROTECTION
AGAINST THE
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS SUFFERED BY THE INUIT..112
1. THE RIGHT TO LIFE..112
2. THE RIGHT TO RESIDENCE AND MOVEMENT..113
3. THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY..113
4. THE RIGHT TO INVIOLABILITY OF THE HOME.. 114
5. THE RIGHTS TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF CULTURE, TO HEALTH AND TO MEANS OF
SUBSISTENCE ..114
B. U.S. LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE OR EFFECTIVE REMEDIES FOR
THE HARMS
THAT HAVE CAUSED THE VIOLATIONS SUFFERED BY THE INUIT..114
1. U.S. TORT LAWS..114
2. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS..115
VII. TIMELINESS..116
VIII. ABSENCE OF PARALLEL INTERNATIONAL PROCEEDINGS..117
IX. REQUEST FOR RELIEF..118
X. VERIFICATION, SIGNATURE AND DESIGNATION OF ATTORNEYS..119
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
vi
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
SEEKING RELIEF FROM VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
I. SUMMARY OF THE PETITION
In this petition, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Inuk woman and Chair of the Inuit
Circumpolar
Conference, requests the assistance of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights in
obtaining relief from human rights violations resulting from the impacts of global
warming and
climate change caused by acts and omissions of the United States. Ms. WattCloutier submits
this petition on behalf of herself, 62 other named individuals, and all Inuit of the
arctic regions of
the United States of America and Canada who have been affected by the impacts of
climate
change described in this petition.

Global warming refers to an average increase in the Earths temperature, causing

changes
in climate that lead to a wide range of adverse impacts on plants, wildlife, and
humans. There is
broad scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the increase in
concentrations of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as a result of human activity. The United
States is, by any
measure, the worlds largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and thus bears the
greatest
responsibility among nations for causing global warming.
The Inuit, meaning the people in their native Inuktitut, are a linguistic and cultural
group
descended from the Thule people whose traditional range spans four countries
Chukotka in the
Federation of Russia, northern and western Alaska in the United States, northern
Canada, and
Greenland. While there are local characteristics and differences within the broad
ethnic category
of Inuit, all Inuit share a common culture characterized by dependence on
subsistence
harvesting in both the terrestrial and marine environments, sharing of food, travel
on snow and
ice, a common base of traditional knowledge, and adaptation to similar Arctic
conditions.
Particularly since the Second World War, the Inuit have adapted their culture to
include many
western innovations, and have adopted a mixed subsistence- and cash-based
economy. Although
many Inuit are engaged in wage employment, the Inuit continue to depend heavily
on the
subsistence harvest for food. Traditional country food is far more nutritious than
imported
store-bought food. Subsistence harvesting also provides spiritual and cultural
affirmation, and
is crucial for passing skills, knowledge and values from one generation to the next,
thus ensuring
cultural continuity and vibrancy.
Like many indigenous peoples, the Inuit are the product of the physical environment
in
which they live. The Inuit have fine-tuned tools, techniques and knowledge over
thousands of
years to adapt to the arctic environment. They have developed an intimate
relationship with their
surroundings, using their understanding of the arctic environment to develop a
complex culture
that has enabled them to thrive on scarce resources. The culture, economy and
identity of the
Inuit as an indigenous people depend upon the ice and snow.
Nowhere on Earth has global warming had a more severe impact than the Arctic.

Building on the 2001 findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

the 2004
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
2
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment a comprehensive international evaluation of
arctic climate
change and its impacts undertaken by hundreds of scientists over four years
concluded that:
The Arctic is extremely vulnerable to observed and projected climate change and its
impacts. The Arctic is now experiencing some of the most rapid and severe climate
change on Earth. Over the next 100 years, climate change is expected to
accelerate,
contributing to major physical, ecological, social, and economic changes, many of
which
have already begun.
Because annual average arctic temperatures are increasing more than twice as fast
as
temperatures in the rest of the world, climate change has already caused severe
impacts in the
Arctic, including deterioration in ice conditions, a decrease in the quantity and
quality of snow,
changes in the weather and weather patterns, and a transfigured landscape as
permafrost melts at
an alarming rate, causing slumping, landslides, and severe erosion in some coastal
areas. Inuit
observations and scientific studies consistently document these changes. For the
last 15 to 20
years, Inuit, particularly hunters and elders who have intimate knowledge of their
environment,
have reported climate-related changes within a context of generations of
accumulated traditional
knowledge.
One of the most significant impacts of warming in the Arctic has been on sea ice.
Commonly observed changes include thinner ice, less ice, later freezes and earlier,
more sudden
thaws. Sea ice is a critical resource for the Inuit, who use it to travel to hunting and
harvesting
locations, and for communication between communities. Because of the loss in the
thickness,
extent and duration of the sea ice, these traditional practices have become more
dangerous, more
difficult or, at times, impossible. In many regions, traditional knowledge regarding
the safety of
the sea ice has become unreliable. As a result, more hunters and other travelers are
falling
through the sea ice into the frigid water below. The shorter season for safe sea ice
travel has also

made some hunting and harvest activities impossible, and curtailed others. For the
Inuit, the
deterioration in sea ice conditions has made travel, harvest, and everyday life more
difficult and
dangerous.
The quality, quantity and timing of snowfall have also changed. Snow generally falls
later in the year, and the average snow cover over the region has decreased ten
percent over the
last three decades. The spring thaw comes earlier and is more sudden than in the
past. As with
decreased ice, the shorter snow season has made travel more difficult. In addition,
the deep,
dense snow required for igloo building has become scarce in some areas, forcing
many travelers
to rely on tents, which are less safe, much colder and more cumbersome than
igloos. The lack of
igloo-quality snow can be life threatening for travelers stranded by unforeseen
storms or other
emergencies. These changes have also contributed to the loss of traditional igloo
building
knowledge, an important component of Inuit culture.
Permafrost, which holds together unstable underground gravel and inhibits water
drainage, is melting at an alarming rate, causing slumping, landslides, severe
erosion and loss of
ground moisture, wetlands and lakes. The loss of sea ice, which dampens the
impact of storms
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
3
on coastal areas, has resulted in increasingly violent storms hitting the coastline,
exacerbating
erosion and flooding. Erosion in turn exposes coastal permafrost to warmer air and
water,
resulting in faster permafrost melts. These transformations have had a devastating
impact on
some coastal communities, particularly in Alaska and the Canadian Beaufort Sea
region.
Erosion, storms, flooding and slumping harm homes, infrastructure, and
communities, and have
damaged Inuit property, forcing relocation in some cases and requiring many
communities to
develop relocation contingency plans. In addition, these impacts have contributed
to decreased
water levels in rivers and lakes, affecting natural sources of drinking water, and
habitat for fish,
plants, and game on which Inuit depend.
Other factors have also affected water levels. Changes in precipitation and
temperature

have led to sudden spring thaws that release unusually large amounts of water,
flooding rivers
and eroding their streambeds. Yet, after spring floods, rivers and lakes are left with
unusually
low levels of water further diminished by increased evaporation during the longer
summer.
These changes affect the availability and quality of natural drinking water sources.
The fish
stocks upon which Inuit rely are profoundly affected by changing water levels. Fish
sometimes
can not reach their spawning grounds, their eggs are exposed or washed ashore, or
northward
moving species compete with the native stocks for ecological niches.
The weather has become increasingly unpredictable. In the past, Inuit elders could
accurately predict the weather for coming days based on cloud formations and wind
patterns,
allowing the Inuit to schedule safe travel. The changing climate has made clouds
and wind
increasingly erratic and less useful for predicting weather. Accurate forecasting is
crucial to
planning safe travel and hunting. The inability to forecast has resulted in hunters
being stranded
by sudden storms, trip cancellations, and increased anxiety about formerly
commonplace
activities.
Observers have also noted changes in the location, characteristics, number, and
health of
plant and animal species caused by changes in climate conditions. Some species
are less healthy.
In the words of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, [m]arine species dependent
on sea ice,
including polar bears, ice-living seals, walrus, and some marine birds, are very likely
to decline,
with some facing extinction.
Other species are becoming less accessible to the Inuit because the animals are
moving to
new locations, exacerbating the travel problems resulting from climate change. Still
others
cannot complete their annual migrations because the ice they travel on no longer
exists, or
because they cannot cross rivers swollen by sudden floods. More frequent autumn
freeze-thaw
cycles have created layers of solid ice under the snow that makes winter foraging
more difficult
for some game animals, including caribou, decreasing their numbers and health.
These impacts
on animals have impaired the Inuits ability to subsist.
Increased temperatures and sun intensity have heightened the risk of previously
rare

health problems such as sunburn, skin cancer, cataracts, immune system disorders
and heatrelated
health problems. Warmer weather has increased the mortality and decreased the
health of
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
4
some harvested species, impacting important sources of protein for the Inuit.
Traditional
methods of food and hide storage and preservation are less safe because of
increased daytime
temperatures and melting permafrost.
The current impacts in the Arctic of climate change are severe, but projected
impacts are
expected to be much worse. Using moderate not worst case greenhouse gas
emission
scenarios, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment finds that:
Increasing global concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
due to
human activities, primarily fossil fuel burning, are projected to contribute to
additional
arctic warming of about 4-7C, about twice the global average rise, over the next
100
years.
Increasing precipitation, shorter and warmer winters, and substantial decreases
in snow
and ice cover are among the projected changes that are very likely to persist for
centuries.
Unexpected and even larger shifts and fluctuations in climate are also possible.
Reductions in sea ice will drastically shrink marine habitat for polar bears,
iceinhabiting
seals, and some seabirds, pushing some species toward extinction.
Caribou/reindeer and other animals on land are likely to be increasingly stressed
as
climate warming alters their access to food sources, breeding grounds, and historic
migration routes.
Species ranges are projected to shift northward on both land and sea, bringing
new
species into the Arctic while severely limiting some species currently present.
As new species move in, animal diseases that can be transmitted to humans,
such as
West Nile Virus, are likely to pose increasing health risks.
Severe coastal erosion will be a growing problem as rising sea level and a
reduction in
sea ice allow higher waves and storm surges to reach shore.
Along some Arctic coastlines, thawing permafrost weakens coastal lands, adding
to their
vulnerability.

 The risk of flooding in coastal wetlands is projected to increase, with impacts on

society
and natural ecosystems.
In some cases, communities and industrial facilities in coastal zones are already
threatened or being forced to relocate, while others face increasing risks and costs.
Many Indigenous Peoples depend on hunting polar bear, walrus, seals, and
caribou,
herding reindeer, fishing, and gathering, not only for food and to support the local
economy, but also as the basis for cultural and social identity.
Changes in species ranges and availability, access to these species, a perceived
reduction in weather predictability, and travel safety in changing ice and weather
conditions present serious challenges to human health and food security, and
possibly
even the survival of many cultures.
Noting the particular impact these changes will have on the Inuit, the ACIA states:
For
Inuit, warming is likely to disrupt or even destroy their hunting and food sharing
culture as
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
5
reduced sea ice causes the animals on which they depend on to decline become
less accessible,
and possibly become extinct.
Several principles of international law guide the application of the human rights
issues in
this case. Most directly, the United States is obligated by its membership in the
Organization of
American States and its acceptance of the American Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of Man
to protect the rights of the Inuit described above. Other international human rights
instruments
give meaning to the United States obligations under the Declaration. For example,
as a party to
the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the United
States is bound
by the principles therein. As a signatory to the International Convention on
Economic, Social,
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the United States must act consistently with the
principles of
that agreement.
The United States also has international environmental law obligations that are
relevant
to this petition. For instance, the United States also has an obligation to ensure that
activities
within its territory do not cause transboundary harm or violate other treaties to
which it is a party.

As a party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the United States

has
committed to developing and implementing policies aimed at returning its
greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels. All of these international obligations are relevant to the
application of
the rights in the American Declaration because, in the words of the Inter-American
Commission,
the Declaration should be interpreted and applied in context of developments in
the field of
international human rights law and with due regard to other relevant rules of
international law
applicable to [OAS] member states.
The impacts of climate change, caused by acts and omissions by the United States,
violate the Inuits fundamental human rights protected by the American Declaration
of the
Rights and Duties of Man and other international instruments. These include their
rights to the
benefits of culture, to property, to the preservation of health, life, physical integrity,
security, and
a means of subsistence, and to residence, movement, and inviolability of the home.
Because Inuit culture is inseparable from the condition of their physical
surroundings, the
widespread environmental upheaval resulting from climate change violates the
Inuits right to
practice and enjoy the benefits of their culture. The subsistence culture central to
Inuit cultural
identity has been damaged by climate change, and may cease to exist if action is
not taken by the
United States in concert with the community of nations
The Inuits fundamental right to use and enjoy their traditional lands is violated as a
result of the impacts of climate change because large tracks of Inuit traditional
lands are
fundamentally changing, and still other areas are becoming inaccessible. Summer
sea ice, a
critical extension of traditional Inuit land, is literally ceasing to exist. Winter sea ice
is thinner
and unsafe in some areas. Slumping, erosion, landslides, drainage, and more violent
sea storms
have destroyed coastal land, wetlands, and lakes, and have detrimentally changed
the
characteristics of the landscape upon which the Inuit depend. The inability to travel
to lands
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
6
traditionally used for subsistence and the reduced harvest have diminished the
value of the

Inuits right of access to these lands.

The Inuits fundamental right to enjoy their personal property is violated because
climate
change has reduced the value of the Inuits personal effects, decreasing the quality
of food and
hides, and damaging snowmobiles, dog sleds and other tools. Their right to cultural
intellectual
property is also violated, because much of the Inuits traditional knowledge, a
formerly priceless
asset, has become frequently unreliable or inaccurate as a result of climate change.
The Inuits fundamental rights to health and life are violated as climate change
exacerbates pressure on the Inuit to change their diet, which for millennia has
consisted of wild
meat and a few wild plants. Climate change is accelerating a transition by Inuit to a
more
western store-bought diet with all of its inherent health problems. Life-threatening
accidents are
increasing because of rapid changes to ice, snow, and land. Traditional food
preservation
methods are becoming difficult to practice safely. Natural sources of drinking water
are
disappearing and diminishing in quality. Increased risks of previously rare heat and
sun related
illnesses also implicate the right to health and life.
The Inuits fundamental rights to residence and movement, and inviolability of the
home
are likewise violated as a result of the impacts of climate change because the
physical integrity of
Inuit homes is threatened. Most Inuit settlements are located in coastal areas,
where storm
surges, permafrost melt, and erosion are destroying certain coastal Inuit homes and
communities.
In inland areas, slumping and landslides threaten Inuit homes and infrastructure.
The Inuits fundamental right to their own means of subsistence has also been
violated as
a result of the impacts of climate change. The travel problems, lack of wildlife, and
diminished
quality of harvested game resulting from climate change have deprived the Inuit of
the ability to
rely on the harvest for year-round sustenance. Traditional Inuit knowledge, passed
from Inuit
elders in their role as keepers of the Inuit culture, is also becoming outdated
because of the
rapidly changing environment.
The United States of America, currently the largest contributor to greenhouse
emissions
in the world, has nevertheless repeatedly declined to take steps to regulate and
reduce its
emissions of the gases responsible for climate change. As a result of welldocumented increases

in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is beyond dispute that most

of the observed
change in global temperatures over the last 50 years is attributable to human
actions. This
conclusion is supported by a remarkable consensus in the scientific community,
including every
major US scientific body with expertise on the subject. Even the Government of the
United
States has accepted this conclusion.
However, and notwithstanding its ratification of the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change, United States has explicitly rejected international overtures and
compromises,
including the Kyoto Protocol to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change,
aimed at
securing agreement to curtail destructive greenhouse gas emissions. With full
knowledge that
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
7
this course of action is radically transforming the arctic environment upon which the
Inuit
depend for their cultural survival, the United States has persisted in permitting the
unregulated
emission of greenhouse gases from within its jurisdiction into the atmosphere.
Protecting human rights is the most fundamental responsibility of civilized nations.
Because climate change is threatening the lives, health, culture and livelihoods of
the Inuit, it is
the responsibility of the United States, as the largest source of greenhouse gases, to
take
immediate and effective action to protect the rights of the Inuit.
Because this petition raises violations of the American Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of Man by the United States of American, the Inter-American Commission on
Human
Rights has jurisdiction to receive and consider it. The petition is timely because the
acts and
omissions of the United States that form the basis for the petition are ongoing, and
the human
rights violations they are causing is increasing. Because there are no domestic
remedies suitable
to address the violations, the requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted
does not apply in
this case.
The violations detailed in the petition can be remedied. As such, the Petitioner
respectfully requests that the Commission:
1. Make an onsite visit to investigate and confirm the harms suffered by the named
individuals whose rights have been violated and other affected Inuit;
2. Hold a hearing to investigate the claims raised in this Petition;
3. Prepare a report setting forth all the facts and applicable law, declaring that the

United States of America is internationally responsible for violations of rights

affirmed in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and in other
instruments of international law, and recommending that the United States:
a. Adopt mandatory measures to limit its emissions of greenhouse gases and
cooperate in efforts of the community of nations as expressed, for example,
in activities relating to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change to limit such emissions at the global level;
b. Take into account the impacts of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions on the Arctic
and affected Inuit in evaluating and before approving all major government
actions;
c. Establish and implement, in coordination with Petitioner and the affected
Inuit, a plan to protect Inuit culture and resources, including, inter alia, the
land, water, snow, ice, and plant and animal species used or occupied by the
named individuals whose rights have been violated and other affected Inuit;
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
8
and mitigate any harm to these resources caused by US greenhouse gas
emissions;
d. Establish and implement, in coordination with Petitioner and the affected Inuit
communities, a plan to provide assistance necessary for Inuit to adapt to the
impacts of climate change that cannot be avoided;
e. Provide any other relief that the Commission considers appropriate and just.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
9
II. JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has competence to receive and
act on
this petition in accordance with articles 1.2.b, 18, 20.b, and 24 of the Commissions
Statute.
III. PETITIONER AND INDIVIDUALSWHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED
A. PETITIONER
This petition is submitted by Sheila Watt-Cloutier, with the support of the Inuit
Circumpolar Conference.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, P.O. Box 2099, Iqaluit, Nunavut, X0A 0H0, Canada,
Telephone: (867)
979-4661. Ms. Watt-Cloutier is Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), the
Inuit
organization that represents the interests internationally of Inuit resident in Canada,
Greenland,
Alaska, and Chukotka in the Far East of the Federation of Russia. Currently living in
Iqaluit,
Nunavut, she was born in Kuujjuaq, Nunavik (northern Quebec) in 1953, and was
raised

traditionally in her early years before attending school in southern Canada. She is a
mother of
two and a grandmother of one. Ms. Watt-Cloutier is an avid berry picker and eats a
diet of
country food whenever possible. She is particularly concerned that her grandson will
not be able
to live the Inuit hunting and food-sharing culture that has sustained Inuit physically
and
spiritually for generations.
The Inuit Circumpolar Conference
The Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) was founded in 1977. It is an international
nongovernment
organization representing approximately 150,000 Inuit of Alaska, Canada,
Greenland, and Chukotka (Russia). The ICC has an organization in each country that
is
incorporated in accordance to the laws of the respective country, as well as an
international
office, which is the Office of the Chair. The Office of the Chair of ICC is led by Sheila
WattCloutier, the elected Chair of ICC.
Inuit Circumpolar Conference (Office of the Chair)
P.O. Box 2099
1084 Aeroplex Building
Iqaluit, NU
X0A 0H0
P: (867) 979-4661
F: (867) 979-4662
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
10
B. INDIVIDUALS WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED
The individuals whose rights have been violated in this case are the Inuit of the
Arctic
regions of the United States and Canada whose property, physical well-being and
cultural life are
being adversely affected by the acts and omissions described in this petition. These
include the
following individuals, all of whom have experienced one or more of the human
rights violations
described in this petition. Annex I provides a brief description of each of the named
individuals
whose rights have been violated.
Pitseolak Alainga, P.O. Box 595, Iqaluit, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 9790285.
Heather Angnatok, PO Box 174, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, AOP ILO,
Canada.
Telephone: (709) 922-2942.

Evie Anilniliak, PO Box 59, Pangnirtung, Nunavut, XOA ORO, Canada. Telephone:
(867)
473-8319.
Louis Autut, PO Box 15, Chesterfield Inlet, NU, X0C 0B0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
8989094.
Christine Baikie, PO Box 146, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, AOP ILO, Canada.
Telephone: (709) 922-2829.
Eugene Brower, PO Box 69, Barrow, AK, 99723, USA. No telephone.
Ronald Brower, PO Box 75, Barrow, AK 99723, USA. Telephone: (907) 852-4510.
Johnny Cookie, PO Box 6, Umiujaq, Quebec, JOM IYO, Canada. Telephone: (819)
331-7146.
Sappa Fleming, PO Box 195, Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, JOM IGO, Canada. Telephone:
(819) 9293642.
Lizzie Gordon, Kuujjuaq, Quebec, JOM 1C0, Canada. Telephone: (819) 964-1144.
Sandy Gordon, Kuujjuaq, Quebec, JOM 1C0, Canada. Telephone: (819) 964-1144.
David Haogak, PO Box 29, Sachs Harbour, NT X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
6903029.
Edith Haogak, PO Box 52, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
690-3040.
Julius Ikkusek, PO Box 152, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, AOP ILO, Canada.
Telephone: (709) 922-1063.
Lucas Ittulak, PO Box 167, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, AOP ILO, Canada.
Telephone:
(709) 922-1106.
Sarah Ittulak, PO Box 167, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, AOP ILO, Canada.
Telephone:
(709) 922-1106.
Mina Jooktoo, PO Box 345, Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, JOM IGO, Canada. Telephone:
(819) 9293870.
Willie Jooktoo, PO Box 345, Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, JOM IGO, Canada. Telephone:
(819) 9293870.
Irving Kava, PO Box 102, Savoonga, AK 99769, USA. No telephone.
John Keogak, General Delivery, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone:
867-6904003.
David Koneak, PO Box 505, Kuujjuaq, Quebec, JOM 1C0, Canada. Telephone: (819)
9641407.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
11
George Koneak, PO Box 278, Kuujjuaq, Quebec, JOM 1C, Canada. Telephone: (819)
964-

8844.
Ben Kovic, PO Box 60008, Iqaluit, Nunavut, XOA 1HO, Canada. Telephone: (867)
979-3066.
Frank Kudlak, PO Box 9, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
690-4900.
Nora Kuzuguk, PO Box 24, Shishmaref, AK 99772. Telephone: (907) 649-3021.
John Lucas, PO Box 67, Sachs Harbour, NT X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867) 6904009.
Samantha Lucas, PO Box 67, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 6904009.
Trevor Lucas, PO Box 67, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
690-4009.
Pauloosie Lucassie, PO Box 434, Iqaluit, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 9793691.
Jack Maniapik (Mayor), PO Box 253, Pangnirtung, NT, XOA ORO, Canada.
Telephone:
work: (867) 473-2604; home: (867) 473-8361.
Tony Mannernaluk, PO Box 267, Rankin Inlet, NU, X0C 0G0, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 6453184.
Rosemund Martin, PO Box 6, Savoonga, AK 99769, USA. No telephone.
Warren Matumeak, PO Box 405, Barrow, AK 99723, USA. Telephone: (907) 8525218.
Jamesie Mike, Pangnirtung, Nunavut, XOA ORO, Canada. No telephone.
Meeka Mike, PO Box 797, Iqaluit, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone: (867)
979-1600.
Roy Nageak, PO Box 354, Barrow, AK 99723, USA. Telephone: (907) 852-7696.
Annie Napayok, PO Box 103, Whale Cove, NU, X0C 0J0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
8969025.
Enosilk Nashalik, Pangnirtung, Nunavut, XOA ORO, Canada. No telephone.
Simon Nattaq II, PO Box 972, Iqaluit, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 9796015.
Herbert Nayokpuk, PO Box 30, Shishmaref, AK 99772, USA. Telephone: (907) 6493301.
George Noongwook, PO Box 81, Savoonga, AK 99769, USA. Telephone: work:
(907) 9846414; home: (907) 984-6231.
Peter Paneak, PO Box 56, Clyde River, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 9246135.
Uqallak Panikpak, Clyde River, Nunavut, Canada. No telephone.
Joanasie Qappik, PO Box 372, Pangnirtung, Nunavut, XOA ORO, Canada.
Telephone: (867)
473-8391.
Apak Qaqqasiq, Clyde River, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. No telephone.

James Qillaq, PO Box 104, Clyde River, Nunavut, XOA OEO, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 9246288.
Paul Rookok, PO Box 135, Savoonga, AK 99769, USA. Telephone: (907) 984-6329.
Joshua Sala, PO Box 40, Umiujaq, Quebec, JOM IYO, Canada. No telephone.
Akittiq Sanguya, PO Box 106, Clyde River, Nunavut, XOA OEO, Canada. Telephone:
(867)
924-6297.
John Sinnok, PO Box 62, Shishmaref, AK 99772, USA. Telephone: (907) 649-3531.
Jerome Tattuinee, Lot 600th Sk 272, Rankin Inlet, NU, X0C 0G0, Canada.
Telephone: (867)
645-2550.
Stanley Tocktoo, PO Box 128, Shishmaref, AK 99772, USA. Telephone: (907) 6498594.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
12
Robbie Tookalak, PO Box 50, Umiujaq, Quebec, JOM IYO, Canada. Telephone:
home: (819)
331-7094; work: (819) 331-7000.
Kenneth Toovak, PO Box 381, Barrow, AK 99723, USA. Telephone: (907) 852-6335.
Alec Tuckatuck, PO Box 18, Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, JOM IGO, Canada. Telephone:
work:
(819) 929-3348; home: (819) 929-3021.
Clara Tumic, PO Box 58, Umiujaq, Quebec, JOM IYO, Canada. Telephone: (819) 3317095.
Isaac Tumic, PO Box 58, Umiujaq, Quebec, JOM IYO, Canada. Telephone: (819) 3317095.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, P.O. Box 2099, Iqaluit, Nunavut, X0A 0H0, Canada,
Telephone: (867)
979-4661.
Moses Weetaltuk, PO Box 301, Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, JOM IGO, Canada.
Telephone: (819)
929-1086.
Stephen Weyiouanna, PO Box 80, Shishmaref, AK 99772, USA. Telephone: (907)
649-3631.
Geddes Wolki, PO Box 88, Sachs Harbour, NT X0E 0Z0, Canada. No telephone.
Lena Wolki, PO Box 88, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
690-3013.
Jerry Wongitillin, PO Box 20, Savoonga, AK, 99769, USA. Telephone: (907) 9846676.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
13
IV. FACTS: GLOBAL WARMING IS HARMING INUIT LIFE AND CULTURE

A. THE LIFE AND CULTURE OF THE INUIT* DEPEND ON THE ARCTIC

ENVIRONMENT
The Arctic is magnificent. It is not wilderness, for almost every square kilometer
is used, known, and named. Inuit hunters travel hundreds of kilometers for seals,
walrus, polar bear, whales, and caribou. Our rich and vibrant traditional
knowledge is passed forward from generation to generation.1
1. HISTORY OF THE INUIT
The Inuit oral tradition tells of their ancestors, their history, the peoples that came
before
them, and of the origin of their culture. Western archeological evidence also
illuminates Inuit
history and culture.
When we speak about the origins and history of our culture, we do so from
a perspective that is different from that often used by non-Inuit who have
studied our past. Our past is preserved and explained through the telling
of stories and the passing of information from one generation to the next
through what is called the oral tradition. Inuit recognize the importance of
maintaining the oral tradition as a part of our culture and way of learning.
At the same time we realize that there are other ways to understand the past
through activities such as archeology and the study of historical documents.
Both ways of knowing must now be used by Inuit and it is our elders and
our schools that will provide the necessary tools.2
Inuit oral tradition and western archeological evidence agree that the Inuit culture
has
developed over millennia, incorporating aspects of both the Thule culture and
Sivullirmiut
culture.3 The Inuit are part of a larger group of linguistically related people that
include the
* The term Inuit, meaning the people in their native Inuktituk, refers to a
linguistic and
cultural family of indigenous people whose common roots come from the Thule (sonamed after
the place where the culture was discovered in Greenland) and Dorset peoples of the
Arctic 1000
to 1600 years ago when technical innovations allowed successful whale hunting.
The singular,
sometimes found in this petition to refer to a single person, is Inuk. Other names
for the same
people or subdivisions thereof include Inupiat, Inupiaq, Yuit, Yuik, and Yupik.
Although
linguistically related, the Aleut of Alaska are generally considered a separate
people. The term
Eskimo is sometimes used in this petition in quotations, but to some Inuit, the
term is
considered pejorative. Eskimo, however, is the name most associated with these
various
northern peoples in the Western consciousness. It is therefore found in some
passages quoted in
this petition.

 For the Commissions convenience, this petition uses the following format.
Explanatory notes
and comments are provided in footnotes at the bottom of the page. Citations to
source
documents and other legal and factual support are provided in endnotes.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
14
Aleut, Yupik, and Inupiat. Inuit oral tradition speaks of the Sivullirmiut as their first
real
ancestors. Western Archeologists refer to this group as the Predorset, Independence
and Dorset
peoples.4 The Sivullirmiut migrated eastward from the north coast of Alaska through
Canada to
Greenland approximately 5000 years ago.5 These people were successful sea
mammal hunters,
but did not hunt whales.
The classic Thule
culture in Greenland first
developed the tools, weapons,
skills, and boats necessary to
hunt the large whales in the
northern seas approximately
1000 to 1600 years ago.6 This
innovation probably
contributed to the rapid
migration of the Thule people
and the absorption of the
Sivullirmiut people. About
1000 years ago, the Thule
people migrated throughout the
Arctic from Alaska, through
Canada and Greenland, to northern Russia in only a few generations, absorbing the
Dorset
culture and becoming the present Inuit culture.7 Inuit now live in four arctic
countries and in
eight different time zones.8 Across the Russian Federation, Alaska, Canada and
Greenland, Inuit
share the same language and cultural practices.
The ability to adapt their way of life to changing conditions served the Inuit well in
the
harsh arctic climate.9 This adaptability continued to serve the Inuit when Europeans
arrived,
with their newer, different technologies. The early contact with the Europeans,
between the late
sixteenth and early nineteenth centuries, was very limited and had little impact on
the Inuit. By

1848, however, American whalers had discovered the bowhead whale in the
Chukchi Sea, and
the commercial exploitation of the Inuits main subsistence food source began in
earnest.10 In
the late nineteenth century, missionaries in Alaska began coercing Inuit to form
permanent
villages.11 A similar sequence of events took place later across the Canadian Arctic
as Canadian
Inuit remained primarily nomadic until the 1950s and 60s.12 In the Eastern
Canadian Arctic, the
struggle to convert Inuit often caused deep divisions in groups and families that
depended on
cohesion and co-operation to survive. Ultimately, contact with the first visitors to
the Arctic and
the move from traditional camps on the land to settlements caused a decisive loss
of
independence.13
Since intensive European contact began, Inuit have tried to adapt to social and
economic
change and to reconcile their traditional world view with the values of western
society and the
economic development policies of national governments in the four countries in
which they
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
15
reside. Inuit have been very active politically and continue to promote selfdetermination, selfgovernment,
and Inuit ownership, control, and management of areas they use and occupy. This
political movement has resulted in detailed agreements with national governments
which
continue to be commented upon worldwide. These agreements include:
* The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (1975);
* Home Rule in Greenland (1979);
* The Inuvialuit Final Agreement (1984);
* The Nunavut Agreement (1993); and
* The Labrador Agreement (1993).
The specific provisions of these agreements
differ, but all enable the Inuit to design and implement
policies and programs to promote sustainable
development and, in a very broad sense, to combine the
best of the old with the best of the new. Effective
implementation of these agreements is key to
promoting Inuit culture, protecting Inuit homelands,
and raising the material standard of living of Inuit,
many of whom continue to live in conditions akin to
the developing world. Climate change undercuts many
of the rights and benefits that Inuit have secured in

these agreements, and hinders implementation.

2. INUIT CULTURE TODAY
The process of the hunt and eating of our country food personifies what it
means to be Inuit. It is on the land that our values and age-old knowledge are
passed down from generation to generation. Generationsyoung and old
meet on the land. The wisdom of the land and process of the hunt teaches
young Inuit to be patient, courageous, tenacious, bold under pressure,
reflective to withstand stress, to focus and carry out a plan to achieve a goal.
Hunting and eating the animals we hunt are spiritual and cultural activities.14
a. Hunting and Gathering
Inuit in different areas harvest whale, seal, caribou, arctic hare, berries, and fish.
The
harvest provides needed food for the Inuit, in addition to providing the opportunity
to engage in
and pass on cultural practices. The Inuit have adopted numerous innovations of
modern
technology to assist in the harvest, including skidoos, rifles and motorboats, which
minimize
risks and help to ensure a successful hunt. The vast knowledge gleaned from oral
tradition and
personal observation tells Inuit hunters how and where their harvest can be found,
to what uses
the harvest can be put, and how to sustainably manage the animal and plant
populations.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
16
Inuit describe the behavior of animals in where the animals feed, breed, calve
or rest, and in terms of their routes of movement from one location to another at
different times of the year. Each type of animal has a characteristic pattern of
movement and these often change from season to the next. Our knowledge
takes into account the relative abundance of various types of animals and
changes in this abundance, but it does not necessarily deal with absolute
numbers. Inuit knowledge is not quantitative in nature, but this does not mean
that it is not precise. In fact, the need to be precise is one of the primary
identifying elements of our knowledge base.15
While harvest methods and technology have changed, the need for this knowledge
and
skill remains constant. The knowledge and skill passes from one generation to the
next, with
each generation adding its own observations to the
store of knowledge and skill. This method of
teaching and learning has made the Inuit very
successful harvesters.
The harvest provides necessary country
food to the Inuit, in addition to providing
opportunities to engage in traditional practices
and teach the next generation. As described in the

following section, the harvest is a vital part of the

economic well being of the Inuit.
b. Inuit Economy
The modern Inuit economy is an interdependent mix of old and new. Cash flow has
enabled Inuit to adapt their culture to changing conditions by purchasing modern
equipment that
helps them to hunt more efficiently and safely.16 The harvest in turn complements
and
supplements the newer cash-based aspects of the economy and provides Inuit with
necessary
nutrition, which they would otherwise need to purchase.17
[I]t is impossible to discuss our future as part of the larger Canadian fabric
without giving serious consideration to the role we will play in the next phase
of economic and political development throughout the Canadian North. We
cannot, however, assume that this new role will be developed at the expense of
more traditional activities which characterize our mixed subsistence based
economies that are so vital for the long term economic and social health of our
communities.18
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
17
The government of Nunavut, Canada, estimates that to replace the annual
subsistence
harvest in that territory with a population of approximately thirty thousand people
would cost
over thirty-five million Canadian dollars.19 On the other hand, there is no way to
convert that
vast wealth into actual cash that can be used to purchase other goods and services,
so the
economic value of the subsistence harvest may be undervalued or discounted
altogether.20 The
value of Inuit traditional knowledge and intellectual property has also not yet been
quantified or
protected.21 These aspects of the Inuit
economy, though nearly invisible to
the Western eye, are vital and integral
pillars of the Inuits standard of living,
economy, and way of life.
The conundrum of how to
develop the cash economy and
improve the standard of living in
communities without compromising
the traditional Inuit subsistence
economy or culture is a consistent
theme in discussions among Inuit
leaders. Sustainable development
requires carefully thought out strategies for future development. The traditional
subsistence

harvest is sustainable over the long term, and makes up a large part of this
developing strategy.
c. Social and Cultural Conditions and Practices
There is no denying that Inuit culture and society are under significant economic,
spiritual and psychological strain. Inuit people are navigating immense economic
and social
changes. The rapid change from a way of life that is purely subsistence to a mixed
one has
brought with it upheaval and insecurity in the lives of the Inuit. The culture has yet
to fill all of
the holes that this transformation has created, but Inuit organizations, the
government of
Nunavut, and the governments of the States in which Inuit live are all working to
remedy these
problems. The traditional culture of living on the land and harvesting continues to
play a central
role in the well-being of Inuit.
i. Living on the Land
Despite the considerable changes that have occurred in our society over the past
50
years, the relationship between Inuit and the land continues to be a fundamental
element of Inuit
culture and identity.22
Generations young and old meet on the land. The wisdom of the land and
process of
the hunt teaches young Inuit to be patient, courageous, tenacious, bold under
pressure,
reflective to withstand stress, to focus and carry out a plan to achieve a goal.23
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
18
The land that Inuit refer to when speaking of living on the land includes not only
the
ground underfoot, but the ice, oceans, lakes, tidal zones, islands, and the total
environment.24
Depending on where they lived and the time of year, Inuit traditionally lived in
tents, whalebone
or driftwood houses, or igloos.25 Igloo building has always been confined to the
winter months,
generally in the Canadian Arctic. Currently, Inuit live in permanent communities in
permanent
modern style housing. However, many Inuit harvesters spend several months each
year
traveling, harvesting, and living on the land.
Inuit remain intimately connected to the land and to the weather. In Greenland, the
Inuit
use the word sila for weather.
Sila is also used to mean

the elements or the air. But

sila is also the word for
intelligence/consciousness, or
mind and is understood to be the
fundamental principle underlying
the natural world. Sila is manifest
in each and every person. It is an
all-pervading, life-giving force
the natural order, a universal
consciousness, and a breath soul.
Sila connects a person with the
rhythms of the universe,
integrating the self with the natural world. As sila links the individual and the
environment, a person who lacks sila is said to be separated from an essential
relationship
with the environment that is necessary for human well-being.26
ii. Sharing the Hunt
An integral part of the Inuit culture is the sharing of the hunt.27 In addition to
traditional
and cultural reasons, there are several practical reasons why Inuit share the harvest
among
community members. First, the harvest of large mammals requires a cooperative
effort that a
single family alone could not successfully complete. In addition, the harvest of a
large animal,
especially a whale, results in plenty of food as well as plenty of work to preserve.
The need for
sharing is also underscored by the risk of an unsuccessful hunt. No single hunter or
group of
hunters can be assured of success, so interdependence is necessary to sustain the
families of the
hunters whose endeavors do not result in success.28
More than providing an efficient and practical food distribution system, food sharing
provides less tangible benefits. The bonds that are formed by the sharing of food
and labor
among many in the community are central to Inuit culture.29
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
19
Across the Arctic, the sharing and distribution of meat and fish is central to daily
social
life and expresses and sustains social relationships. Harvesting and its associated
processing and sharing activities reaffirm fundamental values and attitudes towards
animals and the environment and provide a moral foundation for continuity between
generations. Complex and precise local rules determine the sharing and
distribution of
the catch, and seal meat is commonly shared out to people beyond the household,

whether those people are related to the hunter or not. For arctic hunting peoples,
sharing
can only be understood with reference to the sense of social relatedness that people
feel
they have with each other and with animals and the environment.30
d. Inuit Traditional Knowledge Regarding Climate
This is a story about knowledge. For the Iupiat, knowledge means survival on
the ice. Scientists started coming to Barrow, Alaska, in the 1940s, sent by the
Navy to study the ice and cold weather. They brought Native guides along for
safety, but they didnt often rely on Iupiat knowledge for their studies. They
didnt know how.
For each side, the knowledge held by the other contains a strong element of
magic. Arnold Brower Sr. can see the value of a Global Positioning System
receiver, for example, but he has yet to master the instrument, much less explain
how it works. He knows how to navigate by the stars. Scientists coming to
Barrow could see that Natives could keep them safe, but they didnt know how
they did it any better than a layman understands the internal workings of a GPS
unit.31
Inuit elders, after years of careful observation and practice as well as oral tradition
passed
from the previous generations observations and practice, have developed a living,
adaptable
body of knowledge about their physical surroundings. Called Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit, or IQ by
the Inuit, the term traditional knowledge (TK) or traditional ecological
knowledge
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
20
(TEK) describes a worldview that has proven itself reliable time and again.32 Inuit
who live
off the land, travel over precarious ice, and have, until recently, survived solely on
what they can
find or make from a sparse environment can attest to the accuracy of IQ. Western
scientists now
understand that traditional knowledge can describe reality as well as or better than
results of the
scientific method.
Perhaps the most famous and documented demonstration of IQs reliability is the
bowhead whale count of 1977.33 United States government scientists used
commonly accepted
scientific methods to estimate the bowhead whale population, counting individual
migrating
whales from one vantage, and using statistical
analysis to estimate the number that would be
missed from that vantage point. The scientific
conclusion was that only 600 to 2000 whales
were left in the world, and drastic measures

would be needed to save the species; including

cutting off the Iupiat subsistence whale hunt.
The Iupiat hunters insisted that whale
populations were much higher, based on their
traditional knowledge of whale behavior. The
government scientists refused to believe them,
so the Iupiat set about proving their theory, in terms that the government could
understand and
accept. The North Slope Borough* hired a scientist to improve the count using the
Iupiat
knowledge. Eventually, the improved count showed that traditional knowledge was
correct, and
more than 6000 bowhead existed, a level that did not require cutting off the
subsistence hunt.
The piece missing from the scientific method was the knowledge of bowhead
behavior that the
Inuit had developed over centuries of observing the bowhead.
TEK is dynamic, incorporating new technologies and adjusting to changing
conditions.
As a Belcher Islands resident observed, spending time on the land is to collect TEK
continuously. An Inuk on the land is like a scientist studying his whole life - every
day - never
writing a report because the information keeps on changing.34 Inuit know their
land. Now,
they know it is changing.
B. GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED BY HUMAN
EMISSIONS OF
GREENHOUSE GASES ARE DAMAGING THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT
Of all the challenges faced by the Inuit in recent decades, global warming is the
most
daunting. As described below, no region on Earth has been hit harder by global
warming than
the Arctic. In a frozen land, where even small changes in the climate can be
significant, the
rapid changes being wrought by global warming are nothing short of catastrophic.
Global
* Municipalities in Alaska are organized in Boroughs rather than counties as in the
rest of the
United States.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
21
warming is forcing the Inuit to shoulder the burden of the rest of the worlds
development, with
no corresponding benefit.
Some effects of global warming are obvious to anyone. Rapidly retreating glaciers
leave

behind barren rock attesting to their recent coverage of ice. Melting permafrost
causes land to
slump dramatically, leaving a wave-like cornice and precipice, when the unstable
underground
gravel is released from the ice. Other effects are less obvious to the untrained eye.
Inuit,
however, know that the ice is less slippery, the snow is not only more scarce but
different, that
the ice comes later and leaves earlier, and that the changes are affecting the
behavior, numbers,
location and quality of harvested animals. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit tells the Inuit that
the weather
is not just warmer in the Arctic, but the entire familiar landscape is metamorphosing
into an
unknown land.
1. GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE RISING AND THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING
Exhaustive recent studies of the
Earths climate and temperature trends all lead
to the same conclusion: the Earth is warming
and the climate is changing. Observations of
key planetary systems sea ice, permafrost,
sea levels, glaciers, and the range and habitat
of plants and animals support this
conclusion. Although there remains some
scientific uncertainty with respect to the
nature and timing of sub-regional impacts,
there is no scientific uncertainty with respect
to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere as a result of human activities.
Nor is there any credible scientific doubt
regarding the fundamental premises of this petition: that increased concentrations
of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere have caused a rapid and persistent warming of the Arctic,
and this
warming has had a highly adverse effect on the lives and culture of the Inuit.
a. Global Temperature Trends
In 1988, the United Nations responded to mounting international concern about the
threat
of global warming by creating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC).* The
* Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environmental Programme, the IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate
science as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and
published scientific
literature. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm. The IPCC is the largest, most
reputable peerreviewed
body of climate-change scientists in history, composed of the top scientists from
around the globe, and employs a decision-by-consensus approach.
Summer Landscape, Baffin Island, Nunavut, Canada

PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
22
U.N. gave this international group of scientists the task of assessing climate change,
its potential
impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.35 The IPCCs assessment
reports are based
on peer-reviewed and published scientific literature.* With increasing certainty, the
reports
express a scientific consensus that the Earth is warming, increasing the risk of
potentially
devastating consequences.
The IPCCs most recent assessment, entitled the Third Assessment Report (TAR),
found
that the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.6C
since the late
1800s.36 This warming is likely to have been the most significant in the Northern
Hemisphere
for any century in the past 1,000 years (data for the Southern Hemisphere and the
period
preceding the last millennium is too limited to make such an assessment).37
Therefore, it is very
likely (i.e., more than 90% certain) that the 1990s was the warmest decade in the
instrumental
record, with 1998 as the warmest year.38
In 2001, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences prepared a report at the request of
President George W. Bush which affirmed the TARs findings. The report states that
global
mean surface air temperature warmed between 0.4 and 0.8C (0.7 and 1.5F)
during the 20th
century.39 Many U.S. Governmental agencies support this view, including the
Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and
the Office of
Science and Technology.40 Indeed, a report issued by the U.S. Interagency Climate
Change
Science Program (CCSP) found that recent warming has been even more rapid.
Specifically, the
CCSP found that during the past 20 years the global annual average surface
temperature has
increased by about 0.2C per decade, a rate equivalent to 2C per century.41
According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), global temperatures
have
increased since the publication of the TAR. The WMO reports that the ten-year
period from
1995 to 2004 was the warmest on record.42 The five warmest years, in decreasing
order, are:
1998, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2001.43

* The United States Senate has recognized the IPCC as the preeminent international
body
established to provide objective scientific and technical assessments on climate
change. S. Exec.
Rep. No. 102-55, 102nd Cong., 2d Sess. (1992) (IPCCs work is viewed throughout
most of the
international scientific and global diplomatic community as the definitive statement
on the stateofthe-knowledge about global climate change.)
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
23
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
(a) Combined annual global land and sea-surface temperature anomalies from
18612004; (b) Combined
annual land and sea-surface temperature anomalies in the northern hemisphere
from 18612004
Source: WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2004.
b. Key Indicators Confirm that the Earth Is Warming
Recently observed changes to natural systems provide additional evidence that
global
temperatures are rising. Key indicators of global warming include: melting sea ice,
thawing
permafrost, rising sea levels, retreating glaciers and ice sheets, and the alteration of
species
behavior and habitat (including shifts of plant and animal ranges).
i. Melting Sea Ice
One of the most dramatic indicators of global warming is the reduction of arctic sea
ice
due to melting. The ACIA estimates an 8% decrease in the annual average amount
of sea ice in
the last 30 years, and notes that the melting trend is further accelerating.44 The
highest reduction
of sea ice occurs during warm seasons. In fact, the past several decades show an
Arctic-wide
decrease of 10-15% of the total amount of sea ice during the summer months.45
Specifically, in
the region closest to the Atlantic Ocean, summer sea ice cover has dropped by as
much as 20%,
uncovering an area more than twice the size of California.46
Sea ice in the Arctic has also grown substantially thinner because of the warming
temperatures. For example, the ACIA reports a reduction in the average thickness of
sea ice
ranging from 10-15% over the past few decades.47 Similarly, in the central Arctic
Ocean, sea ice
thickness has decreased by up to 40%.48
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING

CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 7, 2005
24
1979 2003
Observed September sea-ice cover
Source: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
As discussed Section II-C(2), the loss of sea ice due to this warming has been
devastating
to Inuit. According to a 2003 study of Alaska Native villages by the U.S.
Government:
Rising temperatures have affected the thickness, extent, and duration of sea ice
that forms along the western and northern coasts [of Alaska]. Loss of sea ice
leaves coasts more vulnerable to waves, storm surges, and erosion. When
combined with the thawing of permafrost along the coast, loss of sea ice seriously
threatens coastal Alaska Native villages. Furthermore, loss of sea ice alters the
habitat and accessibility of many of the marine mammals that Alaska Natives
depend upon for subsistence. As the ice melts or moves away early, walruses,
seals, and polar bears move with it, taking themselves too far away to be hunted.49
ii. Thawing Permafrost
Permafrost, defined as permanently frozen ground or soil, underlies 20-25% of the
Northern Hemispheres land area. Ice that forms during cold seasons accounts for
20-30% of the
permafrosts volume. Higher temperatures due to warming can cause that ice to
melt, making
the land unstable and leading to collapse of land surfaces. Furthermore, the thawing
of arctic
permafrost has deformed roads, railway lines, and airport runways, in addition to
fracturing oil
and gas pipelines. These fractures resulted in severe spills that have made large
tracts of land
unusable.50
The U.S. Government report on Alaska Native villages, mentioned above, states:
Permafrost (permanently frozen subsoil) is found over approximately 80 percent
of Alaska. However, rising temperatures in recent years have led to widespread
thawing of the permafrost, causing serious damage. As permafrost melts, land
slumps and erodes, buildings and runways sink, and bulk fuel tank areas are
threatened.51
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
25
Sea erosion and permafrost melting in Shishmaref, Alaska
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office
iii. Sea-level Rise
During the twentieth century, sea levels have risen at ten times the rate of the past
3,000
years.52 Evidence based on both direct observation and climate models shows that
thermal

expansion (an increase in water volume caused by warming) is estimated to

contribute about 1.0
mm/yr to rising sea-levels.53 Moreover, melting glaciers and ice caps contribute to
the rising sea
levels, adding both mass and volume to the oceans. These observations and models
of glaciers
and ice caps indicate that they contribute, on average, 0.2 to 0.4 mm/yr to sea
levels.54
iv. Melting Ice Sheets and Glaciers
Throughout the world, ice sheets and glaciers are also receding due to warming. A
survey of Alaskan glaciers recorded typical decreases in ice-thickness of ten meters
over the past
40 years.55 In addition, a U.S. Government study based on satellite imaging
determined that the
margins of Greenlands ice sheet were decreasing in height at a rate of one meter
per year.56 A
more recent study, employing on-the-ground monitors, found rates of decline as
high as ten
meters per year.57*
* Glacier melting is not limited to the Arctic. In fact, Mount Kilimanjaros glaciers
have receded
by over 80% during the past century. Paul V. Desanker, Impact of Climate Change
on Life in
Africa, World Wildlife Fund, available at
www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/africa_climate.pdf
(last visited May 20, 2004). Similarly, Perus Yanamarey Glacier has declined by 25%
in the
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
26
v. Alterations in Species and Habitat
The habitat and behavior of thousands of plants and animals have been altered by
rising
temperatures. Based on 43 studies completed before 2001, the TAR finds that 61%
of observed
habitat or species exhibited change.58 For example, inland land and stream
environments
exhibited earlier ice-off and later freeze dates.59 In addition, plant and animal
species exhibited
earlier breeding times, shifts in habitat ranges, and changes in density,
development, morphology
(physical shape), and genetics.60 Alarmingly, up to 25% of the worlds mammals
(roughly 1,125
species) and 12% of birds (roughly 1,150 species) were found to be at significant
risk of global
extinction.61
Several other recent studies support these observations. A 2003 study of over 1,473
plant

and animal species found that over 80% had altered traits or behaviors in ways that
corresponded
with expectations based on temperature change.62 Another study found that 99
species of birds,
butterflies, and plants have moved an average of 6.1 km per decade toward the
poles.63
last 50 years, and Bolivias Glacier Chacaltaya lost two-thirds of its volume during
the 1990s.
World Wildlife Fund, Going, Going, Gone: Climate Change and Global Glacier Decline
3
(2003), available at
http://www.panda.org/downloads/climate_change/glacierspaper.pdf (last
visited on August 4, 2004). Between 10-20% of glacier ice in the Alps has
disappeared in the
past two decades. Id., at 4. In Asia, the glaciers of the Himalayas have been
receding for the
past 30 years, however, the loss has accelerated over the past decade. Id.
Changes in Arctic glacier volume
Source: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
27
Furthermore, the same study reported that 172 species of plants, birds, butterflies,
and
amphibians have shifted their spring season events earlier by 2.3 days per
decade.64
The warming allows some insects to reproduce more quickly. Accelerated
reproduction
of spruce bark beetles caused over 2.3 million acres of tree mortality on Alaskas
Kenai
Peninsula, the largest loss recorded in North America.65 Additionally, outbreaks of
other
defoliating insects in the boreal forest, such as spruce budworm, coneworm, and
larch sawfly,
have also increased sharply in the past decade.66
Rising temperatures and insect infestations make forests more susceptible to forest
fire.
Since 1970, the acreage in Alaska subjected to fire has increased steadily from 2.5
million to
more than 7 million acres per year.67 In fact, a fire in 1996 burned 37,000 acres of
forest and
peat, causing $80 million in direct losses and destroying 450 structures, including
200 homes.
In the marine environment, mass bleaching of coral reefs is well-documented. These
mass die-offs appear to occur whenever sea temperatures exceed summer
averages by more than
1.0 C for a period of more than a few weeks.68 It is estimated that 16% of the
worlds reefbuilding

corals died in 1998, and the frequency and intensity of bleaching is expected to
increase
as ocean temperatures rise.69
2. GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY
A scientific consensus has emerged that global warming is caused by the increase
in
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as a result of human activity.
This is
borne out by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
numerous
Source: US Global Change Research Program
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
28
scientific studies, statements by U.S. scientific organizations, and the U.S.
Governments own
research.
a. The Greenhouse Effect
Greenhouse gases are natural and manmade constituents of the atmosphere with
the
ability to trap and retain heat, thereby warming the planet. Greenhouse gases are
relatively
translucent to short wavelength radiation (e.g., visible light) that reaches the Earth
from the sun,
but are more opaque to longer-wave radiation, trapping some of the heat that the
Earth would
otherwise radiate back to space. This heat trapping characteristic is vital, because it
keeps the
earth warm enough to sustain life.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Under normal conditions, naturally-occurring greenhouse gases, such as carbon
dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), keep the Earths heat budget in
balance. With
occasional periodic or episodic fluctuations, the amount of energy retained at the
Earths surface
and in its lower stratosphere equals the energy reflected back to space. Thus, the
temperature of
the Earths land area and oceans remain generally constant.
Since the industrial revolution at the end of the 18th Century, greenhouse gas
emissions
have risen inexorably, primarily due to ever-increasing combustion of fossil fuels for
energy and
industrial processes. In addition, industry has introduced new, exceedingly powerful
greenhouse
gases to the atmosphere including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs),

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride

that
have exacerbated the problem of global warming. Some of these, notably CFCs and
HFCs are
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
29
also ozone-depleting substance regulated by the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete
the Ozone Layer.70
At the beginning of the industrial revolution, the atmospheric concentration of CO2,
the
principal greenhouse gas, was about 280 parts per million (ppm).71 Currently it is
about 375
ppm, an increase of 34%,72 with most of the increase having occurred after 1950.*
Methane, the
second most abundant greenhouse gas, has increased 150% and nitrous oxide has
increased 16%
since the pre-industrial era.73
Trends in Atmospheric Concentrations and Anthropogenic Emissions of
Carbon Dioxide
Source: US Energy Information Administration
b. IPCC Third Assessment Report
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change determined that human activities
are
altering the makeup of the atmosphere in ways that are very likely causing the
Earth to warm and
the global climate to change.74 The Third Assessment Report (TAR) surveys the
range of
climate observations and models, and notes that [t]here is a wide range of
evidence of
qualitative consistencies between observed climate changes and model responses
to
anthropogenic forcing.75 It found that [s]tatistical assessments confirm that
natural variability
(the combination of internal and naturally forced) is unlikely to explain the warming
in the latter
half of the 20th century and, therefore, warming is likely the result of human
influences.76
* U.S. emissions of CO2 have increased more than 2 times since 1950.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BWK2R/
$File/wh_tre
nds.pdf.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
30

The TAR notes that in the five years between publication of its second and third
assessment reports, every study published has found that a significant
anthropogenic
contribution is required to account for surface and tropospheric trends over at least
the last 30
years.77 Similarly, all recent studies reject natural forcing and internal variability
alone as a
possible explanation of recent climate change.78 Considering all the studies
available at the
time of publication, the TAR concludes: [a]nthropogenic greenhouse gases are
likely to have
made a significant and substantial contribution to the warming observed over the
second half of
the 20th century, possibly larger than the total observed warming.79 (Emphasis
added.)
c. Scientific Studies
The findings of the TAR are supported by numerous scientific studies. For example,
a
recent survey of peer-reviewed papers demonstrates that there is general
agreement within the
scientific community that greenhouse gas emissions are causing the Earth to warm.
The survey
analyzed 928 climate change abstracts published in refereed scientific journals
between 1993 and
2003. In fact, 75% of these papers explicitly endorsed the view that global warming
is caused by
human activity, evaluated impacts, or proposed mitigation strategies. Although the
remaining
25% took no position on the cause of global warming; not a single paper disagreed
with the
consensus position.80
d. Statements by U.S. Scientific Organizations
Major scientific organizations in the United States whose members expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued statements supporting the consensus view.81
The National
Geographic Society, which is the largest nonprofit scientific and educational
institution in the
world, has produced numerous articles, papers, and television documentaries
attesting to the
dangers of global warming and to the fact that human activities are contributing to
the problem.82
Moreover, the American Association for the Advancement of Science concluded that
the
evidence for human modification of climate is undeniable.83 The American
Meteorological
Society states there is a broad consensus that greenhouse forcing is responsible
for about half
the warming in global mean temperature in the past century.84 The American
Geophysical

Union, with a membership of over 41,000 scientists from 130 countries, said [t]he
global
climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.85
e. Research and Reports by the U.S. Government
Although the U.S. Government in many of its public statements has chosen to
portray the
science of climate change as inconclusive,* reports prepared by and for the Bush
administration
* The Clinton Administration did not share this view. D. James Baker, administrator
of the U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Undersecretary for Oceans
and
Atmosphere at the Department of Commerce under the Clinton administration,
remarked about
human contributions to global warming that there's no better scientific consensus
than this on
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
31
have endorsed the scientific consensus that the primary cause of global warming is
human
emissions of greenhouse gases.
i. Report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (2001)
The first major assessment by a U.S. Government agency of global warming and its
consequences to be released during the Bush administration was entitled Climate
Change
Impacts on the United States. The assessment was prepared by the U.S. Global
Change
Research Program, and its findings are consistent with the IPCC TAR. It notes that
[l]ong-term
observations confirm that our climate is now changing at a rapid rate. Over the 20th
century, the
average annual US temperature has risen by almost 1F (0.6C) and precipitation
has increased
nationally by 5-10%, mostly due to increases in heavy downpours. The science
indicates that
the warming in the 21st century will be significantly greater than in the 20th
century.86
The assessments findings with respect to the Alaska are sobering:
Recent warming has been accompanied by several decades of thawing in
discontinuous permafrost, which is present in most of central and southern
Alaska, causing increased ground subsidence, erosion, landslides, and disruption
and damage to forests, buildings, and infrastructure. Sea ice off the Alaskan coast
is retreating (by 14% since 1978) and thinning (by 40% since the 1960s), with
widespread effects on marine ecosystems, coastal climate, human settlements, and
subsistence activities.87
Present climate change already poses drastic threats to subsistence livelihoods,

practiced mainly by Native communities, as many populations of marine mammals,

fish,
and seabirds have been reduced or displaced due to retreat and thinning of sea ice
and
other changes. Projected climate changes are likely to intensify these impacts. In
the
longer term, projected ecosystem shifts are likely to displace or change the
resources
available for subsistence, requiring communities to change their practices or
move.88
ii. Report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
In preparation for international discussions on global warming, the Bush
administration
asked a committee of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council
to sum up
sciences current understanding of global climate change in general, in addition to
assessing the
particular conclusions of the IPCCs TAR.* The resulting report, Climate Change
Science: An
any issue I knowexcept maybe Newton's second law of dynamics. Washington
Post,
11/12/97.
* The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National
Academy of
Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution
that provides
scientific and technical advice under a congressional charter. The committee was
made up of 11
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
32
Analysis of Some Key Questions, confirms the IPCCs findings ([g]reenhouse gases
are
accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface
air
temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.).89 and agrees that the
IPCC report
accurately reflects the consensus view of scientists ([t]he IPCC's conclusion that
most of the
observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in
greenhouse
gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific
community on this
issue.).90
iii. U.S. State Department Report to the UNFCCC
The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) requires
industrialized

countries to periodically submit national reports describing actions they have taken
to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions along with the anticipated effect of those actions. In
2002, the U.S.
Government submitted its third report, U.S. Climate Action Report 2002.91 The
report
acknowledges that global warming is due primarily to human activities, concluding
that
[g]reenhouse gases are accumulating in Earths atmosphere as a result of human
activities,
causing global mean surface air temperature and subsurface ocean temperature to
rise.92 It
further reports that warming over the 48 contiguous states amounted to about
0.6C (about 1F),
causing changes ranging from the thawing of permafrost to aggravated coastal
erosion resulting
from melting of sea ice.93 With regard to the Arctic, the report found that in Alaska
[s]harp
winter and springtime temperature increases are very likely to cause continued
melting of sea ice
and thawing of permafrost, further disrupting ecosystems, infrastructure, and
communities.94
iv. Report by the U.S. Interagency Climate Change Science Program
On June 11, 2001, President Bush announced that his administration would establish
the
U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) to study areas of uncertainty about
global
climate change science.95 The CCRI was subsequently integrated into the
Interagency Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP),* which released its first report in August 2004.
The report
confirmed and strengthened the findings of the IPCC and other previous scientific
studies.
Specifically, it reported that new federal research indicates that emissions of carbon
dioxide and
other heat-trapping gases are the only likely explanation for global warming over
the last three
decades:
of the nation's top climate scientists, including seven members of the National
Academy of
Sciences, one of whom was a Nobel-Prize winner.
* The Climate Change Science Program integrates federal research on climate and
global change,
as sponsored by thirteen federal agencies and overseen by the Office of Science
and Technology
Policy, the Council on Environmental Quality, the National Economic Council and the
Office of
Management and Budget. http://www.climatescience.gov/about/default.htm
The report is among those submitted regularly to Congress as a summary of
recent and planned

federal research on shifting global conditions of all sorts. The report is accompanied
by a letter
signed by Mr. Bush's secretaries of energy and commerce and his science adviser.
See
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/default.htm
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
33
Multiple ensemble simulations of the 20th century climate have been conducted
using climate models that include new and improved estimates of natural and
anthropogenic forcing. The simulations show that observed globally averaged
surface air temperatures can be replicated only when both anthropogenic forcings,
for example, greenhouse gases, as well as natural forcings such as solar variability
and volcanic eruptions are included in the model.96
Despite the robust findings of the CCSP, the IPCC TAR, and the other major reports
issued on climate change, a small minority still maintains that todays rising
temperatures are the
result of the climates natural variations and/or there is insufficient scientific
evidence to
attribute climate change to anthropogenic causes. This minority view, which is
frequently
funded by industry interests that oppose restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions,97
has been
successful in deflecting attention away from the overwhelming scientific consensus
that human
contributions are responsible for the current global warming trend. Based on the
reports
discussed above, however, it is clear that the debate is over. There is no longer a
serious
substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of
anthropogenic climate
change and the science supporting that phenomenon.
3. GLOBAL WARMING IS MOST SEVERE IN THE ARCTIC
Climate models have long predicted that global warming would be most pronounced
in
the Arctic.98 In fact, annual arctic temperatures have increased at almost twice the
rate as that of
the rest of the world over the past few decades.99 The Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment
(ACIA) confirms and explains this rapid temperature increase.* A number of related
factors are
* While the full report was just recently released, the results of the assessment,
contained in the
ACIA Overview, were presented at the ACIA International Scientific Symposium held
in
Reykjavik, Iceland in November 2004.
Climate model simulations
of the Earths temperature

variations compared with

observed changes (18901999). The black line shows
observed temperature; the
blue line shows mean
temperature based on
simulations using natural
forcings only; and the red
line shows mean temperature
based on simulations using
both natural and
anthropogenic forcings.
Source: U.S. Climate Change
Science Program
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
34
at work: First, melting of arctic snow and ice reveals darker land and ocean surfaces
that absorb
more of the suns energy, increasing arctic warming.100 This effect is not offset by
increased
evaporation, as it is in the tropics.101 Second, the depth of the atmospheric layer in
the Arctic
that has to warm in order to cause warming of near-surface air is much shallower
than in the
tropics, resulting in a larger arctic temperature increase.102 Third, the reduction in
sea ice caused
by global warming allows the solar heat absorbed by the oceans in the summer to
be more easily
transferred to the atmosphere in the winter, making the air temperature warmer
than it would be
otherwise.103 Finally, alterations in ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns
caused by global
warming allow more heat to be transported to the Arctic, further increasing arctic
warming.104
The pattern of warming in the Arctic closely mirrors global trends, with a warming
period in the 1940s, followed by some cooling through the mid-1960s, and a steep
increase in
warming thereafter.105 Since the 1960s, the Arctic has warmed at the rate of 0.4C
per decade,
which is more than twice the global rate.106 The U.S. Governments own studies
agree with
these findings.107
Annual average change in near surface land temperature
relative to the average for 1961-1990 for the region from 60 to 90N.
Source: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING

CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 7, 2005
35
Key Findings of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a comprehensively
researched, fully referenced and independently reviewed evaluation of
arctic climate change and its impacts[,] involved an international
effort by hundreds of scientists over four years, and also includes the
special knowledge of indigenous people. It presents a moderate
scenario,* using several models to project likely changes and impacts
to the arctic environment as a result of climate change. The ACIAs
key findings are as follows:
1. Arctic Climate is now warming rapidly and much larger
changes are projected.
2. Arctic warming and its consequences have worldwide
implications.
3. Arctic vegetation zones are very likely to shift, causing
wide-ranging impacts.
4. Animal species diversity, ranges, and distribution will
change.
5. Many coastal communities and facilities face increasing
exposure to storms.
6. Reduced sea ice is very likely to increase marine transport
and access to resources. Sovereignty, security and safety
issues, as well as social, cultural, and environmental
concerns are likely to arise as marine access increases.
7. Thawing ground will disrupt transportation, buildings, and
other infrastructure.
8. Indigenous communities are facing major economic and
cultural impacts.
9. Elevated ultraviolet radiation levels will affect people,
plants, and animals.
10. Multiple influences interact to cause impacts to people and
ecosystems.
* The report is careful to note that it is not a worst-case scenario.
Judgments of likelihood are indicated using a five-tier lexicon
consistent with everyday usage (very unlikely, unlikely, possible,
likely, and very likely). Confidence in results is highest at both ends
of this scale. A conclusion that an impact will result is reserved for
situation where experience and multiple methods of analysis all make
clear that the consequence would follow inevitably from the projected
change in climate.
(Source: ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at Preface, How to read
this report, pp. 10-11.)
C. GLOBAL WARMING HARMS INUIT LIFE AND CULTURE
1. GLOBAL WARMING IS DESTROYING THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT
a. Global Warming has already altered the Arctic
As previously described,
Inuit culture has developed over
thousands of years in relationship

with, and in response to, the

physical environment of the
Arctic.108 The Inuit have
developed an intimate relationship
with their surroundings, using their
understanding of the arctic
environment to develop a culture,
including tools, techniques and
knowledge, that has enabled them
to subsist and thrive on the scarce
resources available.109 All aspects
of the Inuits lives depend upon
their culture, and the continued
viability of the culture depends in
turn on the Inuits reliance on the
ice, snow, land and weather
conditions in the Arctic.110 To
understand the impacts of climate
change on the Inuit, therefore, it is
necessary to understand how
climate change has altered the
arctic environment. This section
describes those changes;
subsequent sections address how
these changes have affected the
Inuit.
Global warming has
already visibly transformed the
Arctic. Inuit observations and
scientific studies are consistent in
documenting substantial and
lasting alterations in the physical
environment of the Arctic due to
global climate change.111
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
36
Although the effects of climate change on weather patterns, temperatures, and the
environment
vary somewhat throughout the Arctic, all regions are experiencing disturbing
changes, and many
of the effects are constant throughout the region.112 Because the Arctic is
especially vulnerable
to the effects of global climate change, the [a]nnual average arctic temperature
has increased at
almost twice the rate as that of the rest of the world over the past few
decades.113 The rising

temperature has set in motion an ever-escalating series of changes in the arctic

climate and
environment.114 Some of the more observable changes include deteriorating ice
conditions,
decreasing quantity and quality of snow, unpredictable and unfamiliar weather, and
a
transfigured landscape.115
Commonly observed ice changes include thinner ice, later freezes, and earlier, more
sudden thaws.116 In the past, sea ice and lake ice froze hard enough for safe travel
earlier in the
year.117 Now the freeze comes later,118 and once the ice freezes it is generally
thinner than in the
past.119 [A]rctic-wide average thickness [has decreased] ten to fifteen percent
with particular
areas showing reductions of up to 40% between the 1960s and late 1990s.120
Thinner ice melts
earlier and more suddenly in the spring, further shortening winter travel and
hunting seasons.121
In some areas, the floe edge* is closer to the land than in the past, and the edge is
less
stable.122 Over the past 30 years, the annual average sea-ice extent has
decreased by about 8%,
or nearly one million square kilometers, an area larger than all of Norway, Sweden
and Denmark
combined, and the melting trend is accelerating.123
The quality, quantity and
timing of snowfall have changed
dramatically due to global
warming. For example, snow falls
later in the year, and the overall
quantity has diminished in most
areas.124 Average snow cover over
the region has decreased ten
percent over the last three decades,
and climate-modeling projections
predict a further loss of another ten
to twenty percent in coming
decades.125 The snow that does fall
is of a different quality.126 The
* The floe edge is a constantly moving and dynamic line that marks the end of
fixed fast ice (ice
that is anchored to the shore) and the start of the Arctic Ocean. In the fall as the
ocean
freezers, the floe edge moves farther and farther out from land and may eventually
completely
disappear once the body of water is frozen completely solid. In the spring, as the ice
starts to
break up, the floe edge recedes and gradually comes closer to land until it
eventually disappears

completely. GRAHAM DICKSON, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE ARCTIC vol. 1, p. 82 (Mark

Nutall, ed.
Routledge 2004).
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
37
spring thaw comes earlier and is much more sudden than in the past.127 Changing
winds and
decreased snowfall embed more particles in the snow;128 the particles hasten the
spring melt,
contributing to the suddenness of the thaw.129
Global warming is also altering land conditions. Permafrost, which holds together
unstable underground gravel, is melting at an alarming rate,130 causing slumping
and
landslides.131 Severe erosion is also increasing dramatically.132 The loss of sea ice
that used to
prevent the creation of large waves has resulted in increasingly violent sea storms,
resulting in
coastal erosion.133 The erosion exposes more coastal permafrost to the warmer air,
resulting in
faster permafrost melt.134 The accelerating loss of ice can only be expected to
aggravate this
problem in the future.
The weather of the Arctic has become increasingly unpredictable.135 Inuit elders,
who
have long experience in reading the weather, report various changes in weather
patterns in
different areas of the Arctic.136 In the past, elders could accurately predict the
weather for the
coming days based on cloud formations and cloud movement, allowing the Inuit to
plan for
inclement weather and schedule safe travel.137 Now, however, the clouds do not
accurately
predict upcoming weather.138 In some areas, elders used to be able to predict
changes in wind
direction by the period of calm that preceded them.139 This period of calm no
longer necessarily
comes before a shift in wind direction.140 In other areas, good weather can no
longer be
predicted by particular changes in wind patterns.141 Shifts in the prevailing wind
direction and
intensity have added to the unpredictability of the weather.142 Sudden changes in
wind direction
and speed have rendered traditional weather forecasting methods useless.143
The combination of these changes further alters the arctic environment. Lack of
snowfall, early thaws, increased erosion, melting permafrost, melting ice caps and
changing wind

conditions have combined to decrease water levels in lakes and rivers.144 In

addition, the sudden
spring thaw fills rivers with more water at one time than in the past, which erodes
the banks and
straightens the river paths.145 Because the water flows more intensely during a
shorter period of
time, the water level is unusually low once the spring flood is over.146 Water levels
are further
reduced by the longer warm season and increased temperatures, which evaporate
more water
than in the past.147
Observers have also noted changes in the location, characteristics and health of
plant and
animal species caused by changes in climate conditions.148 The harder snow pack,
lower water
levels, unusual vegetation, changing seasons and deteriorating ice conditions have
altered the
quantity, quality, behavior and location of the Inuits sources of harvested
game.149 New or
seldom-seen species are also moving north.150 Certain plants, such as berries, are
now smaller
and drier, whereas others, including grasses and some trees, are growing larger.151
Consequently, some animals have lost body fat, and others have gained fat.152
The combination of increased temperatures, more wind in winter and spring, and a
shortage of snowfall have caused permanent ice caps, multi-year snow, and glaciers
to diminish
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
38
or disappear.153 The loss of the highly reflective snow and ice further aggravates
the problem of
higher global temperatures by exposing the darker, more heat-absorbing land
below.154
b. Global Warming will continue to damage the arctic environment in the
future
Using conservative projections based on current conditions and likely continued
emissions, scientists have determined that climate change in the Arctic will
continue, with
devastating consequences.* Arctic temperatures will probably rise at least another
2.5 degrees
Celsius by the middle of this century. By the end of this century, arctic temperatures
will have
risen five to seven degrees Celsius.
Projected Polar Ice Extent, 2000-2030, 2040-2060, 2070-2090. Source: ACIA
Overview
* The ACIA has calculated future climate change in the arctic using two emissions
scenarios

prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), designated A2

and B2.
Based on these scenarios, the ACIA models project an increase of 2.5C for the
region north of
60 N by the mid-21st century. By the end of the 21st century, the models project
arctic
temperatures to be 5 to 7C above current temperatures. Descriptions of the two
scenarios are
found in the IPCC Working Group I report Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis,
technical
summary. The A2 scenario is based on the following assumptions:
Relatively slow demographic transition and relatively slow convergence in regional
fertility patterns.
Relatively slow convergence in inter-regional GDP per capita differences.
Relatively slow end-use and supply-side energy efficiency improvements
(compared to
other storylines).
Delayed development of renewable energy.
No barriers to the use of nuclear energy. The B2 scenario assumes a more
fragmented
pattern of future development, precluding any future strong convergence
tendencies.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
39
In addition to temperature increases, precipitation is likely to increase, perhaps by
as
much as thirty five percent over current levels by the end of this century. Snow and
sea-ice
cover over the most of the Arctic will decrease dramatically as well. Some models
show that the
polar ice cap will be virtually nonexistent by 2100.155 In particular, fall and winter
in the Arctic
will become warmer and wetter.156 Moreover, the changes that have already
occurred will
continue to accelerate, along with their impacts on the environment, landscape, and
people of the
region.
As the preceding discussion demonstrates, global warming is profoundly changing
the
environment in which the Inuit live, and will continue to do so in the absence of
clear limits on
greenhouse gas emissions. The following sections will describe in greater detail how
these
changes affect the Inuit.
2. CHANGES IN ICE AND SNOW CONDITIONS HAVE HARMED THE INUITS
SUBSISTENCE HARVEST, TRAVEL, SAFETY, HEALTH AND EDUCATION, AND
HAVE

PERMANENTLY DAMAGED INUIT CULTURE

For the Inuit, [i]ce is a supporter of life. It brings the sea animals from the north
and
in the fall it also becomes an extension of [Inuit] land.157 Snow is a critical
resource for travel,
shelter, and habitat. Changes in snow and ice have impaired the safety of the Inuit.
Even more
critical to their continued survival as a people, these changes have damaged their
subsistence
harvest, the animals they harvest to survive, and their cultural practices.
The conservation of arctic wildlife and ecosystems depends in part on maintaining
the
strength of the relationship between indigenous peoples, animals, and the
environment,
and in part on securing the rights of indigenous peoples to continue customary
harvesting
activities. [T]hese activities and relationships appear to be threatened by severe
climate
change. The potential impacts of climate change on harvesting wildlife resources
are of
fundamental concern for the social and economic well-being, the health, and the
cultural
survival of indigenous peoples throughout the Arctic, who live within institutional,
legal,
economic, and political situations that are often quite different from non-indigenous
residents. Furthermore, indigenous peoples rely on different forms of social
organization
for their livelihoods and well-being.158
a. Deteriorating ice and snow conditions have diminished the Inuits
ability
to travel in safety, damaging their health, safety, subsistence harvest, and
culture.
The deteriorating ice conditions have made travel, harvest, and everyday life more
dangerous for the Inuit because the location of unsafe ice is harder to predict.159 In
the past, the
dangerous areas were those covered with snow or known recurring thin areas, but
bare, formerly
safe areas are now thin and dangerous.160 An Inuk woman from Baker Lake, an
inland Inuit
settlement in Nunavut, Canada, described the impact of the more dangerous lake
ice: You
know it is scary because we can no longer depend on traditional knowledge,
where it was safe
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
40
to travel on these areas, now we dont know. Even to us it is hard to
understand.161 When

the ice begins to break up in spring, it is more sudden than in the past, changing
from safe to
unsafe much more rapidly, sometimes in a matter of hours.162 New, unexpected,
and
unpredictable areas of open water now persist through the cold season.163 As an
Inuk in
Pangnirtung, Nunavut, explained,
Even areas with little current are not freezing over and they have non-recurring
polynias [areas of open water] all over the place now. This used to only occur at
the areas where there were really strong currents. [T]hese were known areas
of strong currents. These days, even in place where we have no known polynias,
there are occurrences now happening all over the area. Near Pangnirtung, we
are starting to get polynias where there never used to be one.164
As a consequence of these changes, more travelers are falling through the ice into
the frigid
water below.165 Ronald Brower of Barrow, Alaska, explained the new dangers of
thinner ice:
One of my sons ... was going to visit the next crew. And he fell right through
the ice half-way out to that camp. Ive seen my fellow whalers trying to go
whaling break through the ice, because its melting from the bottom, and our
snow machines have fallen through the ice.166
In general, the people have less confidence in the safety of ice travel, and are
fearful and anxious
when traveling.167
Thick ice is also essential for a successful bowhead whale hunt. Roy Nageak of
Barrow,
Alaska, explained how the thinning ice has already affected the subsistence and
livelihood of
whale harvesters:
You need thick ice for the weight of the whale to bring it up. You need at least
six feet of solid ice to bring up a whale. When its like three, four feet,
especially if somebody got a bigger whale, its going to keep breaking up. And
that reflects on the sizes of the whale that we catch, too. More so, were trying
to catch smaller whales, which are much easier to pull up on the ice. That
means that were getting a smaller share of the whales and with a quota of 22,
the smaller the whale, the less [meat] the people get.168
Not only are Inuit getting less whale meat because of thinner ice, they are
sometimes
injured and killed during whaling activities as a result of the thinner ice. Ronald
Brower of
Barrow described several injuries resulting from whales breaking through the ice:
So when were drilling through, were doing at least two layers, now were
running our rope through just to try and maintain the tensile strength of the ice so
that it doesnt break when we pull on the whale. Thats creating a very
dangerous condition for us. We have lost several people in trying to pull the
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
41

whale out of the water. I believe we now have lost two or three people, members
of our community, because the ice broke, or the rope broke, and, when it swung
back, it went faster than a bullet. One ladys arm was severed. One, her brain
was scattered over the ice because she got hit. She never had a chance. And the
third one, her jaw and skull was scattered into hundreds of pieces. But she
survived. Theres others that have not been so fortunate.169
The whale hunt is not the only subsistence harvest that is affected by changing ice
conditions. Seal and walrus hunters are experiencing greater difficulty because of
retreating
pack ice. Eugene Brower of Barrow described how disappearing ice affected a
recent season:
June, July, August, we used to be able to see the polar pack of ice, out in front of
Barrow. Thats no longer happening. Our people are going bearded seal
hunting, walrus hunting, in the spring, are having to go farther and farther out
to find the game. This summer, we were hearing of crews going 20 to 30 miles
past Point Barrow north to try and find game. The people were trying to get
their subsistence hunting done while the ice was close to us, but there are a lot
of people who are still short their normal supply of sea mammals for the year.
Im one of those very unfortunate ones who didnt land any bearded seals this
spring. My boys went out trying, and some of my crew members went out trying
but they didnt land any.170
Roy Nageak agreed with this assessment:
When I was younger, there was more ice. The seals, you had time, you had the
whole summer to hunt, you had June and July; when the shore ice broke up was
usually around the second week of July to the middle week of July, the break of
the shore-fast ice. As we were hunting this summer, I heard a lot of men say,
Im going to go out hunting after the ice goes out and comes back, because
after all the ice goes out, for some distance, then comes back to shore it brings
back a lot of animals. But this year, when all the ice went away from the
shore-fast ice, it never came back. We were fortunate that we hunted real
earlier and went gung-ho instead of waiting around for the ice to move out, and
once it moved out, there were a lot of people that never got the bearded seals or
walrus. The ones that didnt go early theyre short a lot of ugruk meat and
blubber, the seal-oil blubber. You could hear it through the radio; people that
want seal oil, and they dont have it.171
Travel has also become more dangerous and inconvenient because of the
deteriorating
snow conditions, harming the subsistence harvest. Lucas Ittulak of Nain,
Newfoundland and
Labrador, described how changing snow conditions hampered his travel:
[T]he trails we used to use or the routes we used to use to go out on the land to go
hunting, some of them we cant even use anymore because there is not enough
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
42
snow or the snow is not the same. We have to find new routes now even to travel
out onto the land to go to our hunting grounds so the snow is not the same as it
used to be.172

An Inuk hunter from Baker Lake described how the changing snow conditions also
affect travel
equipment:
The first effect I have is on my qamutik [sled] runners. They wear out fast when
there is not much snow coverage. Also if you dont have a cabin[, t]here is very
little snow to make a shelter. Maybe because there is less snow the snow appears
to be harder. According to my traditional knowledge there is pukaq snow and it is
always at the bottom layer. The top layer is another snow coverage - aqilluqaq which is a more recent snow coverage. Now there is a smaller bottom layer.
Maybe because there is not enough snowfall the top layer is overriding the
pukaq.173
The deep, dense snow
required for igloo building has
become extremely scarce, forcing
Inuit to rely on tents and cabins.174
The snow is not the same
anymore. The bottom of the
snow is a lot softer than it
used to be. Its no good for
igloos anymore. [Twenty
years ago] we used to be able
to stop anywhere we needed
a place to sleep just to build
an igloo and sleep in that
igloo. And nowadays you cant just find good snow anywhere. In [those] days
we used to find them anywhere. The condition of the snow is not very good, the
bottom of it is very soft. So thats what Ive notice in the snow as well - not only
on the bottom but on the top as well.175
Tents are much colder because they lack the insulation properties of igloos, as an
Inuk man from
Pangnirtung explained:176
We used to stay in igloos most of the winters those days, these days we mostly stay
in tents. [D]uring winter the tents get cold due to not enough insulation. These
days the snow seems to be much harder.177
The lack of good igloo snow also creates a greater danger in emergency situations
because these snow shelters are important as emergency shelters.178 Furthermore,
the dearth of
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
43
igloo snow has resulted in a loss of traditional igloo-building knowledge, creating a
generation
who would not know how to build an igloo in an emergency situation even if the
better snow
were available.179 Heather Angnatok explained the impact of this loss:
Weve had incidents where young people have perished in the winter-time.
Because they didnt, perhaps, know how to make a shelter, even a temporary one,
or a small one, or whatever. Weve had young people freeze to death. And so,

what we would like to do is to be able to teach the youth on how to build an

igloo.180
Travel difficulties due to the deterioration of ice and snow conditions have resulted
in
fewer, shorter and more dangerous hunting trips, impairing the Inuits subsistence
harvest.181
The later freeze and earlier, more sudden thaw force travelers to wait until much
later into the
winter season before traveling, and to stop spring travel earlier, dramatically
shortening the
season for safe ice travel.182 In addition, some bays that formerly froze in winter no
longer
freeze all the way across, requiring the use of longer, more time-consuming land
routes.183
Where the ice is frozen thick enough to traverse, it is rougher, less slippery, more
crumbled and
packed, and softer, making sled and snowmobile travel more difficult.184 The
gradual melt that
happened in the past supported travel to hunting grounds and ice hunting later into
the spring.185
Now, the soft spring ice is too dangerous to travel on, but too solid to allow for
travel by boat.186
The early thaw cuts off ice access to islands, where in the past some Inuit would
harvest eggs,
geese, and seal.187 By the time they can get to the islands by boat, the eggs are
often too old to
harvest.188
The snow travel season has also become much shorter, more arduous and more
dangerous
because of the later snowfall and earlier, sudden melt.189 Kenneth Toovak of
Barrow described
how the sudden melt affects him:
Back in the early days in my lifetime, the snow melted kind of gradually; slow
melting. Had to drive up to river banks, spend two, three weeks, go geese hunt,
enjoy the weather. Today, it seems like the temperature gets warm and the
sun is in a clear sky, and all of a sudden, the snow melted really fast. And then
its disappearing kind of fast. [A]ll of a sudden, the snow starts to melt, and
you have to come back. We might be losing what we planned, due to the
sudden snowmelt. Before, we had the gradual thaw, that froze in the night, and
melted a little in the day, a gradual thaw.190
Eugene Brower added these comments about the impact of the later winter:
Going out to your fish camps this time of year is getting harder and harder
because theres no snow, you have to take a boat. But also, if you take a boat,
youre more inclined to be weather bound because of the wind conditions. As a
matter of fact, Ive just seen my nephew this afternoon, who was lucky to meet
someone in a four-wheeler up there hunting, and had to leave his boat, and the
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005

44
animals hed caught by the river because of the massive waves that were out
in the inlet the boat couldnt take them. [Boat travel] is getting difficult.
Not everybody has a skiff or a boat to go camping with. But they do own snow
machines that they travel with in the fall time and in the winter months to go to
their fish camps and camping sites to do their subsistence hunting. Now they
have to wait until later in the season. By the time they get out there, sometimes
the games already gone because they go with the cycle.191
The sudden thaw can also strand sled and snowmobile travelers who rely on the
snow for travel
when the unexpected thaw suddenly eliminates their travel surface.192 David
Haogak of Sachs
Harbour described the sudden thaws effect on his spring subsistence harvest
activities:
When we go out hunting, we usually expect weve got a couple of days to get our
load of snow geese, and still be able to cross without having the water levels go
high. Every year its high, its just that now we cant judge or we cant estimate
we cant predict when to leave because of that rain. Itll be a constant. You
figure that its going to stop, we still could travel, but the water level comes up as
it rains, the rivers break. We cant cut across, even with our snow machines
alone, we cant make it home in the spring-time. Thats just in the last 2 or 3
years. No one goes very far now, whereas long ago, even a few years ago, we
used to go 40 or 50 miles. Now we dont even go 20. Its just not worth the
risk.193
Heather Angnatok of Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, also described an incident
in which the
sudden and unpredictable spring thaw caused a dangerous accident:
We were driving our skidoo in the Spring - early Spring - normal, I mean we knew
that some areas were areas were dangerous. We know what spots to look out for,
like black spots versus ice pans, or whatever. We stopped the skidoos and we
waited for my brother and his wife to come up and join us. And as we were
waiting, we no sooner stopped the skidoo and were just about to start our skidoos
again when the ice just collapsed underneath the skidoo and the skidoo went
through the ice. And so my son fell in the water. My husband jumped off and just
missed going in the water. But he fell in the water. And it just crumbled all the
way. So we hadnt realized that it was a black area, because there was, well, a
bit of snow on top which made it look white I guess. But, we hadnt realized that
it was soft underneath. Anyway, we got him out and he was alright. He just got
pretty shook up because he couldnt climb out. Every time he tried to climb out it
would break off. And it would just crumble under his hands. So we managed to
get him out. But, we noticed that that area, which never is like that [the ice]
usually lasts quite awhile and just breaks up into pans and melts that way.194
The sudden melt has also increased the number and unpredictability of avalanches
in
some areas, further endangering travelers.195 In the past, the gradual spring melt
would freeze at
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005

45
night, leaving a hard crust on top of the snow, which was easy to travel on.196 That
crust no
longer appears.197 When the snow layer has not frozen during the evening, then it
is difficult to
travel. When the snow does not freeze qiqsuqqaq, then it is really soft and hard to
travel on. It
seems to be really soft now once it really starts to melt.198
The decrease in overall
snowfall has exposed more rocks,
damaging sled and snowmobile
runners.199 Dogsled travel also
has become more difficult
because the dogs paws
sometimes bleed when there is
not enough snow.200 Even when
the animals are nearby,
subsistence users may not be able
to reach them, as an Inuk hunter
from Deering, Alaska, has
explained:
Last year there were more caribou than Ive ever seen or heard of in my life
here, but the guys couldnt go out hunting due to lack of snow. I guess it
probably could be done, if you wanted to really hurt your snow machine.
But youd have to weigh whether the cost of parts for your snow machine
would be worth the effort of getting the caribou while theyre this close to
us.201
All of these travel problems have led to a decrease in the number and length of
hunting trips, and
have made travel and harvest more cumbersome and more dangerous.202
b. Changes in ice and snow have affected animals on which the Inuit rely,
damaging their subsistence harvest, safety, and health.
Game animals are also affected by the ice changes, further impairing the Inuits
subsistence harvest. Ice dependent species such as seals, walrus, polar bears and
sea birds are
already suffering population decreases as a result of the disappearing ice.203 Polar
bears are
unlikely to survive as a species without the ice, and [i]ce dependent seals are
particularly
vulnerable to the observed and projected reductions in arctic sea ice.204 Ringed
seal, ribbon
seal, and bearded seal forage near the ice edge, give birth and nurse on the ice,
and rest on the ice
while hunting.205 Ringed seals are likely to be the most highly affected species of
seal because
all aspects of their lives are tied to the sea ice.206 Floe edge instability, early
breakup and
thinner ice have caused seal pups to lose their mothers, affecting the numbers of
breeding

females and the health of the existing pups.207 Increasing storm surges caused by
the loss of the
ices wave-dampening effect have virtually wiped out entire years seal pups.208
The earlier
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
46
breakup has also caused seals to change their location, making another traditional
source of food
and clothing less accessible to the Inuit.209 The ringed seal is the single most
important food
source for [some] Inuit. No other species is present in the quantities needed to
sustain the
dietary requirements of the [coastal] Inuit.210 As
the ice melts or moves away early, walruses, seals,
and polar bears move with it, taking them too far
away to be hunted.211 Isa Piungituq of Clyde River,
Nunavut, described the effect on the seal harvest:
This year we hardly had any seals and its because
the seal pups grow up on the flat sea ice where the
polar bears cant get to them and when you dont
have [flat sea ice] you dont have seal pups.212
Ice changes also affect land animals that travel on the ice. For example, in Dolphin
and
Union Strait, between Victoria Island and mainland Northwest Territories, the annual
caribou
migration across the ice is in jeopardy because of the late freeze.213 The caribou,
accustomed to
crossing solid ice at the same time every year, have encountered thinner ice later in
the year.214
The result has been a loss in numbers of caribou, a major source of harvested food
and clothing,
due to animals crashing through the ice.215 In response to the later freeze, some
caribou have
been forced to alter their migration routes, making them less accessible to the Inuit
for harvest.216
The Porcupine caribou herd has also experienced problems because of the earlier
thaw.217 When
the herd reaches the Porcupine River to cross into its calving grounds, the river is no
longer
frozen, forcing the herd to swim the meltswollen
river.218
Changes in ice conditions have also
contributed to more dangerous encounters
between polar bears and humans because the ice
floe edge is closer to the land than in the past,
reducing the amount of habitat available for the
polar bears. The bears are forced into a smaller

area, closer to Inuit settlements and camping

areas.219 Isa Piungituq of Clyde River, Nunavut
explained the difference in polar bear behavior:
[On the] overlapping of the ice packs is where polar bears normally have their
hunting grounds. Because the sea ice isnt formed the way it used to be that the
polar bears are coming closer. This is why we now have polar bears in the
community even before the dark season would start to come. It used to be that
when it would start to get dark at night the polar bears would start to come this
way, but now theyre always around.220
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
47
Harvested species have also been harmed by changes in snow conditions, impairing
the
Inuits ability to subsist. In many regions, a hard layer of ice has appeared under the
snow in
recent years, cutting off access to winter food for herbivores.221 Whereas in the
past, autumn
snow fell on frozen ground and remained until the spring thaw, now the snow
sometimes falls on
warmer ground, and a warmer period often follows the first snows.222 Snow,
followed by rain
and freezing rain, followed by more snow has resulted in an impenetrable layer of
ice over the
winter vegetation.223
This ice layer makes winter foraging much
more difficult for game animals, especially
caribou, contributing to a decrease in numbers,
change in habits and location, and deterioration in
the health of major sources of traditional
subsistence protein.224 That is the biggest
worry, these caribou, and others that feed off the
land. When there should be snow on the land,
instead ice forms and the food is then not
accessible.225
A study of the effects of climate change explains the connection between the
impenetrable ice layer and caribou and reindeer numbers:
During the long arctic winter, reindeer depend on access to range that is rich in
lichens. The lichens provide carbohydrates almost exclusively as a source of
energy to maintain body temperature in winter. Reindeer can effectively paw
through snow to reach the lichens. If warmer than normal temperatures produce
freezing rain, the resulting ice cover makes the lichens unavailable and this often
causes reindeer to starve to death.226
One sub-species of caribou found in the Canadian Arctic islands and western
Greenland,
the Peary caribou, has declined 72% over the last three generations mostly
because of

catastrophic die-off likely related to severe icing episodes.227 The Porcupine

caribou herd, the
eighth largest herd in North America, has declined at a rate of 3.5% per year since
1989.228 The
scarcity and changes in location force harvesters to travel farther, and under more
dangerous
travel conditions, to find healthy animals.229 The ice layer can also kill the plants
and lichens
themselves, or make them less healthy.230 Changes in snow conditions have thus
impaired the
subsistence harvest.
Projections indicate that ice and snow conditions will continue to deteriorate. The
loss of
heat-reflective snow and ice will contribute to further warming, which will in turn
lead to the
loss of more snow and ice.231 These continuing changes will likely affect the
distribution of fish
stocks, and will force marine mammals that rely on sea ice to find new habitats.232
Habitat for
harvested land animals will continue to change.233 Whale migration routes will
probably change
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
48
as well.234 All of these effects on animals and habitat will continue to diminish the
Inuits ability
to subsist on the harvest.
c. Deteriorating ice and snow conditions have undermined the Inuits
traditional way of life.
As climate change has reduced the capacity to travel, access to game, and safety,
the Inuit
have been forced to modify their traditional travel and harvest methods, damaging
the Inuit
culture.235 The changes in traditional subsistence harvest activities have interfered
with one of
the most important opportunities to educate the younger generation in fundamental
cultural
values and traditions, and have diminished the role of elders in the younger
generations lives.236
Roy Nageak of Barrow explained the impact on passing traditional hunting
knowledge to the
younger generation:
[W]ith the hunting out in the ocean, we just
had a short season, and between hunting out
there, and waiting for the caribou to come in,
theres a span of time when ... theres a lot of
dead time. With young people ... you know
where thats going to take them. Its not

productive. And then experience that is

needed, theyre getting shorter, or less
experience in what they need to learn,
especially at a time when they need to learn
it. The learning curve for them is getting
shorter. The less time they spend out
hunting, the less that they learn. Because
you need to learn about the weather, the
currents, the sea and the ice, and when they
dont have those types of experiences and its
shorter, the knowledge that they need to
learn concerning the sea current and the ice,
its a shorter learning curve. If theyre not
out there hunting, and the ice is not there, then theyre not learning what they
need to learn, and thats through experience.... The experience is not there.237
The summer seal hunt traditionally involved boating to the edge of the ice, and
harvesting
seals basking on the ice.238 For the last few years the ice has been too far away in
summer to
boat to the edge.239 Hunters are now forced to harvest from boats and from
shore.240
The ice goes out, and the game goes out with it. No more game. Seals, walrus,
they go out with the ice weve been bringing in less game nowadays, and we
have to hunt further out. The game was very close before, and the game is getting
further out sometimes as far as 90 miles out. Thats the farthest Ive heard.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
49
Mostly 70, 50 miles out. If youre lucky, you go 17 miles to get game, but thats
the closest youre going to go, if youre lucky.241
Because of the deterioration of the snow, the art of building igloos cannot easily be
passed on to the next generation, resulting in a loss of traditional knowledge about
a truly unique
feature of the Inuit culture.242
It would be nice to be able to pass on how to build an igloo, especially before our
elders are all passed away. And that is coming right around the corner, because
a lot of our elders are passing on. We do have some elders who are capable yet
of getting around and they have the interest and the knowledge of building igloos.
So we try to use their resources to show the youth how to build igloos, but weve
never - in my five years of working with the Labrador Inuit Youth Division we
have been unsuccessful so far. [T]he snow is just a different texture.243
The early melt has also forced a change in the timing of the traditional Toonik Tyme
spring festivities in one community, which now begins two weeks earlier than the
traditional
time.244 The loss of ice and snow, significant and formerly abundant natural
resources, has
produced a lasting and destructive transformation in many aspects of the Inuits
lives. Projected

changes can only be expected to damage the Inuit culture further in the future.
3. THAWING PERMAFROST HAS CAUSED LANDSLIDES AND SLUMPING, AND
COMPLICATED FOOD STORAGE, HARMING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, CULTURE
AND
PROPERTY OF THE INUIT
The health, safety, property and culture of the Inuit are threatened by the
transformation
of the landscape. Permafrost, which holds together unstable underground gravel, is
melting at an
alarming rate,245 causing unpredictable mudslides and slumping that endanger
travelers and
residents.246 Hot weather in the summer is melting the permafrost and causing
large-scale
slumping on the coastline and along the shores of inland lakes where many Inuit
have built their
communities and homes.247 In northern barrier island communities, the
permafrost literally
helps hold the island together. As permafrost melts slumping and erosion of
land
ensue.248
In Sachs Harbor, a community on the western tip of Banks Island in the Canadian
Arctic,
building foundations are shifting from the melting.249 The village is already in
danger of
sliding into the sea because of slumping, erosion, and mudslides caused by
permafrost melt and
increased storm surges.250 David Haogak of Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories,
said, Even
in my office, there are these big cracks in the walls. And that was March and April.
Thats
before the spring thaw. Usually the spring thaw moves the housing pads. This year
they all
moved early. And its caused a lot of damage. I mean, it costs money to fix a crack.
Its like
every year were fixing my office. Theres cracks everywhere.251 Slumping and
landslides have
also threatened important cultural and historic sites, including Inuit cemeteries.252
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
50
Because permafrost impedes drainage of surface water,
the loss of permafrost also affects surface water levels.253 For
example, current wetlands are drying up, and new wetlands are
forming due to permafrost subsidence.254 Water levels in lakes
are also affected by the loss of permafrost, with some smaller
lakes disappearing entirely.255 Where there were small lakes
in areas they are totally dried up, they are part of the tundra.
These lakes dont exist anymore.256 Permafrost melt will

cause changes in surface drainage and wetness that is likely to

result in vegetative changes as well as changes to the terrestrial
ecosystem, affecting not only Inuit and animal foraging, but
also the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere,
further accelerating global warming.257
In addition, [c]ontainment structures [such as] tailing ponds and sewage lagoons
often
rely on the impermeable nature of frozen ground; thawing permafrost will reduce
the integrity of
these structures. Over the long term, infrastructure replacement will be necessary
to eliminate
many of the concerns related to the disappearance of the permafrost.258 The
implications of
permafrost melt for the Inuits health, as well as economic concerns, are clear.
Traditional methods of food preservation have also become dangerous or infeasible
with
the loss of permafrost.259 Inuit have traditionally used the convenient permafrost
for meat
storage. Permafrost melt has made this method more arduous and more dangerous,
requiring
deeper holes or abandonment of the method, and increasing the risk of food-borne
illnesses. A
warmer climate has thawed traditional ice cellars in several northern villages in
Alaska,
making them useless for the storage of meat.260 Eugene Brower has experienced
the loss of his
traditional underground cellars:
I can talk about the permafrost because Ive got two ice cellars that I see where
the changes are. Theyre no longer cold like they used to be. Its melting. The
heat is going into the ground. Ive got one ice cellar thats about 12 feet into the
permafrost even with the layer of 5 of snow on the bottom of the ice cellar, my
game is melting on top, its thawing out, its not frozen solid. So, natural ice
cellars are warming up the food you stored there is going to be no longer good
to eat. Theyre going to get rancid, and theyre going to spoil. And thats
already happening. When ABC came up last month I took them down to see
my ice cellar, and I was surprised by how warm my whale meat, my muktuk, the
skin and the blubber were thawed, already. I had to go out and buy some chest
freezers to try and protect them from rotting. Ive got another ice cellar thats
about twenty-five feet into the ground, and youre starting to feel that in there,
too.261
Cracking due to permafrost melting
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
51
Permafrost melt has also made travel over traditional routes more problematic and
even
impossible in some cases because of erosion and deteriorating ice paths.262
I do a lot of hunting inland, for caribou, and last year was especially bad because

we had a real wet summer, and it was hot, real hot and wetter than usual and
hotter than usual. At the tail end of the summer - weve got longer summers too
now - then it was raining and theres places in the tundra that I know were solid
before. I hunt with my four-wheeler, and I usually go where theres solid, where
its not real marshy.... I could tell that places I never used to get stuck on
fourwheelers,
I get stuck. There were so many places that started getting stuck on,
because the permafrost had thawed out and it got real mucky, and marshy ... as
we were coming home, we must have gotten stuck like six different times, where
we never used to get stuck before.263
Several factors are projected to contribute to the continued degradation of the
permafrost. In addition to increased air temperatures, increases in sea level and
longer
open-water seasons are likely to expose coastal environments to more storms,
leading to
rapid erosion and exposing more permafrost to warmer air.264
The impact on the Inuits health, safety, property, subsistence and culture will
continue to
increase as the melting accelerates. The transformation of the landscape due to
climate change
has profoundly affected the Inuit, and it is highly likely that projected changes will
continue to
affect the Inuit into the next century.265
4. COASTAL EROSION, STORM SURGES AND FLOODING ARE THREATENING
INUIT
HOMES, CAMPS, COMMUNITIES, AND CULTURAL SITES, JEOPARDIZING
THEIR
PROPERTY, AND CULTURE
Loss of permafrost and sea ice both contribute to increasingly devastating coastal
erosion.
Because most Inuit live, hunt, and travel near the coast, coastal erosion and storm
surges are
having a cataclysmic impact on the Inuit. Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of
213, or 86
percent, of Alaska Native villages to some extent. [V]arious studies indicate that
coastal
villages are becoming more susceptible to flooding and erosion due in part to rising
temperatures.266
The loss of sea ice threatens Inuit homes and communities because of the increased
storm
surges resulting from the loss of the ices wave-suppressing effects.267 Solid ice
cover, and
even floating ice dampens wave activity, reducing its intensity. By contrast, in areas
of open
water, nothing limits the full development of wind-driven waves. The presence of
land-fast
sea-ice also limits the effects of coastal erosion by directly protecting the
coastline from
waves.268 The erosion exposes more coastal permafrost to the warmer air,
resulting in faster

permafrost melt, leading to more slumping and erosion.269 Storm surges and
erosion threaten
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
52
Inuit homes, camps, communities, and cultural sites.270 People whose houses are
located near
embankments and coasts fear for the security of their homes.271
Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, has noted the
increase in the ferocity of storms and the accompanying
increase in the damage they cause:
When the current and the wind goes together,
the intensity of the ocean is stronger, and here
in Barrow, were way at the point, and, with a
good Northwest wind, and the current is coming
from the northwest, and the water rises together
and a good wind, with the two together, then it
floods, the water level gets higher, and theres nothing stopping it - the ice is 150
to 200 miles away - the intensity of the ocean is stronger and thats whats
causing a lot of erosion here, because theres no ice to diminish the strength of
the sea our beaches, the houses that used to be high and dry and now are so
much closer to the ocean, we see a lot of erosion. A lot of this wouldnt have
happened if the ice was still stable. Our ice is not there like it used to be.272
Eugene Brower, also of Barrow, agreed:
We have erosion danger out on our beach. Some years ago, the North Slope
Borough, the local government, did some dredging off the beach ... to try and
build up our gravel. But one storm came in and took all that gravel out and
deposited it up toward the point.... We used to have a beach front of about 200
feet out in front of us, its no longer there in Barrow the lack of ice has
changed that because, in the fall time, we used to have multi-year ice that would
flow in, and broke up the waves coming in, the wave action. Now we dont have
that anymore, so we have big rollers coming in and pounding the shoreline.273
In the island community of Shishmaref, Alaska, the erosion, slumping and storm
surges
are so bad that the only option left to residents is to move the community off the
island.274
Several residents described the devastating effects of the storms and erosion:
Some of the houses moved because of erosion. And our old school building we
had burned up, and the second one we had, the ocean practically reached the
steps.... We used to walk a long ways to the lagoon. Even the lagoon is eroding
away. So, from both sides, were eroding away. Theyve tried all kinds of sea
walls. Cement didnt even last.275
John Sinnok, also of Shishmaref, added these observations:
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
53

[The ice] normally saved our beach from eroding so much more - the ice that
buffers the waves. Nowadays we dont have ice to protect our beaches
anymore. Waves and storms are becoming more frequent, sometimes fifteen feet
at a time. So, if theres two or three storms, it could be fifteen feet three times.
Thats how much land we would lose where our drying racks are, on the west side
of the island, west of here. My wife and I usually put our drying racks every fall
after it freezes over but were still able to dig into the ground, and we know that
the ground is freezing. But now, after we do that, if theres a storm it starts to
thaw out the frozen ground and then we have to move the racks again. Things
that didnt happen before. That ice is usually our life-saver during the fall.276
Stanley Tocktoo described how the storms and erosion have gotten worse, affecting
his attempts
at traditional food preservation:
Erosion wiped out all our drying racks on the last Fall. And this fall, all the racks
were wiped out because of the storms. And these are not the mean storms. Our
mean storms are the west winds, high winds, and thats where we do a lot of
erosion, you see a lot of debris falling into the ocean. [W]hen I was a
youngster, we had a big beach out there on the ocean. We had tents out there,
boats out there. And then every fall, wed very rarely have a big storm, but wed
have a high tide storm, but not as severe as nowadays. But nowadays, when you
look at it, we have high tides for no reason; could, could be nice and calm like
this. No matter what we put out there, Mother Nature is pretty tough, you
know. All the sand-bag barriers we put out there either puncture or sink. It
seems like this rock sea wall seems to hold on pretty well because I think when
they built it ... theres a big tow under there, under the fine sand. Like I said,
we get maybe two or three storms a year now. We lose about twenty feet a storm.
Even from high tide we lose ground from permafrost melting. Thats what were
trying to do on the whole North side of our island, protect the permafrost from
high-tide. Once the high tide comes around, the permafrost melts, and the next
time we get low-tide the ground will collapse.277
One recent coastal storm in Alaska, likely made worse by the disappearing sea ice,
demonstrated the human impact of the loss of sea ice:
When severe storms happen in populated areas there is significant impact on
residents and infrastructure. During the October 2004 storm in Nome [Alaska],
forty-five people had to be evacuated and thirteen homes were damaged. Other
homes were vacated because of leaking propane tanks from nearby businesses.
Many city buildings suffered structural damage. Power lines were downed,
roofs blown off, and rocks and driftwood scattered over the main street and against
buildings. The seawall that protects the harbor was also damaged.278
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
54
Many other Alaskan coastal villages are similarly at risk from erosion, storm, and
flood
damage resulting from the loss of sea ice:279 Increases in the frequency and
ferocity of storm
surges have triggered increased coastal erosion and threatened several villages in
the Bering Sea;

this has led to plans for relocation of some villages at great expense.280 The
erosion has also
washed away former camping areas that the Inuit have traditionally used and
occupied.281
As storm surges and coastal flood events increase in frequency and intensity, bird
and
fishery habitats in the affected areas are also likely to be adversely affected.282
These changes
will further jeopardize Inuit hunting and foraging practices. Coastal communities will
continue
to experience increasingly more extreme storm events, threatening their homes,
communities,
way of life, and safety, as more ice disappears. Slumping and erosion will further
imperil coastal
communities.
5. CHANGING SPECIES DISTRIBUTION HAS HARMED THE NUTRITION,
HEALTH AND
SUBSISTENCE HARVEST OF THE INUIT
Various species of land plants and animals are changing range and abundance due
to the
effects of global warming. For example, the white pine has pushed northward due to
warming
temperatures, causing allergy problems in Inuit populations unaccustomed to the
pollen.283
Likewise, an increase in the crow population has become a nuisance because the
crows get into
communities garbage and spread it.284
Reductions in the quantity and quality of berries and wild greens in some areas
have
made harvest more difficult and less fruitful.285 In some areas, berries, an
important component
of the Inuit diet, are smaller, drier and scarcer because of a decrease in spring and
summer
precipitation.286 The [gathering] seasons are getting shorter for picking berries.
And some of
the berries I noticed we picked around here, they dry up before we can pick them. I
think thats
due to a warmer climate here than before.287 Sudden heavy rains in autumn then
sometimes
cause the berries to spoil before they can be harvested.288 Harvesting of greens
has also been
affected by climate changes:
My mom, before she died, used to go picking greens with us girls. We used to fill
up maybe four barrels to keep for the winter, and she taught us how to pack them
and keep them for the winter. I can now only fill up one barrel each summer
because it is getting shorter and shorter to me. In late June, we waited for greens
to be ready to be picked but I noticed that we are starting kind of early this year
because they grow up and then from too much sun and heat, they wither very fast.
So we pick greens as soon as the weather is good for us to go up to the country.
Then, late July it started raining a lot. The weather changes faster to me seems

like to me like the sun is getting warming. The weather changes faster. So we
have to pick greens real fast.289
Important protein sources are also changing location and are of lower quality in
some
areas because of the changes in habitat and flora. A study of climate change in
Alaska sponsored
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
55
by the U.S. Global Change Research Program makes clear the likely impacts of
global warming
on the health of subsistence communities:
Climate change is likely to have significant impacts on key terrestrial
species availabl[e] for subsistence purposes. At a minimum caribou,
moose, and various species of waterfowl are likely to undergo shifts in range
and abundance. Changes in diet [and] nutritional health can also be
expected.290
Pitseolak Alainga of Iqaluit described these changes in species distribution:
The food for the caribou is less abundant. Exact same things with rabbits.
Rabbits are starting to come into the community more because they are finding
more food that they have never had before. Different grasses, different plants.
These sort of things are changing. New plants are growing up here in the north
that the rabbits have never seen. Different plants are unique for our elders,
but they are beginning to say that there is so much climate change that plants
from down south are coming up here and plants from different communities are
coming here. Different plants, almost like bushes, are growing. These are the
changes that the elders are seeing.291
Inuit have already noticed a deterioration in their health because of a lack of
country
food: The store-bought food has had an effect on our bodies. The doctors are
telling us today
that we have too much fat in our blood. Our blood system has changed and as a
result of that it
has had an ill-effect on the body.292 Stanley Tocktoo of Shishmaref added:
It would be nice for us to have all the native food that we can hunt and prepare
because these are healthy foods that Im talking about, the native foods. They
have no cholesterol or anything. We see a lot of diabetes and blood-clots.
People have started having a lot of heart attacks, maybe because their veins being
clogged or something. It might be from the foods, from the oils that they by in the
store. The fat from pork-chops or chicken or whatever.293
These environmental changes have
also impaired the Inuits subsistence harvest.
Changes in location and size of vegetation and
habitat have altered the quantity, quality,
habits and range of game, impairing the
Inuits ability to engage in traditional
subsistence harvest activities.294 Community
members in some areas have noticed less fat

on bears, caribou, hare and ptarmigan as a

result.295 Tony Mannernaluk of Rankin Inlet,
Nunavut, remembers, Back then, at this time
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
56
of the year, in the end of August, bull caribou were fatted, but now, often times, bull
caribou are
very lean. There is no fat when they should be fatted.296 Ben Kovic of Iqualuit,
Nunavut,
shared this observation:
The vegetation is different. Caribous are not getting fatter quicker than they used
to be. Right now, when you go out here and get a caribou, theyre not fat
anymore. Its almost the end of August, but when you go back thirty years by this
time they should be well fed and well fat.297
Consequently, Inuit must travel farther to different areas to harvest the plants and
game.298
These problems associated with changes in land conditions jeopardize several
aspects of
Inuit culture. The Inuit have been forced to alter traditional hunting patterns
because of the
changes in availability and quality of game, compounded with increased travel
difficulties.299
Travel over traditional routes has become more problematic and even impossible in
some cases
because of erosion and deteriorating ice paths.300 Slumping and erosion have
threatened
important cultural and historic sites, including Inuit cemeteries.301 In addition, as
noted earlier,
traditional food storage methods have changed.302 The transformation of the arctic
landscape
due to climate change has profoundly affected Inuit culture.
The projected changes in species distribution will exacerbate these problems.
Terrestrial
ecosystems will continue to change as permafrost melt alters drainage and ground
moisture and
temperatures rise.303 The decreased runoff into the sea will likely decrease salinity
in coastal
areas, further altering ecosystems.304 Projected increases in sea level will affect
the ecosystems
of extensive coastal lowlands and immense deltas, moving wetlands farther inland
and increasing
coastal flooding.305 If storm surges and coastal flood events increase in frequency
and/or
intensity, bird and fishery habitats in the affected areas are likely to be adversely
affected.306
These changes will further jeopardize Inuit hunting and foraging practices.

6. INCREASINGLY UNPREDICTABLE WEATHER IN THE ARCTIC HAS

DIMINISHED THE
INUITS ABILITY TO FORECAST THE WEATHER ACCURATELY, CREATING
PROBLEMS FOR HARVESTERS AND TRAVELERS, AND HARMING INUIT
CULTURE
a. Travel and subsistence harvest have become more dangerous and
difficult because of the unpredictable weather307
For the Inuit, forecasting the weather is essential to planning safe and convenient
travel.308 Unfortunately, global warming has caused sudden fluctuations in the
weather, and
rendered traditional forecasting methods inaccurate. Jerome Tattuinee of Rankin
Inlet described
these changes:
With the traditional knowledge of the Inuit we [were] able to tell whether its
going to be warm or cold. In the old days, we were able to tell just by looking at
the clouds and by studying and observing the weather itself. [Now its] hard to
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
57
predict how its going to be. I cant tell you how its going to be, say for
tomorrow or this evening because its so hard to predict the weather now.
Looking at the clouds itself, sometimes theyre really stressed or theyre really
loose and we were able to tell how its going to be for the rest of the day but now
its almost quite impossible to tell how its going to be the clouds that Im
talking about, right now theyre grey and stressed. [In the past that meant] that
its going to be really windy. And with the clouds, if theyre really really high, I
[could] tell you that looking at the clouds itself, cause theyre so high, I [could] tell
you that its going to be really nice for the next few days. Calm wind, no wind at
all. And today its not like in the old days anymore. So hard to predict the weather
now.309
An Inuk hunter from Baker Lake agreed:
The cloud formations that we used to predict if it would be windy the next day
Those long cloud formations that we used are no longer visible. They are not
there. Also other cloud formations that we also used are not there as often as
they used to be. [D]uring the winter years ago you would have clear
skies and then from the south you would see lone clouds forming, even during
the clear skies. Somewhere in the near future you were going to have a
snowstorm. We knew this then. But this is not the case now. You dont see
those clouds. When you are predicting the weather good or bad you
always look[ed] to kivativut [southwest]. The clouds are formations that
are going to result in either storms or good weather. These clouds traveled
towards kanangnavut. This knowledge has been passed down for
generations. This is something I learned from my parents. It is used by other
elders. This is how many people predict the weather. It is not just my style it
is a traditional style.310
Because the Inuit can no longer predict weather accurately, travelers are burdened
by

having to bring extra equipment to deal with various weather conditions, or risk
being
unprepared should the weather become volatile.311 Planned trips are sometimes
canceled when
unforeseen storms develop, and travelers are more frequently stranded by
unforeseen storms.312
Prevailing winds have also changed, as
Eugene Brower of Barrow describes:
The wind patterns have changed to
where we have constantly East to
Northeast winds with higher velocity
than in the past. One big indicator
here in Barrow is the realignment of
the Barrow airport. The state of
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
58
Alaska is doing a re-alignment on the current runway we have to realign to the
prevailing winds that are now coming in. Our winds used to be from the East to
Southeast winds, but theyve shifted more toward the Northeast.313
Changes in the prevailing winds have also affected the location and movement of
floating
pack ice, which in turn has impaired the subsistence harvest.
Our winds are changing; we are constantly getting more Northeast winds and
blowing the ice out farther and farther away from us. And, when you find it does
happen that we get the Southwest winds, it takes forever for the ice to come in, or
it doesnt come in at all. Its receding north so far.314
The return of the pack ice formerly brought easily accessible game to hunters near
Barrow, but,
as Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, explains, the change in the prevailing wind has
rendered this
common harvesting strategy unsuccessful: As we were hunting this summer, I
heard a lot of
men say, Im going to go out hunting after the ice goes out and comes back,
because after all
the ice goes out, for some distance, then comes back to shore it brings back a lot of
animals.
But this year, when all the ice went away from the shore-fast ice, it never came
back.315
In addition, changes in the prevailing winds in some regions have altered the
orientation
of snowdrifts.316 In the past, the orientation of snowdrifts remained consistent from
year to year,
allowing the Inuit to rely on them for navigation.317 The unfamiliar orientation has
removed a
critical navigation tool and caused disorientation among travelers.318 A Baker Lake
Inuk

described his confusion when he first noticed the snowdrift change: I navigated by
the pattern
of the snowdrifts. I was traveling during a storm and I started to get lost, because
the pattern of
the snowdrifts changed. All the snowdrifts have moved. I started going the wrong
direction
during the storms. I felt kind of silly but I started asking has the earth moved?319
These impacts have also made travel less frequent, of shorter duration, more
dangerous,
and more worrisome than in the past.320 People are taking fewer, shorter, hunting
trips because
of the increased risks and inconveniences associated with travel.321
b. The increasingly unpredictable weather has also harmed Inuit culture
Travel and harvesting, two critical components of Inuit culture, have been damaged
as a
result of the elders inability to forecast accurately.322 The inability to forecast the
weather has
also diminished the important role of elders in planning hunting, travel, and day-today
preparation for bad weather.323 An Inuk from Baker Lake described how the
changed
circumstances have affected reliance on traditional knowledge:
Things have changed so much it is hard to rely on what you knew traditionally
anymore. What happened years ago is different than what it is today. I feel that
each individual must do their own observing and use their own experience to
understand the change. You may ask an expert what his knowledge is but his
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
59
knowledge is not going to apply to what is happening today. For example an elder
might say by November 1 you are able to cross this area, it is now safe to cross this
lake, but according to the way things are today, it may not be the case.324
Travelers and hunters increasingly
rely on FM radio instead of traditional
knowledge for weather forecasts and
communication about dangerous
conditions.325 In addition, the science of
traditional weather forecast can no longer
be passed on to younger generations.326 In
these ways, the increasingly unpredictable
weather has damaged Inuit culture.
7. INCREASED TEMPERATURES HAVE LED TO AN INCREASE IN HEATRELATED
HEALTH PROBLEMS, AND HAVE IMPEDED THE HARVEST AND PROCESSING
OF
ESSENTIAL FOOD AND HIDES
As noted above, the [a]nnual average Arctic temperature has increased at almost
twice

the rate as that of the rest of the world over the past few decades.327* In
communities along the
Newfoundland and Labrador North Coast in Canada, more people are experiencing
sun- and
heat-related headaches and rashes because of higher temperatures during daylight
hours.328
Sappa Fleming of Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, explained that the sun has affected her
skin:
It triggers a rash that I get when its too hot nowadays. Like, if I had the rash
there in the day, in the evening, even though the sun has gone, it hurts a lot. It
affects my whole body when I have a rash. So, sometimes it is very severe pain on
my chest, because [of] what I have endured during the day. It affects me in the
evening still, even though the sun has gone. Sometime I do not even go out there
in the day because of the heat.329
These formerly rare health problems are a direct result of increased
temperatures.330
In addition, traditional methods of food storage and preservation are less safe
because of
increased daytime temperatures.331 Sarah Ittulak of Nain, Newfoundland and
Labrador,
described how this impacts her:
* Some areas have cooled slightly, and some have warmed, but the overall average
has increased
markedly. ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
60
In the Spring time, when Im making dried fish, I lay it on the rock so I can
hang it later. What Ive been noticing is that before hanging the fish to be dried,
the meat of the fish is really really cooked from the sun because the sun is so hot.
Its not too bad when theres a little bit of clouds out, but now when theres no
clouds it can really cook the fish. And even after trying to put the fish in a bucket
for later or to salt for later, the texture of the fish is really really soft. So, the sun
is really affecting the way you also prepare your fish.332
The subsistence harvest of food
and clothing has been affected by the heat
as well. For instance, in the Kivalliq, the
central region of Nunavut, Canada,
observers have noted an increase in the
number of unhealthy and dead game
animals during periods of hotter weather,
which affects an important source of
subsistence protein for the Inuit.333
In the past, the time for caching
(storing) meat coincided with the time that
the caribou hides were of the best
quality.334 Now, because of warmer temperatures, caching must come later in the
season.335 The

result is a shorter caching season and poorer quality caribou hide for use as
clothing.336 An Inuk
hunter from Baker Lake, Nunavut, described the disturbing change in the caching
season:
Traditionally when we do the caribou caching - this is where we would put
away the meat to pick up later in the winter - we would start our caribou
caching in August the middle of August. It was safe to start your caribou
caching, but now it is just too warm. Either the meat is just going to rot, or the
maggots are there. [T]he month of August is very important traditionally. It
has always been an important part of summer. This is when they collect skins
for clothing, and at the same time they do their caribou caching. Now people
do most of their caribou caching in September. Even by the second week of
September they are doing their caribou caching. Inuit were very selective of
when to cache the meat, because of the taste and the whole thing. They
chose the weather for caribou caching and now we see people going out still
camping in the 2nd week of September doing their caribou caching.337
Processing animal hides has also become more problematic because of higher
temperatures and
changes in precipitation:338
The skins that we do prepare are sometimes too dry now because of the climate
change. In the old days, it never used to be like so. We even have to dry them
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
61
now in the shade away from the sun because when you dry them out in the sun,
they become too dry or very easy to tear, especially the seal skins.339
Increased temperatures and sun intensity have had a direct impact on the Inuits
harvest,
property, and health, and caused a multitude of detrimental changes to their
physical
environment.340 Temperatures are expected to continue to increase in the coming
years, further
exacerbating heat related problems, as well as contributing to loss of ice, snow, and
glaciers.
8. THE COMBINED IMPACTS OF CHANGES IN ICE, LAND, SNOW, AND
WEATHER
CONDITIONS ARE FURTHER JEOPARDIZING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, TRAVEL,
PROPERTY, HARVEST, AND CULTURE OF THE INUIT
a. The health and safety impacts stemming from the combination of
changing
conditions include decreased drinking water quality and quantity, changes
in
the Inuits diet, illness resulting from increased pest populations, and
damage to overall mental health.
Natural drinking water sources have become scarcer and less drinkable, harming
Inuit
health. Drinking water quality and quantity have decreased significantly because of
the

combined effects of the decrease in snowfall, permafrost melt, the sudden early
melt, erosion,
rising temperatures, and changing winds.341 The water level in rivers and lakes has
dropped
dramatically, and some ponds and lakes have dried up completely,342 reducing the
availability of
drinking water and decreasing its quality.343 According to John Sinnok of
Shishmaref, Alaska,
Lakes that have never dried, especially by our drying racks, that lake I dont
remember ever drying up, but its been drying up every year the last few years.
The lakes around our camp, which we used to use for waste water, theres hardly
any water, and the water is so brown now, we dont use it for drinking and hardly
even for waste water.344
Increased algal blooms and breeding insects in the water have also diminished the
usefulness of many lakes for drinking water.345 In addition, erosion leaves more
particles and
minerals in the water, decreasing its desirability for drinking.346 Residents of Clyde
River,
Nunavut, have experienced this:
It used to be that [the rivers from the glaciers] were very clear.... They looked so
clear you wanted to drink from them and now they are foggy even in the late
summer. Theyre not as clear as they used to be.347
Residents of Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, have noticed the same thing:
I have seen the changes in the quality of the water. It used to be that you can go
into a stream and make tea with it. There seems to be more dirt in the water than
there used to be. In the past I used to drink the water from my camp but now
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
62
when I make tea with it it turns real black so it must be something in the water
that makes it almost undrinkable.348
The quality of melted snow, a traditional source of drinking water in winter,
particularly
for travelers, has also deteriorated.349 The decreased snowfall is more susceptible
to the
changing winds, and thus contains more dust particles, which decreases its
desirability for
melting and drinking.350
Some freshwater sources near the sea are becoming more saline, either because
shifting
winds and tides push saltwater into freshwater sources, or because decreased levels
of freshwater
lead to increased salinity.351 For example, Baker Lake in Nunavut has increased in
salinity
further from the ocean. [I]t used to be the Bowell Islands area where you could
taste salt. But
now when there are big waves on Baker Lake, one can even taste salt here at the
settlement of

Baker Lake. I noticed just recently how salty it is on the windy days. I have been in
this area
before and it was not as bad. It has worsened.352
Increased obstacles to harvesting country food, and the reduced quality of that
food, also
threaten the health of the Inuit.353 The shift from a traditional diet to store-bought
food is being
exacerbated because of the travel and harvest problems associated with thinning
ice, weather
changes, decreased game availability, and changed snow conditions.354
Subsistence harvest of
fish, game, and edible plants has fallen off in recent years because of the danger,
inconvenience
and anxiety associated with travel, as well as the decrease in quantity and quality
of game.355
As a consequence, the Inuit are increasingly unable to rely on traditional foods for
yearround
sustenance, and must supplement their traditional diet with commercially
processed food
purchased from stores, which contributes to health problems.356 Alec Tuckatuck of
Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, described his experience with the decreased harvest:
We are forced to buy store-bought food a lot more than before, a lot more. For
instance, even when I hunt I do get some wild meat but it doesnt last that long
with a large family like mine, so were very much forced to buy store-bought
food.357
Another Kuujjuarapik resident put it this way:
It has affected everybody. Even if it affects me when I am out hunting, it will
affect my community. It has affected my family. In a way like eating less country
food because of less time out hunting. More relying on store-bought foods. So, it
has affected in a lot of ways.358
Diabetes, associated with some processed store-bought foods, has increased among
the
Inuit in recent years.359 Willie Jooktoo of Kuujjuarapik explained that climate
change has
changed my eating habits considerably. My doctor is saying that I have high blood
pressure and
diabetes because of relying on more store-bought foods rather than having healthy
country
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
63
food.360 A shift to a more Western diet is [also] known to increase the risks of
cancer, obesity,
and cardiovascular diseases among northern populations.361 Older people are
particularly
affected because their bodies are less accustomed to the processed store-bought
food.362
The quality of the available country food is also deteriorating. For example, game

animals are undernourished because of changes in habitat caused by climate

change.363 While
caribou in some areas are reportedly fatter because of the longer summer growing
season, in
other areas they are noticeably undernourished, due to the combination of less
healthy plants
during the hotter summers and a hard layer of ice under the snow that prevents
winter access to
food.364 Several other health problems have increased among caribou, including
swollen joints
and testicles, discoloration of meat, and white spots on the meat due to lack of
nutrition and
increased parasites,365 problems generally affecting increasing numbers of game
animals.366
People are finding more diseased livers in game animals.367 Fish meat has become
soft,
unpalatable, and difficult to process.368 The meat from unhealthy animals is
discarded, wasting
scarce resources and decreasing the supply of subsistence protein.369
Polar bear, seals, whales and other game are also undernourished.370 Polar bears
in [the
James and Hudson Bays in Canada] suffered 15% declines in both average weight
and number of
cubs born between 1981 and 1998.371 Seals sink faster when they are thinner,
meaning they are
more difficult to harvest, and people have observed seals spending less time in the
water because
of the lack of insulating fat.372
Inuit health has also been harmed by
changes in the pest population. Climate
stress and shifting animal populations
create conditions for the spread of infectious
diseases in animals that can be transmitted
to humans, such as West Nile virus.373 An
increase in the mouse and fox population
has increased the incidence of rabies.374 In
addition, the mosquito population is
changing.375 Although in some areas the
drying up of ponds and small lakes has
decreased mosquito-breeding habitat, in
other areas the increased temperatures and longer warm season have caused an
increase in the
mosquito and biting fly population.376 As a result, infections from the bites have
increased, and
people are concerned about diseases that the insects may carry.377
The combination of these worrisome changes has also affected the Inuits mental
health.
Reduced opportunities for subsistence hunting, fishing, herding, and gathering are
likely to

cause psychological stresses due to the loss of important cultural activities.378

The additional
travel danger, unfamiliarity of weather conditions, changes in land conditions and
appearance,
and changes in familiar flora and fauna have exacerbated anxiety, stress, and
uncertainty.379
Barrow resident Roy Nageak explains:
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
64
The anxiety level, the danger, especially when it gets dark; people get anxious.
They know the polar bear, and, when it gets hungry, it will stalk people. Its the
anxiety level; its not [only] a matter of whether more people are hurt.380
Eugene Brower, also of Barrow, describes it this way:
Theres a lot of anxieties and angers that are being felt by some of the hunters
that no longer can go and hunt. We see the change, but we cant stop it, we cant
explain why its changing it our way of life is changing up here, our ocean is
changing.... I think its widely felt, because you can feel it further from the folks
that live in the villages outside of Barrow, where they do a lot of subsistence
hunting.381
The anxiety associated with these changes makes people even less likely to travel
and harvest,
aggravating the problems of changes in diet and loss of the traditional way of life.
The
dislocation and disruption caused by the destruction and relocation of homes and
communities
also affects mental health.382
The changes in the Inuits physical surroundings thus jeopardize both their health
and
their safety.
b. Travel, subsistence and culture have been damaged as a result of the
combination of changes.
Traditional travel routes have been eliminated due to lower water levels and melting
ice
caps.383 The loss of ice caps, glaciers, and permanent snow have destroyed some
travel routes
that were formerly passable by sled year-round, and caused problems with other
routes.384 Roy
Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, described the deterioration in two travel routes:
I do a lot of hunting inland, for caribou, and last year was especially bad because
we had a real wet summer, and it was hot, real hot and wetter than usual and
hotter than usual. At the tail end of the summer weve got longer summers too
now then it was raining and theres places in the tundra that I know were solid
before. I hunt with my four-wheeler, and I usually go where theres solid, where
its not real marshy.... I could tell that places I never used to get stuck on
fourwheelers,
I get stuck. There were so many places that started getting stuck on,
because the permafrost had thawed out and it got real mucky, and marshy ... as

we were coming home, we must have gotten stuck like six different times, where
we never used to get stuck before.385
The decreased water level in rivers has also made summer boat travel more
dangerous.386
As Eugene Brower, of Barrow, Alaska, explained:
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
65
Going out to your fish camps this time of year is getting harder and harder because
theres no snow, you have to take a boat. But also, if you take a boat, youre more
inclined to be weather bound because of the wind conditions. As a matter of fact,
Ive just seen my nephew this afternoon, who was lucky to meet someone in a
fourwheeler
up there hunting, and had to leave his boat, and the animals hed caught
by the river to report to work because of the massive waves that were out in the
inlet - the boat couldnt take them [boat travel] is getting difficult. Not
everybody has a skiff or a boat to go camping with. But they do own snow
machines that they travel with in the fall time and in the winter months to go to
their fish camps and camping sites to do their subsistence hunting. Now they have
to wait until later in the season. By the time they get out there, sometimes the
games already gone because they go with the cycle.387
Some previously navigable rivers are now impossible to use for transportation.388
Tony
Mannernaluk of Rankin Inlet said, When I first came here to Rankin in 1965, they
could go up
by boat up the river. But now its impossible to go up that river by boat at all.389
Disappearing sea ice, combined with changes in prevailing winds and currents have
wreaked havoc with travel and harvest. Roy Nageak described the work of several
weeks
floating away because of the combination of changes:
This year, some of the trails that they made for two weeks, just when the ice
started opening up for whaling, a lot of the trails that they made took off. The
shore-ice that we thought was stable and piled up solid, [with] the first good
easterly wind, maybe with the help of a quick current, the ice just went out.... A
lot of the trails that they made, three-quarters, or half of them were gone. So that
was a lot of work that just floated away. A lot of people thought that the ice was
stable; it was shore-fast ice. Its not following what we have learned in the
past. Its more unstable. Its not solid ice.390
These travel difficulties
necessarily impair the
subsistence harvest.391
Changes in animal
habitat, combined with
increased travel difficulty,
have diminished the Inuits
ability to engage in
traditional harvest activities.
The harvest now requires

traveling farther, which is

more expensive and, because
of travel difficulties caused
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
66
by deteriorating snow and ice conditions, more dangerous, arduous and
worrisome.392 As
Barrow resident Ronald Brower explained:
The climatic changes, especially the changes to our ocean, are affecting our
ability to feed our families. Were not catching as many spring whales as we
used to. Now were becoming more dependent on fall whaling. We never used
to do that much fall whaling, but we did occasionally. Now were more
dependent on fall whaling than we are on spring whaling. And that takes a lot of
gas. Were hunting in open seas. Whereas the ice used to be twenty-five miles
off-shore, right now its over two-hundred miles, maybe two-hundred fifty miles
off-shore. Now were endangered with storms, and requiring more use of gas to
hunt the bowhead whale. So weve changed dramatically. In supporting our
subsistence, we need more cash to accomplish that same objective, of bringing
food to the table. Were having to go further away.393
Changes in summer vegetation combined with the new hard layer of ice under the
snow
have made game more scarce and less accessible, and have diminished the quality
of meat and
hides.394 Pitseolak Alainga of Iqaluit noticed that,
In the last fifteen years, the caribou migration has changed. There used to be a
big migration that would happen around three or four different communities, and
the migration of the caribou has come a lot quicker than it used to. The
migration route has changed. There have been different groups of caribou
migrating with other groups of caribou in different areas and once they get
together they migrate in one big herd and thats part of a change that has affected
the hunters from not just this community but other communities that have been
talking to the families here. The caribou calves are not as healthy as they used
to be. Theres not enough food for the caribou to have. Theres been a big
change in what the caribou eat or when they go on a migration. And its hard for
hunters to read where the caribou will be and that stuff that we used to know.395
New or previously uncommon species are moving north and causing problems as
well.
Black bears and grizzly bears are seen further north, and appear to be growing in
number.396
Grizzly bears have begun hunting seals on the ice, as well as raiding caribou
caches.397
Lower water levels have damaged the fish harvest because fewer migrating fish
reach
their spawning beds in the shallower rivers, and the eggs sometimes get exposed or
washed
ashore.398 In order to preserve traditional fish spawning rivers, the Inuit have been
forced to

dredge and divert rivers to allow for sufficient water flow for the traveling fish.399
Jerome
Tattuinee of Rankin Inlet explained that the lower water levels also affect the quality
of fish
caught: Because the water itself is becoming low, it has also impacted on the fish
itself. The
fish arent as good as they used to be anymore because of the global warming. A
lot [of fish]
seem to be a lot smaller.400
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
67
Different species of fish are also moving northward, possibly jeopardizing native fish
stocks. Eugene Brower described a surprising change in types of fish caught in the
Barrow area:
From the ocean side, there are people here in Barrow that are catching more
King Salmon in their nets. Theyre catching Red Salmon. Catching Red Salmon
up here is a rarity, but this fall the people that were setting nets out in the lagoon
said that they were surprised to see the amount of King Salmon and Red Salmon
that they caught in their nets; thats a new species of fish that are coming up
here. Normally we dont have those.401
***
The impacts described above demonstrate that Inuit culture has been jeopardized
by the
combined effects of changes in the ice, land, weather, and snow. Harvest and travel,
important
aspects of the Inuit culture, are less likely to take place because of the danger, fear,
and problems
caused by the combined impacts of climate change. Such activities, once familiar
and habitual to
the Inuit, now are associated with uncertainty, fear and stress. Some formerly
familiar
surroundings, once a source of sustenance and safety, have become alien and
hostile. People are
sometimes unable to educate the younger generation because the changing
conditions have
displaced traditional knowledge.402
The transformation of their physical environment due to the individual and
cumulative
effects of climate change have undercut the Inuits ability to enjoy the benefits of
their traditional
way of life and property, and have imperiled Inuit health, safety, subsistence
harvest, travel.
These changes are projected to accelerate, seriously threatening the Inuits
continued survival as
a distinct and unique society.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING

CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 7, 2005
68
D. THE UNITED STATES IS THE WORLDS LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO
GLOBAL WARMING
AND ITS DAMAGING EFFECTS ON THE INUIT
1. HISTORICAL EMISSIONS OF CO2
*
Among nations, the United States has long been the worlds greatest consumer of
energy,
and hence of fossil fuels. Since the main byproduct of fossil fuel combustion is
carbon dioxide
(CO2), throughout the industrial era the United States has had the highest CO2
emissions of any
nation. In 1890, the United States emitted 31% of the worlds energy-related carbon
dioxide
(CO2). By 1950, U.S. emissions peaked, relative to other countries, at 43% of the
worlds CO2
emissions.403
It follows that the United States also leads the world in cumulative emissions (total
historic emissions) of CO2. Precise historic comparisons for more than a few
decades are
difficult for several reasons: historical data may vary in quality and may not be
available at all
for some periods; national borders may shift; and regional groupings, such as the
European
Union, may change. Nevertheless, some comparisons are possible and illuminating.
From 1950 to 2000, the United States emitted 57,874 million metric tons (MMTC) of
CO2, making it the largest cumulative emitter over that period of time.404 Indeed,
this is more
than two-and-a-half times the emissions of the next largest emitter, the Russian
Federation,
during the same period.405 U.S. cumulative emissions for the period were some
30% higher than
all the economies-in-transition states together.406 They were also 46% greater
than those of the
European Union-15 (EU-15). Further, the U.S.s cumulative emissions were
approximately
three times greater than Chinas, twelve times greater than Indias, and twenty-nine
times greater
than those of Brazil.407
Looking across the entire period of significant growth in energy-related CO2
emissions
from 1850 to 2000, the numbers are even more dramatic, with one exception. The
exception is the EU-15 with its member states emissions having been closer to U.S.
emissions during the nineteenth century than they are today. Even for this period,
however, cumulative U.S. emissions exceeded EU-15 emissions by a large margin of
29%.408
2. CONTRIBUTION TO TEMPERATURE INCREASE
The dominant role of the United States in carbon emissions correlates well with the

countrys estimated contribution to the global temperature increase. U.S.

greenhouse gas
emissions between 1850 and 2000 are responsible for 0.18C (30%) of the observed
temperature
* For the period before 1990, reliable data is not available for non-CO2 greenhouse
gases.
Unless otherwise noted, the terms carbon, carbon dioxide and CO2 are used
interchangeably.
The ten newest members of the European Union are excluded to avoid overlap
with economiesintransition countries.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
69
increase of 0.6C during that period.409 This exceeds the European Unions
contribution of
0.14C (23%), and by far surpasses the 0.05C (9%), 0.04C (7%), and 0.01C (2%)
warming
caused by Russia, China and India respectively. Although the actual correlation
between
cumulative emissions and temperature increase is subject to some uncertainty,
there is no doubt
that the United States has contributed far more to global warming than any other
country.410
3. CURRENT EMISSIONS
The United States continues to be the worlds largest emitter of energy-related CO2,
accounting for nearly one quarter of the worlds current emissions.411 It far
exceeds the next two
largest emitters, China and the European Union, which each account for
approximately 14% of
global greenhouse gas emissions.412 In 2000, the United States produced 1,574
MMTC, 24% of
the world total of 6,518 MMTC.413 The 2004 U.S. emissions are estimated by the
U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) at 1,608 MMTC. This rising trend is expected to
continue in
the future, with the EIA projecting U.S. CO2 emissions to rise 40% above the 2000
level, to
2,198 MMTC by 2025.414
4. PER CAPITA EMISSIONS
U.S. emissions of energy-related CO2 are vastly out of proportion to its population
size.
With only 4.7% of the worlds population, the United States produced 24% of global
emissions
in 2000.415 On a per-person basis, U.S. emissions in 2000 were more than five
times the global
average.416 They were nearly two-and-a-half times the per capita emissions in
Europe,417 and

nine times those in Asia and South America.418 Only five countries exceeded the
United States
in per capita emissions in 2000Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and
Bahrainall of
which have much smaller populations and huge reserves of highly carbon-intensive
commodities.419 Yet among the countries with significant emissions, the United
States had the
highest level of per capita emissions.420
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
70
V. VIOLATIONS: THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING
CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS OF INUIT HUMAN RIGHTS,
FOR WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS RESPONSIBLE
A. THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED
IN THE CONTEXT
OF INDIGENOUS CULTURE AND HISTORY, WHICH REQUIRES PROTECTION OF
THEIR LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT
1. [E]NSURING THE FULL AND EFFECTIVE ENJOYMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
BY
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF THEIR PARTICULAR
HISTORICAL,
CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION AND EXPERIENCE421
In applying the rights contained in the American Declaration to indigenous peoples,
both
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on
Human
Rights have repeatedly emphasized the need to take into account the unique
context of
indigenous culture and history.*
The Court recognized this context in the Awas Tingni case, in which the Court
interpreted
the American Conventions protection of property to mean protection of property
rights as
understood by the indigenous community involved.422 In its judgment on
reparations in the
Aloeboetoe et al. case, the Court disregarded the States domestic family law for
purposes of
determining which persons were the next-of-kin of the victims, and awarded
reparations based
on the matrilineal and polygamist customs of the Saramaka people to which the
victims
belonged.423 In addition, although rejecting the Saramakas contention that,
according to their
customs, the entire community was injured as the family of the deceased, the
Court implicitly

accepted that the entire community had suffered damages when it ordered
reparations that would
benefit the community as a whole.424
[T]he Commission has since its establishment in 1959 recognized and promoted
respect
for the rights of indigenous peoples of this Hemisphere.425 Since 1972, it has been
the
Commissions position that because of moral and humanitarian principles
protection for
indigenous populations constitutes a sacred commitment of the states.426 This
recognition,
shared by the international community as a whole, is a norm of general or
customary
international law. In acknowledging and giving effect to particular protections in
the context of
human rights of indigenous populations, the Commission has proceeded in tandem
with
developments in international human rights law more broadly.427
* Both the Inter-American Court and the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights have
held that, although originally adopted as a declaration and not as a legally binding
treaty, the
American Declaration is today a source of international obligations for the OAS
member States.
Inter-Am. Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, Interpretation of the American
Declaration
of the Rights and Duties of Man Within the Framework of Article 64 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, July 14, 1989, Ser. A. No. 10, at 35, 45 (1989).
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
71
In the Mary and Carrie Dann (Dann) case, the Commission considered rights set
forth
in the Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(Proposed
Declaration) in interpreting and applying the provisions of the American
Declaration.428 The
Commission noted that, although the Proposed Declaration has not been adopted,
the basic
principles reflected in many of the provisions of the Declaration reflect general
international
legal principles developing out of and applicable inside the inter-American
system in the
context of indigenous peoples.429 The Commission further acknowledged that
much of the
Proposed Declaration reflects established international norms:430 [A] review of
pertinent

treaties, legislation and jurisprudence reveals the development over more than 80
years of
particular human rights norms and principles applicable to the circumstances and
treatment of
indigenous peoples.431 The Commission concluded that by interpreting the
American
Declaration so as to safeguard the integrity, livelihood and culture of indigenous
peoples through
the effective protection of their individual and collective human rights, the
Commission is
respecting the very purposes underlying the Declaration which, as expressed in its
Preamble,
include recognition that it is the duty of man to preserve, practice and foster
culture by every
means within his power.432
The Commission reaffirmed this view in its recent decision in the Maya Indigenous
Communities of the Toledo District (Belize Maya) case, in which it gave due
regard to the
particular principles of international human rights law governing the individual and
collective
interests of indigenous peoples.433 Quoting from its 1997 Report on the Human
Rights
Situation in Ecuador, the Commission noted that distinct protections for indigenous
peoples
may be required for them to exercise their rights fully and equally with the rest of
the
population.434* In finding that the human rights of the Maya people had been
violated, the
Commission afford[ed] due consideration to the particular norms and principles of
international
human rights law governing the individual and collective interests of indigenous
peoples,
including consideration of any special measures that may be appropriate and
necessary in giving
proper effect to these rights and interests.435
In the Yanomami case, the Commission determined that international law in its
present
state recognizes the right of ethnic groups to special protection for all those
characteristics
necessary for the preservation of their cultural identity.436 In concluding that the
rights of the
Yanomami people had been violated, the Commission considered that the
Organization of
American States has established, as an action of priority for the member states, the
preservation
and strengthening of the cultural heritage of these ethnic groups and the struggle
against the
* In the Ecuador Report, the Commission stated:
Within international law generally, and inter-American law specifically, special
protections for indigenous peoples may be required for them to exercise their

rights fully and equally with the rest of the population. Additionally, special
protections for indigenous peoples may be required to ensure their physical and
cultural survival a right protected in a range of international instruments and
conventions.
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Ch. 10.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
72
discrimination that invalidates their members potential as human beings through
the destruction
of their cultural identity and individuality as indigenous peoples.437
As the Commission has affirmed, international law recognizes that the human rights
of
indigenous peoples must be protected in the context of indigenous culture and
history. For
example, the U.N. Human Rights Committee has stated that the rights under Article
27 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) depend on the ability
of the
minority group to maintain its culture, language or religion. Accordingly, positive
measures by
States may also be necessary to protect the identity of a minority and the rights of
its members to
enjoy and develop their culture and language and to [practice] their religion, in
community with
other members of the group.438 In addition, the International Labour
Organisations
Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries
(ILO
Convention 169) states that [t]he rights of the peoples concerned to the natural
resources
pertaining to their lands shall be specially safeguarded.439
As described in Section II-A above, the Inuit are an indigenous people who have
occupied the arctic and sub-arctic regions of the United States, Russia, Greenland,
and Canada
for many millennia. As such, they are entitled to special protection for all those
characteristics necessary for the preservation of their cultural identity and for the
protection of
their human rights.
2. BECAUSE OF THEIR CLOSE TIES TO THE LAND AND THE ENVIRONMENT,
PROTECTION OF THE INUITS HUMAN RIGHTS NECESSARILY REQUIRES
PROTECTION
OF THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT
The lives and culture of the Inuit demonstrate that indigenous peoples human
rights are
inseparable from their environment. As a Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission
on Human

Rights has noted, violations of indigenous peoples human rights almost always
arise as a
consequence of land rights violations and environmental degradation and indeed
are inseparable
from these factors.440 Therefore, preservation of the arctic environment is one of
the distinct
protections required for the Inuit to fully enjoy their human rights on an equal basis
with all peoples.
States thus have an international obligation not to degrade the environment to an
extent that
threatens indigenous peoples culture, health, life, property, or ecological security.
Within the Inter-American system, and in the international community generally,
indigenous
peoples right to a healthy environment has been repeatedly recognized and
enforced. For instance,
the Inter-American Court noted in the Awas Tingni case that the failure to prevent
environmental
damage to indigenous lands causes catastrophic damage to indigenous peoples
because the
possibility of maintaining social unity, of cultural preservation and reproduction, and
of surviving
physically and culturally, depends on the collective, communitarian existence and
maintenance of
the land.441 Similarly, in its Belize Maya decision, this Commission found that the
States failure
to respect [the Maya peoples human rights had] been exacerbated by
environmental damage to
Mayan lands.442 The logging concessions granted by the State caused
environmental damage,
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
73
and this damage impacted negatively upon some lands wholly or partly within
the limits of the
territory in which the Maya people have a communal property right.443
In its 1997 report on Ecuador, the Commission found that indigenous peoples
maintain
special ties with their traditional lands, and a close dependence upon the natural
resources provided
therein respect for which is essential to their physical and cultural survival.444 As
the report
further acknowledges, damage to these lands invariably leads to serious loss of
life and health and
damage to the cultural integrity of indigenous peoples.445 In discussing the
connection between
the physical environment and
the rights to health and life, the
report concluded that

environmental degradation can

give rise to an obligation on the
part of a state to take reasonable
measures to prevent the risks to
health and life associated with
environmental degradation.446
The Commission further noted
that human rights law is
premised on the principle that
rights inhere in the individual
simply by virtue of being
human, and that environmental
degradation, which may cause
serious physical illness, impairment and suffering on the part of the local populace,
[is] inconsistent
with the right to be respected as a human being.447
International law protects the special ties that many indigenous people have to their
environment. For example, ILO Convention 169 states that [g]overnments shall
take measures
to protect and preserve the environment of the territories [indigenous people]
inhabit.448 The
Convention further requires that indigenous peoples rights to the natural
resources pertaining to
their lands shall be specially safeguarded. These rights include the right of these
peoples to
participate in the use, management and conservation of these resources. 449 In
addition, Article
XIII of the Proposed American Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
explicitly
guarantees indigenous peoples the right to environmental protection: Indigenous
peoples shall
have the right to conserve, restore and protect their environment, and the
productive capacity of
their lands, territories and resources.450 Similarly, Article 28 of the U.N. Draft
Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous People guarantees the right to the conservation, restoration
and protection of
the total environment and the productive capacity of their lands, territories and
resources.451 The
Draft Declaration also includes the total environment in the concept of the
property to which
indigenous peoples have a right.452
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
74
The right to a healthy environment is also a right of customary international law
outside

the context of indigenous peoples. In the words of Judge Weeramantry of the

International Court
of Justice,
The protection of the environment is likewise a vital part of contemporary human
rights
doctrine, for it is a sine qua non for numerous human rights such as the right to
health
and the right to life itself. It is scarcely necessary to elaborate on this as damage to
the
environment can impair and undermine all the human rights spoken of in the
Universal
Declaration and other human rights instruments.453
Echoing numerous international instruments,454 the Inter-American Commission
has recognized
that [t]he realization of the right to life, and to physical security and integrity is
necessarily
related to and in some ways dependent upon one's physical environment.455
Like other indigenous peoples, the Inuit rely on the natural environment for their
cultural
and physical survival. The Inuit and their culture have developed over thousands of
years in
relationship with, and in response to, the physical environment of the Arctic.456 The
Inuit have
developed an intimate relationship with their surroundings, using their
understanding of the
arctic environment to develop tools, techniques and knowledge that have enabled
them to subsist
on the scarce resources available in the tundra.457 All aspects of Inuit life depend
on the ice,
snow, land and weather conditions in the Arctic.458 For example, the subsistence
harvest is
essential to the continued existence of the Inuit as a people.459 As one observer
noted, If you
tell the Eskimo he cant hunt the whale, you might as well tell him he cant be
Eskimo.460 The
judicious use of plants and game, for everything from food to clothing to lighting,
has allowed
the Inuit to thrive in the arctic climate, while developing a complex social structure
based upon
the harvest.461 Destruction of the delicate arctic ecosystem is therefore
inconsistent with [the
Inuits] right to be respected as human being[s],462 and violates many rights
guaranteed in
the American Declaration.
B. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE INUIT HUMAN RIGHTS
1. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHT TO
ENJOY THE
BENEFITS OF THEIR CULTURE
a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuits right to the benefits of
culture.

The American Declaration guarantees the Inuits right to the benefits of culture.463
The
Charter of the Organization of American States places cultural development and
respect for
culture in a position of supreme importance.464 The American Convention also
recognizes the
importance of cultural freedom to human dignity in its protection of freedom of
association465
and progressive development.466 Cultural rights are also protected in other major
human rights
instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights467 the ICCPR,468
and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).469
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
75
The Court and the Commission have long recognized that environmental
degradation
caused by a States action or inaction can violate the human right to the benefits of
culture,
especially in the context of indigenous cultures.470 In the Awas Tingni case, the
Inter-American
Court, in discussing the right to property, acknowledged the link between cultural
integrity and
indigenous communities lands: [T]he close ties of indigenous people with the land
must be
recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual
life, their
integrity, and their economic survival.471
In the Belize Maya case, the Commission acknowledged that interference with
indigenous
lands necessarily implicates the right to culture.472 The Commission acknowledged
that
international human rights law recognized that the use and enjoyment of the land
and its
resources are integral components of the physical and cultural survival of the
indigenous
communities. In its Yanomami decision, the Commission noted that the State had
an obligation
under the OAS Charter to give priority to preserving and strengthening the
cultural heritage
of indigenous peoples, and determined that the granting of concessions to subsoil
resources on
indigenous land with all the negative consequences for their culture violated
the
Yanomamis rights.473 The Commission also recognized that protection of ancestral
lands is an

essential component of indigenous peoples right to culture in its Report on the

Situation of
Human Rights of a Segment of the Nicaraguan Population of Miskito Origin.*
In its country reports, the Commission has further recognized the close connection
between the environment and the right to culture. As stated in the Commissions
1997 Report on
the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador, [c]ertain indigenous peoples maintain
special ties
with their traditional lands, and a close dependence upon the natural resources
provided therein
respect for which is essential to their physical and cultural survival.474
The U.N. Human Rights Committees jurisprudence further supports the importance
of
natural resources to the right to the benefits of culture. The Committee has
recognized that
degradation of natural resources may violate the ICCPRs right to enjoy culture:
[C]ulture manifests itself in many forms, including a particular way of life
associated with the use of land resources, especially in the case of indigenous
peoples. That right may include such traditional activities as fishing or hunting
and the right to live in reserves protected by law. The enjoyment of those rights
may require positive legal measures of protection and measures to ensure the
* [S]pecial legal protection is recognized for the use of their language, the
observance of their
religion, and in general, all those aspects related to the preservation of their cultural
identity. To
this should be added the aspects linked to productive organization, which includes,
among other
things, the issue of the ancestral and communal lands. Non-observance of those
rights and
cultural values leads to a forced assimilation with results that can be disastrous.
Inter-Am.
C.H.R., Report on the Situation of Human Rights of a Segment of the Nicaraguan
Population of
Miskito Origin 76, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.62, doc. 10, rev. 3 (1983) at II.B.15.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
76
effective participation of members of minority communities in decisions which
affect them. The protection of these rights is directed towards ensuring the
survival and continued development of the cultural, religious and social identity
of the minorities concerned, thus enriching the fabric of society as a whole.475
In Bernard Ominayak and the Lubicon Band v. Canada (Lubicon), which the
Commission cited with approval in the Belize Maya decision,476 the petitioners
alleged that the
government of the province of Alberta had deprived the Band of their means of
subsistence and
their right to self-determination by selling oil and gas concessions on their lands.477
The U.N.

Human Rights Committee characterized the claim as being based on the right to
enjoy culture
under Article 27 of the ICCPR. It found that oil and gas exploitation, in conjunction
with
historic inequities, threatened the way of life and culture of the Band and that
Canada had thus
violated Article 27.478
The U.N. Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People specifically assures
the
cultural rights of indigenous groups and links them to the natural environment. The
Declaration
asserts that [i]ndigenous peoples have the collective and individual right to
prevention of and
redress for [a]ny action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their
integrity as
distinct societies, or of their cultural or ethnic characteristics or identities; [and]
[a]ny action
which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or
resources.479 As
part of the right to the benefits of culture, the draft also includes the right to
revitalize, use,
develop and transmit to future generations [indigenous peoples] histories,
languages, oral
traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain
their own
names for communities, places and persons.480
The Inuits human right to enjoy the benefits of their unique culture is thus
guaranteed
under the American Declaration and affirmed by other sources of international law.
In the global
and Inter-American human rights systems, indigenous peoples right to culture is
inseparable
from the condition of the lands they have traditionally occupied. The United States
thus has a
clear duty not to degrade the arctic environment to an extent that infringes upon
the Inuits
human right to enjoy the benefits of their culture.
b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to enjoy the
benefits of
their culture
Through its failure to take effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the
United States is violating the Inuits right to the benefits of culture. The subsistence
way of life
central to Inuit cultural identity has been damaged by, and may cease to exist
because of, climate
change. Traditional Inuit knowledge, passed from the Inuit elders in their role as
keepers of the
Inuit culture, is becoming less useful because of the rapidly changing environment.
Given the

widely acknowledged and extensive connection between the natural environment

and Inuit
culture, the changes in arctic ice, snow, weather patterns and land caused by
climate change is
resulting in the destruction of Inuit culture.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
77
The United States
government itself has recognized
the importance of the subsistence
way of life to the continued
survival of the Inuit culture. In
granting preference to
subsistence uses of fish and
wildlife in Alaska, the United
States Congress noted that the
continuation of the opportunity
for subsistence uses is
essential to Native physical,
economic, traditional, and
cultural existence.481
As previously explained, climate change hinders the Inuits ability to continue to
practice
the traditional subsistence harvest because it changes the characteristics of the ice,
snow, land
and weather of the Arctic. Travel over ice and snow, an essential component of the
traditional
Inuit harvest, has necessarily declined because of the relative scarcity of these
infrastructure
resources. Winter ice hunting has diminished because the later freeze and earlier,
more sudden
thaw allow less time each year for ice hunting, increase the risk of breaking ice, and
affect the
behavior and health of game. Increasingly, changes in the location, characteristics,
and health of
harvested species require hunters to travel farther for a successful harvest,
aggravating the impact
of travel difficulties. Current projections of continued accelerated change in the
characteristics
of the ice, snow, land and weather of the Arctic mean that these difficulties will only
worsen in
the future.482
The shortage of deep, dense, granular snow required for building igloos has
diminished
the Inuits ability to travel and hunt safely and conveniently. Building igloos for
travel shelter, a

unique and important practice that is part of Inuit culture, has been replaced by the
use of
uninsulated, more cumbersome tents and fixed-location cabins. The dearth of useful
snow has
nearly eradicated some Inuits practice of relying on igloos for travel and emergency
shelter.
Scientists predict a further substantial decrease in snow cover over most of the
Arctic by the
end of the 21st century, which will continue to diminish the Inuits ability to build
and use
igloos.483
The change in the orientation of snowdrifts has already severely hampered the
traditional
method of using the snowdrifts to navigate, contributing to the decline in travel and
harvest
activities. The repercussions of this change can be likened to the impact on ancient
mariners had
the stars suddenly changed their positions in the sky. In a land lacking consistent
landmarks, the
loss of one of the few navigation tools available to the Inuit is a profound
deprivation.
The loss of this form traditional knowledge further undermines Inuit culture.
Predicting
the weather, a crucial part of planning safe and convenient travel and harvest, as
well as an
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
78
important role for the Inuit elders, has become much more difficult because of
changes in
weather patterns. As a result, the elders can no longer fulfill one of their important
roles, nor can
they pass the science of weather forecasting to the next generation.
As a result of these changes, the Inuits ability to continue to practice the
subsistence way
of life central to their culture is diminishing rapidly. The shorter, fewer, less fruitful
and more
dangerous hunting trips not only mean less food harvested, but less time spent
engaging in
important cultural practices and teaching younger generations the intricacies of
those practices.
The ongoing and accelerating impacts of climate change will continue to erode Inuit
cultural
practices in the future.
Other aspects of Inuit culture are also jeopardized by the changing climate. Land
slumping, erosion and landslides threaten cultural and historic sites, as well as
traditional hunting

grounds. Traditional methods of food storage and hide preparation are changing
because of the
melting permafrost and changing weather patterns. The early spring thaw has
forced a change in
the traditional timing of festivities.
The elders roles as educators
have been compromised because the
changing conditions have rendered
inaccurate much of their traditional
knowledge about weather, ice, snow,
navigation and land conditions. The
Inuit educational system, passing on
and building upon knowledge from
one generation to the next, is critical
to Inuit cultural survival. The Inuit
have spent millennia developing
knowledge about their physical
surroundings.484 The unprecedented
rapid climate change has made much
of this traditional knowledge inaccurate, and therefore less valuable to the Inuit. As
climate
change continues, these impacts will only get worse. The loss of this traditional
knowledge may
permanently erase aspects of the Inuit history and culture. One Inuit resident of
Pangnirtung
expressed the fear that, in the future[the Inuit way of life] will seem as if it were
nothing but a
fairytale.485
The cumulative effects of these injuries are permanently undermining the Inuits
ability
to engage in their unique culture. Arctic climate change, caused by the United
States regulatory
action and inaction, is depriving the Inuit of their cultural identity and their
continued existence
as a distinct people, violating their human right to enjoy the benefits of their
culture.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
79
2. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHT TO USE
AND
ENJOY THE LANDS THEY HAVE TRADITIONALLY USED AND OCCUPIED
a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuits right to use and enjoy
the lands they have traditionally occupied
The American Declaration includes the human right to own such private property
as
meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the
individual and

of the home.486 The Commission acknowledged the fundamental nature of this

right when it
stated, [v]arious international human rights instruments, both universal and
regional in nature,
have recognized the right to property as featuring among the fundamental rights of
man.487
Similarly, the American Convention declares that [e]veryone has the right to the
use and
enjoyment of his property. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon
payment of
just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases
and according
to the forms established by law.488 The Universal Declaration of Human rights
includes the
right to property as well.489 Other international instruments, including the
European Convention
on Human Rights490 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights491 also
secure the
right to property.
The Inter-American Court and this Commission have long recognized that
indigenous
peoples have a fundamental international human right to use and enjoy the lands
they have
traditionally occupied, independent of domestic title. Moreover, as this Commission
has noted,
the right to use and enjoy property may be impeded when the State itself, or third
parties acting
with the acquiescence or tolerance of the State, affect the existence, value, use or
enjoyment of
that property.492
The Inter-American Court affirmed the independent existence of indigenous peoples
collective rights to their land, resources, and environment in the Awas Tingni
case.493 The Court
held that the government of Nicaragua had violated the Awas Tingnis rights to
property and
judicial protection when it granted concessions to a foreign company to log on their
traditional
lands without consulting them or getting their consent. In the context of indigenous
land rights,
the close relationship that the communities have with the land must be recognized
and
understood as a foundation for their cultures, spiritual life, cultural integrity, and
economic
survival.494 The court further noted that, [b]y the fact of their very existence,
indigenous
communities have the right to live freely on their own territories.495
In its recent Belize Maya decision, the Commission found that Belize violated the
Maya
peoples right to use and enjoy their property by granting concessions to third
parties to exploit

resources that degraded the environment within lands traditionally used and
occupied by the
Maya people.496 Indigenous peoples international human right to property, the
Commission
noted, is based in international law, and does not depend on domestic recognition
of property
interests.497 The Commission noted that indigenous property rights are broad, and
are not limited
exclusively by entitlements within a states formal legal regime, but also include
that
indigenous communal property that arises from and is grounded in indigenous
custom and
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
80
tradition.498 In fact, the failure of the State to recognize indigenous property rights
was itself
one basis for the Commissions finding of a violation of the Maya peoples right to
property.499
The Commission recognized in the Dann case that general international law
supports
indigenous peoples property rights in their ancestral lands.500 In that case, the
indigenous
petitioners challenged the purported extinguishment of their aboriginal title to lands
they had
traditionally used and enjoyed within the state of Nevada.* In ruling that the
extinguishment of
aboriginal rights to ancestral land violated their right to property, the Commission
noted that the
Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples reflected
general principles
of international human rights law. The Commission noted that this was particularly
true of the
Proposed Declarations Article XVIII, which states that [i]ndigenous peoples have
the right to
the recognition of their property and ownership rights with respect to lands,
territories and
resources they have historically occupied, as well as to the use of those to which
they have
historically had access for their traditional activities and livelihood.501
Other human rights institutions also recognize the independent international human
right
of indigenous people to use and occupy their ancestral lands. For example, the
International
Labour Organisations Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in
Independent Countries declares, [t]he rights of ownership and possession of
[indigenous

peoples] over the lands which they traditionally occupy shall be recognised.502
The United
Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples specifically includes
the right to
own, develop, control and use the lands and territories, including the total
environment of the
lands, air, waters, coastal seas, sea-ice, flora and fauna and other resources which
they have
traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used.503
Deprivation of the use and enjoyment of land through environmental degradation
caused
by a States actions or inactions therefore constitutes a violation of the human right
to property.
In the Belize Maya case, the Commission noted that the right to use and enjoy
property may be
* The Inuit whose rights have been violated in this petition face much the same
situation as the
Danns, as the United States has purported to extinguish their aboriginal title against
their will
through enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. See 43 U.S.C. 1601
et seq.
The development of these principles in the inter-American system has culminated
in the
drafting of Article XVIII of the Draft American Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples,
which provides for the protection of traditional forms of ownership and cultural
survival and
rights to land, territories and resources. While this provision, like the remainder of
the Draft
Declaration, has not yet been approved by the OAS General Assembly and therefore
does not in
itself have the effect of a final Declaration, the Commission considers that the basic
principles
reflected in many of the provisions of the Declaration, including aspects of Article
XVIII, reflect
general international legal principles developing out of and applicable inside and
outside of the
inter-American system and to this extent are properly considered in interpreting and
applying the
provisions of the American Declaration in the context of indigenous peoples. Case
of Mary and
Carrie Dann (Dann), Report N 75/02, Case 11.140 (United States), Inter-Am.
C.H.R., 2002
129 (2002), available at
http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2002eng/USA.11140.htm.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
81

impeded when the State itself, or third parties acting with the acquiescence or
tolerance of the
State, affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of that property.504 The
environmental
degradation caused by development can affect the existence, value, use or
enjoyment of 505
land, especially that of land belonging to indigenous people using it for subsistence.
The
Commission also noted that while states may encourage development as a means
of securing
economic and social rights, they nevertheless have an obligation to take positive
measures to
ensure that third parties do not infringe upon property rights, especially those of
indigenous
people.506 Environmental degradation caused by a States action or inaction thus
compromises
the human right to property that is protected by the American Declaration.
The Inuits human right to protection of their land is thus guaranteed by the
American
Declaration and general international law. The United States government has an
obligation not
to interfere with the Inuits use and enjoyment of their land through its acts and
omissions
regarding climate change.
b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to use and enjoy
the
lands they have traditionally occupied
For millennia, the Inuit have occupied and used land in the arctic and sub-arctic
areas of the United States, Canada, Russia, and Greenland. Included in the land
that the Inuit
have traditionally occupied and used are the landfast winter sea ice,* pack ice, and
multi-year
ice. The Inuit have traditionally spent much of the winter traveling, camping and
hunting on the
landfast ice.507 They have used the summer pack ice and multi-year ice to hunt
seals, one of their
primary sources of protein. Because the international human right to property is
interpreted in
the context of indigenous culture and history, the Inuit have a human right to use
and enjoyment
of land and ice that they have traditionally used and occupied in the arctic and subarctic regions
of the United States, Canada, Russia, and Greenland. Inuit have also secured
domestic property
rights through the conclusion of four agreements with the Government of
Canada508 and in
Alaska by the legislated 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.509
* Fast ice is sea ice that grows from the coast into the sea, remaining attached to
the coast or
grounded to a shallow sea floor. ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 24.

 Pack ice refers to a large area of floating sea ice fragments that are packed
together. Id.
[P]ack ice lasting more than a year becomes multi-year ice [which is]
progressively fresher,
harder and thicker. GIBSON & SHULLINGER, supra note 7, at 8.
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) is unlike the Canadian
agreements in
that ANCSA is a unilateral settlement imposed upon the Alaskan Inuit by the United
States
without the Inuits consent. See 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. While the Act purports to
extinguish
aboriginal collective title in favor of individual alienable shares in a corporation, the
Commissions Dann case makes clear that extinguishment of aboriginal title without
informed
consent of the peoples involved is ineffective from the perspective of international
human rights.
Dann at 130.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
82
For instance the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) provides the Inuit of
Nunavut
title to some 352,240 square kilometers of land chosen for, among others, wildlife
harvesting,
conservation purposes, high potential for propagation, cultivation or husbandry, and
for cultural
importance.510 These collective property rights are being devalued by the impacts
of climate
change and will continue to be severely devalued as the impacts of climate change
continue.
Global warming violates the Inuits human right to use and enjoy their land because
third parties acting with the acquiescence or tolerance of the State [are] affecting
the existence,
value, use [and] enjoyment of that property.511 Climate change has made the
Inuits traditional
lands less accessible, more dangerous, unfamiliar, and less valuable to the Inuit.
The
disappearance of sea ice, pack ice, and multi-year ice is affecting the very existence
of Inuit land.
In the last thirty years, about eight percent of the total yearly sea ice has ceased to
exist, with
more dramatic losses more recently, and further acceleration of the trend expected
in the
future.512 Summer sea ice has decreased fifteen to twenty percent, and is
projected to disappear
completely by the end of this century.513 The ice that remains is less valuable to
the Inuit

because the later freezes, earlier, more sudden thaws, and striking loss of thickness
have made
use of the ice more dangerous and less productive. Sea ice, a large and critical part
of coastal
Inuits property, is literally melting away.
The loss of sea ice has
another effect on the Inuits use
and enjoyment of their property.
This loss of ice has contributed
to alarming coastal erosion
because sea storms and wave
movement are so much greater
without the breakwater effect of
the ice.514 The erosion threatens
the Inuits homes and villages,
forcing them to move their
homes, which is expensive,
arduous, and inconvenient, or
lose them. Coastal campsites, a
traditional use of land while
traveling and harvesting, have been washed away. The erosion in turn exposes
coastal
permafrost to the warmer air and water, causing it to melt as well.515 As the ice
continues to
disappear, the impact on Inuit coastal homes and communities will increase.
The melting permafrost has altered the characteristics of Inuit land, diminishing its
value
to the Inuit, and affecting their ability to use and enjoy their property. Slumping has
damaged
homes, villages and infrastructure. Water resources and wetlands are drying
because the
permafrost no longer inhibits drainage, which changes the look of the land, alters
landmarks, and
transforms critical habitat. The use of permafrost for food storage is no longer
practical in some
areas, eliminating a traditional use of the land, and diminishing its value to the Inuit.
The extent
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
83
of permafrost is expected to retreat northward by hundreds of miles this century,
further
diminishing the value of Inuit land.516
The sea ice that the Inuit have used for millennia as hunting grounds is ceasing to
exist,
and what remains is less useful.517 The land they have traditionally used and
occupied is

fundamentally changing as a result of climate change, making it less valuable and

useful to the
Inuit. The United States acts and omissions regarding climate change have violated
their right
to use and enjoy their ancestral lands and their rights of property in those lands.
3. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHT TO USE
AND
ENJOY THEIR PERSONAL, INTANGIBLE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuits right to use and enjoy
their personal, intangible and intellectual property
The Inuits human right to property extends to their right to use and enjoy their
personal
and intellectual property without undue interference. In the Awas Tingni case, the
Court
expansively defined property to include those material goods capable of being
acquired, as well
as all rights that can be deemed to make up the assets of a person. Protected
property includes
those material things which can be possessed, as well as any right which may be
part of a
persons patrimony; that concept includes all movables and immovables, corporeal
and
incorporeal elements and any other intangible object capable of having value.518
Personal
property, intellectual property, and intangible rights of access fall within this
definition.
The Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples guarantees
the
right to the recognition and the full ownership, control and protection of their
cultural, artistic,
spiritual, technological and scientific heritage, and legal protection for their
intellectual property
as well as to special measures to ensure them legal status and institutional
capacity to
develop, use, share, market and bequeath that heritage to future generations.519
The Proposed
Declaration also protects indigenous peoples property interests in the use of
[lands] to which
they have historically had access for their traditional activities and livelihood.520
In addition,
ILO Convention 169 protects the right of indigenous peoples to access the lands
they have
traditionally used for subsistence.521 The broad scope of the Inuits human right to
use and enjoy
of their property thus extends to their tangible and intangible personal property.
Deprivation of the use and enjoyment of personal property through environmental
degradation caused by a States actions or inactions can constitute a violation of
the human right
to property. In the Belize Maya case, the Commission noted that the right to use
and enjoy

property may be impeded when the State itself, or third parties acting with the
acquiescence or
tolerance of the State, affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of that
property.522
Environmental degradation caused by development can affect the existence,
value, use or
enjoyment of personal property.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
84
The Inuits human right to protection of their personal and intellectual property is
guaranteed by international law. The United States government therefore has an
obligation not
to interfere with the Inuits use and enjoyment of their property through its failure to
take
effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to use and enjoy
their personal, intangible and intellectual property
The Inuit, both individually and collectively possess property rights in movables as
well as intangible object[s] capable of having a value.523 Their personal
possessions, such as
equipment, clothing, and hides, clearly fall within the protected property. The Inuits
intellectual
property, in the form of their traditional knowledge, is an intangible object capable
of having a
value. In addition, the Inuit possess intangible property rights of access to the
harvest of
resources.
Climate change diminishes the value of the Inuits personal property. For example,
disappearing ice roads and snow damage sled and skidoo runners, as well as sled
dogs paws.
Hides have become less valuable for use as clothing and for sale because of
changes in the
animals fur characteristics resulting from climate change, changes in optimal
timing for harvest,
and difficulties in processing the hides. In the small community of Pangnirtung in
Nunavut,
Inuit conduct a commercial fishery through the sea ice that employs up to fifty
people. In recent
years, however, the ice often has not formed properly or has broken up early with
ensuing losses
of vital equipment.524 Climate change is thus diminishing the use and value of the
Inuits
personal property.
In addition, the Inuit possess intangible property in the form of traditional
knowledge.
The Inuits traditional knowledge is a valuable intangible possession protected
under the

definition of protected property described in the Awas Tingni decision.525 The Inuit
educational
system of passing on and building upon knowledge from one generation to the next
has
tremendous value to the Inuits survival and culture. The Inuit have spent millennia
developing
knowledge about their physical surroundings. In addition, western scientists have
recently
recognized the value of traditional Inuit knowledge to their studies on species,
climate change,
and other critical scientific issues.526 The unprecedented rapid climate change has
made much of
this traditional knowledge inaccurate, affecting the Inuits ability to use, share,
market and
bequeath that [knowledge] to future generations.527 Climate change has therefore
made the
Inuits traditional knowledge less valuable.
The right to access lands for subsistence purposes is also an intangible property
right, the
value of which is diminished by the effects of global warming. The Nunavut Land
Claims
Agreement provides that Inuit have free and unrestricted access to all lands and
waters within
Nunavut, Canada, subject to conservation requirements, to their full level of
economic, social
and cultural need.528 In Alaska, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
ensures
rural residents reasonable access to all public lands, including the Alaska National
Wildlife
Refuge, for subsistence uses.529 The Inuits property interest in access to lands to
which they
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
85
have historically had access for their traditional activities and livelihood530 is now
less valuable
because climate change has substantially diminished the fruit of the harvest from
those lands.
For example, the disappearance of travel routes and healthy game due to climate
change has
made access for the Inuit more difficult and less valuable. Having spent
considerable time and
political energy negotiating comprehensive land claim agreements which guarantee
their right to
harvest wildlife, Inuit leaders are warranted in questioning the value of the
agreements if, as a
result of climate change, key species can no longer withstand hunting or are no
longer to be

found.531
In these ways, global warming is reducing the existence, value, use, [and]
enjoyment532
of the Inuits property. As the warming continues to accelerate, this damage will
continue to
reduce the value of Inuit property. U.S. acts and omissions regarding climate change
are thus
violating the Inuits fundamental human right to use and enjoy their property.
4. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHT TO THE
PRESERVATION OF HEALTH
a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuit the right to the
preservation
of health
The American Declaration provides that [e]very person has the right to the
preservation
of his health through sanitary and social measures relating to food, clothing,
housing and medical
care, to the extent permitted by public and community resources.533 This
guarantee is
interpreted in the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights
in the Area
of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador) as ensuring
the
enjoyment of the highest level of physical, mental and social well-being.534 Other
major
international human rights instruments also safeguard the right to health, including
the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights,535 the International Convention on Economic, Social,
and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR),536 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.537 The
universal
and fundamental nature of this right is further supported by the fact that at least
seventy national
constitutions recognize the states obligation to promote health, many of them
directly
proclaiming a right to health.538
This Commission has acknowledged the close relationship between environmental
degradation and the right to health, especially in the context of indigenous peoples.
In the
Yanomami case, the Commission recognized that harm to people resulting from
environmental
degradation violated the right to health in Article XI of the American Declaration.539
In that
case, the Brazilian governments failure to prevent environmental degradation
stemming from
road construction and subsequent development of Yanomami indigenous lands
caused an influx
of pollutants and resulted in widespread disease and death. The Inter-American
Commission

found that by reason of the failure of the Government of Brazil to take timely and
effective
measures [on] behalf of the Yanomami Indians, a situation has been produced that
has resulted in
the violation, injury to them, of the right to the preservation of health and to wellbeing.540
Additionally, in the Belize Maya case, the Commission noted that the right to health
and wellPETITION
TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
86
being in the context of indigenous peoples rights was so dependent on the integrity
and
condition of indigenous land that broad violations of indigenous property rights
necessarily
impacted the health and well-being of the Maya.541
International health and environmental law also lend support and meaning to the
American Declarations right to health. The preamble of the Constitution of the
World Health
Organization (WHO) recognizes that [t]he enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of
health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being.542 The Stockholm
Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants, signed by the United States, seeks to protect human
health and
the environment from persistent organic pollutants.543 The WHO Protocol on
Water and Health
to the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses
and
International Lakes aims to promote at all appropriate levels, nationally as well as
in
transboundary and international contexts, the protection of human health and wellbeing, both
individual and collective.544 Finally, principle 14 of the Rio Declaration recognizes
the
importance of controlling any activities and substances that are found to be
harmful to
human health.545
The close relationship between environmental protection and health has been also
been
recognized by various international human rights bodies and experts. Special
Rapporteur
Rodolfo Stavenhagen of the UN Commission on Human Rights recently concluded
that the
effects of global warming and environmental pollution are particularly pertinent to
the life
chances of Aboriginal people in Canadas North, a human rights issue that requires
urgent

attention at the national and international levels, as indicated in the recent Arctic
Climate Impact
Assessment.546 Special Rapporteur Fatma Zohra Ksentini of the U.N. SubCommission on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (now the Sub-Commission
on
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights) identified the right to health as a
fundamental right
and analyzed the effects of the environment on that right.547 Drawing from various
international
human rights documents and national constitutions, she found that, under
customary
international law, everyone has a right to the highest attainable standard of
health.548 She
further found that, [i]n the environmental context, the right to health essentially
implies feasible
protection from natural hazards and freedom from pollution.549 The United
Nations Special
Rapporteur on the right to health, Paul Hunt, also noted that the right to health
gives rise to an
obligation on the part of a State to ensure that environmental degradation does not
endanger
human health.550 The recognition of the connection between health and the
environment is
further underscored by the definition of pollution in international environmental law
as the
introduction by man of substances or energy into the environment resulting in such
deleterious
effects as hazards to human health or which harm/endanger human health.551
The U.N. Committee on Economic and Social Rights explained that the right to the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health in Article 12.1 of the
International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
is not confined to the right to health care. On the contrary, the drafting history
and the express wording of article 12.2 acknowledge that the right to health
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
87
embraces a wide range of socio-economic factors and extends to the
underlying determinants of health, such as food and nutrition, housing, access to
safe and potable water and adequate sanitation, safe and healthy working
conditions, and a healthy environment.552
The Committee further states that victims of a violation of the right to health should
have access
to remedies at the both national and international levels and should be entitled to
adequate
reparation.553
The World Health Organization (WHO) has also recognized on numerous occasions

the right to health in connection with environmental harms. In 1976, the WHO
Executive Board
recommended that the World Health Assembly adopt a resolution urging
governments to make
environmental health programmes an integral part of their national health and
development
efforts, particular attention being given to the most needy sectors of the
population.554 The
resolution, adopted by the World Health Assembly on January 27, 1976, considered
that
progress in improving the conditions of the human environment as they affect
health is too
slow and emphasized that the improvement of environmental conditions should
be seen as part
of the total health and development effort.555 In 1989, the WHO Executive Board
became
concerned that environmental degradation resulting from indiscriminate use of
technology posed
a threat to human health. It recommended that the World Health Assembly adopt a
resolution
urging WHO Member States to establish and evaluate policies and strategies for
preventing
adverse effects of development to the environment and on health and calling on
the
international community to increase their support for activities to promote a
healthy
environment and to control adverse effects of development on the environment and
health.556
The right to preservation of health recognized in the American Declaration
necessarily
includes a prohibition on degradation of the environment to the point that human
health and
well-being are threatened. The United States has an international obligation not to
infringe upon
the Inuits human right to health and well-being through degradation of their
physical
environment.
b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to the
preservation of
health
Climate change caused by the U.S. governments regulatory actions and inactions is
harmful to the Inuits health and well-being. Continued accelerating climate change
will
continue to add to these and other health risks in the future. Disappearing sea-ice
and changing
environmental conditions have diminished populations, accessibility, and quality of
fish and
game upon which the Inuit rely for nutrition. The Inuits health is also adversely
affected by

changes in insect and pest populations and the movement of new diseases
northward. The
quality and quantity of natural sources of drinking water has decreased,
exacerbating the already
damaging effects on Inuit health. In addition to physical health issues, the Inuits
mental health
has been damaged by the transformation of the once familiar landscape, and the
resultant cultural
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
88
destruction. These increases in health risks, caused by the United States acts and
omissions,
violate the Inuits right to the preservation of health.
Like the Mayan people in the Belize Maya case, the Inuit rely so heavily on the
condition
of the land for their health and well-being that the damage to their environment
caused by
climate change violates their human right to health and well-being. Climate change
has
subjected the Inuit to a higher risk of diet-related diseases. The Inuits diet is rapidly
changing
because of the scarcity, inaccessibility, and decrease in quality of traditional food
sources due to
climate change. Loss of game habitat and food sources, and the inaccessibility of
game due to
travel difficulties hinder the Inuits ability to rely on the subsistence harvest for
sustenance. The
less healthy and more expensive store-bought food the Inuit must use to
supplement the
subsistence harvest increases dietary health risks such as cancer, obesity,
diabetes, and
cardiovascular diseases.557 In addition, the deteriorating health of harvested
game negatively
affects the nutritional value of subsistence game to the Inuit.
The rapidly disappearing sea ice, which
is habitat and hunting grounds for polar bears,
has forced the bears to into a smaller, less
productive living space. Consequently, the
bears must search for food on land, where more
frequent and dangerous encounters between
Inuit and bears results. In addition, the bears
have begun raiding garbage dumps in Inuit
settlements, further endangering the health of
Inuit. Grizzly and black bears have also become
a problem for the Inuit. Grizzly bears have
extended their range further north because of climate change, and have been
spotted hunting seal

and raiding caribou caches. Black bears have also been seen more frequently
further north. The
extra competition for food and loss of harvested food from previously unknown
species threaten
the health of the Inuit.
Shifts in species distribution due to climate change also subject the Inuit to a
greater risk
of topical infections, allergies, and animal-borne diseases. For example, the increase
in flies and
mosquitoes brings an increased risk of infection from insect bites, as well as of flyand
mosquito-borne illnesses.558 These risks are echoed in the Arctic Climate Impact
Assessments
projection that animal diseases that can be transmitted to humans, such as West
Nile virus, are
likely to pose increasing health risks.559 Increased populations of pests such as fox
and mice
have also raised the risk of rabies. Residents of Sachs Harbor have begun to suffer
from allergies
to white pine pollen, which has moved northward, as well as from skin rashes and
other skin
problems due to increased sun and wind arising from climate change.560
Climate change is also profoundly affecting the Inuits mental health. Transformation
of
the once familiar landscape causes psychological stress, anxiety, and
uncertainty.561 The loss of
important cultural activities such as subsistence harvesting, passing on traditional
knowledge to
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
89
younger generations, weather forecasting, and igloo building can induce
psychological
problems.562 Because of the increased danger and insecurity of travel, the practice
of traditional
cultural activities induces more stress than in the past, adding emotional barriers to
the physical
barriers to the practice of those cultural activities.563 In addition, the damage to
homes,
infrastructure and communities from increased coastal erosion, land slumping, and
flooding
result in displacement, dislocation, and associated psychological impacts.564
The United States acts and omissions with respect to climate change have
degraded the
arctic environment to the point that those acts and omissions violate the Inuits
fundamental
human right to the preservation of their health.
5. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHT TO LIFE,

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY AND SECURITY

a. The American Declaration protects the Inuits right to life, physical
protection and security
Under the American Declaration, [e]very human being has the right to life, liberty
and
the security of his person.565 The right to life is the most fundamental of rights,
and is contained
in all major international human rights conventions.566 The United States has
repeatedly bound
itself to protect this fundamental right by ratifying the OAS Charter and the
ICCPR,567 adopting
the American Declaration, and signing the American Convention on Human
Rights.568 The right
to life is also a general principle of law that is contained in the constitutions of many
nations,
including that of the United States.569
This Commission has made clear that environmental degradation can violate the
right to
life. In the Yanomami case, the Commission established a link between
environmental quality
and the right to life.570 In that case, the Brazilian government had constructed a
highway through
Yanomami territory and authorized the exploitation of the territorys resources.
These actions
led to the influx of non-indigenous people who brought contagious diseases that
spread to the
Yanomami, resulting in disease and death. The Commission found that, among other
things, the
governments failure to protect the integrity of Yanomami lands had violated the
Yanomamis
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
90
rights to life, liberty and personal security guaranteed by Article 1 of the American
Declaration.571
In its Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador, the Commission stated
that
[t]he right to have ones life respected is not limited to protection against
arbitrary
killing.572
The realization of the right to life, and to physical security and integrity is
necessarily related to and in some ways dependent upon ones physical
environment. Accordingly, where environmental contamination and
degradation pose a persistent threat to human life and health, the foregoing
rights are implicated.573
In discussing the connection between the physical environment and the right to life,
the

report concluded that environmental degradation can give rise to an obligation on

the part of a
state to take reasonable measures to prevent the risk to life associated with
environmental
degradation.574 The Commission noted that human rights law is premised on the
principle that
rights inhere in the individual simply by virtue of being human, and that
environmental
degradation, which may cause serious physical illness, impairment and suffering
on the part of
the local populace, [is] inconsistent with the right to be respected as a human
being.575
This application of the American Declaration is also consistent with the
interpretation of
the right to life under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In
E.H.P. v.
Canada, a group of Canadian citizens alleged that the storage of radioactive waste
near their
homes threatened the right to life of present and future generations. The U.N.
Human Rights
Committee found that the case raised serious issues with regard to the obligation
of States
parties to protect human life, but declared the case inadmissible due to failure to
exhaust
domestic remedies.576 The Committee has also stated that the right to life has
been too often
narrowly interpreted. [It] cannot properly be understood in a restrictive manner,
and the
protection of this right requires that states adopt positive measures.577
The United States has an obligation to protect the Inuits human rights to life and
personal security. This obligation includes the duty not to degrade the arctic
environment to
such an extent that the degradation threatens the life and personal security of Inuit
people.
b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to life, physical
protection and security
The United States acts and omissions regarding global climate change violate the
Inuits
right to life, physical security and integrity. Changes in ice and snow jeopardize
individual Inuit
lives, critical food sources are threatened, and unpredictable weather makes travel
more
dangerous at all times of the year. The impacts the Inuit are already suffering will
continue to
worsen as climate change accelerates.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
91

Individual Inuit lives are at risk due to the effects of climate change. As explained
above,
the sea ice, an important resource for travel and hunting, freezes later in the year,
thaws earlier
and more suddenly, and is thinner because of climate change.578 In the spring, the
thaw happens
much more rapidly, causing the ice to change from safe to perilous in a matter of
hours rather
than weeks. The thinner ice and new, unpredictable areas of open water cause
hunters and other
travelers to fall through the ice and be injured or drowned.
Not only are harvested species becoming scarcer as the climate changes, the Inuits
access to these foods is diminishing due to difficulties in travel and changes in
game location.579
The U.S. Congress has acknowledged that, for many Inuit, no practical alternative
means are
available to replace the food supplies and other items gathered from fish and
wildlife which
supply rural residents dependent on subsistence uses.580 Damage to the Inuits
subsistence
harvest violates their right to life.
Sudden, unpredictable storms due to climate change also threaten the Inuits lives
and
physical security. The inability of elders to predict the weather accurately increases
the risk that
hunters and travelers will be caught unprepared, with life-threatening consequences
in the harsh
arctic climate. Stranded travelers can no longer rely on the abundance of snow from
which to
construct emergency shelters.
This lack of shelter has
contributed to deaths and
injuries among hunters
stranded by sudden storms.581
In addition, the decrease in
summer ice has caused rougher
seas and more dangerous
storms, increasing hazards to
boaters.582 Formerly familiar
and common activities are now
laden with unavoidable and
unpredictable threats to human
life because of the
unpredictable weather.
Climate change has damaged the arctic environment to such an extent that the
damage
threatens human life. The United States has breached its duty under the American
Declaration to
protect the Inuits right to life and personal security.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING

CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
92
6. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHT TO
THEIR OWN
MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE
a. The American Declaration protects the Inuits right to their own means
of
subsistence
A peoples right to their own means of subsistence is inherent in and a necessary
component of the American Declarations rights to property, health, life, and culture
in the
context of indigenous peoples. The ICESCR and ICCPR both provide that all peoples
may
freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources, but that [i]n no case may a
people be
deprived of its own means of subsistence.583 The U.N. Draft Declaration on the
Rights of
Indigenous People provides the same assurance to indigenous peoples.584 In the
context of
indigenous peoples, the rights to self-determination and ones own means of
subsistence have
become recognized principles of international human rights law.
Included within a peoples right to their own means of subsistence is the right to
control
over natural resources and the physical environment.585 As described in more
detail above, this
Commission has noted that the basic principles reflected in many of the provisions
of the
Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including
aspects of
Article XVIII, reflect general international legal principles developing out of and
applicable
inside and outside of the inter-American system and to this extent are properly
considered in
interpreting and applying the provisions of the American Declaration in the context
of
indigenous peoples.586 Article XVIII of the Proposed Declaration states that
indigenous peoples
have the right to an effective legal framework for the protection of their rights
with respect
to traditional uses of their lands, interests in lands, and resources, such as
subsistence.587 The
Proposed Declaration also states that [i]ndigenous peoples have the right to
autonomy or
self-government with regard to land and resource management, [and] the
environment.588
Deprivation of control over natural resources and the environment necessarily
deprives

indigenous peoples of their own means of subsistence.

Other human rights bodies have acknowledged the right of a people to control over
their
own means of subsistence. In its 2002 Concluding Observations to Sweden, the U.N.
Human
Rights Committee recommended that Sweden take steps to involve the indigenous
Sami people
in decision-making processes that affect their traditional lands and economic
activities,
particularly by giving them greater influence in decision-making affecting their
natural
environment and their means of subsistence.589 Similarly, in response to Canadas
failure to
implement recommendations for aboriginal land and resource allocation, the Human
Rights
Committee emphasized Canadas obligations under Article 1 of the ICCPR and the
ICESCR,
stating, peoples may not be deprived of their own means of subsistence.590
The Human Rights Committee has also recognized that the right to culture requires
protecting a peoples means of subsistence. In the Lubicon Lake case, the Lubicon
Lake Band of
indigenous peoples asserted that the States failure to protect their culture from the
impacts of
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
93
development activities violated their right to self-determination.591 Although the
Human Rights
Committee determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider a violation of a
collective right
in a procedure designed to protect individual rights,592 the Committee stated that
the States actions
violated the right to culture in the ICCPR because they threaten[ed] the
[subsistence] way of life
of the Lubicon Lake Band.593
Other international instruments also protect the right to subsistence. For example,
Article
21 of the Draft U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples includes the
right to
subsistence, stating that indigenous peoples have the right to be secure in the
enjoyment of their
own means of subsistence and development.594 ILO Convention 169 also protects
the right of a
people to their own means of subsistence, stating that a right of access to lands
they do not own,
but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional
activities

must be protected.595 Convention 169 further states that the subsistence

economy and
traditional activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering, shall be
recognised as
important factors in the maintenance of their cultures and in their economic selfreliance and
development.596
The Inuits right to their own means of subsistence is protected under
international law and is in intrinsic part of the rights established in the American
Declaration. The United States has an international obligation not to deprive the
Inuit of
their own means of subsistence.
b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to their own
means of
subsistence
Arctic climate change is making the Inuits subsistence harvest more dangerous,
more
difficult and less reliable. In fact, climate change is gradually and steadily destroying
the Inuits
means of subsistence.597 Changes in ice, snow, weather,
seasons and land have combined to deprive the Inuit of
their ability to rely exclusively on the subsistence harvest,
violating their right to their own means of subsistence.
Continuing changes in the arctic climate will further
interfere with the Inuits right to their own means of
subsistence.
Because travel is an essential component of the
Inuit subsistence harvest, the deprivation of safe and
reliable means of travel deprives the Inuit of their means of
subsistence. Travel over ice has become more dangerous
and more difficult because of more sudden thaws, thinner
ice, and new areas of open water that persist throughout the
winter. The later freezes and earlier thaws have
dramatically shortened the winter ice travel season. The
loss of summer sea ice has also made boat travel more
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
94
dangerous because of the loss of the multi-year ices wave-suppressing effect.
Travel over snow,
an important surface for travel using sleds or snowmobiles, has been diminished by
the later
snowfall, lack of snow cover, earlier, more sudden thaw, and loss of multi-year snow
cover. The
change in the orientation of snowdrifts has made navigation using the snowdrifts
unreliable,
depriving the Inuit of one of the few navigation tools consistently available and
contributing to

the decline in their ability to subsist on harvested foods. The Inuit can no longer
plan safe travel
because the unpredictable weather has deprived them of the ability to forecast the
weather. The
resulting trip cancellations, stranded travelers and the need for more cumbersome
equipment
further deprive the Inuit of their ability to subsist. The catastrophic effects that
climate change
has had on travel have deprived the Inuit of their own means of subsistence.
In addition to depriving the Inuit of their ability to travel in safety, climate change
has
crippled the subsistence harvest through its effect on harvested foods. Land
animals winter food
sources are now trapped below a hard, impenetrable layer of ice caused by the new
autumn
freeze-thaw-freeze pattern, resulting in fewer, less healthy, and less accessible land
animals for
harvest. The harvest of ice-dependent animals has also become less fruitful
because the animals
habitat, food sources, and living space are disappearing. The animals are suffering a
loss in
numbers and decline in overall health that is expected to accelerate in the coming
years.598 The
remaining animals are changing location and habits, making them less accessible,
harder to find
and, because of impacts on the ability to travel, sometimes impossible to hunt.
As a result of the problems with travel and
food sources due to climate change, the Inuit are no
longer able to rely exclusively on the subsistence
harvest for their survival. Climate change has
therefore deprived the Inuit of their means of
subsistence. The United States acts and omissions
with regard to climate change, done without
consultation or consent of the Inuit, violate the
Inuits human rights to self-determination and to
their own means of subsistence.
7. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUITS RIGHTS TO
RESIDENCE
AND MOVEMENT AND INVIOLABILITY OF THE HOME
a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuits right to residence and
movement and inviolability of the home
The American Declaration guarantees every person the right to fix his residence
within
the territory of the state of which he is a national, to move about freely within such
territory, and
not to leave it except by his own will.599 The American Declaration also
guarantees every
person the right to the inviolability of his home.600 Like the right to life, the rights
to residence

and movement and inviolability of the home are established in all major human
rights
instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,601 the
ICCPR,602 the
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
95
American Convention on Human Rights,603 the European Convention on Human
Rights604 and
the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.605 Many constitutions also
guarantee the
right to movement and residence.606
In the Yanomami case, this Commission found a violation of the right to residence
and
movement where some Yanomami people had to leave their traditional lands
because of a series
of adverse changes caused by government development projects.607 The
Commission noted that
the construction of a highway through the territory of the Yanomami Indians,
compelled them
to abandon their habitat and seek refuge in other places.608 The right to residence
and
movement was violated where parts of the Yanomami lands became uninhabitable
because of
changes to the land and the environment caused by government-sponsored
development
projects.609
Other human rights tribunals have recognized the significant link between
environmental
quality and the right to the inviolability of the home. In Lopez Ostra v. Spain, the
European
Court of Human Rights held that Spains failure to prevent a waste treatment plant
from
polluting nearby homes violated this right.610 Similarly, in Guerra and Others v.
Italy, the Court
held that severe environmental pollution may affect individuals well-being and
adversely affect
private and family life, and as a result held Italy liable for its failure to secure these
rights.611
The European Court recently reaffirmed this concept in Fadeyeva v. Russia, in which
the failure
of the State to relocate the applicant away from a highly toxic area constituted
violation of the
right to respect for the home and private life.612 The European Court noted that
forcing a few
people to bear the environmental costs of economic benefits to the entire
community did not

strike a fair balance between these competing interests. The connection between
the home,
private life and the environment is thus well established in international law.
The United States thus has an obligation not to infringe upon the Inuits rights to
residence and movement and inviolability of the home through destruction of the
land upon
which the Inuit have built their homes.
b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuits right to residence and
movement, and inviolability of the home
The United States acts and omissions that contribute to global warming violate the
Inuits right to residence and movement because climate change threatens the
Inuits ability to
maintain residence in their communities. Furthermore, the Inuits right to
inviolability of the
home is violated because the effects of climate change adversely affect private and
family life.
In particular, climate change harms the physical integrity and habitability of
individual homes
and entire villages. Coastal erosion caused by increasingly severe storms threatens
entire coastal
communities. Melting permafrost causes building foundations to shift, damaging
Inuit homes
and community structures. The destruction is forcing the coastal Inuit to relocate
their
communities and homes farther inland, at great expense and distress.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
96
This forced relocation goes to the heart of the rights to residence and movement
and
inviolability of the home. As in the Yanomami case, the destruction of Inuit homes
due to
climate change compel[s the Inuit] to abandon their habitat and seek refuge in
other places,613
affecting their family and private lives as well as denying them the ability to fix
[their]
residence and not to leave it except by [their] own will. U.S. acts and omissions
with regard
to climate change therefore violate the Inuits fundamental human rights to
residence and
movement and inviolability of the home.
C. THE AMERICAN DECLARATION SHOULD BE APPLIED IN THE CONTEXT OF
RELEVANT
INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND PRINCIPLES
In their interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,
both
the Court and Commission have consistently recognized the relevance of broader
developments

in the field of international law to their analysis of rights, duties, and violations.
1. THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS BEARS ON
INTERPRETATION OF
THE AMERICAN DECLARATION
The Commission has acknowledged that the American Convention on Human Rights
may be considered to represent an authoritative expression of the rights
contained in the
American Declaration, and is therefore properly considered in interpreting the
Declarations
provisions.614 The jurisprudence of the Commission and the Court in interpreting
the
Conventions provisions is thus also relevant in interpreting the Declaration. At the
same time,
the Convention should not restrict the Courts reading of the American Declaration
or other
sources of human rights. Specifically, Article 29 of the Convention states that the
Convention
must not be interpreted as restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or
freedom
recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another
convention;
precluding other rights or guarantees that are inherent in the human personality or
derived from
representative democracy as a form of government; or excluding or limiting the
effect that the
American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts
of the same
nature may have.615
2. DEVELOPMENTS IN OTHER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEMS
SHOULD BE
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE AMERICAN
DECLARATION
The Commission similarly has recognized that the provisions of the American
Declaration, should be interpreted and applied in context of developments in the
field of
international human rights law.616 It has noted in particular the appropriateness of
considering
other international and regional human rights documents in the interpretation and
application of
the rights contained in the American Declaration.617 The Commission has used this
approach
often in interpreting the scope and meaning of the rights contained in the American
Declaration
and Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS Charter).618 Other
human rights
instruments that are relevant to the understanding of the rights at issue in this case
include, as
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 7, 2005
97
demonstrated above, the American Convention, the ICCPR, the ICESCR, other
regional human
rights conventions, the ILO Convention 169, and the official interpretations of these
instruments
by human rights bodies.
3. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL NORMS AND PRINCIPLES ARE
RELEVANT TO THE
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE AMERICAN DECLARATION
In the Awas Tingni case, the Court reaffirmed that human rights treaties are live
instruments whose interpretation must adapt to the evolution of the times.619 In
its advisory
opinion regarding The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the
Framework of the
Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, the Court considered the questions before it
in the
context of the evolution of the fundamental rights of the human person in
contemporary
international law.620
The American Declaration should thus be applied with due regard to other relevant
rules
of international law applicable to member states against which complaints of human
rights
violations are properly lodged.621 As the Court has noted, a treaty can concern
the protection
of human rights, regardless of what the principal purpose of the treaty might
be.622 The
Commission has similarly stated that it would be inconsistent with general
principles of law for
the Commission to construe and exercise its Charter-based mandate without taking
into account
other international obligations of member states which may be relevant.623
Finally, in
interpreting the term other treaties in Article 64 of the American Convention, the
Court
affirmed its competence to interpret the provisions of the American Declaration
using
international developments as well as the provisions of the American
Convention.624
In considering the United States acts and omissions relating to climate change,
therefore,
the Commission should take into account not only the specific rights provisions in
the American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention on
Human Rights,
but also other relevant obligations the United States has assumed under
international treaties and
customary international law. The United States breach of these obligations
reinforces the

conclusion that the United States is violating rights protected by the American
Declaration.
a. The United States is violating its obligations under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol
The United States ratified the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
(FCCC)
on October 15, 1992, and the Convention entered into force on March 21, 1994.625
The objective
of the Framework Convention is to achieve ... stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations in
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the
climate system.626 To further this objective, Article 4.1(b) of the Convention
requires Parties to
formulate and implement national programs for mitigating anthropogenic
greenhouse gas
emissions.627
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
98
Article 4.2(b) is more specific: each Annex I (developed country) Party must
communicate information on its polices and measures to limit emissions and
enhance removals
of greenhouse gases, and on the resulting projected emissions and removals
through 2000, with
the aim of returning individually or jointly to [its] 1990 levels these anthropogenic
emissions of
[GHGs].628
Although the year 2000 has passed, this obligation is not moot.* The terms of
Article
4.2(b), given their ordinary meaning in their context and in light of the object
and
purpose,629 remain operative as long as the Framework Convention remains in
force. In light of
the Framework Conventions objective of avoiding dangerous atmospheric
concentrations of
greenhouse gases, mooting the obligation would make no sense. Indeed, were
Article 4.2(b) to
be read as applying only during the period before 2000, the objective would be have
been
unachievable from the start. It is clear that U.S. climate policy must aim at returning
U.S.
emissions to 1990 levels as quickly as possible.
Judging by its most recent report to the Framework Convention secretariat, which
forecasts U.S. GHG emissions increasing markedly for the foreseeable future,630 as
well as
statements by President Bush and numerous other government officials, the United
States has

abandoned the aim of returning its emissions to 1990 levels, in violation of its
obligation to
implement the Framework Convention in good faith and in light of the Conventions
objective.
Although the U.S. government has acknowledged its obligation to reduce emissions,
it has not
taken steps to remedy the defects identified by the secretariat in its first review of
U.S. climate
policy, in 1999.631
Explaining his position on global warming, President Bush stated, Our country, the
United States is the worlds largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We
account for
almost 20 percent of the worlds man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account
for about
one-quarter of the worlds economic output. We recognize the responsibility to
reduce our
emissions.632 In spite of this recognition, the U.S. Government predicts that U.S.
emissions will
* The obligation to aim to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels is found
in Article
4.2(b), whereas the reference to returning by the end of the present decade to
earlier levels is in
Article 4.2(a). While the reporting requirements of Article 4.2(b) are limited to the
the period
referred to in subparagraph (a), the aim to return emissions to 1990 levels is not.
Parties have
disregarded the limitation on reporting requirements.
For example, President Bush announced, My administration is committed to
cutting our
nation's greenhouse gas intensity how much we emit per unit of economic activity
by 18
percent over the next 10 years. President Announces Clear Skies & Global Climate
Change
Initiatives, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring,
Maryland, Feb.
14, 2002 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020214-5.html.
According to
analysis by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the Administration's 18%
intensity target
will allow actual emissions to increase 12% over the same period. Emissions will
continue to
grow at nearly the same rate as at present. Pew Center on Global, at
http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/response_bushpolicy.cfm.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
99
increase 42.7% by 2020, from 1562 MMTC in 2000 to 2088 MMTC in 2020.633 As if
to confirm

its complete rejection of Article 4.2, the United States latest report to the
secretariat makes no
mention of ever returning to 1990 emissions levels, instead identifying the U.S. goal
as the 18%
carbon intensity reduction proposed by President Bush in 2001.634 The U.S. plan to
reduce
greenhouse gas intensity by 18% in ten years exceeds by only 4% the 14%
reduction in
greenhouse gas intensity expected in the absence of the Presidents additional
proposed policies
and measures.635* This goal, which is to be met in 2012, will allow actual emissions
to increase
by 12% over the same period, a rate of growth that is nearly the same as at
present.636
b. The United States is violating its obligation to avoid transboundary
harm
and to respect the principle of sustainable development
Customary international law requires the United States to prevent its territory from
being
used in a manner that causes harm outside of its jurisdiction. This obligation to
avoid
transboundary environmental harm is one of the most fundamental and widely
recognized
customary international law norms. It originates from the common law principle of
sic utere tuo
ut alienum non laedus (do not use your property in a manner that will harm
others).637
For over half a century, this principle has been recognized by international tribunals
as
limiting the way in which States may use their territory. In the 1938 Trail Smelter
Arbitration
between the United States and Canada, the U.S.Canada International Joint
Commission held
that under principles of international law, as well as the law of the United States,
no State has
the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury
by fumes in
or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein, when the case is
of serious
consequence and the injury is established by clear and convincing evidence.638 In
the Corfu
Channel Case, the International Court of Justice recognized the principle even more
broadly as
every States obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts
contrary to the
rights of other States.639 More recently, in its 1996 advisory opinion on the
Legality of the
Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice noted that
[t]he existence

of the general obligation of States to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction
and control
respect the environment of other States or of areas beyond national control is now
part of the
corpus of international law relating to the environment.640
The prohibition on transboundary harm has also been included in numerous widely
accepted treaties and declarations over the past several decades. For example, in
adopting the
1972 Declaration of the United Nations Convention on the Human Environment
(Stockholm
Declaration) and the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the
United States
and 179 other nations agreed that sovereignty over natural resources is conditioned
on the
responsibility of States to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control
do not cause
damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national
* The report notes that the 18% improvement in intensity in actuality amounts to
only a 4%
improvement from expected emissions during the same period. U.S. Climate Action
Report
2002, supra note 91 at 5.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
100
jurisdiction.641 The United States agreed to that formulation in several
international treaties,
including the 1993 North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation642
and the 1972
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter.643
In a statement that the United States has recognized as expressing customary
international law,644
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea echoes these texts, stating that States
shall take all
measures necessary to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control are
so conducted as
to not cause damage by pollution to other States and their environment, and that
pollution arising
from incidents or activities under their jurisdiction or control does not spread
beyond the areas
where they exercise sovereign rights in accordance with this Convention.645 The
Framework
Convention itself acknowledges state responsibility for the prevention of
transboundary harm,
adopting the same language as the Stockholm and Rio Declarations.646
International law recognizes that the obligation to avoid transboundary harm limits

States right to economic development. For example, both the Stockholm

Declaration and the
Rio Declaration condition the right of States to exploit their own resources
pursuant to their
own environmental and development policies on the responsibility to avoid
transboundary
environmental harm.* The International Court of Justice has explained that [t]his
need to
reconcile economic development with protection of the environment is aptly
expressed in the
concept of sustainable development.647 Eminent scholars, including at least one
judge of the
International Court of Justice, consider sustainable development to be a principle
with
normative value.648 The Inter-American Commission took the same position when
it stated
that, although the right to development implies that each state has the freedom to
exploit its
natural resources, the Commission considers that the absence of regulation,
inappropriate
regulation, or a lack of supervision in the application of extant norms may create
serious
problems with respect to the environment which translate into violations of human
rights.649
Climate change has already produced numerous transboundary environmental
impacts as
it alters the arctic environment. These impacts include melting ice and decreasing
snow, erratic
weather and alterations in land and water conditions. Through action and inaction
with respect
to climate change that have made a major and disproportionate contribution to
these
transboundary environmental impacts, the United States has violated its
international
responsibility for preventing activities within its jurisdiction from damaging the
environment
outside its borders. The United States failure to take effective action to minimize
these impacts
also violates the principle of sustainable development. These violations in turn have
contributed
to the human rights violations at issue in this petition.
* Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration, supra note 454, and principle 21 of the
Stockholm
Declaration, supra note 641, each provide that
States have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their
own
environmental [Rio adds: and developmental] policies, and the responsibility to
ensure
that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the
environment

of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
101
c. The United States is violating its obligation to act with precaution
The obligation of States to act cautiously in the face of scientific uncertainty is a
wellestablished
principle of international law. The Rio Declaration provides the most widely
accepted articulation of this norm: In order to protect the environment, the
precautionary
approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. When
there are threats
of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as
a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.650 The
United States
has stated its support for this part of the Rio Declaration.651 The Malm Ministerial
Declaration,
which came out of the United Nations Environment Programmes First Global
Ministerial
Environment Forum in 2000, reaffirmed the dedication of the United States and
numerous other
nations to the observation of the precautionary approach as contained in the Rio
Principles.652
The precautionary principle has been included in many of the major international
environmental treaties, including agreements to address climate change, ozone,
biodiversity,
biosafety, and persistent organic pollutants.653 The United States has accepted
treaties endorsing
a precautionary approach, such as the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on LongRange
Transboundary Air Pollution on Heavy Metals and the Agreement for the
Implementation of the
Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December
1982
Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly
Migratory
Fish Stocks.654 Moreover, recent environmental agreements demonstrate an
emerging
international trend of strengthening the precautionary principle to embrace an
active obligation to
make decisions in a precautionary manner.655
Most relevant here, the Framework Convention, to which the United States is a
party,
states that [t]he Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent
or minimize
the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.656 The Convention
specifically

addresses scientific uncertainty by noting that lack of full scientific certainty should
not be used
as a reason for postponing [cost-effective] measures in the face of threats of
serious or
irreversible damage.657
U.S. action and inaction in response to its acknowledged contributions to global
climate
change demonstrate a failure to take precautionary measures. The U.S. government
has
repeatedly alleged uncertainty in climate science, and continues to do so, to justify
its refusal to
take effective steps toward reducing carbon emissions.658 The precautionary
principle articulated
in the Framework Convention and other international instruments would require the
United
States to take precautionary measures to reduce emissions even if the uncertainty
alleged by the
United States actually existed. At this point, however, there is no longer scientific
uncertainty
over the threat that climate change poses or the contribution of greenhouse gases
to it. As
detailed in Part II, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the
international and U.S.
scientific communities agree that human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases
are the principal
cause of global warming. Moreover, the United States has acknowledged that it
contributes
almost 20% of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions,659 and that it plans to
increase its net
contributions of greenhouse gases each year.660
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
102
The impacts of climate change on the Arctic and Inuit are both serious and
irreversible.
The alterations in the ice and land are progressing rapidly, and causing long-term
changes to the
environment. Similarly, the loss of the Inuits communities and traditional way of life
cannot be
easily corrected at a later date.
Although there remains some scientific uncertainty with respect to the nature and
timing
of sub-regional impacts, there is virtually no scientific uncertainty with respect to
the issues
relevant to this petition the rapid and persistent warming of the Arctic as a result
of the buildup
of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the highly adverse
effect of this

warming on the lives and culture of the Inuit. Were there some uncertainty
concerning these
issues, however, the U.S. approach to climate change would violate the
precautionary principle.
4. THE UNITED STATES HAS A DUTY TO REMEDY BREACHES OF ITS
INTERNATIONAL
OBLIGATIONS
States responsibility to prevent breaches of international law and remedy them
when
they occur is a foundational principle of international law. The Permanent Court of
International
Justice and its successor, the International Court of Justice, have repeatedly
recognized States
duty to make reparations when they breach international law obligations. In its 1928
decision
Concerning the Factory at Chorzw, the Permanent Court of International Justice
held that [i]t
is a principle of international law, and even a general conception of law, that any
breach of an
engagement involves an obligation to make reparation.661 The International Court
of Justice
found state responsibility for international law violations and required reparations in
both the
Corfu Channel Case and the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project.662 The opinion in
GabcikovoNagymaros Project explained that [r]eparation must, as far as possible, wipe out
all the
consequences of the illegal act.663
The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States similarly
acknowledges that States must act to prevent violations of environmental
obligations and are
responsible for such breaches and their consequences.664 The principle of State
responsibility is
also imbedded in other principles of international law, such as the prohibition on
transboundary
harm discussed in Section III.C.3.b. The Stockholm and Rio Declarations, for
example,
specifically indicate that States are responsible for preventing transboundary harm
resulting from
activities on their territory or under their control.665
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has recognized that these principles
equally
in the case of human rights obligations. In the Velsquez Rodrguez case, the Court
ordered
compensation for human rights violations, stating that the obligation to indemnify
is not derived
from internal law [of the violating nation], but from violation of the American
Convention. It is
the result of an international obligation.666

Similarly, the principle that the polluter should pay the costs of pollution, as
articulated in
the Rio Declaration, presumes responsibility on the part of those who pollute.667
The Malm
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
103
Ministerial Declaration recently reiterated the necessity of applying the polluter
pays principle,668
as did the Plan of Implementation resulting from the 2002 World Summit on
Sustainable
Development.669 By failing to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the United
States has
allowed domestic emitters to impose the environmental costs of their pollution on
those outside
U.S. borders, with the Inuit suffering especially from this lapse.
The United States has failed thus far to take responsibility for the breaches of
international law and their consequences that stem from its acts and omissions with
respect to
climate change. The United States has acknowledged its duty to reduce its
greenhouse gas
emissions,670 but its current policies result in continued emissions increases.671
The evergrowing
U.S. contribution to global climate change serves to accelerate the pace of the
environmental impacts in the Arctic and the resultant violations of the Inuits human
rights.
The United States is obligated under international law to take responsibility for its
contributions to global climate change both by limiting emissions and by paying
reparations to
those that it has harmed and continues to harm. The United States therefore has a
duty to
provide appropriate remedy and redress to the Inuit.
D. BY ITS ACTS AND OMISSIONS, THE UNITED STATES VIOLATES THE
HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE
INUIT
1. THE UNITED STATES IS THE WORLDS LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO
GLOBAL
WARMING AND ITS DAMAGING EFFECTS ON THE INUIT
As established above, the United States is, by any measure, the worlds largest
contributor to global warming and its damaging effect on the Inuit. As the worlds
largest
consumer of energy, both historically and at present, it emits the most fossil fuels
and is
responsible for the largest amount of cumulative emissions of any nation on Earth.
It follows
that the United States has contributed more than any other nation to the rise in
global

temperature. U.S. emissions of energy-related CO2 are also vastly out of proportion
to its
population size. On a per-person basis, U.S. emissions in 2000 were more than five
times the
global average,672 nearly two-and-a-half times the per capita emissions in
Europe,673 and nine
times those in Asia and South America.674 Among the countries with significant
emissions, the
United States had the highest level of per capita emissions.675
2. U.S. CLIMATE POLICY DOES NOT REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. U.S. climate policy
In February 2002, the administration of U.S. president George W. Bush formulated a
Global Climate Change Initiative, for which the stated goal is to reduce U.S.
greenhouse gas
emissions intensity by 18% between 2002 and 2012. Emissions intensity
describes the ratio
of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of economic output.676 The major elements
of this initiative
are a pair of programs, Climate Leaders and the Climate VISION Partnership,
which are aimed
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
104
to persuade and provide limited assistance industry to voluntarily reduce its
greenhouse gas
emissions.677
Climate Leaders is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
which describes it as an industry-government partnership that works with
companies to develop
long-term comprehensive climate change strategies.678 Member businesses adopt
voluntary
reduction targets, based either on emissions intensity or absolute emissions, and
agree to
inventory their greenhouse gas production to track progress toward these goals.
Climate Leaders
also requires companies to report their emissions and summarize their goals and
achievements to
EPA.
The Climate VISION Partnership is a similar public-private partnership scheme
launched by the Department of Energy (DOE) in February 2003.* Similar to the
Climate Leaders
initiative, its mission is to induce business and trade associations to set and achieve
voluntary
emissions reduction goals within their sector.679 Targeted sectors include oil and
gas, railroads,
auto manufacturers, and chemical manufacturing.680 Additionally, the Federal
government

provides funding through the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program

(EQIP) for
farmers to engage in carbon sequestration projects.681 It also revamped its
Voluntary Reporting
of Greenhouse Gases Program in order to allow companies to report any decreases
in their
emissions and, if emissions decreases are mandated in the future, secure credit for
reported
decreases.682
The Presidents 2006 budget request to Congress includes $524 million in tax
incentives
to reduce greenhouse gases.683 These incentives include tax credits for the
purchase of hybrid
and fuel-cell vehicles, residential solar heating systems, energy produced from
landfill gas,
electricity produced from alternative energy sources, and combined heat and power
systems.684
In 2001, the United States established the multi-agency Climate Change Science
Program
(CCSP) to oversee and coordinate government research on areas of uncertainty in
climate
science. The Presidents 2006 budget request for CCSP is nearly $2 billion.685 The
Climate
Change Technology Program (CCTP), also established in 2001, is a multi-agency
program to
accelerate research and development of technologies that can achieve greenhouse
gas emission
reductions.686 With a projected budget of nearly $3 billion in 2006, CCTP focuses
on advanced
technologies, such as hydrogen energy, zero-emissions coal-fired power plants, and
nuclear
fusion.687 The program also funds research and development of renewable energy,
nuclear
power, and energy efficiency.688
The Federal initiative also includes $200 million for international assistance and
cooperation. International programs include the International Partnership for a
Hydrogen
Economy,689 the Methane-to-Markets Partnership,690 the Carbon Sequestration
Leadership
* Other agencies participating in Climate VISION include the EPA, Department of
Transportation (DOT), Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of the
Interior
(DOI).
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
105
Forum,691 the Generation IV International Forum (for nuclear energy research),692
and several

bilateral partnerships.693
b. U.S. climate policy is not effective
The Presidents goal of reducing emissions intensity by 18% and the initiatives
adopted
to implement that goal have had no discernible effect on U.S. emissions, which have
increased
by more than 13% between 1990 and 2003.694 Except for a dip between 2000 and
2001,
emissions have risen every year since 1992, with increases averaging about 1% per
year.695
There is no indication that this trend will abate as long as current climate policy
remains in place.
The measures that the government rely on to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions
consist mainly
of misleading and ineffective targets, voluntary initiatives, and speculative research.
i. Misleading and ineffective targets
The U.S. goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18% is unlikely to lead to any
significant decrease in actual emissions. Greenhouse gas intensity tends to fall
naturally, as
energy efficiency improves and the U.S. economy shifts away from heavy industry.
The
Government Accountability Office accordingly predicts that without any government
action,
U.S. greenhouse gas intensity will decline 14% by 2012.696 Thus, by the
governments own
figures, achieving the 18% target will produce only a 4% decrease in emissions.697
In absolute
terms, however, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions will actually rise 18% between 2002
and 2012,
according to projections by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (15% if
the
United States suffers low economic growth).698
The two programs intended to assist industry to achieve this small improvement in
emissions intensity are not on track to succeed. Climate VISION has garnered only a
few
reluctant pledges to make minor cuts in emissions intensity, in most cases without
any quantified
reduction targets.699 In fact, the target set by the electricity industry for 2000 to
2010 exceeds
EIA projections of business-as-usual emissions during that period.700
Furthermore, because
Climate VISION does not require individual companies to set goals for emissions
reductions,
many of the worst polluters have avoided making even voluntary commitments.701
While no
data are yet available to gauge the progress of Climate VISION, initial results are not
encouraging.*
The Climate Leaders program suffers from a similar problem. Of the seventy or so
listed

partners, only about half have set targets for emissions reductions.702 As with
Climate VISION,
many of those targets would decrease emissions intensity, but would allow absolute
emissions to
increase.703 Despite being promoted as a major element of the governments
climate initiative,
Climate Leaders had an annual budget in 2004 of only $1 million and a full-time
staff of three.704
* For each sector, the Climate VISION website states that it is too early for emissions
data to be
available. See, e.g., Climate VISION, Automobile Manufacturers: Results, available at
http://www.climatevision.gov/sectors/automobile/results.html (last visited Jul. 8,
2005).
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
106
ii. No mandatory controls
U.S. climate policy does not include any mandatory controls on greenhouse gas
emissions. The United States signaled a willingness to adopt mandatory domestic
emissions
reductions in 1995, when it announced its intention to negotiate legally binding
international
emissions targets.705 It subsequently reversed course, however, and rejected both
international
and domestic mandatory targets.
President Bush opposes the Kyoto Protocol because, in his view, its binding targets
would wreck the U.S. economy and be unfair and ineffective, as the Protocol does
not similarly
obligate major developing countries such as China and India.706 He also opposes
mandatory
domestic controls. In a letter to several U.S. Senators, he declared his opposition to
caps on CO2
emissions from power plants, a reversal of his own earlier views.707 In 2003, the
general counsel
for the EPA repudiated the position of his two predecessors708 and the EPA adopted
the position
that it did not have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air
Act.709 This
view was subsequently upheld by a U.S. Federal court.710
iii. U.S. research cannot ensure adequate reductions
U.S. climate policy relies heavily on future scientific and technological developments
to
achieve reductions. Technological development by its very nature is speculative,
however, and
the United States cannot be certain that it will have a dependable method for
achieving adequate
emissions reductions anytime in the near future. This over-reliance by the U.S. on
technological

innovation was criticized in the 2004 Report on the in-depth review of the third
national
communication of the United States of America, issued by the secretariat of the
Framework
Convention. The report criticized the lack of concrete estimates for emission
reductions to be
delivered by new technologies.711
Moreover, current investment decisions by U.S. companies could impede or
preclude
wide-scale adoption of new technologies identified or promoted by U.S. programs.
This seems
to be the case with integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC). This technology,
which is
being actively promoted by the U.S. government, would allow CO2 to be separated
out of coalfired
power plant emissions for sequestration. Of the 114 new plants currently in the
planning
stages nationwide, only 15 are designed to incorporate IGCC.712 The U.S.
government has done
little to encourage investment in IGCC. Government funding for FutureGen, the
program under
which IGCC was developed, has been sporadic.713 With no prospect of mandatory
greenhouse
gas emissions cuts anywhere on the horizon, power companies see little to be
gained from
investing their money in technology to reduce emissions.714
Nevertheless, the United States persists in relying heavily on future development of
ground-breaking technologies.715 The United States has reduced expenditures on
energy
efficiencya tried-and-true approachin favor of less tested methods such as
carbon
sequestration and production of hydrogen. While such approaches hold promise,
they may
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
107
become commercially viable only decades in the future.* Spending on renewable
energy has
also fallen somewhat in recent years compared to investments in less immediately
workable
technologies.716 The governments proposed 2006 budget would cut funding for
research and
development of new energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies even
further.717
c. Indirect regulation
The United States has also failed to address major sources of emissions by other
means.

Power plants and vehicles are two of the main sources of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions, and
both are subject to extensive government regulation. Yet the United States has
repeatedly
declined to extend such regulation to include greenhouse gases.
i. Power plants
Power plants produce 36% of man-made CO2 in the United States.718 The
government
has made clear, however, that it will not mandate any cuts in those emissions.719
The United
States affirmed this statement by leaving greenhouse gases uncovered by the Clear
Skies Act, the
most recent major legislation to deal with power plant emissions. EPA even withheld
a report
that an alternative air pollution bill regulating CO2 as well as other pollutants would
result in
cleaner air than the Clear Skies proposal at an only marginally greater cost.720
Therefore, the
government has not controlled the greatest source of greenhouse gases in the
United States and
does not plan to do so in the near future.
ii. Vehicles
Automobiles (including cars, sport utility vehicles, and light duty trucks) produce
20% of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.721 Emissions from transportation activities have
risen
substantially, from 395 MMTC in 1990 to 483 MMTC in 2003.722 Although the United
States
could reduce emissions from the transportation sector by increasing fuel economy
standards,
relevant standards have remained almost constant since 1985.723 In fact, fuel
efficiency has
actually declined during this period, due to a loophole in the law that subjects vans,
SUVs, and
light duty trucks to less stringent standards.724 Furthermore, because there are
more cars on the
road in the United States today and drivers annually travel more miles, even had
the government
* Indeed, wide-spread use of fuel cells, which are fueled by hydrogen, will not be
practical until
sufficient hydrogen production and distribution facilities have been built, in addition
to the fuel
cell technology itself being developed. National Academy of Engineering, The
Hydrogen
Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs, at 2, 2004, available at
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html.
The proposed DOE budget for 2006 would alter enacted 2005 expenditures by
reducing funding
for energy conservation by $21 million and renewable energy by $27 million, while
adding $22

million for nuclear, $17 million for efficiency and sequestration, and $28 million for
fusion,
sequestration, and hydrogen. Climate Change Expenditures, supra note 683, at 10.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
108
maintained the fuel efficiency performance of past years, U.S. emissions would have
increased
and will continue to substantially increase.*
d. State and local measures are not enough
A number of U.S. state and local governments have attempted to partially fill the
regulatory void created by the federal government. As demonstrated by everincreasing national
emissions and uninterrupted global warming trends, however, regulation in these
fora cannot
effectively mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. There is a strong structural
disincentive against
state governments enacting mandatory greenhouse gas cuts because many
emitters could easily
move to locales that do not regulate their production of greenhouse gases.725 Six
states have
already passed laws banning mandatory emissions reductions, setting themselves
up as safe
havens for companies fleeing from more proactive states.726
Those state and local measures which have been implemented tend to be voluntary
and
therefore difficult to enforce. This is the case with the U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection
agreement727 and the tax credits for energy efficiency and renewable energy,
which states
commonly use.728 Renewable energy mandates, which require electric utilities to
generate a
certain amount of power from renewable sources, are one of the few compulsory
schemes being
employed by states. They are in place in only 19 states, however, and often provide
utilities an
escape hatch by allowing electricity providers to purchase renewable energy credits
rather than
actually using renewable power and reducing their own greenhouse gas
emissions.729 The
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a Northeastern greenhouse gas cap-and-trade
agreement that
is one of the major pieces of non-federal greenhouse gas regulation, has already
missed an
important deadline of designing a program by April 2005.730
Even in the aggregate, such state and local efforts can be duplicative and lack
coherent

direction, which makes them inherently less effective than a centralized federal
effort. Without
federal mandates, standards, or even guidance, there is no yardstick by which
states and
municipalities can measure success and determine the usefulness of various
initiatives.
Furthermore, programs need funding to achieve anything substantial, and there
already are
reports of states failing to provide adequate financing.731 No matter how
enthusiastic state and
local governments may be, they are not making, and probably cannot make,
emissions reductions
substantial enough to make a noticeable difference to curb the negative effects of
climate
change.732
* The Department of Transportations National Household Travel Survey noted a rise
in noncommercial
person-miles of travel from approximately 1.8 trillion in 1977 to approximately 3.9
trillion in 2001. The number of vehicles in the United States nearly doubled in the
same time
period. DOT, National Household Travel Survey 9, 10, 2001, available at
http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf. Similarly, truck mileage increased from 34.6
billion
miles in 1975 to 72.4 billion in 2001. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National
Transportation Statistics 2005, Table 1-32: U.S. Vehicle Miles, available at
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/html/table_0
1_32.html.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
109
3. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS OBSCURED CLIMATE SCIENCE,MISLEADING
BOTH THE
PUBLIC AND INDUSTRY AS TO THE SCALE AND URGENCY OF THE PROBLEM
OF GLOBAL
WARMING
The United States has consistently denied, distorted, and suppressed scientific
evidence
of the causes, rate, and magnitude of global warming. Despite substantial evidence
of humaninduced
climate change, including several assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and recent reports by its own agencies confirming and
expanding on the
findings of the IPCC,733 the U.S. government continues to insist that the science
does not yet
justify a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.734 It stresses and frequently
exaggerates the
uncertainties in climate science as an excuse for inaction.735 A second opinion
requested by the

White House on the findings of the IPCC,736 and the U.S. governments own
subsequent Climate
Action Report (its third annual report to the UNFCCC),737 affirmed the mainstream
scientific
consensus that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. All of
these
assessments amply justify immediate action to address climate change. Rather than
act,
however, the U.S. government has attacked the evidence and obscured the
ineffectiveness of its
own climate policy. The President dismissed the first version of the Climate Action
Report as a
report put out by the bureaucracy.738 The government subsequently revised the
document to
add a section stressing the remaining uncertainties in the science.739
The U.S. has also attempted to hide information about the certainty and urgency of
global
warming. For example, it cut the discussion of climate change out of EPAs 2002
annual report
for the first time in six years.740 A similar incident occurred in 2003 when the White
House
insisted on such extensive alteration to the discussion of climate change in an EPA
report, even
attempting to insert findings from a study partly financed by the American
Petroleum Institute,741
that its authors left out that section almost entirely rather than misrepresent the
science
involved.742 Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Environment
and Public Works, has openly denounced global warming as a hoax on the Senate
floor,
contending there has been no significant warming in the last century.743 Such
behavior led the
Union of Concerned Scientists to issue a statement, initially signed by a group of 60
leading
scientists that included 19 Nobel laureates,* admonishing the administration for
misrepresent[ing] scientific knowledge and misle[ading] the public about the
implications of its
policies on climate change and other issues,744 and reproaching the U.S.
government for relying
on disreputable and fringe science.745
This trend has not abated. In December 2004, the United States issued new
guidelines
giving federal officials (for the most part, political appointees of the White House)
the final signoff
on a series of climate change reports.746 A number of the scientific experts
involved objected
to this undermining of their autonomy, and one lead author even resigned.747
Reports also

surfaced in June 2005 that the then-chief of staff of the White House Council on
Environmental
* The Kyoto Protocol achieved the required level of participation when it was ratified
by Russia
in November 2005.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
110
Quality, who had previously held a position lobbying against limits on greenhouse
gas emissions
for the petroleum industry and had no scientific training, repeatedly edited
government reports
on climate change science to downplay the link between global warming and
greenhouse
gases.748 He has since been hired by the fuel company ExxonMobil.749 This
distortion and
denial of climate science continues in the face of such recent developments as a
2005 joint
statement by the U.S. National Academies of Science and ten more of the worlds
foremost
national scientific academies, including those of Germany, China, India, and Russia,
that urges
nations to take prompt action to reduce emissions in the face of strong evidence
that global
warming is occurring and is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions.750* Even as the
case for human-caused climate change and the need to do something about it has
convinced the
majority of scientists, as shown in even the United States own scientific reports,751
the U.S.
government has persisted in trying to discredit the established evidence.
4. THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH INTERNATIONAL
EFFORTS
TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
As the worlds largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States is in a unique
position to lead the global effort to avert global warming. Instead of cooperating
with
international efforts, however, the U.S. government has employed the same tactics
of renouncing
climate science and delaying action that characterize its domestic approach.
Beginning with its
rejection of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001,752 the United States has hindered attempts
by other
nations even to agree on the need for coordinated action to deal with global
warming. Without
the United States, entry into force of the Protocol depended on ratification by
Russia, the only

remaining country with sufficient emissions to meet the threshold requirement.

Russia vacillated
for more than a year, due in no small part to a significant drop in the potential value
of its
emissions allowances when the worlds largest buyer, the United States, left the
market.
The United States also has obstructed the formulation of additional international
measures. At the 10th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, in Buenos Aires, the
United
States delegation blocked discussion of any steps beyond the expiration in 2012 of
Kyotos first
commitment period, preventing anything beyond a weak promise of limited,
informal, future
talks.753 Other than modest funding of research through the UNFCCC and IPCC, the
only
international commitments of the United States are limited regional and bilateral
partnerships
that do not address reduction in greenhouse emissions. Those agreements are
confined to
research initiatives that will have speculative, long-term effects at best, with no
immediate
results.754 They receive relatively small amounts of funding averaging around $200
to $300
million for the last few years.755 In addition, they are not intended to expand
scientific and
technological knowledge, but merely to share and centralize independently-reached
findings.756
Like other bilateral and regional agreements, the latest U.S. agreement, the AsiaPacific
Partnership on Clean Development, concentrates on long-term and uncertain
technological
* The signatories are the national scientific academies of Brazil, Canada, France,
Italy, Japan, and
the United Kingdom.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
111
advances.757 Furthermore, the pacts emphasis on clean development means that
its aim is to
affect the emissions of U.S. partner countries, like China and India, rather than U.S.
emissions.758
It is unlikely that this partnership will result in actual emissions reductions; like
President Bushs
domestic initiative, the vision statement for the partnership states a goal of
reducing carbon
intensities, rather than achieving cuts in absolute emissions.759
In addition to impeding policy negotiations, the U.S. government has continued to
quarrel

about the relevance of basic climate science. As the Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment neared
completion in 2004, the United States worked to prevent the Arctic Council from
issuing a
previously agreed-upon policy report endorsing broad measures to deal with
warming,
contending that the detailed study did not provide enough evidence on which to
base such
proposals.760
The United States followed a similar course of action during the 2005 Group of Eight
(G8) summit in Scotland. It blocked the inclusion of any targets or timetables for
emissions
reductions in the G8 joint communiqu and plan of action on climate change,761
and pressured
negotiators to delete sections that outlined problems associated with climate
change.762 It
insisted upon removal of the simple statement our world is warming. It rejected
sections
describing adverse warming effects already occurring in the Arctic and urging
ambitious
emissions reductions.763
By the time the official versions of the summit documents were issued, the scientific
and
policy details had been cut down to a third of their original length.764 The mere
acknowledgment
by the United States that action must be taken to address global warming was
considered a step
forward by world leaders.765
Although the United States concedes the fact that climate change is occurring and
is
caused in large part by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, it refuses to take
meaningful action to
tackle global warming. The result is that temperatures in the Arctic continue to rise
unabated,
with dire consequences for the Inuit.
VI. EXCEPTION TO EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES
Article 31.1 of the Commissions rules of procedure specifies: In order to decide on
the
admissibility of a matter, the Commission shall verify whether the remedies of the
domestic legal
system have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with the generally
recognized principles
of international law.766 These general principles of international law are further
elaborated in
article 31.2(a), which establishes that the exhaustion requirement shall not apply
when the
domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for
protection of
the right or rights that have allegedly been violated.767
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING

CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
112
Because there are no remedies suitable to address [the] infringement of the rights
Petitioner alleges to have been violated in this case,* the requirement that domestic
remedies be
exhausted does not apply in this case. Thus, the petition is admissible under the
rules of
procedure of the Commission.
A. U.S. LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE OR EFFECTIVE PROTECTION
AGAINST THE
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS SUFFERED BY THE INUIT
The Commission has held that [i]f a remedy is not adequate in a specific case, it
obviously need not be exhausted.768 No U.S. law provides a remedy adequate to
protect the
rights alleged to have been violated in this petition.
1. THE RIGHT TO LIFE
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution safeguards citizens right to life
by
prohibiting the States from depriving any person of life without due process of law.
The Fifth
Amendment places similar limitations on the federal government. However, neither
the
Fourteenth nor the Fifth Amendment is effective at remedying violations of the right
to life that
result from environmental harms, such as the violations described in this petition.
The U.S.
Supreme Court interprets the due process clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth
Amendments as
limitations on governmental power to act but not a guarantee of any minimum level
of safety and
security:
[O]ur cases have recognized that the Due Process Clauses generally confer no
affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to
secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not
deprive the individual.769
In the present case, a substantial portion of the human rights violations arise out of
omissions of the U.S. government, in particular the governments ongoing failure to
take
meaningful and effective action to limit its contribution to climate change. The due
process
* The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has explained that adequate remedies
are those
suitable to address an infringement of a legal right. Velsquez Rodriquez Case,
Inter-Am. Ct.
H.R., Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C. No. 4, 64. See also Juan Carlos Bayarri v.
Argentina, Case No. 11.280, Commission Report No. 2/01, January 19, 2001,
OEA/ser.

L/V/II.111 doc.20 rev., 27 fn.12 (If a remedy is not adequate in a specific case, it
obviously
need not be exhausted) (citing Velsquez Rodriquez Case at 63 ([The
exhaustion
requirement] speaks of generally recognized principles of international law. Those
principles
refer not only to the formal existence of such remedies, but also to their adequacy
and
effectiveness, as shown by the exceptions.)); Gilson Nogueria Carvalho v. Brazil,
Case No.
12,058, Ann. Rpt. Inter-Am. C.H.R. 145, OEA/ser. L/V/II.111 doc. 20 rev. Report No.
61/00,
60 ([T]he merely theoretical existence of legal remedies is not sufficient for this
objection to be
invoked: they have to be effective.).
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
113
clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment thus offer no adequate or effective
remedy to
vindicate the Inuits right to life.
2. THE RIGHT TO RESIDENCE AND MOVEMENT
Neither the U.S. Constitution nor U.S. law provides a right to residence or movement
similar to that guaranteed by Article VIII of the American Declaration of the Rights
and Duties
of Man.770 The closest constitutional analogue to the right to residence is the right
to property,
discussed in the next section. The closest constitutional analogue to the right to
movement is the
right to interstate travel.
While not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the right to interstate travel
has
been derived from various constitutional provisions.771 These provisions include
the Privileges
and Immunities Clause of Article IV;772 the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the
14th
Amendment;773 the Commerce Clause;774 and the Due Process Clauses of the 5th
and 14th
Amendment.775 The right to interstate travel derived from these provisions
guarantees that U.S.
citizens may pass through or to reside in any state.
The right to interstate travel under the U.S. Constitution is much narrower than the
American Declarations right of movement, which is one of the rights that is violated
as a result
of climate change. The right of movement recognized under international human
rights laws
includes the right not to leave ones residence except by ones own will, and the
right to move

about freely.776 The U.S. Constitutions right to interstate travel, by contrast, does
not protect
the right to stay in ones home, but rather seeks to prevent governmental
impediments to the
right to move from one state to another.777
The residence-related claim in this petition is not that U.S. inaction on climate
change
impedes the Inuits right to leave their place of residence to move elsewhere, which
might
implicate the Constitutional right to interstate travel. Rather, the claim is that such
inaction
impedes the Inuits right not to leave and their right to move about freely within
their traditional
homelands, which are rights arising under the American Declaration with no
analogue in U.S.
law. The U.S. Constitutions right to travel therefore furnishes no avenues for an
adequate or
effective remedy to the Inuit.
3. THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects private property. It states, in
relevant part, No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
As
interpreted by U.S. courts, the amendment entitles property owners to
compensation when title to
their property transfers to the government as a result of either (i) physical invasion
of the
property by government order, either permanently or temporarily;778 or (ii)
regulation for other
than health or safety reasons which takes all or nearly all of the value of the
property.779
Similarly, in certain instances, the amendment restricts the governments ability to
attach
conditions on a proposed use that are not roughly proportionate to such use.780
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
114
This constitutional provision, however, provides no effective remedy to the Inuit for
damages to their property resulting from climate change. Under U.S. law, the
governments
failure to take an action to prevent harm to property cannot form the basis of a
claim under the
Fifth Amendment.781 Only affirmative government action to transfer private
property to a public
use in the limited situations described in the preceding paragraph can trigger the
Takings

Clause.782 As such, U.S. law does not provide an adequate or effective remedy for
the Inuits
loss of property resulting from U.S. government action and inaction on climate
change.
4. THE RIGHT TO INVIOLABILITY OF THE HOME
The closest analogy in U.S. law to the right to inviolability of the home is the right to
privacy, which the U.S. Supreme Court has found to exist in the penumbras of the
amendments
to the Constitution.783 However, the right to privacy in the United States is
generally limited to
such personal rights as family planning, child-rearing, and abortion.784 The
environmental
degradation that violates the Inuits rights to inviolability of the home is thus
beyond the scope of
the U.S. Constitutions right to privacy. For these reason, the constitutional right to
privacy does
not provide an adequate or effective remedy for violations to Inuits right to the
inviolability of
their homes.
5. THE RIGHTS TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF CULTURE, TO HEALTH AND TO
MEANS OF
SUBSISTENCE
Neither the U.S. Constitution nor U.S. statutes provide due process of law to protect
the
rights to the enjoyment of the benefits of culture, to health or to means of
subsistence. For that
reason, there are no domestic remedies to exhaust with respect to those rights.
B. U.S. LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE OR EFFECTIVE REMEDIES FOR
THE HARMS
THAT HAVE CAUSED THE VIOLATIONS SUFFERED BY THE INUIT
1. U.S. TORT LAWS
Many of the injuries suffered by the Inuit as a result of climate change may be
characterized as torts. However, U.S. tort law does not provide a remedy for these
violations.
Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the U.S. government and its agencies
from
suit.785 Pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the U.S. government has
waived its
sovereign immunity only for certain tort claims: those committed under
circumstances where
the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance
with the law
of the place where the act or omission occurred. 786 The waiver does not apply,
however, to acts
and omissions based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or
perform a
discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the
Government,
whether or not the discretion involved be abused.787

With respect to the situation of the Inuit, there are no tort remedies available
against the
U.S. government because the U.S. governments acts and omissions that have led
to climate
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
115
change result primarily from acts considered discretionary under U.S. law. For
example, as
described below, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has recently held that
the statute
most likely to require action to address climate change the U.S. Clean Air Act
gives the U.S.
government the discretion not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.788 On the
basis of the
courts decision, therefore, U.S. courts have no power to hear Inuit claims based on
the
governments failure to take action to address climate change.
Finally, for those acts or omissions of governmental agencies that may be
nondiscretionary
(or ministerial) such as the issuance of a permit to a large carbon emissions
producing factory the non-discretionary act or omission is still immune to suit
under the FTCA
because it is not an action in which a private citizen can engage.789 Because
private citizens
cannot issue government permits or engage in other typically ministerial
government activities,
no adequate or effective tort remedy against the U.S. government exists for the
Inuit.
2. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
This petition demonstrates that the Inuit have suffered human rights violations as a
result
of the United States failure to take action to prevent harm caused by its
greenhouse gas
emissions. Although this is predominantly an environmental issue, the U.S.
government itself
has interpreted the leading U.S. air quality statute as providing no remedy for the
violations
alleged in this petition, and has suggested no other statute that could provide a
remedy.
U.S. federal courts have affirmatively ruled that no right to environmental protection
exists under the U.S. Constitution.790 Further, although several U.S. statutes
address the
protection of natural resources, environmental quality, public health, and cultural
heritage, none
of these laws protects the rights at issue in this petition or prevents the harms that
are the basis
for the violations of the Inuits human rights.

The most obvious potential source of a domestic remedy for harm resulting from
U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions is the U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA). The U.S. Environmental
Protection
Agency is responsible for implementing this law. However, the U.S. government has
stated that
the CAA does not authorize EPA to regulate for global climate change purposes,
and
accordingly that CO2 and other [greenhouse gases] cannot be considered air
pollutants subject
to the CAAs regulatory provisions for any contribution they may make to global
climate
change.791 The government has also determined that, even if it had the authority
to regulate
greenhouse gases, such authority would be discretionary and the government
would not exercise
such discretion.792 Finally, the government has formally taken the position that
individuals like
Petitioner or the individuals whose rights have been violated in this case cannot use
U.S. courts
to challenge its failure to regulate greenhouse gases.793
In light of the U.S. governments statements on the availability of environmental
regulation and the absence of judicial remedies for the governments failure to
regulate
greenhouse gas emissions, the international legal principle of non concedit venire
contra factum
proprium no one may set himself in opposition to his own previous conduct
prohibits the
United States from arguing before this Commission that the petition is inadmissible
because the
Clean Air Act provides a remedy for the violations at issue. As the Inter-American
Court has
held, when a party in a case adopts a position that is either beneficial to it or
detrimental to the
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
116
other party, the principle of estoppel prevents it from subsequently assuming the
contrary
position.794
Even if the United States were not bound by its prior statements, however,
Petitioner and
the individuals whose rights have been violated in this case would have no domestic
remedy,
because, only a few months ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit the
only court
that may hear a challenge to the governments decision not to regulate greenhouse
gases

upheld the governments decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under
the Clean Air
Act.795
Nor do other environmental laws provide a remedy. The National Environmental
Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) is the basic national charter for environmental protection. It
requires the
federal government to assess the environmental impact of many of its actions and
establishes
processes for such assessments, but it does not require the government to achieve
any minimum
level of environmental protection or provide any other substantive rights or
protections for
culture or health.796
In sum, as demonstrated above, the U.S. legal system does not provide an effective
remedy for the human rights violations suffered by the Inuit as a result of U.S.
actions and
omissions relating to climate change. The lack of an effective remedy constitutes an
exception to
the exhaustion of remedies rule, according to general principles of international law
and article
31.2(a) of the Commissions rules of procedure. The petition is therefore admissible.
VII. TIMELINESS
Under article 32 of the Commissions Rules of Procedure, a petition to the
Commission
should be lodged within six months of notification of the final ruling that comprises
the
exhaustion of domestic remedies. However, article 32.2 provides that in cases such
as the
present in which the requirement of exhaustion does not apply, the petition shall
be presented
within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. For this
purpose, the
Commission shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights
occurred, and the
circumstances of each case.
Under the circumstances of this case, this petition is being presented within a
reasonable
period of time. The acts and omissions and resulting harm that form the basis of the
petition are
ongoing. Emissions from the United States of greenhouse gases that cause global
warming are
increasing. The United States has failed to take serious and effective measures to
minimize its
emissions and has given no indication that it will do so in the foreseeable future.
The harm to the
Inuit caused by U.S. acts and omissions has not diminished but has worsened and
will continue
to worsen in the coming decades unless the United States changes its behavior. In
the absence of

adequate or effective domestic remedies, the Inuit Circumpolar Conferences (ICC)

has attempted
to use other international mechanisms to obtain US protection of the rights of Inuit
harmed by
climate change.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
117
The Inuit Circumpolar Conference is an observer organization to the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change and has attended three Conferences of the Parties to
the FCCC,
at which it has held side-events to publicize the impacts of climate change on Inuit
and to request
that Parties to the Convention take serious actions to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. The ICC
is also a Permanent Participant at the Arctic Council where it has pressed for action
from all
eight Arctic nations, particularly the United States. The ICC has also provided
testimony to the
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Because it is
becoming
increasingly clear that these efforts have not been and will not be effective,
Petitioner is now
bringing the matter to the Commission.
VIII. ABSENCE OF PARALLEL INTERNATIONAL PROCEEDINGS
The subject of this petition is not pending in any other international proceeding for
settlement, nor does it duplicate any petition pending before or already examined
by the
Commission or any other international governmental organization.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
118
IX. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Commission:
1. Make an onsite visit to investigate and confirm the harms suffered by the named
individuals whose rights have been violated and other affected Inuit;
2. Hold a hearing to investigate the claims raised in this Petition;
3. Prepare a report setting forth all the facts and applicable law, declaring that the
United States of America is internationally responsible for violations of rights
affirmed in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and in other
instruments of international law, and recommending that the United States:
a. Adopt mandatory measures to limit its emissions of greenhouse gases and
cooperate in efforts of the community of nations as expressed, for example,
in activities relating to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change to limit such emissions at the global level;
b. Take into account the impacts of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions on the Arctic

and affected Inuit in evaluating and before approving all major government
actions;
c. Establish and implement, in coordination with Petitioner and the affected
Inuit, a plan to protect Inuit culture and resources, including, inter alia, the
land, water, snow, ice, and plant and animal species used or occupied by the
named individuals whose rights have been violated and other affected Inuit;
and mitigate any harm to these resources caused by US greenhouse gas
emissions;
d. Establish and implement, in coordination with Petitioner and the affected Inuit
communities, a plan to provide assistance necessary for Inuit to adapt to the
impacts of climate change that cannot be avoided;
e. Provide any other relief that the Commission considers appropriate and just.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
119
X. VERIFICATION, SIGNATURE AND DESIGNATION OF ATTORNEYS
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, with the support of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, presents
this
petition on behalf of the named individuals whose rights have been violated and
other affected
Inuit. (See Section IV.B.) By her signature below, Ms. Watt-Cloutier attests to the
truthfulness
of the facts set forth in this petition.
Ms. Watt-Cloutier wants her name used by the Commission in its communications
with
the government of the United States of America and with the public.
Paul Crowley is authorized to represent Ms. Watt-Cloutier in this case. All notices
and
communications to the petitioner in relation to this case should be sent to Mr.
Crowley, counsel
of record, at the address below.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier
Address:
P.O. Box 2099
Iqaluit, Nunavut
Canada
X0A 0H0
Telephone: (867) 979-4661
Attorney for Petitioner:
Paul Crowley
P.O. Box 1630
Iqaluit, Nunavut X0A 0H0
Canada
(867) 979-3396
pcrowley@nv.sympatico.ca
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 7, 2005
120
ANNEX I
Pitseolak Alainga, P.O. Box 595, Iqaluit, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 9790285. Born 1967. Mr. Alainga works for the city of Iqaluit as a heavy equipment
operator. He
has a wife and three sons whom he enjoys taking out hunting. He and other hunters
have had
difficulties bringing food back for the community. This has affected their traditional
community-based food practices. Mr. Alainga has also noticed a decrease in the
quality of seal
fur; changes in caribou migration; and the presence of new species of insects.
Heather Angnatok, PO Box 174, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, AOP ILO,
Canada.
Telephone: (709) 922-2942. Born 1965. Ms. Angnatok is a part of the Labrador Inuit
Youth
Division. She has four children and one grandchild. She reports that the ice and
snow conditions
have changed. Her husband and son once fell through the ice because it has
become harder to
judge whether the ice is safe for travel.
Evie Anilniliak, PO Box 59, Pangnirtung, Nunavut, XOA ORO, Canada. Telephone:
(867)
473-8319. Born 1927. Ms. Anilniliak was born in Pangnirtung where she has lived
most of her
life. She is the mother of 6 adopted children. Ms. Anilniliak reports that the ice
freezes much
later in the winter, resulting in a shorter hunting season. She and other community
members are
now forced to rely more on store-bought food which has had an ill effect on their
health.
Louis Autut, PO Box 15, Chesterfield Inlet, NU, X0C 0B0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
8989094. Born 1936. Mr. Autut has lived in Chesterfield Inlet all his life, where he has
hunted on
the land and water since 1940. Changes in the quality of the snow have decreased
his ability to
build igloos. Mr. Autut also reports that the caribou are thinner and less healthy.
Changes in
river water levels have affected his ability to boat and fish.
Christine Baikie, PO Box 146, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, AOP ILO, Canada.
Telephone: (709) 922-2829. Born 1931. Ms. Baikie was born in Tutak and moved to
Nain in
1978. She now has 8 children, 13 grandchildren, and 9 great-grandchildren. Ms.
Baikie reports
that there is less sea ice in the wintertime, which leads to dangerous travel
conditions. She also
sees how this makes it harder to access the seal population and as a result they
catch fewer seals.

Since she came to Nain, the tides are higher. Moose, which never used to be
around, are often in
town.
Eugene Brower, PO Box 69, Barrow, AK, 99723, USA. Born 1946. Mr. Brower was
born and
raised in Barrow and has lived there since returning from his education in the south.
He serves
as Director of North Slope Borough Fire Department, President of Barrow Whaling
Captains
Association, and Weapons Improvement Chair for whaling across 10 communities.
He has seen
a number of new fish species in Barrow waters, and increased competition on the
water for
scarcer animal resources. Changes in the thickness and longevity of sea ice and the
warming in
his ice cellars is causing him concern. These changes increase Mr. Browers risks
during
harvesting, as well as causing uncertainty and anxiety related to travel.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
121
Ronald Brower, PO Box 75, Barrow, AK 99723, USA. Telephone: (907) 852-4510.
Born
1948. Mr. Brower was born and spent his early years in a traditional community
outside of
Barrow, and moved into the village at age 6. He spent several years in the south
and abroad for
his education, but then returned to Barrow and now teaches Inupiat language and
cultural history
at Barrow Middle School. A whaling captain and heavily dependent on subsistence
hunting, he
has noticed new problems related to whaling from the thinner sea ice, changing
land vegetation
and its negative impacts on caribou, and food-stresses on the community from the
scarcity of sea
mammals.
Johnny Cookie, PO Box 6, Umiujaq, Quebec, JOM IYO, Canada. Telephone: (819)
331-7146.
Born 1940. Mr. Cookie is from the Richmond Gulf area in Nimiriq, but he currently
lives with
his grandchildren. He reports that the duration of the seasons has changed during
his lifetime.
Sappa Fleming, PO Box 195, Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, JOM IGO, Canada. Telephone:
(819) 9293642. Born August 10, 1956. Mr. Fleming has lived in Kuujjuarapik for his entire life.
He has
four sons, two daughters and one adopted child. Mr. Fleming is concerned about the
effect that a

shorter season of sea ice is having on the communitys ability to hunt seal. He
reports that there
is less snow in the wintertime and that the sun feels hotter. Mr. Fleming is worried
about the
difficulty of passing on traditional knowledge to his sons now that there are fewer
opportunities
for them to hunt together.
Lizzie Gordon, Kuujjuaq, Quebec, JOM 1C0, Canada. Telephone: (819) 964-1144.
Born
March 9, 1933. Mrs. Gordon and her husband have 7 children and 21 grandchildren.
Mrs.
Gordon reports that there are now more polar bears and black bears around town
and around her
camp than there used to be. She has also found trees growing in places that used to
be barren.
She also lost several close family members who were stuck in an unexpected
blizzard due to the
rapidly changing weather patterns.
Sandy Gordon, Kuujjuaq, Quebec, JOM 1C0, Canada. Telephone: (819) 964-1144.
Born
September 30, 1937. Mr. Gordon and his wife, Lizzie, have 7 children and 21
grandchildren.
Mr. Gordon reports the presence of migratory birds in his community that had not
come there in
the past. He also remembers an incident in which several travelers were stuck
outside of town
due to rapid snow melt and had to be rescued by helicopter.
David Haogak, PO Box 29, Sachs Harbour, NT X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
6903029. Born 1974. Mr. Haogak was born and raised in Sachs Harbour. He went south
for high
school and college but returned to Banks Island to take a position as the Iluvak
National Park
Site Manager. The President of the Sachs Harbour Hunters and Trappers Committee
and a lifelong
hunter, he has witnessed a massive starvation of musk-oxen from increased winter
ground
ice and now experiences difficulties in traveling from increased fog. Mr. Haogak is
concerned
about the broad difficulties of struggling to adapt to accelerating environmental
dangers.
Edith Haogak, PO Box 52, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
690-3040.
Born 1930. Mrs. Haogak was born in Paulatuk. She and her parents lived a nomadic
subsistence
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
122

life for years, traveling between Banks and Victoria Island and staying on the ice the
whole
winter, hunting seal and polar bear. She has lived in Sachs Harbour all her life, and
reports that
weather changes more rapidly than in the past and that the quality of caribou meat
has
diminished.
Julius Ikkusek, PO Box 152, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, AOP ILO, Canada.
Telephone: (709) 922-1063. Born 1935. Mr. Ikkusek reports that the weather varies
more
quickly and drastically than it did in the past and that there are more polar bears
around town.
He also has noticed a decrease in snowfall, and that the snow conditions are so
different that it is
now harder to build igloos.
Lucas Ittulak, PO Box 167, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, AOP ILO, Canada.
Telephone:
(709) 922-1106. Born 1940. Mr. Ittulak has taught cultural and life skills youth
camps for at
least 15 years. In that time, he has noticed that the fishing season has become
shorter and that
the fish leave the rivers much earlier in the year. Mr. Ittulak also reports that there
are more
polar bears in town, attributing their presence to the fact that there is less sea ice.
He has also
noticed that the prevailing winds have changed from the West to the South.
Sarah Ittulak, PO Box 167, Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, AOP ILO, Canada.
Telephone:
(709) 922-1106. Born 1930. Mrs. Ittulak has taught cultural and life skills youth
camps for at
least 15 years. She has noticed that the quality of sealskins has decreased, and that
the caribou
meat is not the same as it used to be. The sun also feels hotter to Mrs. Ittulak,
which effects her
traditional fish-drying practices.
Mina Jooktoo, PO Box 345, Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, JOM IGO, Canada. Telephone:
(819) 9293870. Born 1938. Mrs. Jooktoo was born near Sunykyluk, and now lives with her
husband in
Kuujjuarapik. She reports that seal fur is of a different quality than it used to be, and
that the
seals molting season has changed. She has also noticed that berries do not ripen as
much as
they used to.
Willie Jooktoo, PO Box 345, Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, JOM IGO, Canada. Telephone:
(819) 9293870. Born 1933. Mr. Jooktoo was born near Kuujjuarapik and has lived in the area
his whole
life. He reports that the quality of water in the rivers and streams has decreased to
the point that

it is no longer drinkable. He has also seen the water level in lakes go down due to
heat and
evaporation. Mr. Jooktoo has begun to experience health problems due to an
increased reliance
on store-bought food.
Irving Kava, PO Box 102, Savoonga, AK 99769, USA. No telephone. Born 1953. Mr.
Kava
was born and grew up on the south side of St. Lawrence Island, hunting with his
family from a
young age. Mr. Kava reports that the winters have become warmer, with less land
snow and less
sea ice. He has also noticed increased erosion on the beach, which has made it
more difficult to
land boats.
John Keogak, General Delivery, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone:
867-690PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
123
4003. Born 1958. Mr. Keogak was born in Aklavik, and raised in the McKenzie Delta.
He has
relied heavily on subsistence hunting all his life. He reports that there are now
periods when
traveling to hunt is limited as there is too little snow for skidoos, and the ground is
too muddy
from the rapid thaw for ATVs. Mr. Keogak has also noticed that the behavior of some
animals,
including seals, has changed, and that fishing now produces less catch.
David Koneak, PO Box 505, Kuujjuaq, Quebec, JOM 1C0, Canada. Telephone: (819)
9641407. Born 1942. Mr. Koneak was born on a small island accessible by foot at low
tide, not far
from Hotek. He married at age 19 and has nine children. He and his family moved to
Kuujjuaq
in 1957. He has been a subsistence hunter all his life, and has recently noticed that
the weather
has become less predictable and that the sea ice thaws much earlier in the year
than it used to.
Because of this, Mr. Koneak has seen several species of animals lose their habitat.
George Koneak, PO Box 278, Kuujjuaq, Quebec, JOM 1C, Canada. Telephone: (819)
9648844. Born 1931. Mr. Koneak is married with five sons and five daughters He reports
changes
in the behavior and health of the animals, including displacement of the polar bear,
walrus and
osprey and incidents of caribou starving to death due to poor vegetation growth.
These changes

have made it difficult for Mr. Koneak to pass on traditional teachings to his ten
children.
Ben Kovic, PO Box 60008, Iqaluit, Nunavut, XOA 1HO, Canada. Telephone: (867)
979-3066.
Mr. Kovic was born in Quwaitin and moved to Baffin Island. Mr. Kovic is the president
of
Baffin Fisheries and has been in the field of wildlife management for over 30 years.
During that
time, he has noticed negative changes to caribou and seal health, as well as
warmer temperatures
in the winter and an increased incidence of sunburn.
Frank Kudlak, PO Box 9, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
690-4900.
Born December 24, 1929. Mr. Kudlak was born on Victoria Island and lived in several
other
communities in the North before moving to Banks Island. He has hunted and
trapped on the land
his entire life. Mr. Kudlak reports that the summer weather has become much less
desirable than
in the past, that there are far fewer caribou, and that ice is not staying in the harbor
for nearly as
long as it used to.
Nora Kuzuguk, PO Box 24, Shishmaref, AK 99772. Telephone: (907) 649-3021. Mrs.
Kuzuguk was born in Shishmaref, where she has lived her entire life. She works as a
carving,
sewing and language instructor at the Shishmaref School. She is active in food
preservation and
preparation, along with subsistence gathering of vegetation and fishing. She reports
that many
buildings along the shoreline are in precarious situations, and that beach clams,
which used to be
part of the subsistence diet, are no longer available.
John Lucas, PO Box 67, Sachs Harbour, NT X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867) 6904009.
Mr. Lucas was born on Banks Island and has been hunting and trapping there all his
life. He comanages
a tour service that takes clients sport-hunting for musk oxen and polar bear, and is
an
active subsistence hunter on land, sea and ice. He reports seeing massive erosion
along the coast
and along river and lake banks across Banks Island. Thinner sea ice has increased
Mr. Lucass
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
124
risk when polar bear hunting because of thinner sea ice.
Samantha Lucas, PO Box 67, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 690-

4009. Born 1947. Mrs. Lucas was born in Tuktoyaktuk. Since moving to Sachs
Harbour, she
has been active in hunting, trapping and traveling, and co-manages a sport-hunting
tour
operation. In addition, she collects monthly data on game caught for the Inuvialuit
Fisheries
Joint Management Committee. She has found that more polar bears are being
stranded on the
island and coming into town, and that there has been a change in migration
patterns of geese that
has made them more difficult to hunt. More frequent weather delays for flights to
Banks Island
has decreased the quality of foods imported and available to Mrs. Lucas and others
in the
community.
Trevor Lucas, PO Box 67, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
690-4009.
Born 1974. Mr. Lucas was born and raised in Sachs Harbour, and has been hunting
and trapping
all his life. He now works actively as a polar bear and musk-ox hunting guide. He
has been
stranded on the far side of unusually high rivers recently, and has noticed thinner,
less healthy
musk-oxen. Mr. Lucas has also noticed increased erosion and mud-slides along
rivers and lakes.
Pauloosie Lucassie, PO Box 434, Iqaluit, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 9793691. Born 1947. Mr. Lucassie was born outside of Iqaluit and has lived in the area
his entire
life. He has spent time on the land ever since he was a child and practices
subsistence hunting.
Mr. Lucassie also teaches hunting and igloo-building skills. He has more difficulty
hunting these
days, due to poor travel conditions and the need to find alternate routes. It has also
become
harder for him to find snow for igloo building. Mr. Lucassie also reports a decrease in
the seal
population, and an increase in polar bear sightings.
Jack Maniapik (Mayor), PO Box 253, Pangnirtung, NT, XOA ORO, Canada.
Telephone:
work: (867) 473-2604; home: (867) 473-8361. Born 1956. Mr. Maniapik was born in
an outpost
camp and moved to Pangnirtung in 1966 at the age of 10. He is now mayor of
Pangnirtung. He
has five siblings and three children. Mr. Maniapik reports that the ice freezes later in
the winter
now, which shortens the fishing season. Mr. Maniapik and other community
members have also
seen more polar bears in and around the town.

Tony Mannernaluk, PO Box 267, Rankin Inlet, NU, X0C 0G0, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 6453184. Born 1935. Mr. Mannernaluk was born and raised in a camp far outside any
community.
He was trained and worked as a carpenter, and has served as a Northern Ranger
since 1992, a
post that involves emergency outdoor rescues. He is an active subsistence hunter.
Mr.
Mannernaluk reports that some rivers have become impossible to navigate due to a
drop in water
levels. He has also noticed that more people are being stranded out on the land due
to rapidly
changing weather and a decrease in the winter ground snow that makes travel
much more
difficult.
Rosemund Martin, PO Box 6, Savoonga, AK 99769, USA. No telephone. Born
October 26,
1933. Mrs. Martin was born and raised in Savoonga and has lived there all her life.
She
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
125
routinely gathers greens, berries, and roots and has worked with skins and furs for
sewing and
handicrafts. She reports that food spoils and becomes insect-infested more quickly
when it is left
out to dry than it used to; that there has been a decrease in the quality and quantity
of greens that
she can harvest in season; and that drier soil has resulted in a decrease in the
quality of edible
roots.
Warren Matumeak, PO Box 405, Barrow, AK 99723, USA. Telephone: (907) 8525218.
Born 1927. Mr. Matumeak grew up in the old community of sod houses that was
located on
Point Barrow before the erosion began in earnest. His father and grandfather trained
him to hunt
on the tundra from an early age. He worked for the North Slope Borough Zoning
Commission,
and eventually became director of NSB Wildlife Management. He reports that
increased
permafrost melting has caused rippling, damaged air-strips, and damage to and
shifting of his
home. He also has trouble keeping his meat cellar cool enough in a way that he did
not before.
Jamesie Mike, Pangnirtung, Nunavut, XOA ORO, Canada. (No telephone.) Born
November 1,
1928. Mr. Mike was born on the North Cumberland Sound before the community was

established in Pangnirtung. He lived in outpost camps as a child and moved to

Pangnirtung in
the 1950s. Mr. Mike has 12 children and approximately 50 grandchildren. He
reports that the
sea ice is forming thinner and melting faster than in the past, making it more
difficult for the
fishermen who spend part of the year living on the ice, and for the hunters who
catch game on
the ice. He has also witnessed land slumping due to melting permafrost.
Meeka Mike, PO Box 797, Iqaluit, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone: (867)
979-1600.
Born 1966. Ms. Mike was raised in the traditional camping style and still does her
own hunting.
She currently runs a dog team touring operation in Iqaluit. She reports rapid
changes in wind
direction; increased rainfall; and changes to the caribou and seal populations. Ms.
Mikes
business has been affected due to the shorter cold season and changes in snow
quality.
Roy Nageak, PO Box 354, Barrow, AK 99723, USA. Telephone: (907) 852-7696.
Born 1951.
Mr. Nageak moved to Barrow during his early childhood and, except for some
schooling in the
south, has lived there since. A highly active subsistence hunter and whaling captain,
he also
serves as a member of the Native Village council. Mr. Nageak has noticed a steady
decrease in
the size of whales that he can harvest, due to reduced thickness of sea ice. He also
reports that
there are seasons in which large groups of hunters miss sea mammals entirely
because the ice
now travels by early and rapidly. He also feels that there is less time available for
young hunters
to experience the skills necessary for their work.
Annie Napayok, PO Box 103, Whale Cove, NU, X0C 0J0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
8969025. Born March 18, 1937. Mrs. Napayok was born and raised in Coral Harbour and
lived in
several other communities in the North including Iqaluit and Arviat. She has worked
as a cook's
aid and a janitor and has always been involved in teaching younger people how to
prepare and
work with skins and nutritious foods. She reports that meat now sometimes spoils
before hunters
even have a chance to get it back into the community. She has also seen a decrease
in the quality
of drinking water from lakes because of lower water levels, and a decrease in the
quantity of fish
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING

CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 7, 2005
126
in streams and rivers.
Enosilk Nashalik, Pangnirtung, Nunavut, XOA ORO, Canada. Born 1919. Mr.
Nashalik was
born in an old whaling station and is the oldest person in Pangnirtung. He has been
an avid
hunter his whole life and used to teach survival skills to young people at the
community school.
Mr. Nashalik reports that changes in the freezing and melting of the ice have
resulted in an
altered habitat for seals and a decline in their fur quality. He and others have also
experienced
health problems related to an increased reliance on store-bought food. Changes in
the weather
have made it harder for Mr. Nashalik to predict the weather using traditional
knowledge.
Simon Nattaq II, PO Box 972, Iqaluit, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 9796015. Born 1945. As a child, Mr. Nattaq spent long periods of time on the land
outside the
settlement. He reports a decrease in the quality of water and meats, and changes
that have made
it more difficult for him to predict the weather. Mr. Nattaq now feels more in danger
of falling
through the ice because it is often thinner than it used to be. He is also experiencing
new
difficulties in passing on traditional knowledge of weather prediction and igloo
building.
Herbert Nayokpuk, PO Box 30, Shishmaref, AK 99772, USA. Telephone: (907) 6493301.
Born June 12, 1929. Mr. Nayokpuk was born and raised in Savoonga. He is a
champion dog
musher and was among the first inductees to the Iditarod Hall of Fame. Mr.
Nayokpuk has
noticed less rain in August and more dry lakes; unseasonably warm temperatures;
and a massive
loss of land from erosion each time the water is high.
George Noongwook, PO Box 81, Savoonga, AK 99769, USA. Telephone: work:
(907) 9846414; home: (907) 984-6231. Born before 1955. Mr. Noongwook was born in
Savoonga. When
he was a child, his uncle taught him to hunt. He now spends much of his time on the
sea ice and
tundra, and in the country pursuing living a subsistence life. He is also Savoongas
commissioner to the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission. Mr. Noongwook reports
that there
is increased stress and anxiety among hunters because of greater uncertainty about
hunting and

traveling; that hunters must travel greater distances to reach hunting territory as
the ice edge
recedes; and that more hunters are falling through the thinner ice.
Peter Paneak, PO Box 56, Clyde River, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 9246135. Born March 13, 1934. Mr. Paneak was born and raised in the Samford Fjord
area on a
small island. He has noticed that the weather has become less predictable, making
traditional
knowledge less useful, and that meat caching is no longer effective for food storage
because the
increase in polar bear activity around town leaves cached meat vulnerable to the
polar bears. He
has seen changes in species: seals are being found with no fur, less caribou are
around and there
are more mosquitoes.
Uqallak Panikpak, Clyde River, Nunavut, Canada. Born 1939. Ms. Panikpak was
born near
Clyde River and has lived in the area her whole life. She has 7 children, one adopted
child and
14 grandchildren. Ms. Panikpak practices traditional meat drying and makes
traditional clothing
from animal skins. She also gathers berries for food in the summertime. Ms.
Panikpak reports
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
127
that polar bears are becoming too thin to eat, and that the ice is melting much
earlier in the spring
than it used to. She has also seen and experienced sunburn, which never used to
happen.
Joanasie Qappik, PO Box 372, Pangnirtung, Nunavut, XOA ORO, Canada.
Telephone: (867)
473-8391. Born September 6, 1933. Mr. Qappik has four children and was married
for 47 years.
He reports that the late freezing and early melting of the ice has reduced the ability
of the hunters
and fishermen to be out on the land. He also has seen changes in wildlife, including
the quality
of seal fur, and has seen the negative health effects that an increased reliance on
store-bought
food has brought to his community.
Apak Qaqqasiq, Clyde River, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. No telephone. Born
1934. Mr.
Qaqqasiq was born inland near Pangnirtung and moved to Clyde River when his
community
relocated to the settlement. He has 10 children and many grandchildren. Changes
in weather

have caused Mr. Qaqqasiq to travel less. He is less able to rely on traditional
weather predicting
skills, because the weather has become unpredictable and the prevailing wind
direction has
shifted. He also cannot cache meat anymore, out of fear that it will get eaten by
polar bears.
James Qillaq, PO Box 104, Clyde River, Nunavut, XOA OEO, Canada. Telephone:
(867) 9246288. Born 1951. Mr. Qillaq is the director of HTO (a hunters association). He has
spent
much of his life in outpost camps and as a hunter. He reports that the glaciers
surrounding Clyde
River have disappeared; that some rivers that historically froze over in the winter
are no longer
doing so; and that there is more sediment in the rivers, making the water unsafe for
drinking.
Paul Rookok, PO Box 135, Savoonga, AK 99769, USA. Telephone: (907) 984-6329.
Born
1940. Mr. Rookok was raised in Savoonga and went south for several years for
education and
technician training. He began a subsistence way of life on his return and has been
hunting and
whaling ever since. Mr. Rookok has noticed that the spring whaling season has
become shorter,
which sometimes results in no catch. He also reports that the beach has been
changed by
erosion, and that less walrus are available because the ice is thinner.
Joshua Sala, PO Box 40, Umiujaq, Quebec, JOM IYO, Canada. No telephone. Born
1937. Mr.
Sala grew up in Sanikiluaq. He has one child and several grandchildren. Mr. Sala has
noticed
that the ice forms much later in the season and melts much earlier. This has
shortened the
hunting season and reduced hunters access to wildlife.
Akittiq Sanguya, PO Box 106, Clyde River, Nunavut, XOA OEO, Canada. Telephone:
(867)
924-6297. Born July 1, 1935. Ms. Sanguya was born across the inlet from Clyde
River and has
lived in the area her whole life. She has 7 children, 21 grandchildren and one greatgrandchild.
Ms. Sanguya has spent time on the land all her life, both as a child and as a mother.
She used to
go fishing and seal and caribou hunting by dogsled. She and her husband used to
rely on a diet
of only country food but now she must rely on store-bought food. Ms. Sanguya
reports changes
in the quality of animal skins; that the sea ice is melting faster and earlier; and that
the weather
has become harder to predict.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING

CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
128
John Sinnok, PO Box 62, Shishmaref, AK 99772, USA. Telephone: (907) 649-3531.
Mr.
Sinnok is a carving, sewing and language instructor at Shishmaref school, a life-long
resident of
the community and a subsistence hunter. He reports that the ice that used to buffer
their beach
from winter storms no longer forms, resulting in massive erosion that jeopardizes
the
communitys traditional food preparation areas. He has also noticed that there is
more slushice,
which is extremely weak and can be a danger to ice travel when it is covered with
snow.
Jerome Tattuinee, Lot 600th Sk 272, Rankin Inlet, NU, X0C 0G0, Canada.
Telephone: (867)
645-2550. Born March 15, 1932. Mr. Tattuinee grew up in Repulse Bay. For as long as
he can
remember he has been tied to the land and the environment. He was trained in
traditional
forecasting and reports that those methods are now virtually useless because of the
rapid changes
in weather. Harder snow now makes it more difficult for him and others to build
igloos and the
caribou herds are now generally thinner than in the past.
Stanley Tocktoo, PO Box 128, Shishmaref, AK 99772, USA. Telephone: (907) 6498594. Mr.
Tocktoo is the mayor of Shishmaref and a carving, sewing and language instructor
at Shishmaref
School. He is active in Shishmaref Emergency Services search and rescue and is a
lifelong
resident and subsistence hunter. He reports that erosion has destroyed the
communitys
traditional drying rack area, and that changes in the ice have trapped people in
town until it is too
late to get to fish in the inland rivers. Mr. Tocktoo has also noticed that the
community is
beginning to experience health impacts due to the decreased availability of country
food,
encouraging a switch to store-bought food.
Robbie Tookalak, PO Box 50, Umiujaq, Quebec, JOM IYO, Canada. Telephone:
home: (819)
331-7094; work: (819) 331-7000. Born February 2, 1944. Mr. Tookalak has been the
mayor of
Umiujaq for nine years. Prior to that he was the major of Umkuijuapiq for six and a
half years
and has worked for the Municipal Corporation since 1978. He reports that the winter
comes later

in the season and that the spring thaw is much more rapid. He has also noticed an
increase in
vegetation. He has difficulty traveling because the weather is less predictable and
because of the
duration of storms.
Kenneth Toovak, PO Box 381, Barrow, AK 99723, USA. Telephone: (907) 852-6335.
Born
1923. Mr. Toovak was born and raised in Barrow and has lived there all his life. He
served for
years as an assistant to the scientists at the Naval Arctic Research Labs and was
granted an
Honorary Doctorate from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks for that work. He has
noticed
that the sun feels hotter than in the past; that snow now melts far more rapidly in
the spring; and
that Barrow is now more in danger from flooding because of the decrease in the
shore-fast ice
which used to break up big waves before they came to the shore.
Alec Tuckatuck, PO Box 18, Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, JOM IGO, Canada. Telephone:
work:
(819) 929-3348; home: (819) 929-3021. Born 1938. Mr. Tuckatuck is the president of
Sakkug
Landholding Corporation. He was born south of Kuujjuarapik in 1938. He began
hunting at an
early age, because his father died when he was 12 years old. Mr. Tuckatuck has
three daughters
and 12 grandchildren. He reports that the denning period for seals has become
shorter because
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
129
of the reduction in sea ice. He is forced to buy more store-bought food these days
because he is
no longer able to catch enough country food to feed his whole family.
Clara Tumic, PO Box 58, Umiujaq, Quebec, JOM IYO, Canada. Telephone: (819) 3317095.
Born 1950. Mrs. Tumic came to Umiujaq in 1984. She and her husband, Isaac, have
4 children,
18 grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren. Many of the lakes in her area have less
water or
have dried up completely and she has experienced rashes and sunburn that she had
not
experienced before.
Isaac Tumic, PO Box 58, Umiujaq, Quebec, JOM IYO, Canada. Telephone: (819) 3317095.
Born 1947. Mr. Tumic and his wife, Clara, have 4 children, 18 grandchildren and 3
greatgrandchildren.
He hunts on the land, and has noticed a reduction in the population of fish and

seals, as well as changes in weather patterns and a decrease in precipitation.

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, P.O. Box 2099, Iqaluit, Nunavut, X0A 0H0, Canada,
Telephone: (867)
979-4661. Ms. Watt-Cloutier is Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), the
Inuit
organization that represents the interests internationally of Inuit resident in Canada,
Greenland,
Alaska, and Chukotka in the Far East of the Federation of Russia. Currently living in
Iqaluit,
Nunavut, she was born in Kuujjuaq, Nunavik (northern Quebec) in 1953, and was
raised
traditionally in her early years before attending school in southern Canada. She is a
mother of
two and a grandmother of one. Ms. Watt-Cloutier is an avid berry picker and eats a
diet of
country food whenever possible. She is particularly concerned that her grandson will
not be able
to live the Inuit hunting and food-sharing culture that has sustained Inuit physically
and
spiritually for generations.
Moses Weetaltuk, PO Box 301, Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, JOM IGO, Canada.
Telephone: (819)
929-1086. Born 1954. Mr. Weetaltuk was born near James Bay on Cape Hope Island.
He
moved to Kuujjuarapik in 1960 to attend school. He has three adopted children and
has been a
subsistence hunter all his life. Mr. Weetaltuk reports that the winter sea ice comes
much later
and thaws much earlier in the season, resulting in a shorter hunting period and
dangerous spring
conditions. He has also noticed a change in bear habitat and an increase in the
strength of the
winds.
Stephen Weyiouanna, PO Box 80, Shishmaref, AK 99772, USA. Telephone: (907)
649-3631.
Born 1930. Mr. Weyiouanna has lived in Shishmaref most of his life. He reports that
a beach in
his community that used to be wide enough to serve as a landing strip for small
planes is now
only a few feet wide.
Geddes Wolki, PO Box 88, Sachs Harbour, NT X0E 0Z0, Canada. No telephone.
Born
November 28, 1933. Mr. Wolki was born on Big Bluff, about 20 miles north of Lenny
Harbour
on Banks Island. He has lived and hunted on Banks Island most of his life. He
reports that
stronger winds now blow more dust and mud onto the snow and ice and accelerate
its melting.
The quality of the land in Mr. Wolkis community has changed because of permafrost
melting,

and the ground is now wetter, with many puddles.

PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
130
Lena Wolki, PO Box 88, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867)
690-3013.
Mrs. Wolki was born on Victoria Island and moved to Banks Island when she was
young. Her
father died when she was three, so she and her mother did the necessary hunting
and traveling.
She has 5 children. Her husband trapped and she prepared the furs. It is now harder
for Mrs.
Wolki and others to teach children about the land because of changes in the spring
weather.
Changes in the water levels in lakes and rivers have affected fishing and land travel
in her
community.
Jerry Wongitillin, PO Box 20, Savoonga, AK, 99769, USA. Telephone: (907) 9846676. Mr.
Wongitillin was raised in Savoonga and served as mayor for 40 years. Throughout
his youth, he
spent as much as six months each year camping on the land. He reports that the ice
goes out
earlier and comes in later every year. Polar bears in Mr. Wongitillins community are
now
sometimes left on the island in large numbers by rapidly receding ice and have to
be shot lest
they endanger the town.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
131
ENDNOTES
1 Remarks by Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Chair of Inuit Circumpolar Conference, to the
United Nations
Environment Programme Champions of the Earth Award Ceremony, New York
(April 19, 2005),
available at http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?ID=294&Lang=En.
2 INUIT TAPIRIIT KANATAMI (ITK), Cultural Origins, available at
http://www.itk.ca/5000-yearheritage/
cultural-origin.php.
3 ITK, Cultural Origins, at http://www.itk.ca/5000-year-heritage/our-ancestors.php.
4 ITK, Early History, at http://www.itk.ca/5000-year-heritage/early-history.php.
5 Id.
6 ITK, Our Ancestors, at http://www.itk.ca/5000-year-heritage/our-ancestors.php.
7 MARGIE ANN GIBSON & SALLIE B. SCHULLINGER, ANSWERS FROM THE ICE EDGE:
THE CONSEQUENCES

OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON LIFE IN THE BERING AND CHUKCHI SEAS at 5 (Arctic

Network & Greenpeace
USA, June 1998) available at
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic/reports/testimonies.pdf (last
visited October 26, 2005).
8 ITK, Out 5000-year Heritage, at http://www.itk.ca/5000-year-heritage.
9 GIBSON & SCHULLINGER, supra note 7 at 5-6.
10 Id. at 6.
11 Id. at 5-6.
12 Remarks by Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, The
World Bank
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Week, Washington, DC
(March 30, 2005),
available
at http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?ID=290&Lang=En.
13 NUNAVUT SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (NSDC), ON OUR OWN TERMS: THE
STATE OF INUIT
CULTURE AND SOCIETY, (2000), at 75-76.
14 Remarks by Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, The
World Bank
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Week, Washington, DC,
(March 30, 2005),
available at http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?ID=290&Lang=En.
15 ITK, Traditional Knowledge: Facts and Concepts, at
http://www.itk.ca/environment/tek-facts.php.
16 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Impacts of a Warming Climate: Final Overview
Report (ACIA
Overview) 668 (Cambridge University Press 2004), available at
http://www.amap.no/acia/ (last visited
February 4, 2005).
17 Id., at 669.
18 ITK, Inuit Today, at http://www.itk.ca/5000-year-heritage/inuit-today.php.
19 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 12 at 669.
20 NSDC, supra note 13, at 84.
21 ITK, Initiatives, at http://www.itk.ca/sed/initiatives-ipr.php.
22 ITK, Environment, at http://www.itk.ca/environment/index.php.
23 Remarks by Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, The
World Bank
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Week, Washington DC
(March 30, 2005),
available at http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?ID=290&Lang=En.
24 ITK, Understanding Inuit Knowledge, at http://www.itk.ca/environment/tekunderstanding.php.
25 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 12 at 672.
26 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 12 at 655 (citation omitted).
27 GIBSON & SHULLINGER, supra note 7, at 6; ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 12
at 655.
28 See ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 12 at 655; Richard G. Condon, Modern
Food Sharing

Networks and Community Integration in the Central Canadian Arctic, in ARCTIC

December 1998.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
132
29 GIBSON & SHULLINGER, supra note 7, at 6; ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 12
at 655.
30 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 12, at p. 667 (citations omitted).
31 Charles Wohlforth, The Iupiaq Supercomputer: What The Whale Hunters Know
& Some Scientists
Want To Discover, ANCHORAGE PRESS, Vol. 10, Ed. 45 (Nov. 8 Nov. 14, 2001),
available at
http://www.anchoragepress.com/archives/document097a.html.
32 Terry Fenge, The Inuit and Climate Change, ISUMA at 81 (Winter 2001); see also
NSDC, supra note
13, at 79 (describing the concept of IQ as including all aspects of the Inuit way of
life); ACIA Overview,
supra note 16, ch. 3, at 64 (describing the various terms for the concept of
traditional knowledge, and
their shortcomings as descriptive names).
33 Wohlforth, supra note 31.
34 ITK, Traditional Knowledge, at http://www.itk.ca/environment/tek-index.php.
35 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereinafter IPCC),
http://www.ipcc.ch/.
36 C.K. Folland, et al., Observed Climate Variability and Change, in Climate Change
2001: The Scientific
Basis 101 (J.T. Houghton et al., 2001).
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council,
Climate Change Science: An
Analysis of Some Key Questions 3 (National Academy Press 2001).
40 See, e.g., United States Environmental Protection Agency, Global Warming,
available at
http://www.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html ([G]lobal average
surface temperature
(the average of near surface air temperature over land, and sea surface
temperature) has increased since
1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6, plus or minus 0.2 degrees
Celsius.).
41 Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change
Research, Our Changing
Planet (2004), available at http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp20045/ocp2004-5-hi-clivar.htm.
42World Meteorological Organization, WMO Statement on the Status of the Global
Climate in 2004,
(summarizing information provided by the Hadley Centre of the Met Office, United
Kingdom; the

Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom; the National
Climatic Data Center
and the Climate Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA),
United States; and contributions from Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, France,
Germany, Iceland,
India, Japan, Mauritius, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, as well
as from the
International Research Institute for Climate Prediction in New York, the IGAD Climate
Prediction and
Applications Centre in Nairobi, and the AGRHYMET Centre in Niamey) (2005),
available at
http://www.wmo.ch/index-en.html.
43 Id., at 4.
44 ACIA Overview, supra note 16.
45 Id.
46 Oleg Anisimov et al., Polar Regions (Arctic and Antarctic), in Climate Change
2001: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability 811 (James J. McCarty et al., eds., Cambridge
University Press 2001).
47 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 82.
48 Id.
49 U.S. General Accounting Office, Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages
(GAO Flood
Report), GAO-04-142, Dec. 2003, at 8.
50 Id., at 88-89.
51 Id., at 7.
52 Church et al., Changes in Sea Level, in Climate Change 2001: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability
641 (James J. McCarty et al., eds., Cambridge University Press 2001).
53 Id.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
133
54 Id.
55 Oleg Anisimov et al., supra note 46.
56 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenlands Receding Ice available at:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/.
57 David Shukman, Greenland Ice Melt Speeding Up, BBC News World Edition, July
28, 2004, at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.stm.
58 Habiba Gitay, Ecosystems and Their Goods and Services, in Climate Change
2001, at 247.
59 Id.
60 Id.
61 Id. at 271.
62 Terry L. Root, et al., Fingerprints of Global Warming on Wild Animals and Plants,
421 Nature 57, 58

(2003).
63 Camille Parmesan & Gary Yohe, A Globally Coherent Fingerprint of Climate
Change Impacts Across
Natural Systems, 421 Nature 37, 38 (2003).
64 Id.
65 Id.
66 US Global Change Research Program, US National Assessment of the Potential
Consequences of
Climate Variability and Change Educational Resources Regional Paper: Alaska (2003)
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/education/alaska/ak-edu-5.htm.
67 Id.
68 Gian-Reto Walther et al., Ecology: All Change, 416 Nature 389, 392 (2002).
69 Id.
70 To avoid potentially conflicting regulatory regimes, the UNFCCC and Kyoto
Protocol exempt from
their control measures gases controlled by the Montreal Protocol. See, e.g.,
UNFCCC, Art. 4.
71 IPCC, Summary for Policy Makers: Third Assessment Report 5 (2001); National
Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Greenhouse Gases, available at:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html#INTRO.
72 T.J. Blasing and Sonja Jones, Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations, Feb.
2005, at
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html.
73 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Emissions Inventory 2005, available
at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublications
GHGEmissionsUSEm
issionsInventory2005.html.
74 TAR, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers (2001), at 4 (there is new and
stronger evidence
that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
activities). Addressing
criticism that not enough is known about the climate system to unequivocally
establish a causal linkage
between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and observed climate
changes during the 20th
century, the IPCC explains that obtaining the desired degree of certainty would
require, in effect, turning
the planet into a massive scientific laboratory.
75 Id. at 697. These consistencies include, among other things, global warming and
diminished Arctic
sea-ice extent, and glacial retreat. Id.
76 Id.
77 Id.
78 Id. at 728.
79 Id.
80 Naomi Oreskes, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, 306 SCIENCE 1686
(2004), available at

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref9 (last visited Oct.

26, 2005).
81 Id.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
134
82 See, e.g., National Geographic Society, Strange Days on Planet Earth, television
documentary
available at http://www.pbs.org/strangedays/index_flash.html; see also, Tim
Appenzeller, et al., Signs
from Earth, National Geographic Society Magazine (September 2004).
83 See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
84 American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
85 American Geophysical Union, Human Impacts on Climate (December 2003),
available at
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html (last visited Aug. 4,
2004).
86 National Assessment Synthesis Team, Climate Change Impacts on the United
States: The Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, at 6 (Cambridge University Press,
2001).
87 Id. at 284.
88 Id. at 285.
89 National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science:
An Analysis of Some Key Questions at 1 (National Academy Press, Washington, DC,
2001).
90 Id. at 5.
91 See Third National Communication of the United States of America Under the
United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (U.S. Department of State, May 2002)
(U.S. Climate Action
Report - 2002), available at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublications
USClimateActionRep
ort.html.
92 See id. at 4.
93 Id. at 85.
94 Id. at 110.
95 See The Climate Change Research Initiative, available at:
http://www.climatescience.gov/about/ccri.htm.
96 Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change
Research, available at:
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-hi-clivar.htm.
97 See, e.g., Jennifer Lee, Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming
Jennifer Lee, New York
Times, May 28, 2003 (reporting that the company [Exxon Mobil], the world's largest
oil and gas

concern, has increased donations to Washington-based policy groups that, like

Exxon itself, question the
human role in global warming and argue that proposed government policies to limit
carbon dioxide
emissions associated with global warming are too heavy handed.); S. van den
Hove, M. Le Menestrel,
H.-celsius. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
98 See, e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Potential Effects of Climate
Change on the
United States (1989), at 25 (noting that polar surface air may warm by as much as
three times the global
average).
99 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10.
100 Id. at 20.
101 Id.
102 Id.
103 Id.
104 Id.
105 G. McBean, et al., Artic Climate Past and Present (Pre-release Version, Mar. 24,
2005), at 54.
106 Id.
107 U.S. Interagency Climate Change Science Program (observing that the Arctic
region warmed at an
annual average rate of 0.3C per decade over sea ice (those portions of the Arctic
Ocean where 80% of
ocean surface is covered by ice), 0.5C per decade over the high latitude (poleward
of 60 degrees North)
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
135
region of Eurasia, and 1.0C over the high latitude region of North America),
available at
http://www.climatescience.gov/about/ccri.htm.
108 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 11, 16; GIBSON & SCHULLINGER, supra note
7, at 6.
109 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 11, 16; GIBSON & SCHULLINGER, supra note
7, at 5-6.
110 GIBSON & SCHULLINGER, supra note 7, at 6; SHEILA WATT-CLOUTIER, TERRY
FENGE, & PAUL
CROWLEY, RESPONDING TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE
INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR
CONFERENCE ON THE ARCTIC CLIMATE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, (Watt-Cloutier, et
al.), available at
http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?ID=267&Lang=En (last visited Nov. 2,
2005).
111 See generally GIBSON & SCHULLINGER, supra note 7, (comparing western
scientific observations to

Inuit observations of climate change); ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 3 at 64;
Wohlforth, supra note
31; Watt-Cloutier, et al., supra note 110.
112 See ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 18-19, 22 (dividing the Arctic into four
sub-regions, and
describing effects that are common to all and noting effects that differ according to
sub-region).
113 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10.
114 Id. at 20, 34-39 (describing feedback loops that increase the rate of arctic
warming).
115 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 12-13; NIKITTUITTUQ LTD., INUIT
QAUJIMAJANGIT, INUIT
KNOWLEDGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, SOUTH BAFFIN: A SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF RECENT
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES IN PANGNIRTUNG AND IQALUIT NUNAVUT
5-7, 10-13, 20-23
(April 2003) (SOUTH BAFFIN); NIKITTUITTUQ LTD., INUIT QAUJIMAJANGIT, INUIT
KNOWLEDGE OF
CLIMATE CHANGE, NORTH BAFFIN: A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF RECENT
CLIMATE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES IN CLYDE RIVER, POND INLET, RESOLUTE, GRISE FIORD,
NUNAVUT 8-13
(April 2003) (NORTH BAFFIN).
116 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10, 13; GIBSON & SCHULLINGER, supra note
7, at 12, 14, 15;
SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 11-12, 13-14, 18, 20, 22, Appendix B at 2, 8, 16,
51, 55, 56, 58, 60,
Appendix C at 27-29, 43-46, 62; GOLDER ASSOCIATES, LITERATURE REVIEW AND
GAP ANALYSIS OF
KITIKMEOT REGION, NUNAVUT 9-10, 11 (March 31, 2003) (KITIKMEOT REGION);
INUIT TAPIRIIT
KANATAMI ET AL., LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS ON CLIMATE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE:
PERSPECTIVES FROM COMMUNITIES OF THE LABRADOR NORTH COAST 20, 31, 43
(April 30-May 1, 2002)
(LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS); NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at
10, 24, 28,
Appendix C at 9-10, 45, Appendix D at 3-4, Appendix E at 7, 9, 14, 17, 22, 27; INUIT
TAPIRIIT
KANATAMI ET AL., ARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE INUVIALUIT
SETTLEMENT
REGION, AKLAVIK WORKSHOP 17-18 (January 30-31, 2002) (AKLAVIK WORKSHOP);
DEPARTMENT OF
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT, INUIT QAUJIMAJANGIT
HILAP
ALUNGUMINGANUT, INUIT KNOWLEDGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE: A SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, BAKER LAKE AND ARVIAT, NUNAVUT 26-27
(September 2001) (A

SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT); INUIT TAPIRIIT

KANATAMI ET AL.,
ARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE INUVIALUIT SETTLEMENT
REGION: PAULATUK
WORKSHOP 24 (September, 2003) (PAULATUK WORKSHOP).
117ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 75; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 18, 2324, Appendix B at 16,
51-52, Appendix C at 28, 29, 44-46, 62; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 32,
Appendix B at 16, 24,
Appendix E at 7, 22; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at 10-11; A SAMPLE OF
INUIT EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note116, at 26-27; GRAHAM ASHFORD &
JENNIFER CASTLEDEN,
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, INUIT OBSERVATIONS
ON CLIMATE
CHANGE, FINAL REPORT 4.3 (June 2001) (ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN).
118ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 75; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at 1011; SOUTH BAFFIN,
supra note 115, at 18, 23, Appendix B at 16, 51-52, Appendix C at 2-3, 4, 20, 28, 29,
43, 45-46, 62; 192,
256, 320, 486, NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 32, Appendix B at 24, 28,
Appendix C at 45, Appendix
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
136
E at 7, 14, 22; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT,
supra note 115, at
26-27; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 31, 43; PAULATUK
WORKSHOP, supra note
116, at 24.
119ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 25; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix
B at 55, Appendix C
at 27, 43-43, 58, 62; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 10, 24, 45,
Appendix E at 14, 22; A
SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116,
at 26-27; PAULATUK
WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 24; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at 12-13;
KANGIQSUJUAQ
WORKSHOP, Executive Summary (KANGIQSUJUAQ WORKSHOP) 3; INUIT TAPIRIIT
KANATAMI ET AL.,
INUIT OBSERVATIONS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: PERSPECTIVES
FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ 15 (January 15-16, 2003); (PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ);
INUIT TAPIRIIT
KANATAMI ET AL., ARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE INUVIALUIT
SETTLEMENT
REGION, INUVIK WORKSHOP 10 (INUVIK WORKSHOP); LABRADORIMIUT
OBSERVATIONS, supra note

115, at 18, 35, 42.

120 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 25.
121 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 12, 13, 17, 34, 75, SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note
115, at 24, Appendix
B at 2, 54, 56, 60, Appendix C at 28, 44-45, 56, 62; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix B at 45,
Appendix C at 9-10, Appendix D at 3-4, Appendix E at 9, 14, 17, 27; AKLAVIK
WORKSHOP, supra note
116, at 17-18, 28.
122 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 45, 55, 56, Appendix C at 5, 45,
58, 62; NORTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 10, 18, Appendix D at 3-4, 13, Appendix E at
14; KITIKMEOT
REGION, supra note 116, at 9.
123 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 25.
124ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10;SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 25,
Appendix B at 13, 16, 23,
42, 46, 52-53, 65, Appendix C at 6, 17, 45, 57, 61, 65, 67; NORTH BAFFIN, supra
note 115, at 30,
Appendix B at 8, 10, 29, Appendix C at 34, 39, Appendix D at 18; LABRADORIMIUT
OBSERVATIONS,
supra note 116, at 32; INUIT TAPIRIIT KANATAMI et al, INUIT OBSERVATIONS ON
CLIMATE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, NUNAVUT 3, 11, 18
( 2004)
(PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY); INUIT TAPIRIIT KANATAMI ET AL, INUIT
OBSERVATIONS ON
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK 3, 10, 15
(November 5-6,
2002) (PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK); A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 23; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note
119, at 16;
KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at 11.
125 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 12.
126 INUIT TAPIRIIT KANATAMI ET AL., ARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE: OBSERVATIONS
FROM THE INUVIALUIT
SETTLEMENT REGION, HOLMAN ISLAND WORKSHOP at 13 (2002) ( HOLMAN
ISLAND WORKSHOP);
SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 16, 23, 66, 84, Appendix C at 17, 46,
66; NORTH BAFFIN,
supra note 115, Appendix B at 4, 19, 25, 42, 43, Appendix C at 32, 34, 39;
LABRADORIMIUT
OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 17, 32, 36; PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY,
supra note 124, at 3,
11, 17, 18; PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 3, 10, 15; A SAMPLE
OF INUIT EXPERIENCES
OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 23; PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra
note 119, at 16.

127 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 35; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 16, 25; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra
note 119, at 16; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 25, Appendix B at 17, 4, Appendix C at 25, 53.
128 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 24, 40-41, 44, Appendix C at 4647, Appendix E at 25;
SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 52.
129 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix A at 40.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
137
130ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 8, 11, 12, 14; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note
116, at 17; INUVIK
WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13; ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at
4.1, 4.2; ; NORTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 3-4, Appendix C at 40, Appendix D at 8, 21,
Appendix E at 10; A
SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116,
at 33; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 21, 45; PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at
15; INUIT TAPIRIIT KANATAMI ET AL, INUIT OBSERVATIONS ON CLIMATE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGE: PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ 12 (2002) (PERSPECTIVES FROM
PUVIRNITUQ); INUIT
TAPIRIIT KANATAMI ET AL., ARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE
INUVIALUIT
SETTLEMENT REGION, TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP 10 (2002) ( TUKTOYAKTUK
WORKSHOP).
131 Increased erosion is also caused by the decreased sea ice, leaving more open
water susceptible to the
wind. ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 78; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at
17, 27, 28;
ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at 4.1; PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ supra note 119,
at 15; Fenge, supra note 32, at 82; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 34, Appendix C at 40,
Appendix E at 10; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116,
at 33; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 56, Appendix C at 21, 45.
132 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 11.
133 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 25; Barbara Travis, International Arctic
Research Center of the
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Research Highlight (Mar. 31, 2005), at
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/coastal_climate/index.php (last visited Apr. 14,
2005) (describing an
October 19, 2004, storm in Alaska and its contributing factors).

134 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 79.

135 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 96.
136 See, e.g. ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 96.
137 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 96; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 21, 25,
Appendix D at 4, 7;
PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 15; A SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 13; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note
115, Appendix C at
12, 61; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 12.
138 Id.
139 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note
116, at 19; NORTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 6;
140 Id.
141 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 14, 57.
142 ACIA Overview, supra note 116, at 92; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at
18; INUVIK
WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 17; PAULATUK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 25; A
SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 12, 13, 20-22;
NORTH BAFFIN,
supra note 115, Appendix B at 43, Appendix D at 4, 12, Appendix E at 2, 5; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note
115, at 26, Appendix B at 29, 33, 52, 62, Appendix C at 4, 60, 61, 66; PERSPECTIVES
FROM ARCTIC BAY,
supra note 124, at 3, 17-18; PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 10;
PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 16; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at
11;LABRADORIMIUT
OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 23.
143 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 96; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at
11, 18; PERSPECTIVES
FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 15-16; PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY,
supra note 124, at 3,
17-18; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra
note 116, at 12-13,
19, 21; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 6, 21, 26, Appendix E at 2; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, at
19, 26, Appendix B at 22, 29, 43, 52, Appendix C at 14, 57, 61, 66.
144 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 90; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at
15, 17, 20, 27;
HOLMAN ISLAND WORKSHOP, supra note 124, at 14; A SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
138

CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 27, 37; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix B at 18, 58,
76, 85, Appendix C at 46; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at
3, 10, 22-23;
PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ, supra note 130, at 16; LABRADORIMIUT
OBSERVATIONS, supra note
116, at 37, 43; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP, supra note 130, at 12.
145 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 46; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note
115, Appendix B at 17,
Appendix C at 46.
146 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 90; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix
B at 46; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 17, Appendix C at 18, 46.
147 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 75; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix
B at 76, 85.
148 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 14, 68; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116,
at 20; PAULATUK
WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 17; ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at
4.1; NORTH BAFFIN,
supra note 115, Appendix B at 11, 20, 25, 32, 35, 48, Appendix C at 33, Appendix D
at 2, 8, 21,
Appendix E at 3, 8, 27; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note
116, at 32-33; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 17, 37, 48, 58, 77-78,
85, Appendix C at
20, 33-34, 48, 63, 65; PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, supra note 124, at 13, 16;
PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 10-11, 15, 18; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note
116, at 12;
LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 11; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP,
supra note 130, at
12.
149 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 70-73, 76-77; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra
note 116, at 16, 20, 28;
INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13, 16; PAULATUK WORKSHOP, supra note
116, at 21; NORTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 5, 48, Appendix C at 45, Appendix E at 26; A
SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 34; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix B at 85, Appendix C at 55, 67; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ,
supra note 119, at 3, 1112, 17; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at 12; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS,
supra note 116, at
30, 31, 40, 42; PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 3; TUKTOYAKTUK
WORKSHOP, supra
note 130, at 10.
150 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 76-77; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix B at 48;
PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 17.

151 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 16; PAULATUK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at
17; NORTH BAFFIN,
supra note 115, Appendix B at 20, 25, 48, Appendix C at 33, Appendix D at 2, 8;
SOUTH BAFFIN, supra
note 115, Appendix B at 17, Appendix C at 63; PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY,
supra note 124, at 13;
PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 10, 15, 18.
152 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 20, 48, 55; NORTH BAFFIN,
supra note 115, Appendix
B at 5, 20.
153 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 34-35; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 21,
Appendix B at 19, 23,
41, Appendix C at 5-6, 45, Appendix D at 20, Appendix E at 1, 3-4; SOUTH BAFFIN,
supra note 115, at
16, Appendix B at 52, 55, 56, Appendix C at 30; PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at
10; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at 10.
154 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10, 34-35.
155 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA Full Report) 1042, at ch. 4 at 100
(Cambridge University
Press, 2005) available at http://www.acia.uaf.edu.
156 Id. at 100.
157 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 24 (quotation omitted).
158 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 12 at 663 (citation omitted).
159 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 95; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ,
supra note 119, at 15;
SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 23-24, Appendix B at 44, 54, Appendix C at 62; A
SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 26-28; AKLAVIK
WORKSHOP, supra
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
139
note 116, at 17; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 45, Appendix D at 3;
KITIKMEOT
REGION, supra note 116, at 12-13; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note
116, at 18, 35, 42;
PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 16; A SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE
CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 26.
160 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 95; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 24
Appendix B at 43-44,
Appendix C at 62; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116,
at 27; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix D at 3; LABRADORIMIUT
OBSERVATIONS, supra note
116, at 18, 35, 42.

161 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note

116, Appendix C at
2.
162 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note
116, at 26, 28;
SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 18, 24, Appendix B at 15, 18, Appendix C at 16;
AKLAVIK
WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 17; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix D at
3-4.
163 KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at 9; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix C at 44.
164 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 44.
165 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 97; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix
B at 45; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 44; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra
note 116, at 18, 35,
42; PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 16.
166 Interview with Ronald Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
167 ACIA Overview supra note 16, at 95-96; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 26-27; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra
note 119, at 15;
LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 18; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note
115, Appendix B at
45; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 59.
168 Interview with Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 15, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
169 Interview with Ronald Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
170 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
171 Interview with Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 15, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
172 Interview with Lucas Ittulak of Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, Sept. 26,
2005, video-taped
recording on file with petitioner.
173 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note
116, Appendix C at
30.
174 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 96; HOLMAN ISLAND WORKSHOP, supra note
126, at 13; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 16, 23, 66, 84, Appendix C at 17, 46, 66;
NORTH BAFFIN, supra

note 115, Appendix B at 4, 19, 25, 42, 43, Appendix C at 32, 34, 39;
LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS,
supra note 116, at 17, 32, 36; PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, supra note 124, at
3, 11, 17, 18;
PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 3, 10, 15; A SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 16, at 23; PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note
119, at 16.
175 Interview with Lucas Ittulak of Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, Sept. 26,
2005, video-taped
recording on file with petitioners.
176 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 66.
177 Id.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
140
178 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 96; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix
B at 23, Appendix C
at 17; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 43, Appendix C at 34, 39;
LABRADORIMIUT
OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 32.
179 LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 32.
180 Interview with Heather Angnatok of Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, Sept.28,
2005, video-taped
recording on file with petitioner.
181 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 97; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix
D at 1;
PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, supra note 124, at 17-18; PERSPECTIVES FROM
IVUJIVIK, supra note
124, at 10, 15.
182 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 97; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 26, 28; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 18, 23-24,
Appendix B at 16, 5152, 56, Appendix C at 4, 29, 39; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 28,
Appendix E at 17;
PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 16; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP,
supra note 116, at
17-18; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 22, 43; PAULATUK
WORKSHOP, supra note ,
at 24.
183SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 45; PAULATUK W116ORKSHOP,
supra note 116, at 24;
LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 22, 43.
184 Jacobie Panipak of Clyde River, video-tape recording on file with petitioner
(The ice use to freeze
more smoothly. Today it crumbles as it freezes.).

KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at 11; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix B at 24, Appendix
C at 18, 46, 67; PAULATUK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 24; NORTH BAFFIN, supra
note 115, at 17-18,
Appendix B at 9, 24, 38; HOLMAN ISLAND WORKSHOP, supra note 126, at 14.
185 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 17; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix B at 41,
Appendix C at 16; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix D at 3-4.
186 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 17; PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at
18; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 43.
187 PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 18; A SAMPLE OF
INUIT EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 26.
188 Id.
189 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 56; PERSPECTIVES FROM
IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at
3, 15; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 16.
190 Interview with Ken Toovak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 12, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
191 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
192 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 17, Appendix C at 53.
193 Interview with David Haogak of Sachs Harbour, Nunavut, Sept. 3, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
194 Interview with Heather Angnatok of Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, Sept.
28, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with petitioner.
195 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 89, 111; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix B at 56,
Appendix C at 17, 30; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 21.
196 KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at 9; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix B at 40-41;
SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 14-15, Appendix B at 46, Appendix C at 16.
197 Id.
198 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 46.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
141
199 PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 3, 15; PERSPECTIVES FROM
ARCTIC BAY, supra note
124, at 3, 18; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 21, Appendix B at 10, Appendix C
at 45, Appendix D at
18; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 66.
200 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 39.

201 GIBSON & SCHULLINGER, supra note 7, at 13-14.

202 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 23; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note
115, Appendix B at
43, Appendix C at 34, 39.
203 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 58-59, 94.
204 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 58-59.
205 Id.
206 Id.
207ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 59; ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117,
at 4.1; HOLMAN
ISLAND WORKSHOP, supra note 126, at 14.
208 [Y]ears with little or no iceresulted in years with virtually no surviving seal
pups, when in other
years, these numbered in the hundreds of thousands. ACIA Overview, supra note
16, at 58.
209 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 94; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ,
supra note 119, at 23;
NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix D at 14.
210 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 94.
211 GAO Flood Report, supra, note 49, at 8.
212 Interview with Isa Piungituq of Clyde River, Nunavut, Aug. 27, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
213 ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at 4.3; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP,
supra note 130, at 4.
214 See ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, SUPRA NOTE 117, SUPRA NOTE 117, at 4.3 .
215 Id.
216 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 117; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP, supra note
130, at 4.
217 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 72.
218 Id.
219 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 27, Appendix E at 16.
220 Interview with Isa Piungituq of Clyde River, Nunavut, Aug. 27, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
221 ALASKA REGIONAL ASSESSMENT GROUP, PREPARING FOR A CHANGING
CLIMATE: THE POTENTIAL
CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE (ARAG) (1999) at 19,
available at
http://www.besis.uaf.edu/regional-report/regional-report.html (last visited Mar. 29,
2005). See also
ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 68-70; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 16, 34; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at
17-18; NORTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix D at 15.
222 See id.
223 See id.
224 ARAG, supra note 221, at 19. See also ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 68-70;
A SAMPLE OF INUIT

EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 16, 34; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note
115, Appendix C at 17-18; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix D at 15.
225 Interview with James Qillaq of Clyde River, Nunavut, Aug. 30, 2005, video-taped
recording on file
with petitioner.
226 ARAG, supra note 221, at 19.
227 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 70; COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF
ENDANGERED WILDLIFE IN
CANADA (COSEWIC) (2004), COSEWIC ASSESSMENT AND UPDATE STATUS REPORT
ON THE PEARY
CARIBOU AND THE BARREN-GROUND CARIBOU (DOLPHIN AND UNION POPULATION)
IN CANADA, at iii
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
142
and viii, available at
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr%5Fpeary%5Fcaribou%5Fe
%2Epdf.
228 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 71.
229 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 94; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at
28; PAULATUK
WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 24.
230 ACIA Overview supra note 16 at 68-70
231 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10.
232 Id.
233 Id.
234 Id.
235 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 94; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ,
supra note 119, at 18;
NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix D at 14; Fenge, supra note 32, at 82;
ASHFORD, SUPRA NOTE
117, at 4.2; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT,
supra note 116, at
26-27; PAULATUK WORKSHOP supra note 116, at 24.
236 PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 16.
237 Interview with Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 15, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
238 ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at 4.2.
239 Id.
240 Id.
241 Interview with Jerry Wongitillin of Savoonga, Alaska, Sept. 17, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
242 LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 17, 32; A SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, Appendix D at 7.

243 Interview with Heather Angnatok of Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador,

September 28, 2005, videotaped
recording on file with petitioner.
244 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 62.
245ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 8, 11, 12; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note
116, at 17; INUVIK
WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13; ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at
4.1, 4.2; NORTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 3-4, Appendix C at 40, Appendix D at 8,
Appendix E at 10; A
SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116,
at 33; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 21, 45; PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at
15; PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ, supra note 130, at 12; TUKTOYAKTUK
WORKSHOP, supra note
130, at 10.
246 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 90; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at
28; ASHFORD &
CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at 4.1, 4.2; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix C at 45.
247 ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at Executive Summary.
248 GAO Flood Report, supra note 49, at 7.
249 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 95; ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117
at Executive
Summary.
250 ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, SUPRA NOTE 117 at Executive Summary.
251 Interview with David Haogak of Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories, Sept. 3,
2005, video-taped
recording on file with petitioner.
252 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 27-28, 42; INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra
note 119, at 10.
253 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 90.
254 Id.
255 Id.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
143
256 Interview with Apak Qaqqasiq of Clyde River, Nunavut, Aug. 27, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
257 ACIA Full Report, supra note 155, ch. 6 at 215.
258 Id.
259ARAG, supra note 221, at 20; INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13; WattCloutier et al. supra
note 110.
260 ARAG, supra note 221, at 20.

261 Interview with Eugene Barrow of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioners.
262 INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 20.
263 Interview with Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 15, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioners.
264 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 6 at 219.
265 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 6 at 215
266 GAO Flood Report, supra note 49, at highlights.
267 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 78.
268 Barbara Travis, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Research
Highlight (Mar. 31, 2005), at
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/coastal_climate/index.php (last visited
Nov. 9, 2005) (describing an October 19, 2004, storm in Alaska and its contributing
factors).
269 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 79.
270 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 81; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at
27-28, 42; INUVIK
WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 10; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at
12, 24, 25, 46;
PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 1.
271 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 11.
272 Interview with Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 15, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
273 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
274 GAO Flood Report, supra note 49, at 27.
275 Interview with Nora Kuzuguk of Shishmaref, Alaska, Sept.21, 2005, video-taped
recording on file
with petitioner.
276 Interview with John Sinnok of Shishmaref, Alaska, Sept. 20, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
277 Interview with Stanley Tocktoo of Shishmaref, Alaska, Sept. 20, 2005, on file
with petitioner.
278 Barbara Travis, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Research
Highlight (Mar. 31, 2005), at
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/coastal_climate/index.php (last visited
Apr. 14, 2005).
279 See Generally GAO Flood Report, supra note 49.
280 ARAG, supra note 221, at 20; ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 11.
281NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 12, 24, 25, 46.
282 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 6 at 235.
283 ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at 4.1; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note
115, Appendix C at 33.

284 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 18.

285 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 12; PAULATUK WORKSHOP, supra note
116, at 17;
PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 10, 15, 18; NORTH BAFFIN,
supra note 115,
Appendix E at 3; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116,
at 33; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 17, 48, 58, 85, Appendix C at
48, 63;
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
144
PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, supra note 124, at 13; PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra
note 119, at 15, 18; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 11;
TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP,
supra note 130, at 12.
286 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 16; PAULATUK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at
17; PERSPECTIVES
FROM ARCTIC BAY, supra note 124, at 13; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ,
supra note 119, at 10,
15.
287 Interview with Paul Rookok of Savoonga, Alaska, Sept.17, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
288 PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 15.
289 Interview with Rosemund Martin of Savoonga, Alaska, Sept. 17, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
290 ARAG, supra note 221, at 19.
291 Interview with Pitseolak Alainga of Iqaluit, Nunavut, Aug. 24, 2005, video-taped
recording on file
with petitioner.
292 Interview with Evie Anilniliak of Pangnirtung, Nunavut, Sept. 7, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
293 Interview with Stanley Tocktoo of Shishmaref, Alaska, Sept. 20, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
294 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 16, 28; INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note
119, at 13; NORTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 5, Appendix E at 27; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra
note 115, Appendix
C at 20, 48; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 18; KITIKMEOT
REGION, supra note
16, at 12; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 11; TUKTOYAKTUK
WORKSHOP, supra
note 130, at 12.

295 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 58; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix
B at 5; A SAMPLE OF
INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 34;
TUKTOYAKTUK
WORKSHOP, supra note 130, at 12.
296 Interview with Tony Mannernaluk of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Aug. 29, 2005,
video-taped recording on
file with petitioner.
297 Interview with Ben Kovic of Iqaluit, Nunavut, Aug. 24, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
298 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 94; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix
B at 28; AKLAVIK
WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 28; PAULATUK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 24.
299 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 94; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at
16, 28; INUVIK
WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at
5, Appendix E at 27;
SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 20, 48; PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note
119, at 18; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 16, at 12; LABRADORIMIUT
OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116,
at 11; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP, supra note 130, at 12.
300 INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13.
301 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 27-28; INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note
119, at 10.
302 ARAG, supra note 221, at 20; INUVIK WORKSHOP supra note 119, at 13.
303 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 6 at 215.
304 Id. at 235.
305 ACIA Full Report, supra note 155, ch. 6 at 219.
306 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 6 at 235.
307 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 96.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
145
308 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 96; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 13, 19; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 26,
Appendix D at 4, Appendix
E at 1; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 19.
309 Interview with Jerome Tattuinee of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Aug. 30, 2005, videotaped recording on
file with petitioner.
310 Id. Appendix C at 36.
311 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 10, 12, 29; PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note
119, at 15; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 7; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra
note 115, at 26,

Appendix C at 57; PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, supra note 124, at 3;

PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 16; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 13.
312 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 26, Appendix D at 1, 7; PERSPECTIVES FROM
ARCTIC BAY, supra
note 124, at 17; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 41;
PERSPECTIVES FROM
PUVIRNITUQ, supra note 130, at 3.
313 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
314 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
315 Interview with Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 15, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
316 PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 3, 15; NORTH BAFFIN, supra
note 115, Appendix E
at 17; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 17; A SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE
CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 21-22; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 16,
at 11.
317 PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 3, 15; NORTH BAFFIN, supra
note 115, Appendix E
at 17; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 17; A SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE
CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 21-22; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 16,
at 11.
318 Id.
319 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note
116, Appendix C at
34.
320 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 11, 18; A SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE
CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 19; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 26,
Appendix D at 7;
SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 22, Appendix C at 57; PERSPECTIVES
FROM IVUJIVIK,
supra note 124, at 15.
321 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix D at 1; PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC
BAY, supra note 124,
at 17-18; PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 15.
322 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 57; PERSPECTIVES FROM
IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at
15; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 16, at 14.
323 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note
116, at 13;

PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 10.

324 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note
116, Appendix C at
16.
325 PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 3, 22, 24, 28;
LABRADORIMIUT
OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116 at 41.
326 PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 16, 19.
327 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10.
328 LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 34.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
146
329 Interview with Sappa Fleming of Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, Sept. 17, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
330 LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 34.
331 ARAG, supra note 221, at 20; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE
CHANGE IN NUNAVUT,
supra note 116, at 16-17; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at
19; INUVIK
WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 10; PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ, supra note
130, at 16.
332 Interview with Sarah Ittulak of Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, Sept. 26,
2005, video-taped
recording on file with petitioner.
333 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note
116, at 17-18.
334 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note
116, at 18-19.
335 Id.
336 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note
116, at 18-19.
337 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note
116, Appendix C at
2-3.
338 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 43; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note
115, at 26.
339 Interview with Annie Napayok of Whale Cove, Nunavut, Aug. 30, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
340 See ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix B at 30, 41, 51,
Appendix C at 15; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116,
at 17; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix D at 21, Appendix C at 5-6, 41, 43;
LABRADORIMIUT

OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 38, 51; PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra
note 124, at 9; ASHFORD
& CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at 4.2; PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, supra
note 124, at 17;
INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 26.
341See ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 90, 110; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note
116, at 15, 16, 17,
20, 27; HOLMAN ISLAND WORKSHOP, supra note 126, at 14; A SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF
CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 27, 37; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra
note 115, Appendix B
at 18, 58, 76, 85, Appendix C at 46; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra
note 119, at 3, 10, 2223; PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ, supra note 130, at 16; LABRADORIMIUT
OBSERVATIONS, supra
note 116, at 37, 43; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP, supra note 130, at 12.
342 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 90-91; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116,
at 15, 17, 20, 27;
HOLMAN ISLAND WORKSHOP, supra note 126, at 14; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note
115, Appendix B at 46;
Appendix E at 10; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116,
at 27, 37; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 18, 58, 58, 76, 85,
Appendix C at 46;
PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 3, 10; PERSPECTIVES
FROM PUVIRNITUQ, supra
note 130, at 16; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 37;
TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP,
supra note 130, at 12.
343 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 19; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix B at 58,
Appendix C at 7-8, 20-21, 49; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119,
at 10;
PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ, supra note 130, at 11, 16; TUKTOYAKTUK
WORKSHOP, supra note
130, at 12.
344 Interview with John Sinnok of Shishmaref, Alaska, Sept. 20, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
345 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 19; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix C at 20-21,
49; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP, supra note 130, at 12.
346 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 20-21.
347 Interview with James Qillaq of Clyde River, Nunavut, Aug. 30, 2005, video-taped
recording on file
with petitioner.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005

147
348 Interview with Willie Jooktoo of Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, Sept. 17, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
349 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 24, 44, Appendix C at 46-47,
Appendix E at 25;
SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 52.
350 Id.
351 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 18; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES
OF CLIMATE CHANGE
IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 31; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra
note 119, at 16.
352 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note
116, Appendix C at
9.
353 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 110; ARAG, supra note 221, at 19;
PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK,
supra note 124, at 3; PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ, supra note 130, at 11;
SOUTH BAFFIN, supra
note 115, Appendix B at 69.
354 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10, 16, 17, 58, 94, 96, 110, 119, 121; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note
115, Appendix B at 69.
355 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10, 16, 17, 58, 94, 96, 110, 119, 121; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note
115, Appendix B at 69.
356ACIA OVERVIEW, SUPRA NOTE 16, at 110; INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 119,
at 20; TUKTOYAKTUK
WORKSHOP, supra note 130, at 15; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at
20; SOUTH BAFFIN,
supra note 115, Appendix B at 69; PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ supra note
130, at 11;
LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116 at 30, 40, 45; PERSPECTIVES FROM
IVUJIVIK, supra
note 124, at 3; PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ, supra note 130, at 14.
357 Interview with Alec Tuckatuck of Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, Sept. 18, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
358 Interview with Sappa Fleming of Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, Sept. 17, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
359 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 16, 110; HOLMAN ISLAND WORKSHOP, supra
note 126, at 14;
SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 69; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP, supra
note 130, at 15.
360 Interview with Willie Jooktoo of Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, Sept. 17, 2005, videotaped recording on file
with petitioner.
361 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 110.
362 LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 41.

363 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note

116, at 34; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 67; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra
note 116, at 37.
364 See ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 68-70; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix B at 24,
Appendix C at 18, 67; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note
116, at 34; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix D at 15; PERSPECTIVES FROM
ARCTIC BAY, supra
note 124, at 18, 21; PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ supra note 130, at 16.
365 ACIA OVERVIEW, SUPRA NOTE 16, at 120; PAULATUK WORKSHOP supra note
116, at 16; PAULATUK
WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 12; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE
CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 34; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 57;
PERSPECTIVES
FROM PUVIRNITUQ, supra note 130, at 16; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra
note 116, at 12, 17,
31, 39.
366 PAULATUK WORKSHOP supra note 116, at 12, 16; PAULATUK WORKSHOP, supra
note 116, at 3-4;
SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115 Appendix B at 57; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS,
supra note 116, at
12, 17, 31, 39.
367 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix E at 9, 12, 23; PERSPECTIVES FROM
ARCTIC BAY, supra
note 124, at 3, 13, 19, 22, 26.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
148
368 INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 16; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP supra
note 130, at 12; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 57.
368 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix D at 21; LABRADORIMIUT
OBSERVATIONS supra note 116,
at 17, 19.
369 LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 31; PAULATUK WORKSHOP,
supra note 116, at
16;
370ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 58; HOLMAN ISLAND WORKSHOP, supra note
126, at 13; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 67; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
Appendix E at 26;
TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP, supra note 130, at 12.
371 ACIA Overview, supra note 16 at 58.
372 HOLMAN ISLAND WORKSHOP supra note 126, at 13; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note
115, Appendix C at

23.
373 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 111.
374 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix D at 21; LABRADORIMIUT
OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116,
at 17, 19.
375 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 95, 97; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116,
at 31, 45; INUVIK
WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13, 16, 18-19; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at
30, 33, Appendix B at
20, 34, 47, Appendix C at 45, Appendix B at 9, Appendix E at 1, 3, 19, 26; SOUTH
BAFFIN, supra note
115, Appendix B at 57;
PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 12, 17; LABRADORIMIUT
OBSERVATIONS,
supra note 116, at 42; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP, supra note 130, at 11.
376 Id.
377 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 111; PAULATUK WORKSHOP supra note 116,
at 23; INUVIK
WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 19, 30 ; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP, supra note 130,
at 11;
PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 23.
378 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 111.
379 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 111.
380 Interview with Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 15, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
381 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
382 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 111.
383 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 17, 18, 27; INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra
note 119, at 13;
KANGIQSUJUAQ WORKSHOP supra note 119, at 19 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,
at 21, 31, Appendix B
at 44, Appendix E at 3-4, 24; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE
IN NUNAVUT,
supra note 116, at 27, 37; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 30.
384 KANGIQSUJUAQ WORKSHOP supra note 119, at 11; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note
115, Appendix C at 30;
NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 21, 31, Appendix E at 3-4, 24; NORTH BAFFIN,
supra note 115,
Appendix C at 45.
385 Interview with Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 15, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
386 ACIA OVERVIEW, SUPRA NOTE 16, at 90; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116,
at 27; INUVIK
WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,, Appendix B at
44; A SAMPLE OF
INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 29.

387 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept.14, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
149
388ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 90; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at
18; A SAMPLE OF
INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 29.
389 Interview with Tony Mannernaluk of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Aug. 29, 2005,
video-taped recording on
file with petitioner.
390 Interview with Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 15, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
391 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 94.
392 ACIA OVERVIEW, SUPRA NOTE 16, at 94; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116,
at 28; PAULATUK
WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 24; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note
116, at 30.
393 Interview with Ronald Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
394 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note
116 at 34-35.
395 Interview with Pitseolak Alainga of Iqaluit, Nunavut, Aug. 24, 2005, video-taped
recording on file
with petitioner.
396 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 16, 18, 24; INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra
note 119, at 10, 14,
17; HOLMAN ISLAND WORKSHOP, supra note 126, at 12; A SAMPLE OF INUIT
EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE
CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 35-36; PERSPECTIVES FROM
KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119,
at 18; KITIKMEOT REGION supra note 116, at 12.
397 INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 15; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES
OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN
NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 36.
398 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note
116, at 31-32;
PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ supra note 119, at 3, 10, 17, 22;
PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ
supra note 130, at 16; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS supra note 116, at 37.
399 PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ supra note 119, at 10, 15, 17, 22-23;
PERSPECTIVES FROM
PUVIRNITUQ supra note 130, at 16.
400 Interview with Jerome Tattuinee of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Aug. 30, 2005, videotaped recording on

file with petitioner.

401 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped
recording on file with
petitioner.
402 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 23; PERSPECTIVES FROM
PUVIRNITUQ supra note 130,
at 16.
403 World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT), available at
http://cait.wri.org.
This on-line tool combines information from sources such as the Marland study cited
infra, the United
Nations, the World Bank, and the International Energy Agency in a database
allowing comparison and
analysis of reputable climate data. (See http://cait.wri.org/faq-about-cait.php for
more information.)
404 Id.
405 Id.
406 Id.
407 Id.
408 Id.
409 Kevin Baumert & Jonathan Pershing, Climate Data: Insights and Observations,
27, 13 (Pew Center
for Global Climate Change 2004), available at http://www.pewclimate.org/globalwarming-indepth/
all_reports/climate_data/index.cfm. Another study shows that, because CO2 persists
in the
atmosphere for long periods of time, about 31% of todays global-mean surface
temperature increase can
be attributed to U.S. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Elzen and Schaeffer,
Responsibility for Past and
Future Global Warming: Uncertainties in Attributing Anthropogenic Climate Change,
54 Climatic
Change 29, 68 (2002) (data as of 1990).
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
150
410 Baumert & Pershing, supra note 409, at 40 n.16.
411 Id.
412 CAIT, supra note 403.
413 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in
the United States
2003, Dec. 2004, available at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/emission_tbls.html.
414 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2005,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/emission.html.
415 CAIT, supra note 403.
416 Id. (5.4 tons per U.S. citizen versus 1 ton of carbon per person globally in 2000).
417 Id. (5.4 versus 2.2 tons of carbon per person in 2000).

418 Id. (5.4 versus 0.6 tons per person in 2000).

419 Baumert & Pershing, supra note 409, at 10.
420 CAIT, supra note 403.
421Case of Mary and Carrie Dann (Dann), Report N 75/02, Case 11.140 (United
States), Inter-Am.
C.H.R., 2002 125 (2002), available at
http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2002eng/USA.11140.htm.
422 As a result of customary practices, possession of the land should suffice for
indigenous communities
lacking real title to property of the land to obtain official recognition of that
property. Caso de la
Comunidad Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni (Awas Tingni), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. Ser. C,
No. 79 151
(Nicaragua) (2001), available at
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriecpdf_ing/seriec_79_ing.pdf (last visited
Nov. 11, 2005).
423 Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R.(ser. C) No. 15 96
(Suriname) (1993),
available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriecpdf_ing/seriec_15_ing.pdf.
424 The Court couched the reparations award in terms of benefits to the heirs of the
deceased when it
ordered the government of Suriname to reopen a school and medical dispensary in
the Saramaka village
as reparation for having murdered several of the tribes members. Id.
425 Dann, supra note 421, at 126.
426 Resolution of the IACHR on the Problem of Special Protection for Indigenous
Populations, Inter-Am.
C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.29, doc. 38, rev. (1972) quoted in The Human Rights Situation
of the Indigenous
People in the Americas, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.108, Doc. 62 (2000) at 1,
n.1, available at
http://www.cidh.org/Indigenas/TOC.htm (In that resolution the Commission called
on the member states
to implement the recommendations made by the Inter-American and Indian
Conferences and, in
particular, the provisions contained in Article 39 of the Inter-American Charter of
Social Guarantees);
See also Report on the Situation of Human Rights of a Segment of the Nicaraguan
Population of Miskito
Origin, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.62, doc. 10, rev. 3 (1983) at 81 2-B-15.
427 Dann, supra note 421, at 127.
428 Mary and Carrie Dann, two sisters belonging to the Western Shoshone people,
challenged the United
States purported extinguishment of the aboriginal title to their lands, which
resulted in trespass actions
against the sisters. The Commission found that the extinguishment of title, done
without the informed
consent of the Western Shoshone people, violated the sisters right to property and
judicial protection.
Dann, supra note 421.

429 Id. at 129 (emphasis added).

430 Id.
431 Id at 125 (citing IACHR, The Human Rights Situation of the Indigenous People
in the Americas,
supra note 426, at 21-25; Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District
(Belize Maya), Case
12.053, Inter-Am. C.H.R. Report 40/04 (2004) (Belize) at 95 (citing same).
432 Dann, supra note 421, at 131 (quoting the American Declaration of the Rights
and Duties of Man,
(American Declaration), Organization of American States (O.A.S.) Res. XXX (1948),
reprinted in
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
151
Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System,
OEA/Ser.L/V/I.4 rev.8
(May 2001) at 16, Preamble).
433 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 94.
434 Id. at 96.
435 Id. at 98.
436 Case of Yanomami Indians, Case 7615 (Brazil), Inter-Am. C.H.R.,
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66 doc. 10 rev. 1 at
6, (1985), available at http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/84.85eng/Brazil7615.htm (last
visited Nov. 11,
2005).
437 Id. at 7.
438 Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, General Comment No. 23: The
Rights of Minorities
(art. 27), U.N. HRC, 50th Sess., 1314th mtg., at 6.2(1994), available at
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/fb7fb12c2fb8bb21c12563ed004df111?
OpenDocument.
439 Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries
(ILO Convention No.
169) (revised and expanded version of ILO No. 107), June 27, 1989, art. 15.1, 72.
ILO Official Bull. 59,
reprinted in 28 I.L.M. 1382, Article 14.1, available at
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/62.htm (last
visited Nov. 11, 2005).
440 Ksentini, Fatma Zorah, Review Of Further Developments In Fields With Which
The Sub-Commission
Has Been Concerned: Human Rights And The Environment, U.N. Doc.
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/9, (July 6,
1994) (Ksentini Final Report), at 88.
441 Awas Tingni, supra note 422, at 39.
442 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 148.
443 Id. at 147.
444 Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ecuador (Ecuador Report),
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Ch. 9,

available at http://cidh.org/countryrep/ecuador-eng/index%20-%20ecuador.htm,
(quoting and citing
generally Ksentini Final Report, supra note 440, at 77, 78-93).
445 Id.
446Ecuador Report, supra note 444, ch. VIII.
447 Id.
448 ILO Convention No. 169, supra note 439, at art. 7.4.
449 Id. at art. 15.1.
450 Inter-Am. C.H.R., Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, art. 13,
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.110, Doc. 22 (Mar. 2001), available at
http://cidh.org/Indigenas/Indigenas.en.01/index.htm.
451U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Sub-Comm. on Prevention of Discrimination & Prot. of
Minorities, Draft
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, art. 28, in Report of
the SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities on its FortySixth Session 105
et seq., E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/56.
452 Id. at art. 28.
453 Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997
I.C.J. 92, (Sept. 25)
(separate opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry), at A(b).
454 See, e.g., International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR), Dec. 16, 1966,
art. 1(2), 6 I.L.M. 360, 365, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, (signed by U.S. on Oct. 5, 1977) at art.
1(2); Convention on
the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, art. 6, 28 I.L.M. 1448, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3, art.
29(e) (signed by U.S.
on Feb. 16, 1995); Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights
in the Area of
Economic Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador), Nov. 14, 1988, art.
11, O.A.S.T.S.
No. 69, 28 I.L.M. 156; African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, adopted June
27, 1981, OAU
Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force Oct. 21, 1986, art.
23 ([a]ll peoples
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
152
shall have the right to a generally satisfactory environment favorable to their
development.); African
Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, entered into force Nov. 29, 1999, art.
14(2)(c), OAU Doc.
CAB/LEG/24.9/49, art. 14 1(c) (to ensure the provision of . . . safe drinking
water.); Final Draft
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Sept. 28, 2000, art.37 2000
O.J. (C 364) 1, 17,

available at (A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the

quality of the
environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in
accordance with the
principle of sustainable development.); Convention on Biological Diversity, entered
into force Dec. 29,
1993, preamble, 31 I.L.M. 818, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79; North American Agreement on
Environmental
Cooperation, Sept. 14, 1993, Preamble cl. 8 32 I.L.M. 1482 (1993); Rio Declaration
on Environment and
Development, U.N. ESCOR, at princ. 1, 14, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) (1992)
[hereinafter Rio
Declaration] ([h]uman beings . . . are entitled to a healthy and productive life in
harmony with nature
and recognized the importance of controlling any activities and substances that
cause severe
environmental degradation.); G.A. Res. 45/94, U.N. GAOR, 45th Sess., U.N. Doc.
A/45/749 (1990) (all
individuals are entitled to live in an environment adequate for their health and wellbeing.); G.A. Res.
55/107, U.N. GAOR, 55th Sess., at 3(k), U.N. Doc. A/Res/55/107 (2000) (affirming
that a democratic
and equitable international order requires, inter alia, the realization of . . . the
entitlement of every person
and all peoples to a healthy environment.); CHR Res. 2000/62, U.N. ESCOR, 56th
Sess., at para. 3(k),
U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2000/62 (2000) (a democratic and equitable international
order requires, inter
alia, the realization of [t]he right to a healthy environment for everyone.).
455 Ecuador Report, supra note 444, at Ch. 8.
456 GIBSON & SCHULLINIGER, supra note 7, at 6.
457 ACIA OVERVIEW, SUPRA NOTE 16, at 11, 16; GIBSON & SCHULLINIGER, supra
note 7, at 5-6.
458 See ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 16; GIBSON & SCHULLINIGER, supra note
7, at 6;
Watt-Cloutier, et al., supra note 110.
459 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 94; ALASKA NATIVE SCIENCE COMMISSION,
NATIONAL
SUBSISTENCE TECHNICAL - PLANNING MEETING FOR THE PROTECTION OF
TRADITIONAL & TRIBAL LIFEWAYS
15 (April 2003) ; ALASKA REGIONAL ASSESSMENT GROUP, THE POTENTIAL
CONSEQUENCES OF
CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE: ALASKA 5 (1999 Center for Global Change and
Arctic System
Research), available at http://www.besis.uaf.edu/regional-report/Preface-Ex-Sum.pdf
(last visited Feb. 8,
2005);
460 Wohlforth, supra note 31, (quoting John Tidwell).
461 To hunt, catch and share these foods is the essence of Inuit culture. ACIA
Overview, supra note 16,

at 94.
462 Ecuador Report, supra note 444, ch. VIII.
463 Every person has the right to take part in the cultural life of the community, to
enjoy the arts, and to
participate in the benefits that result from intellectual progress, especially scientific
discoveries.
American Declaration, supra note 432, at art. XIII.
464 Charter of the Organization of American States, arts. 2(f), 3(m), 30, 48,
reprinted in Basic Documents
Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OAS/Ser.L/V/I.4 Rev. 9,
(January 2003),
available at http://cidh.org/basic.eng.htm (Member States are individually and
jointly bound to preserve
and enrich the cultural heritage of the American peoples).
465 American Convention on Human Rights (American Convention), arts. 16, 48,
reprinted in Basic
Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System,
OAS/Ser.L/V/I.4 Rev. 9, (January
2003), available at http://cidh.org/basic.eng.htm (Everyone has the right to
associate freely for
ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other
purposes).
466 Id. at art. 26 (The States Parties undertake to adopt measures with a view to
achieving
progressively the full realization of the rights implicit in the economic, social,
educational, scientific,
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
153
and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American
States as amended by the
Protocol of Buenos Aires).
467 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration), G.A. Res.
217A (III), U.N. GAOR,
3rd Sess., at 72, U.N. Doc A/810 (1948), art. 27.1(Everyone has the right freely to
participate in the
cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific
advancement and its benefits.)
468 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), art. 27, Dec. 16,
1966, art. 6, 6 I.L.M.
368, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (ratified by U.S. on June 8, 1992) (members of minority
groups shall not be
denied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their
own culture, to profess
and practice their own religion, or to use their own language).
469 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
Dec. 16, 1966, art. 12, 6

I.L.M. 360, 365, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, art. 15(1) (signed by U.S. on Oct. 5, 1977) (The
States Parties to the
present Covenant recognize the right of everyone [t]o take part in cultural life).
470 It has been the Commissions longstanding view that the protection of the
culture of indigenous
peoples encompasses the preservation of the aspects linked to productive
organization, which includes,
among other things, the issue of ancestral and communal lands. Belize Maya,
supra note 431, at 120
(quoting Inter-Am. C.H.R., Report on the Situation of Human Rights of a Segment of
the Nicaraguan
Population of Miskito Origin, (Miskito Report) OEA/Ser.L/V/II.62, Doc. 10 rev. 3 81
Part II, 15
(1983)).
471 Awas Tingni, supra note 422, at 149.
472 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 154-156.
473 Yanomami, supra note 436, at 5-6.
474 Ecuador Report, supra note 444, at ch. IX (citing the Ksentini Final Report, supra
note 440, at 77,
78-93).
475 General Comment No. 23, supra note 438, at 7, 9.
476 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 141.
477 Bernard Ominayak and the Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, U.N. HRC, 45th Sess.,
Supp. No. 40, at 27,
U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984 (1990).
478 Id. at 33.
479 United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra
note 451, at art. 7.
480 Id. at art. 14
481 16 U.S.C. 3111(1) (emphasis added).
482 ACIA Overview Report, supra note 16, ch. 4 at 100.
483 Id.
484 Wohlforth, supra note 31.
485 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 23.
486 American Declaration, supra note 432, at art. XXIII.
487 Inter-Am. C.H.R., Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights 1993,
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.85, doc. 9 rev. (1994) ch. 6 at 464.
488 American Convention, supra note 465, at art. 21.
489 Universal Declaration, supra note 467, at art. 17.
490 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
Nov. 4, 1950, 213
U.N.T.S. 221 (European Convention), Protocol 1, art. 1 (Every natural or legal
person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions
except in the public
interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general
principle of international
law.).
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING

CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
154
491 African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, supra note 454, at art. 14, (The
right to property
shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need
or in the general
interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate
laws.).
492 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 140.
493 Awas Tingni, supra note 422, at 149.
494 Awas Tingni, supra note 422, at 149.
495 Id.
496 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 153, 194.
497 Id. at 117.
498 Id.
499 Id. at 152.
500 Dann, supra note 421, at 129.
501 Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra note
450, at art. 18.2.
502 ILO Convention No. 169, supra note 439, at art. 14.1.
503 United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra
note 451, at art. 26
(emphasis added).
504 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 140.
505 Id.
506 Id. at 149-150 (citing with approval Communication N 155/96, African
Comm. Num. & Peoples
Rights, Done at the 30th Ordinary Session, held in Banjul, The Gambia from 1327
October 2001,
available at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/155-96.html#_ftnref7.
507 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 24.
508 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and Complementary Agreements,
available at
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/agr/que/jbnq_e.PDF (last visited Nov. 28, 2005);
Western Arctic Claim:
Inuvialuit Final Agreement, available at http://www.aincinac.gc.ca/pr/agr/inu/wesar_e.pdf (last visited
Nov. 28, 2005); Agreement Between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and
Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of Canada, (NLCA) available at http://www.aincinac.gc.ca/pr/agr/pdf/nunav_e.pdf
(last visited Nov. 28, 2005); Land Claims Agreement Between the Inuit of Labrador
and Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador and in Right of Canada, available at
http://www.aincinac.
gc.ca/pr/agr/labi/labi_e.pdf (last visited Nov. 28, 2005).
509 33 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.
510 NLCA, supra note 508, at art. 17.

511 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 140.

512 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 25, 30.
513 Id. at 25.
514 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 80.
515 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 79.
516 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 12
517 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 94.
518 Awas Tingni, supra note 422, at 144;The European Court of Human Rights has
also expansively
defined property to cover both movable and immovable property, immaterial
rights, economic interests,
goodwill (for example, ones good reputation) and pension. Human Rights Internet,
The Human Rights
Databank: The Right to Property, at
http://www.hri.ca/doccentre/docs/handbook97/property.shtml (last
visited Nov. 16, 2005).
519 Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra note
450, art. 20; see also
Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra note
451, art. 29
(Indigenous peoples are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership, control
and protection of their
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
155
cultural and intellectual property and the right to special measures to control,
develop and protect their
sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations, including human and other
genetic resources, seeds,
medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions,
literatures, designs and visual
and performing arts); see also Convention on Biological Diversity, supra note 454,
arts. 8(j), 10(c).
520 Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples supra note
450, art. 18.2.
521 ILO Convention 169, supra note 439, art. 14.1 (measures shall be taken to
safeguard the right to
use lands not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally
had access for their
subsistence and traditional activities).
522 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 140.
523 Awas Tingni, supra note 422, at 144.
524 Todd Phillips and Jason Van Rassell, Winter Storm Disrupts Pang Fishing
Season, in NUNATSIAQ
NEWS, March 15, 1996..
525 Awas Tingni, supra note 422, at 144.
526 Wohlforth, supra note 31.

527 Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra note
450, art. 29.
528 NLCA, supra note 508, at art. 5.
529 16 U.S.C. 3121(a).
530 Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra note
450, at art. 28.
531 Fenge, supra note 32, at 82.
532 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 144.
533 American Declaration, supra note 432, at art. XI.
534 Protocol of San Salvador, supra note 454, at art. 10.
535 Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 467,
assures the right to a
standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family,
including ... medical
care and necessary social services.
536 Article 12 of the ICESCR, supra note 469, provides:
1. The states parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of
the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
2. The steps to be taken by the states parties to the present Covenant to achieve
the full realization
of this right shall include those necessary for: (b) the improvement of all aspects of
environmental
and industrial hygiene; (c) the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic and
other
diseases.
537 African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, supra note 454, at art. 16
(Every individual shall
have the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health.).
538 See Yamin, 95 Am. J. Pub. Health 1156, 1157 (2005) (citing Toebes B. The Right
to Health as a Right
in International Law. Oxford, England: Intersentia/Hart; 1999).
539 Yanomami, supra note 436, at 8.
540 Id.
541 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 154-156.
542 Constitution of the World Health Organization, July 22, 1946, 14 U.N.T.S. 185,
186.
543 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, U.N. Environment
Programme, U.N. Doc.
UNEP/POPS/CONF/2 (2001) (signed by U.S. on May 23, 2001), available at
http://untreaty.un.org/English/notpubl/27-15E.doc.
544 Protocol on Water and Health to the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use
of Transboundary
Watercourses and International Lakes, art. 1, U. N. Doc MP.WAT/AC.1/1999/1 (1999),
available at
http://www.euro.who.int/Document/Peh-ehp/ProtocolWater.pdf.
545 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, supra note 454, at Princ. 14.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 7, 2005
156
546 Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights and
Indigenous Issues:
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms of
Indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen Addendum, Mission to Canada, U.N. Doc.
E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.4, at 94, (Stavenhagen Addendum).
547 Ksentini Final Report, supra note 440, at 176-187.
548 Id. at 176
549 Id. at 176.
550 Hunt, Paul, Right of Everyone to the Highest Standard of Physical and Mental
Health: Addendum,
Mission to Peru, 54, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2005/51/Add.3 (2005).
551 Ksentini Final Report, supra note 440, at 183 (citations omitted).
552 U.N. C.E.S.C.R., Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the
International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ICESCR General Comment 14, 22nd Sess., at
4, U.N. Doc.
E/C.12/2000/4 (2000).
553 Id. at 59.
554 WHO Executive Board, WHOs human health and environment programme, 57th
Sess., at 3, Res.
EB57.R28 (1976).
555 Id. at preamble.
556 WHO Executive Board, WHOs contribution to the international efforts towards
sustainable
development, 83rd Sess., at . 3, 4, Res. EB83.R15 (1989).
557 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 110.
558 PAULATUK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 23; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP,
supra note 130, at 11.
559 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10.
560 ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at 4.1.
561 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 111.
562 Id.
563 Id.
564 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 111.
565 American Declaration, supra note 432, at art. I.
566 ICCPR, supra note 468, at art. 6 ([e]very human being has the inherent right to
life. This right shall
be protected by law); Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 467,
(Everyone has the right
to life.); American Convention, supra note 465, at art. 4.1(Every person has the
right to have his life
respected. This right shall be protected by law.); European Convention, supra
note 490, at art. 2.1, 5.1
(Everyones right to life shall be protected by law.; Everyone has the right to
liberty and security of
person.).

567 Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Status of Ratifications
of the Principal
International Human Rights Treaties (June 9, 2004) at 11, at
http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf (last
visited Mar. 18, 2005).
568 Inter-Am. C.H.R., Signatures and Current Status of Ratifications: American
Convention on Human
Rights, at http://www.cidh.org/Basicos/basic4.htm#9 (last visited Nov. 18, 2005).
569 See, e.g., U.S. Const. Amend. V, XIV, 1. In Latin America, the constitutions of
Chile (art. 19);
Colombia (art. 11); Costa Rica (art. 21); Ecuador (art. 23); Nicaragua (art. 23);
Paraguay (art. 4); Peru
(art. 2.1); Dominican Republic (art. 8.1); and Venezuela (art. 43) explicitly state the
right to life.
Georgetown University y Organizacin de Estados Americanos, Base de Datos
Polticos de las Amricas:
Derecho a la integridad personal, at
http://www.georgetown.edu/pdba/Comp/Derechos/integridad.html
(last visited Mar. 18, 2005).
570 Yanomami, supra note 436.
571 Id.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
157
572 Ecuador Report, supra note 444, at ch. 8.
573Id.
574Ecuador Report, supra note 444, at ch. 8.
575 Id.
576 E.H.P. v. Canada, U.N. H.R.C., 17th Session, at 8, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/C/17/D/67/1980 (1982),
available at
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/fd1dce90b1957160c1256abe003484d9?
OpenDocument
(last visited Nov. 16, 2005).
577 General Comment No. 6: The right to life, U.N. HRC, 16th Session, at 5, U.N.
Doc. A/37/40 (1982),
available at
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/84ab9690ccd81fc7c12563ed0046fae3?
Opendocument (last
visited Nov. 18, 2005).
578 A study of the Inuvialuit in Sachs Harbour further found, In the winter, the sea
ice is thin and broken,
making travel dangerous for even the most experienced hunters. In the fall, storms
have become frequent
and severe, making boating difficult. ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at
Executive Summary.
579 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 58-61, 68-69, 96.
580 16 U.S.C. 3111(2).

581 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 96.

582 ACIA Overview supra note 16, at 95.
583 ICCPR, supra note 468, at art. 1(2).
584 Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, supra note
451, at art. 21.
585 Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra note
450, art. 15.
586 Dann, supra note 421, at 129.
587 Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra note
450, at art. 18.4
(emphasis added).
588 Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra note
450, at art. 15.
589 Concluding Observations: Sweden 24/04/2002, U.N. HRC, 74th Sess., at 15,
U.N. Doc.
CCPR/CO/74/SWE (2002) (citing ICCPR, arts. 1, 25, and 27), available at
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/5d974f7dcf82864dc1256b960038d029?
Opendocument (last visited
Nov. 18, 2005).
590 Concluding Observations: Canada 07/04/99, U.N. HRC, 65th Sess., at 8, U.N.
Doc.
CCPR/C/79/Add.105 (1999) (citing ICCPR, art. 1(2)).
591 Lubicon Lake Band, supra note 477, at 32.2.
592 The Committee has jurisdiction over complaints by individuals under the
Optional Protocol to the
ICCPR, but the right to self-determination, including a peoples right to their own
means of subsistence,
is a collective right, over which the Committee decided it did not have jurisdiction.
There is, however,
no objection to a group of individuals, who claim to be similarly affected, collectively
to submit a
communication about alleged breaches of their rights. Lubicon Lake Band, supra
note 477, at 32.1.
593 Id. at 33.
594 Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra
note 451, at art. 21.
595 ILO Convention No. 169, supra note 439, at art. 14.1.
596 Id. at art. 23.1.
597 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 11.
598 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10.
599 American Declaration, supra note 432, at art. VIII.
600 American Declaration, supra note 432, at art. IX.
601 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 467, at art. 12, 13(1).
602 ICCPR, supra note 468, at art. 12, 17.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
158
603 American Convention on Human Rights, supra note 465, at art. 11, 22.

604 European Convention on Human Rights, supra note 490, at Protocol 1, art. 2.1,
8.
605 African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, supra note 454, at art. 4, 12.1.
606 See Georgetown University y Organizacin de Estados Americanos, Libertad de
Circulacin y
Residencia, at http://www.georgetown.edu/pdba/Comp/Derechos/circulacion.html
(last visited Nov. 18,
2004).
607 Yanomami, supra note 436, at 8.
608 Id. at 2.
609 Id.
610 Lopez Ostra v. Spain, 303-C Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1994) (Spain did not succeed
in striking a fair
balance between the interest of the towns economic well-being and the
applicants effective
enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and her private and family life.).
611 Case Of Guerra And Others V. Italy, European Court Of Human Rights, No.
116/1996/735/932
(1998), available at http://www.eel.nl/cases/ECHR/guerra.htm (last visited Nov. 18,
2005).
612 Case of Fadeyeva v. Russia, European Court of Human Rights, No. 55723/00
(2005).
613 Yanomami, supra note 436 at 2(f), available at
http://www.worldlii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2005/376.html (last visited Nov. 18, 2005).
614 Dann, supra note 421, at 97 (citing Inter Am. C.H.R., Report of the Situation of
Human Rights of
Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System, Doc.
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 40
rev. 38 (February 28, 2000), available at
http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Canada2000en/table-ofcontents.
htm (last visited Apr. 12, 2005); Case of Juan Raul Garza (United States) (Garza)
Report N
52/01, Case 12.243, Annual Report of the IACHR (2000) at 88, 89).
615American Convention on Human Rights, supra note 465, at art. 29.
616 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 86 (citing Inter-Am. Court H.R., Advisory
Opinion OC-10/89,
Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Within
the Framework of
Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, July 14, 1989, Ser. A. No.
10 37 (1989);
Inter-Am. Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, The Right to Information on
Consular Assistance in
the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, Ser. A N 16 115
(1999); Case of Ramn
Martinez Villareal (United States) (Villareal), Report N 52/02, Case N 11.753,
Annual Report of the
IACHR 2002 60 (2002)).
617 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 87 (citing Garza); Dann, supra note 421.
618 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 87 (citing Garza, supra note 614, at 89;
Inter Am. C.H.R., Report

of the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee
Determination System,
Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 40 rev. (February 28, 2000), 38; Case of Juan Carlos
Abella
(Argentina) (Abella) Report N 55/97, Case 11.137, Annual Report of the IACHR
1998, 157-171
(1998); Villareal, supra note 616, at 77;); Dann, supra note 421 at 97).
619 Awas Tingni, supra note 422, at 146.
620 The Right to Information on Consular Assistance, supra note 616, at 115;
accord Juridical Condition
and Human Rights of the Child, Inter-Am. Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-17/02,
(2002) (interpreting
rights in the Convention in light of the International Convention on the Human
Rights of the Child);
Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants, Inter-Am. Court H. R.,
Advisory Opinion
OC-18 (2003).
621 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at 86 (citing Inter-Am. Court H.R., Interpretation
of the American
Declaration, supra note 616; Inter-Am. Court H.R., The Right to Information on
Consular Assistance,
supra note 616; Villareal, supra note 616, at 60.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
159
622 The Right to Information on Consular Assistance, supra note 616, (citing Other
Treaties Subject to
the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human
Rights), Advisory
Opinion OC-1/82, Sept. 24, 1982, (Ser. A) No. 1; opinion, 1) (Emphasis in original.).
623 Case of Coard et al (United States) (Coard), Report No. 109/99, Case No.
10.951, 40.
624 Other Treaties Subject to the Advisory Opinion of the Court, supra note 622,
at 34, 43.
625 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Framework
Convention), 1771
U.N.T.S. 107, reprinted at 31 I.L.M. 849 (1992), available at
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (last visited May 12, 2005). The
status of U.S.
ratification and entry into force is available at
http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/items/2228.php (last visited May 12,
2005).
626 Framework Convention, supra note 625, at art. 2.
627 Id., art 4.1(b) (Parties shall formulate, implement, publish and regularly update
national
programmes containing measures to mitigate climate change by addressing
anthropogenic emissions by
sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases).

628 Id., art. 4.2(a) (committing developed countries to tak[e] the lead in modifying
long-term trends in
anthropogenic emissions consistent with the objective of the Convention,
recognizing that the return by
the end of the present decade to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions of carbon
dioxide and other
greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal protocol would contribute to such
a modification), art
4.2(b) (reporting requirements specifically referencing the aim of returning
individually or jointly to
their 1990 levels these anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases not
controlled by the Montreal Protocol). See also Climate Change Secretariat, The
Kyoto Protocol to the
Convention on Climate Change Introduction p.1.
629 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 26, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, reprinted
at 8 I.L.M. 679
(1969), available at http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/treaties.htm (last visited May 12,
2005). The United
States signed the Vienna Convention, and, although it did not subsequently ratify
the Convention, the
U.S. Department of State recognizes its provisions as the authoritative guide to
current treaty law and
practice. S. Exec. Doc.L., 92d Cong., 1st sess. (1971) p. 1.
630 U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, supra note 91, ([T]otal U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions are
projected to increase by 43 percent between 2000 and 2020. This increased growth
in absolute emissions
will be accompanied by a decline in emissions per unit of GDP.).
631 See Review of the third national communication of the United States, infra note
711, and
accompanying text.
632 President George W. Bush, Speech Discussing Global Climate Change, June 11,
2001, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html (last visited
May 12, 2005).
633 U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, supra note 91.
634 Id. at 50-52, 78.
635 U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, supra note 91, at 5.
636 Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/response_bushpolicy.cfm.
637 See David Hunter, James Salzman & Durwood Zaelke, International
Environmental Law and Policy at
420 (Foundation Press, 2d ed. 2002).
638 Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. v. Can.) (1941), 3 R.I.A.A. 1938, 1965 (1949).
639 Corfu Channel Case (U.K. v. Alb.), 1949 I.C.J. 4, 22 (Apr. 9).
640 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J.
226, 241-42.
641 Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, Principle 21,

G.A. Res. 2997, U.N. GAOR, 27th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/ Conf.48/14/Rev/1, 11 I.L.M.
1416 (1972); Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development, supra note 454, at Principle 2. The
Heavy Metals
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
160
Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, which the
United States has
accepted, echoes the Rio Declarations agreement that states must prevent
transboundary harm. Protocol
to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Heavy
Metals, preamble, June
24, 1998, U.N. Doc. E/ECE/EB.AIR/66/1999, U.N. Sales No. E.99.II.E.21 (1999).
642 North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, preamble, U.S.Can..-Mex., Sept. 14,
1993, 32 I.L.M. 1480 (entered into force Jan. 1, 1994) (REAFFIRMING the sovereign
right of States to
exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and development
policies and their
responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not
cause damage to the
environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction).
643 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter, preamble,
Dec. 29, 1972, 1046 U.N.T.S. 120.
644 See Presidential Proclamation No. 7219, 64 Fed. Reg. 48701 (Aug. 2, 1999)
(UNCLOS reflects
international law).
645 See U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 194, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3, reprinted
at 21 I.L.M. 1261
(entered into force Nov. 16, 1994).
646 Framework Convention, preamble, supra note 625.
647 Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, supra note 453, at 140.
648 Id. (separate opinion of Vice President Weeramantry) T A.
649 Ecuador Report, supra note 444, at ch. 8.
650 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, supra note 454, at Principle
15; Hunter, Salzman
& Zaelke, supra note 637, at 406.
651 United States Position on Precaution, Dec. 4, 2000, available at
http://usinfo.org/usia/usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/environ/latest/00120407.htm.
652 UNEP Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF), Malm Ministerial
Declaration 3 (2000).
653 Hunter, Salzman & Zaelke, supra note 637, at 410; The Stockholm Convention,
ratified by 71
countries including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Mexico, Spain, the
United Kingdom, and

signed by the United States, regards precaution as underl[ying] the concerns of all
the Parties and . . .
embedded within the Convention. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants, Participants,
at http://www.pops.int/documents/signature/signstatus.htm (last visited Jul. 25,
2005); Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants(POPS), preamble (2001).
654 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on
Heavy Metals,
preamble, June 24, 1998, U.N. Doc. E/ECE/EB.AIR/66/1999, U.N. Sales No.
E.99.II.E.21 (1999);
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea of 10
December 1982, Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish
Stocks and Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks, art. 6, UN Doc. A/CONF.164/37, 34 ILM 1542, at 1563 (1995),
available at
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_stoc
ks.htm (stating that
States shall apply the precautionary approach widely and that the absence of
adequate scientific
information shall not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take
conservation and management
measures.).
655 The Stockholm Convention formulates the precautionary principle in an active
manner, stating that
Parties shall decide, in a precautionary manner, whether to list chemicals as
persistent organic
pollutants. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS), art.8.9
(2001) (emphasis
added). The Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the
Control of Transboundary
Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa (Bamako
Convention) defines the
precautionary approach as, inter alia, preventing the release into the environment
of substances which
may cause harm to humans or the environment without waiting for scientific proof
regarding such harm.
Bamako Convention, art. 4(3)(f) (1991). Additionally, the 1996 Protocol to the
London (Dumping)
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
161
Convention declares that [i]n implementing this protocol, Contracting Parties shall
apply a precautionary
approach to environmental protection . . . when there is reason to believe that
wastes or other matter

introduced in the marine environment are likely to cause harm even when there is
no conclusive evidence
to prove a causal relation between inputs and their effects.
656 Framework Convention, art. 3.3, supra note 625.
657 Framework Convention, art. 3.3, supra note 625.
658 See infra Part III.D.3
659 President George W. Bush, Speech Discussing Global Climate Change, supra
note 632.
660 U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, supra note 91, at p. 73.
661 Concerning the Factory at Chorzw (Claim for Indemnity), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A)
No. 17, at 29
(Indemnity) (Merits).
662 Corfu Channel Case (U.K. v. Alb.), 1949 I.C.J. 4 (Apr. 9); Gabcikovo-Nagymaros
Project, supra note
453.
663 Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, supra note 453, at para. 150.
664 See Restatement (Third) of the Law of Foreign Relations 601 (1987).
665 Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, Principle 21,
supra note 641; Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, supra note 454,
at Principle 2; see
also Hunter, Salzman & Zaelke, supra note 637, at 425.
666 Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Compensatory Damages (Art. 63(1) American
Convention on Human
Rights), Judgment of July 21, 1989 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. C) No. 7 (1990), 54.
667 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, supra note 454, at Principle
16 (National
authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs
and the use of
economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in
principle, bear the cost
of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting
international trade and
investment.). This principle originated in a 1972 set of recommendations by the
Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development Council, which stated that the cost of
[ensuring adequate
environmental protection] should be reflected in the cost of goods and services
which cause pollution in
production and/or consumption. OECD Council, Recommendation of the Council on
Guiding Principles
Concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies, C(72)128
(1972).
668 UNEP Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF), Malm Ministerial
Declaration 11 (2000).
669 World Summit on Sustainable Development, Plan of Implementation, par. 14(b),
2002, available at
http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/2309_planfinal.h
tm.

670 President George W. Bush, Speech Discussing Global Climate Change, supra
note 632.
671 U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, supra note 91, at p. 73.
672 CAIT, supra note 403 (5.4 tons per U.S. citizen versus 1 ton of carbon per
person globally in 2000).
673 Id. (5.4 versus 2.2 tons of carbon per person in 2000).
674 Id. (5.4 versus 0.6 tons per person in 2000).
675 Id.
676 Department of State, Climate Change Fact Sheet, May 18, 2005, available at
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/46741.htm. See also U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO),
Preliminary Observations on the Administrations February 2002 Climate Initiative,
Oct. 1, 2003,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04131t.pdf, at 1.
677 Preliminary Observations on the Administrations February 2002 Climate
Initiative, supra note 676,
Appendix 1.
678 EPA, Climate Leaders, at http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders (last visited
September 27, 2005).
679 Climate VISION: Program Mission, http:www.climatevision.gov/mission.html (last
visited September
27, 2005).
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
162
680 Id.
681 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Press Release, USDA Targeted
Incentives for
Greenhouse Gas Sequestration, Jun. 6, 2003, available at
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2004/39485.htm.
682 EIA, Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program Brochure, available at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/Brochure.html (last visited September 27, 2005).
683 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Federal Climate Change
Expenditures Report to
Congress 10, Mar. 2005,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy06_climate_change_rpt.pdf
(current and projected expenditures by individual program), at 3.
684 Climate Change Fact Sheet, supra note 676. See also Preliminary Observations
on the
Administrations February 2002 Climate Initiative, supra note 676, at 5.
685 Climate Change Science Program, Strategic Plan: Executive Summary, Jul.
2003, available at
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/final/ccspstratplan2003execsum.pdf.
686 Climate Change Technology Program, About the U.S. Climate Change
Technology Program,
http://www.climatetechnology.gov/about/index.htm (last visited Jul. 7, 2005).
687 Climate Change Fact Sheet, supra note 676.

688 Id. See also Climate Change Expenditures, supra note 683; and Robert Marlay,
Climate-Friendly
TechnologiesA U.S. Priority at 10, Dec. 15, 2004, available at
http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2004/marlay-part1-paris-dec2004s.pdf
(percentage of CCTP
spending on various technologies).
689 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), International Activities: International
Partnership for the Hydrogen
Economy, available at
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/international_activities.html
(last visited Jul. 8, 2005).
690 Methane to Markets, About the Partnership, available at
http://www.methanetomarkets.org (last
visited Jul. 8, 2005).
691 DOE, Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, available at
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/sequestration/cslf (last visited Jul. 8, 2005).
692 Generation IV International Forum, at http://gen-iv.ne.doe.gov/intl.html (last
visited Jul. 8, 2005).
693 Climate Change Fact Sheet, supra note 676.
694 EPA, In Brief: The U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory 7, 2005, available at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR5CZKVE/
$File/ghgbrochure.p
df at 7.
695 EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2003 ES-14,
Figure ES-2, 2005,
available at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR69V4ZS/
$File/05_complete_re
port.pdf.
696 Preliminary Observations on the Administrations February 2002 Climate
Initiative, supra note 676, at
4-5.
697 Id.
698 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2005, Figure Data, Figure 111, Carbon dioxide
emissions in three
economic growth cases, 1990-2025, available at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/figure111_data.xls.
699 Bush: Global Warming Is Just Hot Air, Salon.com, Sept. 10, 2004, available at
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/09/10/bush/index2.html; U.S. Climate
Action Network, Faking
Action: The Truth Behind U.S. Global Warming Policy 8, Dec. 2003, available at
http://www.climatenetwork.org/uscanweb/fakingaction.htm. See generally Climate
VISION, Private
Sector Initiatives, at http://www.climatevision.gov/initiatives.html (last visited Jul. 8,
2005).
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
163

700 Compare, Edison Electric Institute (2002), EEI, Industry Allies Launch Power
Partners to Support
President Bushs Climate Initiative,
http://www.eei.org/issues/news/releases/030212.htm, with Energy
Information Administration (2003), Annual Energy Outlook 2003, Reference Case
Forecast, Table 19.
701 Guy Gugliotta & Eric Pianin, Bush Plans on Global Warming Alter Little:
Voluntary Programs
Attract Few Firms, Wash. Post, Jan. 1, 2004.
702 EPA, Climate Leaders: Partners, at
http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/partners/index.html (last visited
Jul. 8, 2005).
703 EPA, Climate Leaders: Partner Goals, at
http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/partners/ghggoals.html
(last updated Jul. 6, 2005).
704 Gugliotta & Pianin, supra note 701.
705 Timothy E. Wirth, Under Secretary for Global Affairs, Statement on behalf of the
United States at the
Second Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change,
Geneva,
Switzerland, July 17, 1996.
706 George W. Bush, Text of a Letter from the President to Senators Hagel, Helms,
Craig, and Roberts,
Mar. 13, 2001, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html.
707 Id.
708 Robert Fabricant, EPA General Counsel, Aug. 28, 2003, available at
http://www.icta.org/doc/FabricantMemoAug282003.pdf.
709 Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Emissions from New Highway
Vehicles and Engines:
Notice of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 68 Federal Register 52,922, 52,925
(Sept. 8, 2003),
available at http://www.epa.gov/airlinks/co2petition.response.pdf.
710 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 415 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir.
2005).
711 Report on the in-depth review of the third national communication of the United
States of America,
FCCC/IDR.3/USA, Sept. 21, 2004, at 143, available at
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/idr/usa03.pdf.
712 National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE), Tracking New Coal-Fired Power
Plants, Mar. 30,
2005, available at http://www.netl.doe.gov.
713 Id.
714 U.S. Climate Action Network, supra note 699, at 16.
715 E.A. Parson & D.W. Keith, Fossil Fuels Without CO2 Emissions, 282 Science
1053, 1054 (1998). (A
serious effort to limit climate change will require pursuing multiple technological
paths.).
716 National Resources Defense Council, Untangling the Accounting Gimmicks in
the White House

Global Warming, Pollution Plans, Feb. 2002, at

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/agwcon.asp.
717 Climate Change Expenditures, supra note 683, at 10.
718 Sierra Club, A Dangerous Experiment at 1, Nov. 2000, available at
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/factsheets/dangerous_experiment.pdf.
719 U.S. Department of State, Bush Will Not Require Power Plants to Reduce Carbon
Emissions, at
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2003/Dec/02-50965.html (last updated Dec. 2,
2003).
720 EPA Withholds Air Pollution Analysis; Senate Plan Found More Effective, Slightly
More Costly Than
Bush Proposal, Wash. Post, Jul. 1, 2003.
721 Sierra Club, supra note 718, at 1.
722 EPA Inventory 1990-2003, supra note 695, at ES-7.
723 Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Comparison of Passenger Vehicle Fuel
Economy and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Around the World (Fuel Economy), Dec. 6,
2004, available at
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-indepth/all_reports/fuel_economy/index.cfm.
724 Id., at 6.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
164
725 Robert B. McKinstry, Jr., Introduction: Local Solutions for Global Problems: The
Debate Over the
Causes and Effects of Climate Change and Emerging Mitigation Strategies for
States, Localities and
Private Parties 14, 12 Penn. St. Envtl. L. Rev. 1 (2004).
726 Jennifer Lee, The Warming Is Global But the Legislating, in the U.S., Is All
Local, N.Y. Times, Oct.
29, 2003, available at http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=26678.
727 Amanda Griscom Little, City City Bang Bang, Grist Magazine, Jun. 15, 2005, at
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/06/15/little-nickels/index.html.
728 California Climate Change Portal, Summary of National Climate Change
Programs, Nov. 2004, at
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/policies/national_summary.html; Environmental
Defense, States and
Climate Change, Jun. 13, 2005, at http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?
contentid=2863.
729 Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Renewable Energy Mandates, at
http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/rps.cfm (last visited
Jul. 8, 2005).
730 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Goals & Guiding Principles, at
http://www.rggi.org/goals.htm
(last visited Jul. 8, 2005); Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Update on the Status
of RGGI, Apr. 6,
2005, available at http://www.rggi.org/docs/rggi_update_4_6_05.pdf.

731 Barry G. Rabe, Greenhouse & Statehouse: The Evolving State Government Role
in Climate Change
at 40, (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Nov. 2002), available at
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/states%5Fgreenhouse%2Epdf.
732 Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Learning from State Action on Climate
Change,
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/States%5FInBrief%2Epdf (last visited Jul. 8,
2005).
733 See Part II.B.2 and surrounding text.
734 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Global Climate Change Policy, at
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate
(last visited Jun. 20, 2005).
735 See Paula Dobriansky, U.S. undersecretary of state for global affairs, Addressing
the Challenge of
Global Climate Change, Nov. 19, 2003, available at
http://www.state.gov/g/rls/rm/2003/26530.htm;
James Connaughton, Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental
Quality, Testimony Before
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 2-3, Jul. 11, 2002,
available at
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/13774.pdf; U.S. Climate Action Report
- 2002, supra note
91.
736 Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, 1, available at
http://books.nap.edu/openbook/0309075742/html/1.html.
737 U.S. Climate Action Report - 2002, supra note 91.
738 President Distances Himself From Global Warming Report, New York Times,
Jun. 5, 2002.
739 U.S. Climate Action Network, supra note 699, at 14.
740 Union of Concerned Scientists, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking, 5, Feb.
2004, available at
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1642.
741 Elizabeth Kolbert, The Climate of ManIII, New Yorker, May 9, 2005, available
at
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050509fa_fact3.
742 Id.
743 Michael Mann et. al., Senator Inhofe on Climate Change, RealClimate, Jan. 10,
2005, at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=97; James M. Inhofe, Senate Floor
Statement, Jul. 28, 2003,
available at http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm.
744 Union of Concerned Scientists, Statement: Restoring Scientific Integrity in
Policymaking, Feb. 18,
2004, available at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?
pageID=1320.
745 Id. at 7.
746 U.S. Pressure Weakens G-8 Climate Plan; Global-Warming Science Assailed,
Wash. Post, Jun. 17,
2005.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING

CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
165
747 Id.
748 Bush Aide Edited Climate Reports, New York Times, June 8, 2005.
749 Ex-Bush Aide Who Edited Climate Reports to Join ExxonMobil, N.Y. Times, June
15, 2005.
750 U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Joint Science Academies Statement: Global
Response to Climate
Change, Jun. 7, 2005, available at http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf.
751 See infra at Part II.B.2.
752 Douglas Jehl, U.S. Going Empty-Handed to Meeting on Global Warming, N.Y.
Times, Mar. 29,
2001.
753 U.S. Waters Down Global Commitment to Curb Greenhouse Gases, N.Y. Times,
Dec. 19, 2004;
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050509fa_fact3.
754 U.S. Department of State, Bilateral and Regional Partnerships, Dec. 3, 2004, at
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2004/39438.htm: Australia/New Zealand (Pacific
Ocean climate
monitoring system); China (environmental and economic modeling); India (helping
evaluate clean energy
options); Italy (climate science, clean energy technology); Japan (clean energy
science and technology).
U.S. Department of State, http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/46741.htm: Methane to
Markets Partnership
(capture and use of waste methane); International Partnership for a Hydrogen
Economy (research and
development of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies); Carbon Sequestration
Leadership Forum
(development of technology for carbon dioxide capture and long-term storage);
Generation IV
International Forum (nuclear energy research and development); Renewable Energy
and Energy
Efficiency Partnership (expand market for renewable energy and energy efficiency
technologies); Global
Environmental Facility (financial mechanism of the UNFCCC$25 million in FY 2006
for technology
transfer to, capacity building in developing countries); Tropical Forest Conservation
Act (relieve
developing country debt to U.S. and generate money for conservation of tropical
forests that store
carbonprojected to generate $95 million over life of agreements); Presidents
Initiative Against Illegal
Logging (assist developing countries in combating illegal logging, conserve carbon
storage capacity).
755 For expenditures in 2002, see: Paula Dobriansky [Under Secretary of State for
Global Affairs],
Climate Change and Sustainable Development, Oct. 31, 2002, at

http://www.state.gov/g/rls/rm/2002/14887.htm; 2003: Harlan L. Watson [Senior

Climate Negotiator]
Evolving U.S. Policy on Climate Change, May 14, 2002, at
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/2002/10283.htm; 2004: U.S. Department of State,
United States Global
Climate Change Policy, Feb. 27, 2003, at
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2003/18055.htm.
756 Compare., U.S. Department of State, United States Global Climate Change
Policy, Feb. 27, 2003, at
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2003/18055.htm (recording $62 million for the
Carbon Sequestration
Leadership Forum as coming out of the Department of Energy budget) with Climate
Change
Expenditures, supra note 683, (not differentiating between sequestration research
spending for
international versus domestic purposes).
757 U.S. Department of State, President Bush and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on
Clean Development, Jul.
27, 2005, at http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/50314.htm.
758 Id.
759 U.S. Department of State, Vision Statement of Australia, China, India, Japan, the
Republic of Korea,
and the U.S. for a New Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate,
Jul. 28, 2005, at
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/50335.htm.
760 Juliet Eilperin, U.S. Wants No Warming Proposal: Administration Aims to
Prevent Arctic Council
Suggestions, Wash. Post, Nov. 4, 2004.
761 Britains Blair caught in G8 climate dilemma, Reuters, Jun. 16, 2005, at
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L16549712.htm.
762 U.S. Pressure Weakens G-8 Climate Plan, Wash. Post, Jun. 17, 2005.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
166
763 G-8 Urges Action on Global Warming, With General Goals, Wash. Post, Jul. 8,
2005.
764 Climate Plan Splits U.S. and Europe, Wash. Post, Jul. 2, 2005; G-8 Countries
Trying to Reach
Compromise, Wash. Post, Jul. 6, 2005.
765 G8 Gleneagles Summit, Climate Change, Clean Energy, and Sustainable
Development, 2005,
available at
http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?
pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=111951
8704554; G-8 Urges Action on Global Warming, With General Goals, Wash. Post,
Jul. 8, 2005.
766 Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Article
31.1.

767 Id. at Art. 31.2(a). See also American Convention on Human Rights (American
Convention), Art.
46(2)(a); Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, [Advisory Opinion /
Judgment] OC-11/90
of August 10, 1990, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. A) No. 11 (1990) (domestic remedies need
not be exhausted
in situations in which the domestic laws of a State Party do not provide appropriate
remedies to protect
rights that have been violated).
768 See Juan Carlos Bayarri v. Argentina, Case No. 11.280, Commission Report No.
2/01, January 19,
2001, OEA/ser. L/V/II.111 doc.20 rev., 27 fn.12 (citing Velsquez Rodriquez Case,
Inter-Am.Ct.H.R.,
Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C. No. 4, 63 ([The exhaustion requirement]
speaks of generally
recognized principles of international law. Those principles refer not only to the
formal existence of
such remedies, but also to their adequacy and effectiveness, as shown by the
exceptions.)).
769 DeShaney v. Winnebago Country Dept. of Social Serv., 489 U.S. 189, 196
(1989); see also Harris v.
McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 317-318 (1980) (Fifth Amendments Due Process Clause
establishes no obligation
to fund abortions or other medical services); Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 74
(1972) (Fourteenth
Amendments Due Process Clause establishes no obligation to provide adequate
housing); Youngberg v.
Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 317 (1982) (As a general matter, a State is under no
constitutional duty to provide
substantive services for those within its border.).
770 Every person has the right to fix his residence within the territory of the state
of which he is a
national, to move about freely within such territory, and not to leave it except by his
own will.
771 See Attorney Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 902 (1986).
772 U.S. Const. Art. IV, 2, cl. 1. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Id.; see also Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F.
Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa.
1823) (No. 3230).
773 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of
the United States. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 1; see also Edwards v. California, 314
U.S. 160, 177
(Douglas, J., concurring) and at 181 (Jackson, J., concurring) (1941).
774 U.S. Const. Art. 1, 8, cl. 3. "The Congress shall have Power ... to regulate
Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States . . . ." See also Edwards v. California, 314
U.S. 160 (1941).

775 U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV, 1. See also Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S.
500 (1964).
776 See, e.g., American Declaration, Art. VIII, supra, n. 432.
777 See, e.g., Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. at 905 (1986) (The constitutional right to travel
is more precisely, the
right of free interstate migration. A state law implicates the right to travel when it
actually deters such
travel....).
778 See, e.g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982).
779 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
780 Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
781 Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. U.S., 45 Fed. Cl. 21, 24 (1999) ([T]he Takings
Clause is triggered by
regulation).
782 Id.
PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING
CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 7, 2005
167
783 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484, (1965); Kramer v. Union Free
School District No. 15,
395 U.S. 621, 627 (1969).
784 See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152 (1973) (finding that the right to privacy
includes only those
personal rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty such as family planning,
child-rearing, and
abortion); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712-13 (1976) (finding that a specific
constitutional guarantee
must provide a substantive basis for the privacy right).
785 F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (citing Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 554
(1988); Federal
Housing Admin. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242, 244 (1940)).
786 28 U.S.C. 1346(b). See also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (the United
States cannot be
sued in tort unless the claim alleges, inter alia, that the United States would be
liable to the claimant as a
private person in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission
occurred. (Quotations
omitted.)).
787 28 U.S.C. 2680(a).
788 See Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 415 F.3d 50, 54 (D.C.
Cir. 2005).
789 See 28 U.S.C. 1346(b). See also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (the
United States cannot
be sued in tort unless the claim alleges, inter alia, that the United States would be
liable to the claimant
as a private person in accordance with the law of the place where the act or
omission occurred.
(Quotations omitted.)).

790 See, e.g., Long Beach v. New York, 445 F. Supp. 1203, 1219 (D.N.J. 1978)
([G]enerally it has been
held that there is no constitutional right to ... [environmental] ... protection.);
Tanner v. Armco Steel, 340
F. Supp. 532 (S.D. Tex. 1972) ([N]o legally enforceable right to a healthful
environment . . . is
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment or any other provision of the Federal
Constitution.).
791 Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Emissions from New Highway
Vehicles and Engines:
Notice of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 68 Federal Register 52,922, 52,925
(Sept. 8, 2003).
792 Id. at 52,931 (EPA would decline the petitioners request to regulate motor
vehicle [greenhouse gas]
emissions [under the CAA] even if it had authority to promulgate such
regulations.).
793 See Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency,
794 Neira Alegria Case, Preliminary Objections, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Judgment of
December 11, 1991, Ser.
C, No. 13, para. 29.
795 See Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 415 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir.
2005).
796 See 42 U.S.C. 4321 (Congressional Declaration of Purpose: To declare a
national policy which will
encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment;
to promote efforts
which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and
stimulate the health and
welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural
resources important to
the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.).