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) Speaker I for the residents will make a 5 minute opening statement.b) Speaker II for the residents will have 5 minutes to present the residents’ position on the issues. c) Speaker II for BGOC will be given an opportunity to ask Speaker II of the residents a max of 5

questions.

d) 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.

e) Speaker III for BGOC will then cross-examine the witness for 5-7 minutes.f) Speaker I of BGOC will have 5 minutes for their Opening Statement.g) Speaker II of BGOC will have 5-7 minutes to present their position on the issues.h) 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, can’t 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 OPINIONHUVELLE, 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.

BACKGROUNDPlaintiffs 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.)

ANALYSISI. Summary Judgment StandardRule 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 DamagesChevron 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 LiabilityPlaintiffs 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 ContaminationAccording 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, 422-25 (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

CONCLUSIONFor 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.ORDERFor the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is herebyORDERED that defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [# 110] is GRANTED IN PART andDENIED IN PART; it isFURTHER 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 isFURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED in all other respects; and it isFURTHER 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, Defendant-Appellant.

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:

1Joseph 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

3Teck 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 mid-1995, 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

4has 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

5Id. 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.

6After 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.

7Pakootas 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.

8The 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."

9Much 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.

10In 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

11there 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.

12Further, 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

13The 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

14On 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

16We 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)).

17To 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).

18If 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).

19Here, 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.

20Having placed this litigation in context, we turn to the merits.

IV

21Teck'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.

22Unlike other environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q, 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

23CERCLA 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).

25Here, 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.

26Here, 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 release—a release into the United States from a facility in the United States—is entirely domestic.

27The 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.

28Assuming 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.

29The 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).

30The 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.

31Palmer 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.

32The 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.

33Although 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.

34Here, 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").

35The 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.

36Our conclusion is reinforced by considering CERCLA's place within the constellation of our country's environmental laws, and contrasting it with RCRA:

37Unlike [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."

38Meghrig, 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.

39Here, 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.

40CERCLA 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.

41We 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

42We next address Teck's only other argument—that 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

43Section 9607(a)(3) holds liable parties that arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances. It states, in relevant part, the following:

44any 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. . .

45certain 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.

46Section 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:

47Liability 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."

4841 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).

49The 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.

50Teck'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)).

52Pakootas 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.

53We 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.

54Further, 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

55Because 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

56In 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."

57AFFIRMED.

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 fellow-citizens 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. 05–1120. Argued November 29, 2006—Decided 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 Administrator’s] 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 President’s 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 President’s 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 Administrator’s 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 motor-vehicle 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 EPA’s denial of their rulemaking petition. Pp. 12–23.

(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 EPA’s 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. 7—here, 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. EPA’s 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. 12–17.

(b) The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. The Government’s 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 Comm’n 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. 17–19.

(c) Given EPA’s 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. 20–21.

(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 remedy’s 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 EPA’s espoused belief that global climate change must be addressed. Pp. 21–23.

2. The scope of the Court’s review of the merits of the statutory issues is narrow. Although an agency’s 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. 24–25.

3. Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s 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. EPA’s 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 EPA’s 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 agency’s 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 EPA’s 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 DOT’s mandate to promote energy efficiency by setting mileage standards may overlap with EPA’s environmental responsibilities in no way licenses EPA to shirk its duty to protect the public “health” and “welfare,” §7521(a)(1). Pp. 25–30.

4. EPA’s alternative basis for its decision—that even if it has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it would be unwise to do so at this time—rests 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 Act’s 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 President’s 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. 30–32.

415 F. 3d 50, reversed and remanded.

Core Writing TeamLenny Bernstein, Peter Bosch, Osvaldo Canziani, Zhenlin Chen, Renate Christ, Ogunlade Davidson, William Hare, SaleemulHuq, 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, MartinParry, Dahe Qin, Nijavalli Ravindranath, Andy Reisinger, Jiawen Ren, Keywan Riahi, Cynthia Rosenzweig, MatildeRusticucci, Stephen Schneider, Youba Sokona, Susan Solomon, Peter Stott, Ronald Stouffer, Taishi Sugiyama, Rob Swart,Dennis Tirpak, Coleen Vogel, Gary YoheExtended Writing TeamTerry BarkerReview EditorsAbdelkader Allali, Roxana Bojariu, Sandra Diaz, Ismail Elgizouli, Dave Griggs, David Hawkins, Olav Hohmeyer,Bubu Pateh Jallow, Luc4ka Kajfez4-Bogataj, Neil Leary, Hoesung Lee, David WrattClimate Change 2007:Synthesis ReportSynthesis ReportAn Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeThis 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 WorkingGroup contributions to the Fourth Assessment Report.Based on a draft prepared by:

IntroductionIntroduction26Introduction

This Synthesis Report is based on the assessment carried outby the three Working Groups (WGs) of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC). It provides an integrated view of climatechange as the final part of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report(AR4).Topic 1 summarises observed changes in climate and their effectson natural and human systems, regardless of their causes, whileTopic 2 assesses the causes of the observed changes. Topic 3 presentsprojections of future climate change and related impacts underdifferent scenarios.Topic 4 discusses adaptation and mitigation options over thenext few decades and their interactions with sustainable develop-Figure 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 responsesment. Topic 5 assesses the relationship between adaptation andmitigation on a more conceptual basis and takes a longer-term perspective.Topic 6 summarises the major robust findings and remainingkey uncertainties in this assessment.A schematic framework representing anthropogenic drivers,impacts of and responses to climate change, and their linkages, isshown in Figure I.1. At the time of the Third Assessment Report(TAR) in 2001, information was mainly available to describe thelinkages clockwise, i.e. to derive climatic changes and impacts fromsocio-economic information and emissions. With increased understandingof these linkages, it is now possible to assess the linkagesalso counterclockwise, i.e. to evaluate possible development pathwaysand global emissions constraints that would reduce the riskof future impacts that society may wish to avoid.27Introduction1 See http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/ar4-workshops-express-meetings/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdfTreatment of uncertaintyThe 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 ofuncertainty drawn from the literature. The nature of data, indicators and analyses used in the natural sciences is generally different from thatused in assessing technology development or the social sciences. WG I focuses on the former, WG III on the latter, and WG II covers aspectsof both.Three different approaches are used to describe uncertainties each with a distinct form of language. Choices among and within these threeapproaches depend on both the nature of the information available and the authors’ expert judgment of the correctness and completeness ofcurrent 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 termssuch 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, thenthe following scale of confidence levels is used to express the assessed chance of a finding being correct: very high confidence at least 9 outof 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 lessthan 1 out of 10.Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observationsor 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%; veryunlikely <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 informationfrom 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 anestimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below thatrange). Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the best estimate.

1Observed changes in climate and their effectsTopic 1 Observed changes in climate and their effects301.1 Observations of climate changeSince the TAR, progress in understanding how climate is changingin space and time has been gained through improvements andextensions of numerous datasets and data analyses, broader geographicalcoverage, better understanding of uncertainties and a widervariety of measurements. {WGI SPM}Definitions of climate changeClimate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the stateof 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 orlonger. It refers to any change in climate over time, whetherdue to natural variability or as a result of human activity. Thisusage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate changerefers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectlyto human activity that alters the composition of the globalatmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variabilityobserved over comparable time periods.Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is nowevident from observations of increases in global averageair and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snowand ice and rising global average sea level (Figure 1.1). {WGI3.2, 4.8, 5.2, 5.5, SPM}Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among thetwelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surfacetemperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005)of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C is larger than the corresponding trend of0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the TAR (Figure 1.1). Thelinear 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 yearsfrom 1906 to 2005. {WGI 3.2, SPM}The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and isgreater at higher northern latitudes (Figure 1.2). Average Arctic temperatureshave increased at almost twice the global average rate inthe past 100 years. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans(Figures 1.2 and 2.5). Observations since 1961 show that the averagetemperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of atleast 3000m and that the ocean has been taking up over 80% of theheat being added to the climate system. New analyses of balloonborneand satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospherictemperature show warming rates similar to those observed in surfacetemperature. {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]mmper year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. Whether this faster rate for1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longertermtrend is unclear. Since 1993 thermal expansion of the oceanshas contributed about 57% of the sum of the estimated individualcontributions to the sea level rise, with decreases in glaciers andice caps contributing about 28% and losses from the polar ice sheetscontributing the remainder. From 1993 to 2003 the sum of theseclimate contributions is consistent within uncertainties with the totalsea level rise that is directly observed. {WGI 4.6, 4.8, 5.5, SPM, TableSPM.1}Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistentwith 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 havedeclined in both hemispheres. The maximum areal extent of seasonallyfrozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the NorthernHemisphere since 1900, with decreases in spring of up to 15%.Temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer have generally increasedsince the 1980s in the Arctic by up to 3°C. {WGI 3.2, 4.5, 4.6,4.7, 4.8, 5.5, SPM}At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous longtermchanges in other aspects of climate have also been observed.Trends from 1900 to 2005 have been observed in precipitationamount in many large regions. Over this period, precipitation increasedsignificantly in eastern parts of North and South America,northern Europe and northern and central Asia whereas precipitationdeclined in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa andparts of southern Asia. Globally, the area affected by drought haslikely2 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 becomeless frequent over most land areas, while hot days andhot nights have become more frequent. {WGI 3.8, SPM}_ It is likely that heat waves have become more frequent overmost land areas. {WGI 3.8, SPM}_ It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation events (orproportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) has increased overmost areas. {WGI 3.8, 3.9, SPM}_ It is likely that the incidence of extreme high sea level3 hasincreased at a broad range of sites worldwide since 1975. {WGI5.5, SPM}There is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropicalcyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, and suggestionsof increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regionswhere concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variabilityand the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routinesatellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of longtermtrends in tropical cyclone activity. {WGI 3.8, SPM}Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the secondhalf of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at leastthe 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 theIntroduction 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.31Topic 1 Observed changes in climate and their effects(a) Global average surface temperature(b) Global average sea level(c) Northern Hemisphere snow coverFigure 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 representdecadal averaged values while circles show yearly values. The shaded areas are the uncertainty intervals estimated from a comprehensive analysis ofknown 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 cover1.2 Observed effects of climate changesThe statements presented here are based largely on data setsthat cover the period since 1970. The number of studies of observedtrends in the physical and biological environment and their relationshipto regional climate changes has increased greatly since theTAR. The quality of the data sets has also improved. There is anotable lack of geographic balance in data and literature on observedchanges, with marked scarcity in developing countries.{WGII SPM}These studies have allowed a broader and more confident assessmentof the relationship between observed warming and impactsthan was made in the TAR. That assessment concluded that“there is high confidence2 that recent regional changes in temperaturehave had discernible impacts on physical and biological systems”.{WGII SPM}Observational evidence from all continents and most oceansshows that many natural systems are being affected by regionalclimate changes, particularly temperature increases.{WGII SPM}There is high confidence that natural systems related to snow, iceand 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 rockavalanches in mountain regions {WGII 1.3, SPM}_ changes in some Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems, includingthose in sea-ice biomes, and predators at high levels of the foodweb. {WGII 1.3, 4.4, 15.4, SPM}Based on growing evidence, there is high confidence that thefollowing effects on hydrological systems are occurring: increasedrunoff and earlier spring peak discharge in many glacier- and snowfedrivers, and warming of lakes and rivers in many regions, witheffects on thermal structure and water quality. {WGII 1.3, 15.2, SPM}

Topic 1 Observed changes in climate and their effects32Figure 1.2. Locations of significant changes in data series of physical systems (snow, ice and frozen ground; hydrology; and coastal processes) andbiological systems (terrestrial, marine, and freshwater biological systems), are shown together with surface air temperature changes over the period 1970-2004. 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 1990or 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 dataseries 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 Europeanstudies. White areas do not contain sufficient observational climate data to estimate a temperature trend. The 2 x 2 boxes show the total number of dataseries 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 largeareamarine changes are not shown on the map. {WGII Figure SPM.1, Figure 1.8, Figure 1.9; WGI Figure 3.9b}Physical BiologicalNumber ofsignificantobservedchangesNumber ofsignificantobservedchangesObserved data seriesPhysical systems (snow, ice and frozen ground; hydrology; coastal processes)Biological systems (terrestrial, marine, and freshwater),, ,Percentageof significantchangesconsistentwith warmingPercentageof significantchangesconsistentwith warming94% 92% 98% 100% 94% 89% 100%100% 96% 100% 100% 91% 100% 94% 90% 100% 99% 94% 90%

355 455 53 119NAM LA EUR AFR AS ANZ PR* TER MFW** GLO5 5 2 106 8 6 0 120 24 764 1 85 76528,115 28,586 28,671Changes in physical and biological systems and surface temperature 1970-200433Topic 1 Observed changes in climate and their effectsThere is very high confidence, based on more evidence from awider range of species, that recent warming is strongly affectingterrestrial biological systems, including such changes as earlier timingof spring events, such as leaf-unfolding, bird migration andegg-laying; and poleward and upward shifts in ranges in plant andanimal species. Based on satellite observations since the early 1980s,there is high confidence that there has been a trend in many regionstowards earlier ‘greening’ of vegetation in the spring linked to longerthermal 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 systemsare associated with rising water temperatures, as well as relatedchanges in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation. Theseinclude: shifts in ranges and changes in algal, plankton and fishabundance in high-latitude oceans; increases in algal and zooplanktonabundance in high-latitude and high-altitude lakes; and rangechanges and earlier fish migrations in rivers. While there is increasingevidence of climate change impacts on coral reefs, separatingthe impacts of climate-related stresses from other stresses (e.g. overfishingand pollution) is difficult. {WGII 1.3, SPM}Other effects of regional climate changes on natural andhuman environments are emerging, although many are difficultto discern due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers.{WGII SPM}Effects of temperature increases have been documented withmedium confidence in the following managed and human systems:_ agricultural and forestry management at Northern Hemispherehigher latitudes, such as earlier spring planting of crops, andalterations in disturbances of forests due to fires and pests {WGII1.3, SPM}_ some aspects of human health, such as excess heat-relatedmortality in Europe, changes in infectious disease vectors inparts of Europe, and earlier onset of and increases in seasonalproduction of allergenic pollen in Northern Hemisphere highand mid-latitudes {WGII 1.3, 8.2, 8.ES, SPM}_ some human activities in the Arctic (e.g. hunting and shortertravel seasons over snow and ice) and in lower-elevation alpineareas (such as limitations in mountain sports). {WGII 1.3, SPM}Sea level rise and human development are together contributingto losses of coastal wetlands and mangroves and increasing

damage from coastal flooding in many areas. However, based onthe published literature, the impacts have not yet become establishedtrends. {WGII 1.3, 1.ES, SPM}1.3 Consistency of changes in physical andbiological systems with warmingChanges in the ocean and on land, including observed decreasesin snow cover and Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, thinner seaice, shorter freezing seasons of lake and river ice, glacier melt, decreasesin permafrost extent, increases in soil temperatures andborehole temperature profiles, and sea level rise, provide additionalevidence 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 biologicalsystems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of changeexpected as a response to warming (Figure 1.2). {WGII 1.4, SPM}1.4 Some aspects of climate have not beenobserved to changeSome aspects of climate appear not to have changed and, forsome, data inadequacies mean that it cannot be determined if theyhave changed. Antarctic sea ice extent shows inter-annual variabilityand localised changes but no statistically significant averagemulti-decadal trend, consistent with the lack of rise in near-surfaceatmospheric temperatures averaged across the continent. There isinsufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in some othervariables, 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 annualnumbers of tropical cyclones. {WGI 3.2, 3.8, 4.4, 5.3, SPM}

2Causes of changeTopic 2 Causes of change36Causes of changeThis Topic considers both natural and anthropogenic drivers ofclimate change, including the chain from greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions to atmospheric concentrations to radiative forcing4 toclimate responses and effects.2.1 Emissions of long-lived GHGsThe radiative forcing of the climate system is dominated by thelong-lived GHGs, and this section considers those whose emissionsare covered by the UNFCCC.Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grownsince pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between1970 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 about80%, from 21 to 38 gigatonnes (Gt), and represented 77% of total

anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004 (Figure 2.1). The rate ofgrowth of CO2-eq emissions was much higher during the recent10-year period of 1995-2004 (0.92 GtCO2-eq per year) than duringthe previous period of 1970-1994 (0.43 GtCO2-eq per year). {WGIII1.3, 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 andis 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 preindustrialconditions 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 valuesconsistent 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 andconcentrationsGHGs differ in their warming influence (radiative forcing) onthe global climate system due to their different radiative propertiesand lifetimes in the atmosphere. These warming influencesmay be expressed through a common metric based onthe radiative forcing of CO2.• CO2-equivalent emission is the amount of CO2 emissionthat would cause the same time-integrated radiative forcing,over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of a longlivedGHG or a mixture of GHGs. The equivalent CO2 emissionis obtained by multiplying the emission of a GHG by itsGlobal Warming Potential (GWP) for the given time horizon.6For a mix of GHGs it is obtained by summing the equivalentCO2 emissions of each gas. Equivalent CO2 emission is astandard and useful metric for comparing emissions of differentGHGs but does not imply the same climate changeresponses (see WGI 2.10).• CO2-equivalent concentration is the concentration of CO2that would cause the same amount of radiative forcing as agiven mixture of CO2 and other forcing components.7Figure 2.1. (a) Global annual emissions of anthropogenic GHGs from 1970 to 2004.5 (b) Share of different anthropogenic GHGs in total emissions in 2004in terms of CO2-eq. (c) Share of different sectors in total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004 in terms of CO2-eq. (Forestry includes deforestation.) {WGIIIFigures TS.1a, TS.1b, TS.2b}Global anthropogenic GHG emissionsF-gasesCO2 from fossil fuel use and other sourcesCH4 from agriculture, waste and energyCO2 from deforestation, decay and peat

N2O from agriculture and othersGtCO2-eq / yr28.735.639.444.749.0The largest growth in GHG emissions between 1970 and 2004has come from energy supply, transport and industry, while residentialand commercial buildings, forestry (including deforestation)and agriculture sectors have been growing at a lower rate. The37Topic 2 Causes of changeFigure 2.2. (a) Distribution of regional per capita GHG emissions according to the population of different country groupings in 2004 (see appendix fordefinitions of country groupings). (b) Distribution of regional GHG emissions per US$ of GDPPPP over the GDP of different country groupings in 2004. Thepercentages in the bars in both panels indicate a region’s share in global GHG emissions. {WGIII Figures SPM.3a, SPM.3b}Regional distribution of GHG emissions by population and by GDPPPPand M&Tand M&Tsectoral 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 energyintensity (-33%) during 1970 to 2004 has been smaller than the combinedeffect of global income growth (77%) and global populationgrowth (69%); both drivers of increasing energy-related CO2 emissions.The long-term trend of declining CO2 emissions per unit of energysupplied reversed after 2000. {WGIII 1.3, Figure SPM.2, SPM}Differences in per capita income, per capita emissions andenergy intensity among countries remain significant. In 2004,UNFCCC Annex I countries held a 20% share in world population,produced 57% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product based onPurchasing Power Parity (GDPPPP) and accounted for 46% of globalGHG emissions (Figure 2.2). {WGIII 1.3, SPM}2.2 Drivers of climate changeChanges in the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and aerosols,land cover and solar radiation alter the energy balance of theclimate system and are drivers of climate change. They affect theabsorption, scattering and emission of radiation within the atmosphereand at the Earth’s surface. The resulting positive or negativechanges in energy balance due to these factors are expressed asradiative forcing4, which is used to compare warming or coolinginfluences 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 groupof gases containing fluorine, chlorine or bromine). Atmospheric

concentrations of GHGs increase when emissions are larger thanremoval processes.Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2Ohave increased markedly as a result of human activitiessince 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determinedfrom ice cores spanning many thousands of years(Figure 2.3). The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarilyto fossil fuel use, with land-use change providinganother significant but smaller contribution. It is very likelythat the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantlydue to agriculture and fossil fuel use. The increasein N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture. {WGI2.3, 7.3, SPM}The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased from apre-industrial value of about 280ppm to 379ppm in 2005. The annualCO2 concentration growth rate was larger during the last 10years (1995-2005 average: 1.9ppm per year) than it has been sincethe beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements(1960-2005 average: 1.4ppm per year), although there is year-toyearvariability in growth rates. {WGI 2.3, 7.3, SPM; WGIII 1.3}The global atmospheric concentration of CH4 has increased froma pre-industrial value of about 715ppb to 1732ppb in the early 1990s,and was 1774ppb in 2005. Growth rates have declined since theearly 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenicand natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. {WGI2.3, 7.4, SPM}The global atmospheric N2O concentration increased from apre-industrial value of about 270ppb to 319ppb in 2005. {WGI 2.3,7.4, SPM}Many halocarbons (including hydrofluorocarbons) have increasedfrom 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 neteffect 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, CH4and N2O is +2.3 [+2.1 to +2.5] W/m2, and its rate of increase duringTopic 2 Causes of change38the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in morethan 10,000 years (Figures 2.3 and 2.4). The CO2 radiative forcingincreased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for anydecade 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 estimatedto 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 feedbacksThe equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climatesystem response to sustained radiative forcing. It is defined as theequilibrium global average surface warming following a doublingof CO2 concentration. Progress since the TAR enables an assessmentthat climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°Cwith a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be lessthan 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded,but agreement of models with observations is not as goodfor 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 humanactivities makes a negligible contribution to radiative forcing. However,as global average temperature increases, tropospheric watervapour concentrations increase and this represents a key positivefeedback but not a forcing of climate change. Water vapour changesrepresent the largest feedback affecting equilibrium climate sensitivityand are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacksremain the largest source of uncertainty. Spatial patterns ofclimate response are largely controlled by climate processes andfeedbacks. For example, sea-ice albedo feedbacks tend to enhancethe 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 atmosphericCO2, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic emissions remainingin the atmosphere. This positive carbon cycle feedback leads tolarger atmospheric CO2 increases and greater climate change for agiven emissions scenario, but the strength of this feedback effectvaries markedly among models. {WGI 7.3, TS.5.4, SPM; WGII 4.4}2.4 Attribution of climate changeAttribution evaluates whether observed changes are quantitativelyconsistent with the expected response to external forcings(e.g. changes in solar irradiance or anthropogenic GHGs) and inconsistentwith alternative physically plausible explanations. {WGITS.4, SPM}Figure 2.3. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O over the last10,000 years (large panels) and since 1750 (inset panels). Measurementsare shown from ice cores (symbols with different colours for different studies)and atmospheric samples (red lines). The corresponding radiativeforcings relative to 1750 are shown on the right hand axes of the largepanels. {WGI Figure SPM.1}

Changes in GHGs from ice core and modern data39Topic 2 Causes of changeRadiative forcing componentsFigure 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 otherimportant 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 forlinear contrails does not include other possible effects of aviation on cloudiness. {WGI Figure SPM.2}Most of the observed increase in global average temperaturessince the mid-20th century is very likely due to theobserved increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.8This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “mostof the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely tohave been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM}The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean,together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremelyunlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years canbe explained without external forcing and very likely that it is notdue to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum ofsolar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling,not warming. Warming of the climate system has been detected inchanges in surface and atmospheric temperatures and in temperaturesof the upper several hundred metres of the ocean. The observedpattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric coolingis very likely due to the combined influences of GHG increases andstratospheric ozone depletion. It is likely that increases in GHGconcentrations alone would have caused more warming than observedbecause volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offsetsome 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 anthropogenicwarming 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 warmingover land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, aresimulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcing. Nocoupled global climate model that has used natural forcing onlyhas reproduced the continental mean warming trends in individualcontinents (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 change40Global 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 eithernatural or both natural and anthropogenic forcings. Decadal averages of observations are shown for the period 1906-2005 (black line) plotted against thecentre of the decade and relative to the corresponding average for the 1901-1950. Lines are dashed where spatial coverage is less than 50%. Blue shadedbands 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 shadedbands 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 temperaturechanges at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climatevariability is relatively larger, making it harder to distinguish changesexpected due to external forcings. Uncertainties in local forcings,such as those due to aerosols and land-use change, and feedbacksalso make it difficult to estimate the contribution of GHG increasesto observed small-scale temperature changes. {WGI 8.3, 9.4, SPM}Advances since the TAR show that discernible human influencesextend beyond average temperature to other aspectsof climate, including temperature extremes and windpatterns. {WGI 9.4, 9.5, SPM}Temperatures of the most extreme hot nights, cold nights andcold days are likely to have increased due to anthropogenic forcing.It is more likely than not that anthropogenic forcing has increasedthe risk of heat waves. Anthropogenic forcing is likely to have contributedto changes in wind patterns, affecting extra-tropical stormtracks and temperature patterns in both hemispheres. However, theobserved changes in the Northern Hemisphere circulation are largerthan 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 contributedto sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century.There is some evidence of the impact of human climatic influencemodels using only natural forcingsmodels using both natural and anthropogenic forcingsobservations41Topic 2 Causes of changeon the hydrological cycle, including the observed large-scale patternsof changes in land precipitation over the 20th century. It ismore likely than not that human influence has contributed to a globaltrend towards increases in area affected by drought since the1970s 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 haslikely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observedchanges in many physical and biological systems.{WGII 1.4}

A synthesis of studies strongly demonstrates that the spatialagreement between regions of significant warming across the globeand the locations of significant observed changes in many naturalsystems consistent with warming is very unlikely to be due solelyto natural variability of temperatures or natural variability of thesystems. Several modelling studies have linked some specific responsesin physical and biological systems to anthropogenic warming,but only a few such studies have been performed. Taken togetherwith evidence of significant anthropogenic warming overthe past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica),it is likely that anthropogenic warming over the last three decadeshas 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 attributionof the causes of observed natural system responses to anthropogenicwarming. The available analyses are limited in the numberof systems, length of records and locations considered. Natural temperaturevariability is larger at the regional than the global scale,thus affecting identification of changes to external forcing. At the regionalscale, other non-climate factors (such as land-use change, pollutionand invasive species) are influential. {WGII 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, SPM}

3Climate change and its impacts in the near andlong term under different scenariosTopic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios443.1 Emissions scenariosThere is high agreement and much evidence9 that with currentclimate change mitigation policies and related sustainabledevelopment practices, global GHG emissions will continueto grow over the next few decades. Baseline emissionsscenarios published since the IPCC Special Reporton Emissions Scenarios (SRES, 2000) are comparable inrange to those presented in SRES (see Box on SRES scenariosand Figure 3.1).10 {WGIII 1.3, 3.2, SPM}The SRES scenarios project an increase of baseline global GHGemissions by a range of 9.7 to 36.7 GtCO2-eq (25 to 90%) between2000 and 2030. In these scenarios, fossil fuels are projected tomaintain their dominant position in the global energy mix to 2030and beyond. Hence CO2 emissions from energy use between 2000and 2030 are projected to grow 40 to 110% over that period. {WGIII1.3, SPM}Studies published since SRES (i.e. post-SRES scenarios) haveused lower values for some drivers for emissions, notably populationprojections. However, for those studies incorporating these newpopulation projections, changes in other drivers, such as economicgrowth, result in little change in overall emission levels. Economic

growth projections for Africa, Latin America and the Middle Eastto 2030 in post-SRES baseline scenarios are lower than in SRES,but this has only minor effects on global economic growth and overallemissions. {WGIII 3.2, TS.3, SPM}Aerosols have a net cooling effect and the representation ofaerosol and aerosol precursor emissions, including sulphur dioxide,black carbon and organic carbon, has improved in the post-SRES scenarios. Generally, these emissions are projected to be lowerthan reported in SRES. {WGIII 3.2, TS.3, SPM}Available studies indicate that the choice of exchange rate forGross Domestic Product (GDP) (Market Exchange Rate, MER or9 Agreement/evidence statements in italics represent calibrated expressions of uncertainty and confidence. See Box ‘Treatment of uncertainty’ in the Introductionfor 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 Protocolinclusion. 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 betweencountries. Use of MER is preferable for analyses involving internationally traded products. Use of PPP is preferable for analyses involving comparisons ofincome between countries at very different stages of development. Most of the monetary units in this report are expressed in MER. This reflects the largemajority of emissions mitigation literature that is calibrated in MER. When monetary units are expressed in PPP, this is denoted by GDPPPP. {WGIII SPM}SRES scenariosSRES refers to the scenarios described in the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES, 2000). The SRES scenarios aregrouped into four scenario families (A1, A2, B1 and B2) that explore alternative development pathways, covering a wide range ofdemographic, economic and technological driving forces and resulting GHG emissions. The SRES scenarios do not include additionalclimate policies above current ones. The emissions projections are widely used in the assessments of future climate change, and theirunderlying assumptions with respect to socio-economic, demographic and technological change serve as inputs to many recent climatechange 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 introductionof 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 slowtechnological 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 ofadditional climate policies: six illustrative SRES marker scenarios (colouredlines) and 80th percentile range of recent scenarios published since SRES(post-SRES) (gray shaded area). Dashed lines show the full range of post-SRES scenarios. The emissions include CO2, CH4, N2O and F-gases. {WGIII1.3, 3.2, Figure SPM.4}Scenarios for GHG emissions from 2000 to 2100 in theabsence of additional climate policiesGlobal GHG emissions (Gt CO2-eq / yr)post-SRES (max)post-SRES (min)Purchasing Power Parity, PPP) does not appreciably affect the projectedemissions, when used consistently.11 The differences, if any,are small compared to the uncertainties caused by assumptions onother parameters in the scenarios, e.g. technological change. {WGIII3.2, TS.3, SPM}45Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios3.2 Projections of future changes in climateFor the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decadeis projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios.Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols hadbeen kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming ofabout 0.1°C per decade would be expected. Afterwards, temperatureprojections increasingly depend on specific emissionsscenarios (Figure 3.2). {WGI 10.3, 10.7; WGIII 3.2}Since the IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections havesuggested global averaged temperature increases between about 0.15and 0.3°C per decade from 1990 to 2005. This can now be comparedwith observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengtheningconfidence in near-term projections. {WGI 1.2, 3.2}3.2.1 21st century global changesContinued GHG emissions at or above current rates wouldcause further warming and induce many changes in the globalclimate system during the 21st century that would verylikely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.{WGI 10.3}Advances in climate change modelling now enable best estimatesand likely assessed uncertainty ranges to be given for projectedwarming for different emissions scenarios. Table 3.1 showsbest estimates and likely ranges for global average surface air warmingfor the six SRES marker emissions scenarios (including climate-carbon cycle feedbacks). {WGI 10.5}Although these projections are broadly consistent with the spanquoted in the TAR (1.4 to 5.8°C), they are not directly comparable.

Assessed upper ranges for temperature projections are larger thanin the TAR mainly because the broader range of models now availablesuggests stronger climate-carbon cycle feedbacks. For the A2scenario, for example, the climate-carbon cycle feedback increasesthe corresponding global average warming at 2100 by more than1°C. Carbon feedbacks are discussed in Topic 2.3. {WGI 7.3, 10.5,SPM}Because understanding of some important effects driving sealevel 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 endof the 21st century (2090-2099) are shown in Table 3.1. For eachscenario, the mid-point of the range in Table 3.1 is within 10% ofthe TAR model average for 2090-2099. The ranges are narrowerthan in the TAR mainly because of improved information aboutsome uncertainties in the projected contributions.12 The sea levelprojections do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cyclefeedbacks nor do they include the full effects of changes in icesheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking. Thereforethe upper values of the ranges given are not to be consideredupper bounds for sea level rise. The projections include a contributiondue to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at therates observed for 1993-2003, but these flow rates could increaseor decrease in the future. If this contribution were to grow linearlywith global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sealevel rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table 3.1 would increase by0.1 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 1980-1999)Case Best estimate Likely range Model-based rangeexcluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flowConstant year 2000concentrationsb 0.6 0.3 – 0.9 Not availableB1 scenario 1.8 1.1 – 2.9 0.18 – 0.38A1T scenario 2.4 1.4 – 3.8 0.20 – 0.45B2 scenario 2.4 1.4 – 3.8 0.20 – 0.43A1B scenario 2.8 1.7 – 4.4 0.21 – 0.48A2 scenario 3.4 2.0 – 5.4 0.23 – 0.51A1FI scenario 4.0 2.4 – 6.4 0.26 – 0.59Notes:a) These estimates are assessed from a hierarchy of models that encompass a simple climate model, several Earth Models of IntermediateComplexity, 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 toanthropogenic GHGs and aerosols in 2100 (see p. 823 of the WGI TAR) for the SRES B1, AIT, B2, A1B, A2 and A1FI illustrative marker scenariosare 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 add0.5°C.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 inTable 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 scenarios463.2.2 21st century regional changesThere is now higher confidence than in the TAR in projectedpatterns of warming and other regional-scale features, includingchanges in wind patterns, precipitation and someaspects 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-independentgeographical patterns similar to those observed over the pastseveral decades. Warming is expected to be greatest over land andat most high northern latitudes, and least over the Southern Ocean(near Antarctica) and northern North Atlantic, continuing recentobserved trends (Figure 3.2 right panels). {WGI 10.3, SPM}Snow cover area is projected to contract. Widespread increasesin thaw depth are projected over most permafrost regions. Sea iceis projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under allSRES scenarios. In some projections, Arctic late-summer sea icedisappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century. {WGI10.3, 10.6, SPM; WGII 15.3.4}It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitationevents will become more frequent. {SYR Table 3.2; WGI10.3, SPM}Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones(typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, withlarger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associatedwith ongoing increases of tropical sea-surface temperatures. Thereis less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers oftropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of veryintense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulatedby current models for that period. {WGI 3.8, 9.5, 10.3, SPM}Extra-tropical storm tracks are projected to move poleward, withconsequent 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 precipitationare very likely in high-latitudes, while decreases are likely in mostsubtropical land regions (by as much as about 20% in the A1B scenarioin 2100, Figure 3.3), continuing observed patterns in recenttrends. {WGI 3.3, 8.3, 9.5, 10.3, 11.2-11.9, SPM}3.2.3 Changes beyond the 21st centuryAnthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continuefor centuries due to the time scales associated with climateprocesses and feedbacks, even if GHG concentrations wereto be stabilised. {WGI 10.4, 10.5, 10.7, SPM}If radiative forcing were to be stabilised, keeping all the radiativeforcing agents constant at B1 or A1B levels in 2100, modelexperiments show that a further increase in global average temperatureof about 0.5°C would still be expected by 2200. In addition,thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to 0.8m of sealevel rise by 2300 (relative to 1980-1999). Thermal expansion wouldcontinue for many centuries, due to the time required to transportheat into the deep ocean. {WGI 10.7, SPM}Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model projections of surface warmingFigure 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 scenariosat 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999. The assessment of the best estimate and likely ranges in the bars includes the Atmosphere-Ocean General CirculationModels (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-AOGCMaverage projections for the A2 (top), A1B (middle) and B1 (bottom) SRES scenarios averaged over decades 2020-2029 (left) and 2090-2099 (right). {WGI10.4, 10.8, Figures 10.28, 10.29, SPM}A2A1BB1Year 2000 constantconcentrations20 century47Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenariosContraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continueto contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggestice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gainsdue to increased precipitation and that the surface mass balancebecomes negative (net ice loss) at a global average warming (relativeto pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C. If such a

negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, thatwould lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland icesheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7m. Thecorresponding future temperatures in Greenland (1.9 to 4.6°C global)are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductionsof polar land ice extent and 4 to 6m of sea level rise. {WGI6.4, 10.7, SPM}Dynamical processes related to ice flow – which are not includedin current models but suggested by recent observations –could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasingfuture sea level rise. Understanding of these processes islimited and there is no consensus on their magnitude. {WGI 4.6, 10.7,SPM}Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheetwill remain too cold for widespread surface melting and gain massdue to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occurif dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance.{WGI 10.7, SPM}Both past and future anthropogenic CO2 emissions will continueto contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than amillennium, due to the time scales required for the removal of thisgas from the atmosphere. {WGI 7.3, 10.3, Figure 7.12, Figure 10.35, SPM}Estimated long-term (multi-century) warming corresponding tothe six AR4 WG III stabilisation categories is shown in Figure 3.4.Multi-model projected patterns of precipitation changesFigure 3.3. Relative changes in precipitation (in percent) for the period 2090-2099, relative to 1980-1999. Values are multi-model averages based on theSRES 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 thechange 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 20Figure 3.4. Estimated long-term (multi-century) warming corresponding to the six AR4 WG III stabilisation categories (Table 5.1). The temperature scale hasbeen shifted by -0.5°C compared to Table 5.1 to account approximately for the warming between pre-industrial and 1980-1999. For most stabilisation levelsglobal average temperature is approaching the equilibrium level over a few centuries. For GHG emissions scenarios that lead to stabilisation at levelscomparable 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 estimatedglobal equilibrium temperature increase, assuming a climate sensitivity of 3°C, would be realised at the time of stabilisation. For the much lower stabilisationscenarios (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 categories0 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 scenarios483.3 Impacts of future climate changesMore specific information is now available across a widerange of systems and sectors concerning the nature of futureimpacts, including some fields not covered in previousassessments. {WGII TS.4, SPM}The following is a selection of key findings14 regarding theimpacts of climate change on systems, sectors and regions, as wellas some findings on vulnerability15, for the range of climate changesprojected over the 21st century. Unless otherwise stated, the confidencelevel in the projections is high. Global average temperatureincreases are given relative to 1980-1999. Additional informationon impacts can be found in the WG II report. {WGII SPM}3.3.1 Impacts on systems and sectorsEcosystems_ The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded thiscentury by an unprecedented combination of climate change,associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects,ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. landusechange, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, overexploitationof resources). {WGII 4.1-4.6, SPM}_ Over the course of this century, net carbon uptake by terrestrialecosystems is likely to peak before mid-century and then weakenor even reverse16, thus amplifying climate change. {WGII 4.ES,Figure 4.2, SPM}_ Approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessedso far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increasesin global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (medium confidence).{WGII 4.ES, Figure 4.2, SPM}_ For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5 to2.5°C and in concomitant atmospheric CO2 concentrations, thereare projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure andfunction, species’ ecological interactions and shifts in species’geographical ranges, with predominantly negative consequencesfor biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services, e.g. waterand food supply. {WGII 4.4, Box TS.6, SPM}Food_ Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid- tohigh latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1to 3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that insome regions (medium confidence). {WGII 5.4, SPM}_ At lower latitudes, especially in seasonally dry and tropicalregions, crop productivity is projected to decrease for even smalllocal temperature increases (1 to 2°C), which would increasethe 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 rangeof 1 to 3°C, but above this it is projected to decrease (mediumconfidence). {WGII 5.4, 5.5, SPM}Coasts_ Coasts are projected to be exposed to increasing risks, includingcoastal erosion, due to climate change and sea level rise.The effect will be exacerbated by increasing human-inducedpressures on coastal areas (very high confidence). {WGII 6.3, 6.4,SPM}_ By the 2080s, many millions more people than today are projectedto experience floods every year due to sea level rise. Thenumbers affected will be largest in the densely populated andlow-lying megadeltas of Asia and Africa while small islandsare 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 aregenerally those in coastal and river flood plains, those whoseeconomies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resourcesand those in areas prone to extreme weather events, especiallywhere rapid urbanisation is occurring. {WGII 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5,SPM}_ Poor communities can be especially vulnerable, in particularthose 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 affectedthrough, for example, increases in malnutrition; increaseddeaths, diseases and injury due to extreme weather events; increasedburden of diarrhoeal diseases; increased frequency ofcardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations ofground-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 temperateareas, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure, and somemixed effects such as changes in range and transmission potentialof malaria in Africa. Overall it is expected that benefits willbe 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 healthof populations such as education, health care, public health initiatives,and infrastructure and economic development. {WGII8.3, SPM}Water_ Water impacts are key for all sectors and regions. These arediscussed 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.49Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenariosClimate change and waterClimate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-usechange, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwateravailability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to acceleratethroughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied bymeltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currentlylives. {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 drytropics, 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 north-eastern Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resourcesdue to climate change. Drought-affected areas are projected to increase in extent, with the potential for adverse impacts onmultiple sectors, e.g. agriculture, water supply, energy production and health. Regionally, large increases in irrigation water demand asa 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 isprojected to decline face a reduction in the value of the services provided by water resources (very high confidence). The beneficialimpacts of increased annual runoff in some areas are likely to be tempered by negative effects of increased precipitation variability andseasonal 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 meanrainfall 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 temperatureswill further affect the physical, chemical and biological properties of freshwater lakes and rivers, with predominantly adverse impacts onmany individual freshwater species, community composition and water quality. In coastal areas, sea level rise will exacerbate waterresource 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 centuryFigure 3.5. Large-scale relative changes in annual runoff (water availability, in percent) for the period 2090-2099, relative to 1980-1999. Valuesrepresent 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 ofchange 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-scale20th century runoff is used as a basis for selecting the 12 models from the multi-model ensemble. The global map of annual runoff illustrates a largescale 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 changesin runoff can lead to large percentage changes. In some regions, the sign of projected changes in runoff differs from recently observed trends. In someareas with projected increases in runoff, different seasonal effects are expected, such as increased wet season runoff and decreased dry seasonrunoff. Studies using results from few climate models can be considerably different from the results presented here. {WGII Figure 3.4, adjusted to matchthe 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 scenarios5017 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 understandingof the timing and magnitude of impacts relatedto differing amounts and rates of climate change. {WGII SPM}Examples of this new information for systems and sectors arepresented in Figure 3.6. The upper panel shows impacts increasingwith increasing temperature change. Their estimated magnitude andtiming is also affected by development pathways (lower panel).{WGII SPM}Depending on circumstances, some of the impacts shown in Figure3.6 could be associated with ‘key vulnerabilities’, based on a numberof criteria in the literature (magnitude, timing, persistence/reversibility, the potential for adaptation, distributional aspects, likelihoodand ‘importance’ of the impacts) (see Topic 5.2). {WGII SPM}

3.3.2 Impacts on regions17Africa_ By 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people are projectedto be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change.{WGII 9.4, SPM}_ By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculturecould be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, includingaccess to food, in many African countries is projectedto be severely compromised. This would further adversely affectfood security and exacerbate malnutrition. {WGII 9.4, SPM}_ Towards the end of the 21st century, projected sea level risewill affect low-lying coastal areas with large populations. Thecost 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 inAfrica is projected under a range of climate scenarios (highconfidence). {WGII Box TS.6, 9.4.4}Asia_ By the 2050s, freshwater availability in Central, South, Eastand South-East Asia, particularly in large river basins, is projectedto decrease. {WGII 10.4, SPM}_ Coastal areas, especially heavily populated megadelta regionsin South, East and South-East Asia, will be at greatest risk dueto 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 naturalresources and the environment associated with rapidurbanisation, industrialisation and economic development. {WGII10.4, SPM}_ Endemic morbidity and mortality due to diarrhoeal disease primarilyassociated with floods and droughts are expected to risein East, South and South-East Asia due to projected changes inthe hydrological cycle. {WGII 10.4, SPM}Australia and New Zealand_ By 2020, significant loss of biodiversity is projected to occurin some ecologically rich sites, including the Great Barrier Reefand Queensland Wet Tropics. {WGII 11.4, SPM}_ By 2030, water security problems are projected to intensify insouthern and eastern Australia and, in New Zealand, inNorthland and some eastern regions. {WGII 11.4, SPM}_ By 2030, production from agriculture and forestry is projectedto decline over much of southern and eastern Australia, andover parts of eastern New Zealand, due to increased droughtand fire. However, in New Zealand, initial benefits are projectedin some other regions. {WGII 11.4, SPM}_ By 2050, ongoing coastal development and population growthin some areas of Australia and New Zealand are projected toexacerbate 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 inEurope’s natural resources and assets. Negative impacts willinclude increased risk of inland flash floods and more frequentcoastal flooding and increased erosion (due to storminess andsea level rise). {WGII 12.4, SPM}_ Mountainous areas will face glacier retreat, reduced snow coverand winter tourism, and extensive species losses (in some areasup 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 vulnerableto climate variability, and to reduce water availability,hydropower potential, summer tourism and, in general, cropproductivity. {WGII 12.4, SPM}_ Climate change is also projected to increase the health risksdue to heat waves and the frequency of wildfires. {WGII 12.4,SPM}Latin America_ By mid-century, increases in temperature and associated decreasesin soil water are projected to lead to gradual replacementof tropical forest by savanna in eastern Amazonia. Semiaridvegetation will tend to be replaced by arid-land vegetation.{WGII 13.4, SPM}_ There is a risk of significant biodiversity loss through speciesextinction in many areas of tropical Latin America. {WGII 13.4,SPM}_ Productivity of some important crops is projected to decreaseand livestock productivity to decline, with adverse consequencesfor food security. In temperate zones, soybean yields are projectedto increase. Overall, the number of people at risk of hungeris projected to increase (medium confidence). {WGII 13.4,Box TS.6}_ Changes in precipitation patterns and the disappearance of glaciersare projected to significantly affect water availability forhuman consumption, agriculture and energy generation. {WGII13.4, SPM}51Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenariosExamples of impacts associated with global average temperature change(Impacts will vary by extent of adaptation, rate of temperature change and socio-economic pathway)Figure 3.6. Examples of impacts associated with global average temperature change. Upper panel: Illustrative examples of global impacts projected forclimate 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 theleft-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 andflooding 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 IIreferences for the statements made in the upper left panel.* Lower panel: Dots and bars indicate the best estimate and likely ranges of warming assessedfor 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 scenarios6.4°C5.4°C0 1 2 3 4 5 °CGlobal average annual temperature change relative to 1980-1999 (°C)0 1 2 3 4 5 °CAbout 30% ofglobal coastalwetlands lost‡Increased water availability in moist tropics and high latitudesDecreasing water availability and increasing drought in mid-latitudes and semi-arid low latitudesHundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stressUp to 30% of species atincreasing risk of extinctionIncreased coral bleaching Most corals bleached Widespread coral mortalityIncreasing species range shifts and wildfire riskTerrestrial biosphere tends toward a net carbon source as:~15% ~40% of ecosystems affectedTendencies for cereal productivityto decrease in low latitudesProductivity of all cerealsdecreases in low latitudesCereal productivity todecrease in some regionsComplex, localised negative impacts on small holders, subsistence farmers and fishersTendencies for some cereal productivityto increase at mid- to high latitudesSignificant† extinctionsaround the globeChanged distribution of some disease vectorsIncreasing burden from malnutrition, diarrhoeal, cardio-respiratory and infectious diseasesIncreased morbidity and mortality from heat waves, floods and droughtsSubstantial burden on health servicesEcosystem changes due to weakening of the meridional

overturning circulationMillions more people could experiencecoastal flooding each yearIncreased damage from floods and stormsWATERECOSYSTEMSFOODCOASTSHEALTH0 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, 3.4.33.ES, 3.4.1, 3.4.33.5.1, T3.3, 20.6.2,TS.B54.ES, 4.4.114.ES, T4.1, F4.2,F4.419.3.54.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.4,4.4.5, 4.4.6, 4.4.10,B4.55.ES, 5.4.75.ES, 5.4.2, F5.25.ES, 5.4.2, F5.26.ES, 6.3.2, 6.4.1,6.4.26.4.1T6.6, F6.8, TS.B58.ES, 8.4.1, 8.7,T8.2, T8.48.ES, 8.2.2, 8.2.3,8.4.1, 8.4.2, 8.7,T8.3, F8.38.ES, 8.2.8, 8.7,B8.4T4.1, F4.4, B4.4,6.4.1, 6.6.5, B6.18.6.1Topic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios52North America_ Warming in western mountains is projected to cause decreasedsnowpack, 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 agricultureby 5 to 20%, but with important variability among regions. Majorchallenges are projected for crops that are near the warmend of their suitable range or which depend on highly utilisedwater resources. {WGII 14.4, SPM}_ Cities that currently experience heat waves are expected to befurther challenged by an increased number, intensity and durationof heat waves during the course of the century, with potentialfor adverse health impacts. {WGII 14.4, SPM}_ Coastal communities and habitats will be increasingly stressedby climate change impacts interacting with development andpollution. {WGII 14.4, SPM}Polar Regions_ The main projected biophysical effects are reductions in thicknessand extent of glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice, and changesin natural ecosystems with detrimental effects on many organismsincluding migratory birds, mammals and higher predators.{WGII 15.4, SPM}_ For human communities in the Arctic, impacts, particularly thoseresulting from changing snow and ice conditions, are projectedto be mixed. {WGII 15.4, SPM}_ Detrimental impacts would include those on infrastructure andtraditional indigenous ways of life. {WGII 15.4, SPM}_ In both polar regions, specific ecosystems and habitats are projectedto be vulnerable, as climatic barriers to species invasionsare 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 livelihoodof island communities. {WGII 16.4, SPM}_ Deterioration in coastal conditions, for example through erosionof beaches and coral bleaching, is expected to affect localresources. {WGII 16.4, SPM}_ By mid-century, climate change is expected to reduce waterresources in many small islands, e.g. in the Caribbean and Pacific,to the point where they become insufficient to meet demandduring low-rainfall periods. {WGII 16.4, SPM}_ With higher temperatures, increased invasion by non-nativespecies is expected to occur, particularly on mid- and high-latitudeislands. {WGII 16.4, SPM}3.3.3 Especially affected systems, sectors and regionsSome systems, sectors and regions are likely to be especiallyaffected by climate change.18 {WGII TS.4.5}Systems and sectors: {WGII TS.4.5}_ particular ecosystems:- terrestrial: tundra, boreal forest and mountain regions becauseof sensitivity to warming; mediterranean-type ecosystems

because of reduction in rainfall; and tropical rainforestswhere precipitation declines- coastal: mangroves and salt marshes, due to multiple stresses- marine: coral reefs due to multiple stresses; the sea-ice biomebecause of sensitivity to warming_ water resources in some dry regions at mid-latitudes19 and inthe 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 andincreased 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 projectedwarming on natural systems and human communities_ Africa, because of low adaptive capacity and projected climatechange impacts_ small islands, where there is high exposure of population andinfrastructure to projected climate change impacts_ Asian and African megadeltas, due to large populations andhigh 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 particularlyat 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 acidificationThe uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to theocean becoming more acidic with an average decrease in pH of 0.1units. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to furtheracidification. Projections based on SRES scenarios give a reductionin average global surface ocean pH of between 0.14 and 0.35units over the 21st century. While the effects of observed ocean acidificationon the marine biosphere are as yet undocumented, the progressiveacidification of oceans is expected to have negative impactson marine shell-forming organisms (e.g. corals) and their dependentspecies. {WGI SPM; WGII SPM}3.3.5 Extreme eventsAltered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, togetherwith sea level rise, are expected to have mostly adverseeffects 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.53Topic 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 themid- to late 21st century. These do not take into account any changes or developments in adaptive capacity. The likelihood estimates in column tworelate to the phenomena listed in column one. {WGII Table SPM.1}Phenomenona and Likelihood of Examples of major projected impacts by sectordirection of trend future trendsbased on Agriculture, forestry Water resources Human health Industry, settlementprojections and ecosystems {WGII 3.4} {WGII 8.2, 8.4} and societyfor 21st century {WGII 4.4, 5.4} {WGII 7.4}using SRESscenariosOver most land Virtually Increased yields in Effects on water Reduced human Reduced energy demand forareas, warmer and certain b colder environments; resources relying on mortality from heating; increased demandfewer cold days decreased yields in snowmelt; effects on decreased cold for cooling; declining air qualityand nights, warmer warmer environments; some water supplies exposure in cities; reduced disruption toand more frequent increased insect transport due to snow, ice;hot days and nights outbreaks effects on winter tourismWarm spells/heat Very likely Reduced yields in Increased water Increased risk of Reduction in quality of life forwaves. Frequency warmer regions demand; water heat-related people in warm areas withoutincreases over most due to heat stress; quality problems, mortality, especially appropriate housing; impactsland areas increased danger of e.g. algal blooms for the elderly, on the elderly, very young andwildfire chronically sick, poorvery young andsocially isolatedHeavy 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 andincreases 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 ruralsoils water supply; water infrastructures; loss of propertyscarcity may berelievedArea 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 generationincreased livestock risk of malnutrition; potentials; potential fordeaths; increased increased risk of population migrationrisk of wildfire water- and foodbornediseasesIntense 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 riskincreases of trees; damage to of public water supply water- and food- coverage in vulnerable areascoral reefs borne diseases; by private insurers; potentialpost-traumatic for population migrations; lossstress disorders of propertyIncreased incidence Likely d Salinisation of Decreased fresh- Increased risk of Costs of coastal protectionof extreme high irrigation water, water availability due deaths and injuries versus costs of land-usesea level (excludes estuaries and fresh- to saltwater intrusion by drowning in floods; relocation; potential fortsunamis)c water systems migration-related movement of populations andhealth effects infrastructure; also see tropicalcyclones aboveNotes: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 observedsea 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 weathersystems on sea level extremes has not been assessed. {WGI 10.6}3.4 Risk of abrupt or irreversible changesAnthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts thatare abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate andmagnitude of the climate change. {WGII 12.6, 19.3, 19.4, SPM}Abrupt climate change on decadal time scales is normallythought of as involving ocean circulation changes. In addition onlonger time scales, ice sheet and ecosystem changes may also playa role. If a large-scale abrupt climate change were to occur, its impactcould be quite high (see Topic 5.2). {WGI 8.7, 10.3, 10.7; WGII4.4, 19.3}Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land and/or the thermal expansionof seawater over very long time scales could imply metresof sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation oflow-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lyingTopic 3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios54islands. Current models project that such changes would occur oververy long time scales (millennial) if a global temperature increaseof 1.9 to 4.6°C (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 speciesassessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction ifincreases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (relativeto 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceedsabout 3.5°C, 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 themeridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Oceanwill slow down during the 21st century; nevertheless temperaturesin the region are projected to increase. It is very unlikely that theMOC 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 arelikely to include changes in marine ecosystem productivity, fisheries,ocean CO2 uptake, oceanic oxygen concentrations and terrestrialvegetation. Changes in terrestrial and ocean CO2 uptake mayfeed back on the climate system. {WGII 12.6, 19.3, Figure SPM.2}4Adaptation and mitigation options and responses,and the inter-relationship with sustainabledevelopment, at global and regional levelsTopic 4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the inter-relationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels564.1 Responding to climate changeSocieties can respond to climate change by adapting to its impactsand by reducing GHG emissions (mitigation), thereby reducing therate and magnitude of change. This Topic focuses on adaptation andmitigation options that can be implemented over the next two to threedecades, and their inter-relationship with sustainable development.These responses can be complementary. Topic 5 addresses their complementaryroles on a more conceptual basis over a longer timeframe.The capacity to adapt and mitigate is dependent on socio-economicand environmental circumstances and the availability of informationand technology20 . However, much less information isavailable about the costs and effectiveness of adaptation measuresthan about mitigation measures. {WGII 17.1, 17.3; WGIII 1.2}4.2 Adaptation optionsAdaptation can reduce vulnerability, both in the short andthe long term. {WGII 17.2, 18.1, 18.5, 20.3, 20.8}Vulnerability to climate change can be exacerbated by otherstresses. These arise from, for example, current climate hazards,poverty, unequal access to resources, food insecurity, trends in economicglobalisation, 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 andreducing their vulnerability to the impacts of weather- and climaterelatedevents such as floods, droughts and storms. Nevertheless,additional adaptation measures will be required at regional and locallevels to reduce the adverse impacts of projected climate changeand variability, regardless of the scale of mitigation undertaken overthe 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 extensiveadaptation than is currently occurring is required to reducevulnerability to climate change. There are barriers, limits and costs,which are not fully understood. Some planned adaptation is alreadyoccurring on a limited basis. Table 4.1 provides examples of planned20 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 multipledrivers, such as economic development and poverty alleviation,and are embedded within broader development, sectoral, regionaland local planning initiatives such as water resources planning,coastal defence and disaster risk reduction strategies. Examplesof this approach are the Bangladesh National Water ManagementPlan and the coastal defence plans of The Netherlandsand 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 adaptationat the global level are limited in number. However, the numberof adaptation cost and benefit estimates at the regional and projectlevels for impacts on specific sectors, such as agriculture, energydemand for heating and cooling, water resources management andinfrastructure, is growing. Based on these studies there is high confidencethat there are viable adaptation options that can be implementedin some of these sectors at low cost and/or with high benefit-cost ratios. Empirical research also suggests that higher benefit-cost ratios can be achieved by implementing some adaptationmeasures at an early stage compared to retrofitting long-lived infrastructureat a later date. {WGII 17.2}Adaptive capacity is intimately connected to social and economicdevelopment, but it is not evenly distributed acrossand within societies. {WGII 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 17.3}The capacity to adapt is dynamic and is influenced by a society’sproductive 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 affectedby multiple climate and non-climate stresses, as well as developmentpolicy. {WGII 17.3}Recent studies reaffirm the TAR finding that adaptation will bevital and beneficial. However, financial, technological, cognitive,behavioural, political, social, institutional and cultural constraints limitboth the implementation and effectiveness of adaptation measures.Even societies with high adaptive capacity remain vulnerable to climatechange, variability and extremes. For example, a heat wave in2003 caused high levels of mortality in European cities (especially

among the elderly), and Hurricane Katrina in 2005 caused large humanand financial costs in the United States. {WGII 7.4, 8.2, 17.4}57Topic 4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the inter-relationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levelsTable 4.1. Selected examples of planned adaptation by sector.Adaptation option/strategyExpanded rainwater harvesting; waterstorage and conservation techniques; waterreuse; desalination; water-use and irrigationefficiencyAdjustment of planting dates and crop variety;crop relocation; improved land management,e.g. erosion control and soil protection throughtree plantingRelocation; seawalls and storm surge barriers;dune reinforcement; land acquisition andcreation of marshlands/wetlands as bufferagainst sea level rise and flooding; protectionof existing natural barriersHeat-health action plans; emergencymedical services; improved climate-sensitivedisease surveillance and control; safe waterand improved sanitationDiversification of tourism attractions andrevenues; shifting ski slopes to higher altitudesand glaciers; artificial snow-makingRealignment/relocation; design standards andplanning for roads, rail and other infrastructureto cope with warming and drainageStrengthening of overhead transmission anddistribution infrastructure; underground cablingfor utilities; energy efficiency; use of renewablesources; reduced dependence on singlesources of energyUnderlying policy frameworkNational water policies and integrated waterresources management; water-related hazardsmanagementR&D policies; institutional reform; land tenureand land reform; training; capacity building;crop insurance; financial incentives, e.g.subsidies and tax creditsStandards and regulations that integrateclimate change considerations into design;land-use policies; building codes; insurancePublic health policies that recognise climaterisk; strengthen health services; regional and

international cooperationIntegrated planning (e.g. carrying capacity;linkages with other sectors); financial incentives,e.g. subsidies and tax creditsIntegrating climate change considerations intonational transport policy; investment in R&D forspecial situations, e.g. permafrost areasNational energy policies, regulations, and fiscaland financial incentives to encourage use ofalternative sources; incorporating climatechange in design standardsKey constraints and opportunities toimplementation (Normal font = constraints;italics = opportunities)Financial, human resources and physicalbarriers; integrated water resourcesmanagement; synergies with other sectorsTechnological and financial constraints;access to new varieties; markets; longergrowing season in higher latitudes; revenuesfrom ‘new’ productsFinancial and technological barriers;availability of relocation space; integratedpolicies and management; synergies withsustainable development goalsLimits to human tolerance (vulnerablegroups); knowledge limitations; financialcapacity; upgraded health services;improved quality of lifeAppeal/marketing of new attractions;financial and logistical challenges; potentialadverse impact on other sectors (e.g.artificial snow-making may increase energyuse); revenues from ‘new’ attractions;involvement of wider group of stakeholdersFinancial and technological barriers;availability of less vulnerable routes;improved technologies and integration withkey sectors (e.g. energy)Access to viable alternatives; financial andtechnological barriers; acceptance of newtechnologies; stimulation of new technologies;use of local resourcesNote:Other examples from many sectors would include early warning systems.SectorWater{WGII, 5.5, 16.4;

Tables 3.5, 11.6,17.1}Agriculture{WGII 10.5, 13.5;Table 10.8}Infrastructure/settlement (includingcoastal zones){WGII 3.6, 11.4; Tables6.11, 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 inter-relationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels584.3 Mitigation optionsBoth bottom-up and top-down studies21 indicate that thereis high agreement and much evidence of substantial economicpotential21 for the mitigation of global GHG emissionsover the coming decades that could offset the projectedgrowth of global emissions or reduce emissions below currentlevels. {WGIII 11.3, SPM}Figure 4.1 compares global economic mitigation potential in2030 with the projected emissions increase from 2000 to 2030.Bottom-up studies suggest that mitigation opportunities with netnegative costs22 have the potential to reduce emissions by about 6GtCO2-eq/yr in 2030. Realising these requires dealing with implementationbarriers. The economic mitigation potential, which isgenerally greater than the market mitigation potential, can only beachieved when adequate policies are in place and barriers removed.21{WGIII 11.3, SPM}Sectoral estimates of economic mitigation potential and marginalcosts derived from bottom-up studies corrected for doublecounting of mitigation potential are shown in Figure 4.2. Whiletop-down and bottom-up studies are in line at the global level, thereare considerable differences at the sectoral level. {WGIII 11.3, SPM}No single technology can provide all of the mitigationpotential 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 tototal over US$20 trillion23 between 2005 and 2030, will have longtermimpacts on GHG emissions, because of the long lifetimes of

energy plants and other infrastructure capital stock. The widespreaddiffusion of low-carbon technologies may take many decades, evenif early investments in these technologies are made attractive. Initialestimates show that returning global energy-related CO2 emissionsto 2005 levels by 2030 would require a large shift in the patternof investment, although the net additional investment requiredranges 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, fora given level of carbon price (expressed in cost per unit of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions avoided or reduced). Mitigation potential is further differentiatedin 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 consumersand companies ), which might be expected to occur under forecast market conditions, including policies and measures currently in place, noting thatbarriers limit actual uptake.Economic mitigation potential is the mitigation potential that takes into account social costs and benefits and social discount rates (reflecting theperspective of society; social discount rates are lower than those used by private investors ), assuming that market efficiency is improved by policies andmeasures and barriers are removed.Mitigation potential is estimated using different types of approaches. Bottom-up studies are based on assessment of mitigation options, emphasisingspecific technologies and regulations. They are typically sectoral studies taking the macro-economy as unchanged. Top-down studies assess theeconomy-wide potential of mitigation options. They use globally consistent frameworks and aggregated information about mitigation options and capturemacro-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 = 20×1012Comparison between global economic mitigation potential and projected emissions increase in 2030Figure 4.1. Global economic mitigation potential in 2030 estimated from bottom-up (Panel a) and top-down (Panel b) studies, compared with the projectedemissions increases from SRES scenarios relative to year 2000 GHG emissions of 40.8 GtCO2-eq (Panel c). Note: GHG emissions in 2000 are exclusive ofemissions of decay of above-ground biomass that remains after logging and deforestation and from peat fires and drained peat soils, to ensure consistencywith the SRES emissions results. {WGIII Figures SPM.4, SPM.5a, SPM.5b}0510152025

3035A1FI A2 A1B A1T B2 B1Gt CO2-eqc)< 0 < 20 < 50 < 100 US$/tCO2-eqlow end of range high end of range05101520253035a)low end of range high end of range05101520253035< 20 < 50 < 100 US$/tCO2-eqb) Increase in GHG emissionsabove year 2000 levelsBottom-up Top-downGt CO2-eq Gt CO2-eqEstimated mitigation potential in 2030Estimated mitigation potential in 203059Topic 4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the inter-relationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levelsEconomic mitigation potentials by sector in 2030 estimated from bottom-up studiesFigure 4.2. Estimated economic mitigation potential by sector and region using technologies and practices expected to be available in 2030. The potentialsdo 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 ofemissions, meaning that emissions of electricity use are counted towards the end-use 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 constructa 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 energysupply, heavy duty vehicles, shipping and high-occupancy passenger transport, most high-cost options for buildings, wastewater treatment, emissionreduction from coal mines and gas pipelines, and fluorinated gases from energy supply and transport. The underestimation of the total economic potentialfrom 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 0.4-1.0total sectoral potential at <US$100/tCO2 -eq in GtCO2 -eq/yr:Energy supply Transport Buildings Industry Agriculture Forestry WasteWorld totalWhile studies use different methodologies, there is highagreement and much evidence that in all analysed worldregions near-term health co-benefits from reduced air pollution,as a result of actions to reduce GHG emissions, canbe substantial and may offset a substantial fraction of mitigationcosts. {WGIII 11.8, SPM}Energy efficiency and utilisation of renewable energy offer synergieswith sustainable development. In least developed countries,energy substitution can lower mortality and morbidity by reducingindoor air pollution, reduce the workload for women and childrenand decrease the unsustainable use of fuelwood and related deforestation.{WGIII 11.8, 11.9, 12.4}Literature since the TAR confirms with high agreement andmedium evidence that there may be effects from Annex Icountries’ 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 Icountries) may expect, as indicated in the TAR, lower demand andprices and lower GDP growth due to mitigation policies. The extentof this spillover depends strongly on assumptions related topolicy 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 theTAR of economy-wide leakage from Kyoto action in the order of 5to 20%, which would be less if competitive low-emissions technologieswere effectively diffused. {WGIII 11.7, SPM}There is also high agreement and medium evidence thatchanges in lifestyle and behaviour patterns can contributeto climate change mitigation across all sectors. Managementpractices can also have a positive role. {WGIII SPM}Examples that can have positive impacts on mitigation includechanges in consumption patterns, education and training, changes

in building occupant behaviour, transport demand management andmanagement tools in industry. {WGIII 4.1, 5.1, 6.7, 7.3, SPM}Policies that provide a real or implicit price of carbon couldcreate incentives for producers and consumers to significantlyinvest in low-GHG products, technologies and processes.{WGIII SPM}An effective carbon-price signal could realise significant mitigationpotential in all sectors. Modelling studies show that globalcarbon prices rising to US$20-80/tCO2-eq by 2030 are consistentwith stabilisation at around 550ppm CO2-eq by 2100. For the sameTopic 4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the inter-relationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels60Table 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 commercialisedbefore 2030 shown in italics.Improved supply and distribution efficiency; fuel switching from coal to gas; nuclearpower; renewable heat and power (hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal andbioenergy); combined heat and power; early applications of carbon dioxide captureand 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 photovoltaicsMore fuel-efficient vehicles; hybrid vehicles; cleaner diesel vehicles; biofuels; modalshifts from road transport to rail and public transport systems; non-motorisedtransport (cycling, walking); land-use and transport planning; second generationbiofuels; higher efficiency aircraft; advanced electric and hybrid vehicles with morepowerful and reliable batteriesEfficient lighting and daylighting; more efficient electrical appliances and heatingand cooling devices; improved cook stoves, improved insulation; passive and activesolar design for heating and cooling; alternative refrigeration fluids, recovery andrecycling of fluorinated gases; integrated design of commercial buildings includingtechnologies, such as intelligent meters that provide feedback and control; solarphotovoltaics integrated in buildingsMore efficient end-use electrical equipment; heat and power recovery; materialrecycling and substitution; control of non-CO2 gas emissions; and a wide array ofprocess-specific technologies; advanced energy efficiency; CCS for cement,ammonia, and iron manufacture; inert electrodes for aluminium manufactureImproved crop and grazing land management to increase soil carbon storage;restoration of cultivated peaty soils and degraded lands; improved rice cultivationtechniques 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 yieldsAfforestation; reforestation; forest management; reduced deforestation; harvestedwood product management; use of forestry products for bioenergy to replace fossil

fuel use; tree species improvement to increase biomass productivity and carbonsequestration; improved remote sensing technologies for analysis of vegetation/soilcarbon sequestration potential and mapping land-use changeLandfill CH4 recovery; waste incineration with energy recovery; composting oforganic waste; controlled wastewater treatment; recycling and waste minimisation;biocovers and biofilters to optimise CH4 oxidationPolicies, measures and instruments shown to beenvironmentally effectiveReduction of fossil fuel subsidies; taxes or carbon chargeson fossil fuelsFeed-in tariffs for renewable energy technologies;renewable energy obligations; producer subsidiesMandatory fuel economy; biofuel blending and CO2standards for road transportTaxes on vehicle purchase, registration, use and motorfuels; road and parking pricingInfluence mobility needs through land-use regulations andinfrastructure planning; investment in attractive publictransport facilities and non-motorised forms of transportAppliance standards and labellingBuilding codes and certificationDemand-side management programmesPublic sector leadership programmes, includingprocurementIncentives for energy service companies (ESCOs)Provision of benchmark information; performancestandards; subsidies; tax creditsTradable permitsVoluntary agreementsFinancial incentives and regulations for improved landmanagement; maintaining soil carbon content; efficient useof fertilisers and irrigationFinancial incentives (national and international) toincrease forest area, to reduce deforestation and tomaintain and manage forests; land-use regulation andenforcementFinancial incentives for improved waste and wastewatermanagementRenewable energy incentives or obligationsWaste management regulationsKey constraints or opportunities(Normal font = constraints; italics = opportunities)Resistance by vested interests may make themdifficult to implementMay be appropriate to create markets for lowemissionstechnologiesPartial coverage of vehicle fleet may limiteffectiveness

Effectiveness may drop with higher incomesParticularly appropriate for countries that arebuilding up their transportation systemsPeriodic revision of standards neededAttractive for new buildings. Enforcement can bedifficultNeed for regulations so that utilities may profitGovernment purchasing can expand demand forenergy-efficient productsSuccess factor: Access to third party financingMay be appropriate to stimulate technology uptake.Stability of national policy important in view ofinternational competitivenessPredictable allocation mechanisms and stableprice signals important for investmentsSuccess factors include: clear targets, a baselinescenario, third-party involvement in design andreview and formal provisions of monitoring, closecooperation between government and industryMay encourage synergy with sustainabledevelopment and with reducing vulnerability toclimate change, thereby overcoming barriers toimplementationConstraints include lack of investment capital andland tenure issues. Can help poverty alleviation.May stimulate technology diffusionLocal availability of low-cost fuelMost effectively applied at national level withenforcement strategiesSectorEnergy 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}61Topic 4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the inter-relationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levelsstabilisation level, studies since the TAR that take into account inducedtechnological change may lower these price ranges to US$5-

65/tCO2-eq in 2030.24 {WGIII 3.3, 11.4, 11.5, SPM}There is high agreement and much evidence that a widevariety of national policies and instruments are available togovernments to create the incentives for mitigation action.Their applicability depends on national circumstances andan understanding of their interactions, but experience fromimplementation in various countries and sectors showsthere 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, distributionaleffects including equity, and institutional feasibility. {WGIII 13.2, SPM}General findings about the performance of policies are: {WGIII13.2, SPM}_ Integrating climate policies in broader development policiesmakes implementation and overcoming barriers easier._ Regulations and standards generally provide some certaintyabout emission levels. They may be preferable to other instrumentswhen information or other barriers prevent producers andconsumers from responding to price signals. However, they maynot induce innovations and more advanced technologies._ Taxes and charges can set a price for carbon, but cannot guaranteea particular level of emissions. Literature identifies taxesas an efficient way of internalising costs of GHG emissions._ Tradable permits will establish a carbon price. The volume ofallowed emissions determines their environmental effectiveness,while the allocation of permits has distributional consequences.Fluctuation in the price of carbon makes it difficult to estimatethe total cost of complying with emission permits._ Financial incentives (subsidies and tax credits) are frequentlyused by governments to stimulate the development and diffusionof new technologies. While economic costs are generallyhigher than for the instruments listed above, they are often criticalto overcome barriers._ Voluntary agreements between industry and governments arepolitically attractive, raise awareness among stakeholders andhave played a role in the evolution of many national policies.The majority of agreements have not achieved significant emissionsreductions beyond business as usual. However, some recentagreements, in a few countries, have accelerated the applicationof best available technology and led to measurable emissionreductions._ Information instruments (e.g. awareness campaigns) may positivelyaffect environmental quality by promoting informedchoices and possibly contributing to behavioural change, however,their impact on emissions has not been measured yet._ Research, development and demonstration (RD&D) can stimulatetechnological advances, reduce costs and enable progress

toward stabilisation.Some corporations, local and regional authorities, NGOs andcivil groups are adopting a wide variety of voluntary actions. Thesevoluntary actions may limit GHG emissions, stimulate innovativepolicies and encourage the deployment of new technologies. Ontheir own, they generally have limited impact on national- or regional-level emissions. {WGIII 13.4, SPM}4.4 Relationship between adaptation andmitigation options and relationship withsustainable developmentThere is growing understanding of the possibilities tochoose and implement climate response options in severalsectors to realise synergies and avoid conflicts with otherdimensions of sustainable development. {WGIII SPM}Climate change policies related to energy efficiency and renewableenergy are often economically beneficial, improve energy securityand reduce local pollutant emissions. Reducing both loss ofnatural habitat and deforestation can have significant biodiversity,soil and water conservation benefits, and can be implemented in asocially and economically sustainable manner. Forestation andbioenergy plantations can restore degraded land, manage water runoff,retain soil carbon and benefit rural economies, but could competewith food production and may be negative for biodiversity, ifnot properly designed. {WGII 20.3, 20.8; WGIII 4.5, 9.7, 12.3, SPM}There is growing evidence that decisions about macro-economicpolicy, agricultural policy, multilateral development bank lending,insurance practices, electricity market reform, energy security andforest conservation, for example, which are often treated as beingapart from climate policy, can significantly reduce emissions (Table4.3). Similarly, non-climate policies can affect adaptive capacityand vulnerability. {WGII 20.3; WGIII SPM, 12.3}Both synergies and trade-offs exist between adaptation andmitigation options. {WGII 18.4.3; WGIII 11.9)Examples of synergies include properly designed biomass production,formation of protected areas, land management, energyuse in buildings, and forestry, but synergies are rather limited inother sectors. Potential trade-offs include increased GHG emissionsdue 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-costapproach to mitigation portfolios, with universal emissions trading, assuming transparent markets, no transaction cost, and thus perfect implementation ofmitigation 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 mitigationmeasures, 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; thereductions are greater at lower stabilisation level.Topic 4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the inter-relationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels624.5 International and regional cooperationThere is high agreement and much evidence that notableachievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol arethe establishment of a global response to the climate changeproblem, stimulation of an array of national policies, thecreation of an international carbon market and the establishmentof new institutional mechanisms that may providethe foundation for future mitigation efforts. Progress hasalso been made in addressing adaptation within the UNFCCCand additional initiatives have been suggested. {WGII 18.7;WGIII 13.3, SPM}The impact of the Protocol’s first commitment period relativeto global emissions is projected to be limited. Its economic impactson participating Annex-B countries are projected to be smaller thanpresented in the TAR, which showed 0.2 to 2% lower GDP in 2012without emissions trading and 0.1 to 1.1% lower GDP with emissionstrading among Annex-B countries. To be more environmentallyeffective, future mitigation efforts would need to achieve deeperreductions covering a higher share of global emissions (see Topic5). {WGIII 1.4, 11.4, 13.3, SPM}The literature provides high agreement and much evidenceof many options for achieving reductions of global GHGemissions at the international level through cooperation. Italso suggests that successful agreements are environmentallyeffective, cost-effective, incorporate distributional considerationsand equity, and are institutionally feasible. {WGIII13.3, SPM}Greater cooperative efforts to reduce emissions will help to reduceglobal costs for achieving a given level of mitigation, or willimprove environmental effectiveness. Improving and expanding thescope of market mechanisms (such as emission trading, Joint Implementationand Clean Development Mechanism) could reduce overallmitigation costs. {WGIII 13.3, SPM}Efforts to address climate change can include diverse elementssuch as emissions targets; sectoral, local, sub-national and regionalactions; RD&D programmes; adopting common policies; implementingdevelopment-oriented actions; or expanding financing instruments.These elements can be implemented in an integrated

fashion, but comparing the efforts made by different countriesquantitatively would be complex and resource intensive. {WGIII 13.3,SPM}Actions that could be taken by participating countries can bedifferentiated both in terms of when such action is undertaken, whoparticipates and what the action will be. Actions can be binding ornon-binding, include fixed or dynamic targets, and participationcan 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 emissionsregulatory policies that promote sustainable developmentForestry Adoption of forest conservation and sustainable management practices GHG emissions from deforestationElectricity Adoption of cost-effective renewables, demand-side management Electricity sector CO2 emissionsprogrammes, and transmission and distribution loss reductionPetroleum imports Diversifying imported and domestic fuel mix and reducing Emissions from crude oil and producteconomy’s energy intensity to improve energy security importsInsurance for building, Differentiated premiums, liability insurance exclusions, Transport and building sector GHGtransport sectors improved terms for green products emissionsInternational finance Country and sector strategies and project lending that reduces emissions Emissions from developing countries5The long-term perspective: scientific andsocio-economic aspects relevant to adaptationand mitigation, consistent with the objectives andprovisions of the Convention, and in the context ofsustainable developmentTopic 5 The long-term perspective645.1 Risk management perspectiveResponding to climate change involves an iterative riskmanagement process that includes both mitigation and adaptation,taking into account actual and avoided climatechange damages, co-benefits, sustainability, equity and attitudesto risk. {WGII 20. 9, SPM; WGIII SPM}Risk management techniques can explicitly accommodate sectoral,regional and temporal diversity, but their application requires informationabout not only impacts resulting from the most likely climate scenarios,but also impacts arising from lower-probability but higher-consequenceevents and the consequences of proposed policies and measures.Risk is generally understood to be the product of the likelihoodof an event and its consequences. Climate change impacts depend on

the characteristics of natural and human systems, their developmentpathways 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 perspectivesThe five ‘reasons for concern’ identified in the TAR are nowassessed to be stronger with many risks identified withhigher confidence. Some are projected to be larger or tooccur at lower increases in temperature. This is due to (1)better understanding of the magnitude of impacts and risksassociated with increases in global average temperature andGHG concentrations, including vulnerability to present-dayclimate variability, (2) more precise identification of the circumstancesthat make systems, sectors, groups and regionsespecially vulnerable and (3) growing evidence that the riskof very large impacts on multiple century time scales wouldcontinue to increase as long as GHG concentrations andtemperature continue to increase. Understanding about therelationship between impacts (the basis for ‘reasons for concern’in the TAR) and vulnerability (that includes the abilityto 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 functionof exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Adaptation can reducesensitivity to climate change while mitigation can reduce theexposure to climate change, including its rate and extent. Both conclusionsare confirmed in this assessment. {WGII 20.2, 20.7.3}No single metric can adequately describe the diversity of keyvulnerabilities or support their ranking. A sample of relevant impactsis provided in Figure 3.6. The estimation of key vulnerabilitiesin any system, and damage implied, will depend on exposure(the rate and magnitude of climate change), sensitivity, which isdetermined in part and where relevant by development status, andadaptive capacity. Some key vulnerabilities may be linked to thresholds;in some cases these may cause a system to shift from one stateto another, whereas others have thresholds that are defined subjectivelyand thus depend on societal values. {WGII 19.ES, 19.1}The five ‘reasons for concern’ that were identified in the TARwere intended to synthesise information on climate risks and keyvulnerabilities and to “aid readers in making their own determination”about risk. These remain a viable framework to consider keyvulnerabilities, and they have been updated in the AR4. {TAR WGIIChapter 19; WGII SPM}_ Risks to unique and threatened systems. There is new andstronger evidence of observed impacts of climate change onunique and vulnerable systems (such as polar and high mountaincommunities and ecosystems), with increasing levels ofadverse impacts as temperatures increase further. An increasing

risk of species extinction and coral reef damage is projectedwith higher confidence than in the TAR as warming proceeds.There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30% ofplant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increasedrisk of extinction if increases in global average temperatureexceed 1.5 to 2.5°C over 1980-1999 levels. Confidencehas increased that a 1 to 2°C increase in global mean temperatureabove 1990 levels (about 1.5 to 2.5°C above pre-indus-25 Key Vulnerabilities can be identified based on a number of criteria in the literature, including magnitude, timing, persistence/reversibility, thepotential for adaptation, distributional aspects, likelihood and ‘importance’ of the impacts.Key Vulnerabilities and Article 2 of the UNFCCCArticle 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 toachieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphereat a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achievedwithin a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatenedand 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 UNFCCCinvolves value judgements. Science can support informed decisions on this issue, including by providing criteria for judging whichvulnerabilities 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, waterresources, 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 someplaces not covered in previous assessments. {WGII SPM}65Topic 5 The long-term perspectivetrial) poses significant risks to many unique and threatened systemsincluding many biodiversity hotspots. Corals are vulnerableto thermal stress and have low adaptive capacity. Increasesin sea surface temperature of about 1 to 3°C are projected toresult in more frequent coral bleaching events and widespreadmortality, unless there is thermal adaptation or acclimatisationby corals. Increasing vulnerability of Arctic indigenous communitiesand 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 recentextreme climate events reveal higher levels of vulnerability inboth developing and developed countries than was assessed inthe TAR. There is now higher confidence in the projected increasesin droughts, heat waves and floods, as well as their adverseimpacts. As summarised in Table 3.2, increases in drought,heat waves and floods are projected in many regions and wouldhave mostly adverse impacts, including increased water stressand wild fire frequency, adverse effects on food production,adverse health effects, increased flood risk and extreme highsea 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, Table19.1, Table SPM.1}_ Distribution of impacts and vulnerabilities. There are sharpdifferences across regions and those in the weakest economicposition are often the most vulnerable to climate change andare frequently the most susceptible to climate-related damages,especially when they face multiple stresses. There is increasingevidence of greater vulnerability of specific groups such as thepoor and elderly not only in developing but also in developedcountries. There is greater confidence in the projected regionalpatterns of climate change (see Topic 3.2) and in the projectionsof regional impacts, enabling better identification of particularlyvulnerable systems, sectors and regions (see Topic 3.3).Moreover, there is increased evidence that low-latitude and lessdevelopedareas generally face greater risk, for example in dryareas and megadeltas. New studies confirm that Africa is oneof the most vulnerable continents because of the range of projectedimpacts, multiple stresses and low adaptive capacity.Substantial risks due to sea level rise are projected particularlyfor Asian megadeltas and for small island communities. {SYR3.2, 3.3, 5.4; WGI 11.2-11.7, SPM; WGII 3.4.3, 5.3, 5.4, Boxes 7.1 and7.4, 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 marketbasedbenefits from climate change are projected to peak at alower magnitude and therefore sooner than was assessed in theTAR. It is likely that there will be higher damages for largermagnitudes of global temperature increase than estimated inthe TAR, and the net costs of impacts of increased warming areprojected to increase over time. Aggregate impacts have alsobeen quantified in other metrics (see Topic 3.3): for example,climate change over the next century is likely to adversely affecthundreds of millions of people through increased coastalflooding, reductions in water supplies, increased malnutritionand 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 themeridional overturning circulation is very unlikely. There is highconfidence that global warming over many centuries would leadto a sea level rise contribution from thermal expansion alonethat is projected to be much larger than observed over the 20thcentury, with loss of coastal area and associated impacts. Thereis better understanding than in the TAR that the risk of additionalcontributions to sea level rise from both the Greenlandand possibly Antarctic ice sheets may be larger than projectedby ice sheet models and could occur on century time scales.This is because ice dynamical processes seen in recent observationsbut not fully included in ice sheet models assessed inthe AR4 could increase the rate of ice loss. Completedeglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levelby 7m and could be irreversible. {SYR 3.4; WGI 10.3, Box 10.1;WGII 19.3.7, SPM}5.3 Adaptation and mitigationThere is high confidence that neither adaptation nor mitigationalone can avoid all climate change impacts. Adaptationis necessary both in the short term and longer term to addressimpacts resulting from the warming that would occureven for the lowest stabilisation scenarios assessed. Thereare barriers, limits and costs that are not fully understood.Adaptation and mitigation can complement each other andtogether 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 naturalecosystems (e.g. loss of Arctic sea ice and marine ecosystem viability),the disappearance of mountain glaciers that play vital rolesin water storage and supply, or adaptation to sea level rise of severalmetres27. It will be less feasible or very costly in many cases forthe projected climate change beyond the next several decades (suchas deltaic regions and estuaries). There is high confidence that theability of many ecosystems to adapt naturally will be exceeded thiscentury. In addition, multiple barriers and constraints to effectiveadaptation exist in human systems (see Topic 4.2). {SYR 4.2; WGII17.4.2, 19.2, 19.4.1}Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likelyto exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems toadapt. Reliance on adaptation alone could eventually lead to a magnitudeof climate change to which effective adaptation is not possible,or will only be available at very high social, environmentaland economic costs. {WGII 18.1, SPM}26 See glossary27 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 isoutside the scope of adaptation. {WGII 17.4.2, 19.4.1}Topic 5 The long-term perspective

6628 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 thatuse 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 andmagnitude of climate change need to account for inertia inthe 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 theglobal average temperature increases is expected to slow within afew decades. Small increases in global average temperature couldstill be expected for several centuries. Sea level rise from thermalexpansion would continue for many centuries at a rate that eventuallydecreases from that reached before stabilisation, due to ongoingheat uptake by oceans. {SYR 3.2, WGI 10.3, 10.4, 10.7, SPM}Delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the opportunitiesto achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the riskof more severe climate change impacts. Even though benefits ofmitigation measures in terms of avoided climate change would takeseveral decades to materialise, mitigation actions begun in the shortterm would avoid locking in both long-lived carbon intensive infrastructureand development pathways, reduce the rate of climatechange and reduce the adaptation needs associated with higher levelsof 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 stabilisationIn 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 thispeak and decline would need to occur (Figure 5.1).29 {WGIII3.3, 3.5, SPM}Advances in modelling since the TAR permit the assessment ofmulti-gas mitigation strategies for exploring the attainability andcosts for achieving stabilisation of GHG concentrations. Thesescenarios explore a wider range of future scenarios, includinglower levels of stabilisation, than reported in the TAR. {WGIII 3.3,3.5, SPM}Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades willhave a large impact on opportunities to achieve lowerstabilisation levels (Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1). {WGIII 3.5,SPM}Table 5.1 summarises the required emission levels for differentgroups of stabilisation concentrations and the resulting equilibriumCO2 emissions and equilibrium temperature increases for a range of stabilisation levelsFigure 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 (righthandpanel). Approaching equilibrium can take several centuries, especially for scenarios with higher levels of stabilisation. Coloured shadings showstabilisation scenarios grouped according to different targets (stabilisation category I to VI). The right-hand panel shows ranges of global average temperaturechange above pre-industrial, using (i) ‘best estimate’ climate sensitivity of 3°C (black line in middle of shaded area), (ii) upper bound of likely range ofclimate sensitivity of 4.5°C (red line at top of shaded area) (iii) lower bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 2°C (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 thestabilisation scenarios comprise CO2-only and multigas scenarios and correspond to the 10th to 90th percentile of the full scenario distribution. Note: CO2emissions in most models do not include emissions from decay of above ground biomass that remains after logging and deforestation, and from peat firesand drained peat soils. {WGIII Figures SPM.7 and SPM.8}Equilibrium global average temperatureincrease above pre-industrial (°C)Year GHG concentration stabilisation level (ppm CO2 -eq)World CO2 emissions (GtCO2 /yr)67Topic 5 The long-term perspectiveTable 5.1. Characteristics of post-TAR stabilisation scenarios and resulting long-term equilibrium global average temperature and the sea level risecomponent from thermal expansion only.a {WGI 10.7; WGIII Table TS.2, Table 3.10, Table SPM.5}Category Change in globalCO2 emissionsin 2050(percent of 2000emissions)a,cGlobal averagetemperature increaseabove pre-industrial atequilibrium, using‘best estimate’ climatesensitivityd,eGlobal average sealevel rise abovepre-industrial atequilibrium fromthermal expansiononlyfppm ppm year percent °C metresI 350 – 400 445 – 490 2000 – 2015 -85 to -50 2.0 – 2.4 0.4 – 1.4 6II 400 – 440 490 – 535 2000 – 2020 -60 to -30 2.4 – 2.8 0.5 – 1.7 18III 440 – 485 535 – 590 2010 – 2030 -30 to +5 2.8 – 3.2 0.6 – 1.9 21IV 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 9VI 660 – 790 855 – 1130 2060 – 2090 +90 to +140 4.9 – 6.1 1.0 – 3.7 5Notes:a) The emission reductions to meet a particular stabilisation level reported in the mitigation studies assessed here might be underestimated due tomissing 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 about455ppm, 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 becompared with CO2-only scenarios (see Figure 2.1).d) The best estimate of climate sensitivity is 3°C.e) Note that global average temperature at equilibrium is different from expected global average temperature at the time of stabilisation of GHGconcentrations due to the inertia of the climate system. For the majority of scenarios assessed, stabilisation of GHG concentrations occursbetween 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 low-resolution AOGCM and several EMICs based on the bestestimate of 3°C climate sensitivity) and do not include contributions from melting ice sheets, glaciers and ice caps. Long-term thermal expansionis projected to result in 0.2 to 0.6m per degree Celsius of global average warming above pre-industrial. (AOGCM refers to Atmosphere-OceanGeneral Circulation Model and EMICs to Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity.)global average temperature increases, using the ‘best estimate’ ofclimate sensitivity (see Figure 5.1 for the likely range of uncertainty).Stabilisation at lower concentration and related equilibriumtemperature levels advances the date when emissions need to peakand requires greater emissions reductions by 2050.30 Climate sensitivityis a key uncertainty for mitigation scenarios that aim to meetspecific temperature levels. The timing and level of mitigation toreach a given temperature stabilisation level is earlier and morestringent 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 expansionwould continue for many centuries after GHG concentrations havestabilised, for any of the stabilisation levels assessed, causing aneventual sea level rise much larger than projected for the 21st century(Table 5.1). If GHG and aerosol concentrations had beenstabilised at year 2000 levels, thermal expansion alone would beexpected to lead to further sea level rise of 0.3 to 0.8m. The eventualcontributions from Greenland ice sheet loss could be severalmetres, and larger than from thermal expansion, should warming inexcess of 1.9 to 4.6°C above pre-industrial be sustained over many

centuries. These long-term consequences would have major implicationsfor world coastlines. The long time scale of thermal expansionand ice sheet response to warming imply that mitigation strategiesthat seek to stabilise GHG concentrations (or radiative forcing)at or above present levels do not stabilise sea level for manycenturies. {WG1 10.7}Feedbacks between the carbon cycle and climate change affectthe required mitigation and adaptation response to climate change.Climate-carbon cycle coupling is expected to increase the fractionof anthropogenic emissions that remains in the atmosphere as theclimate system warms (see Topics 2.3 and 3.2.1), but mitigationstudies have not yet incorporated the full range of these feedbacks.As a consequence, the emission reductions to meet a particularstabilisation level reported in the mitigation studies assessed in Table5.1 might be underestimated. Based on current understanding ofclimate-carbon cycle feedbacks, model studies suggest thatstabilising CO2 concentrations at, for example, 450ppm31 could requirecumulative emissions over the 21st century to be less than1800 [1370 to 2200] GtCO2, which is about 27% less than the 2460[2310 to 2600] GtCO2 determined without consideration of carboncycle 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 stabilisationlevels 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 to5460] GtCO2 to approximately 4030 [3590 to 4580] GtCO2. {WGI 7.3, 10.4, SPM}CO2concentrationat stabilisation(2005 = 379ppm)bCO2-equivalentconcentration atstabilisationincluding GHGsand aerosols(2005=375 ppm)bPeaking yearfor CO2emissionsa,cNumber ofassessedscenariosTopic 5 The long-term perspective68

Illustrative mitigation portfolios for achieving stabilisation of GHG concentrationsFigure 5.2 Cumulative emissions reductions for alternative mitigation measures for 2000-2030 (left-hand panel) and for 2000-2100 (right-hand panel). Thefigure shows illustrative scenarios from four models (AIM, IMAGE, IPAC and MESSAGE) aiming at the stabilisation at low (490 to 540ppm CO2-eq) andintermediate levels (650ppm CO2-eq) respectively. Dark bars denote reductions for a target of 650ppm CO2-eq and light bars denote the additional reductionsto 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 CO2capture and storage from biomass. Forest sinks include reducing emissions from deforestation. The figure shows emissions reductions from baselinescenarios with cumulative emissions between 6000 to 7000 GtCO2-eq (2000-2100). {WGIII Figure SPM.9}5.5 Technology flows and developmentThere is high agreement and much evidence that allstabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deploymentof a portfolio of technologies that are either currentlyavailable or expected to be commercialised in coming decades,assuming appropriate and effective incentives arein place for development, acquisition, deployment and diffusionof technologies and addressing related barriers. {WGIIISPM}Worldwide deployment of low-GHG emission technologies aswell as technology improvements through public and private RD&Dwould be required for achieving stabilisation targets as well as costreduction.32 Figure 5.2 gives illustrative examples of the contributionof the portfolio of mitigation options. The contribution of differenttechnologies varies over time and region and depends on thebaseline development path, available technologies and relative costs,and the analysed stabilisation levels. Stabilisation at the lower ofthe assessed levels (490 to 540ppm CO2-eq) requires early investmentsand substantially more rapid diffusion and commercialisationof advanced low-emissions technologies over the next decades(2000-2030) and higher contributions across abatement options inthe long term (2000-2100). This requires that barriers to development,acquisition, deployment and diffusion of technologies areeffectively 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 technologytransfer, it may be difficult to achieve emission reduction at a significantscale. Mobilising financing of incremental costs of lowcarbontechnologies is important. {WGIII 13.3, SPM}There are large uncertainties concerning the future contributionof different technologies. However, all assessed stabilisationscenarios concur that 60 to 80% of the reductions over the courseof the century would come from energy supply and use and industrial

processes. Including non-CO2 and CO2 land-use and forestrymitigation options provides greater flexibility and cost-effectiveness.Energy efficiency plays a key role across many scenarios formost regions and time scales. For lower stabilisation levels, scenariosput more emphasis on the use of low-carbon energy sources,such as renewable energy, nuclear power and the use of CO2 captureand storage (CCS). In these scenarios, improvements of carbonintensity of energy supply and the whole economy needs to bemuch 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 (evenafter 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}69Topic 5 The long-term perspective5.6 Costs of mitigation and long-termstabilisation targetsThe macro-economic costs of mitigation generally rise withthe stringency of the stabilisation target and are relativelyhigher when derived from baseline scenarios characterisedby high emission levels. {WGIII SPM}There is high agreement and medium evidence that in 2050 globalaverage macro-economic costs for multi-gas mitigation towardsstabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1%gain to a 5.5% decrease of global GDP (Table 5.2). This correspondsto slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than0.12 percentage points. Estimated GDP losses by 2030 are on averagelower and show a smaller spread compared to 2050 (Table 5.2).For specific countries and sectors, costs vary considerably from theglobal average.33 {WGIII 3.3, 13.3, SPM}5.7 Costs, benefits and avoided climateimpacts at global and regional levelsImpacts of climate change will vary regionally. Aggregatedand discounted to the present, they are very likely to imposenet annual costs, which will increase over time as globaltemperatures increase. {WGII SPM}For increases in global average temperature of less than 1 to 3°Cabove 1980-1999 levels, some impacts are projected to producemarket benefits in some places and sectors while, at the same time,imposing costs in other places and sectors. Global mean losses couldbe 1 to 5% of GDP for 4°C of warming, but regional losses couldbe substantially higher. {WGII 9.ES, 10.6, 15.ES, 20.6, SPM}Peer-reviewed estimates of the social cost of carbon (net economiccosts of damages from climate change aggregated across theglobe and discounted to the present) for 2005 have an average valueof US$12 per tonne of CO2, but the range from 100 estimates islarge (-$3 to $95/tCO2). The range of published evidence indicatesthat 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 underestimatethe damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiableimpacts. It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costsmask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countriesand populations. In some locations and amongst some groupsof people with high exposure, high sensitivity and/or low adaptivecapacity, 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 analysesof the global costs and benefits of mitigation indicatethat these are broadly comparable in magnitude, but do notas yet permit an unambiguous determination of an emissionspathway or stabilisation level where benefits exceedcosts. {WGIII SPM}Comparing the costs of mitigation with avoided damages wouldrequire the reconciliation of welfare impacts on people living indifferent places and at different points in time into a global aggregatemeasure of well-being. {WGII 18.ES}Choices about the scale and timing of GHG mitigation involvebalancing the economic costs of more rapid emission reductionsnow against the corresponding medium-term and long-term climaterisks of delay. {WGIII SPM}Many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation.{WGII SPM}Although the small number of impact assessments that evaluatestabilisation scenarios do not take full account of uncertaintiesin projected climate under stabilisation, they nevertheless provideindications of damages avoided and risks reduced for differentTable 5.2. Estimated global macro-economic costs in 2030 and 2050. Costs are relative to the baseline for least-cost trajectoriestowards 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,e2030 2050 2030 2050 2030 2050445 – 535d Not available <3 <5.5 < 0.12 < 0.12535 – 590 0.6 1.3 0.2 to 2.5 slightly negative to 4 < 0.1 < 0.1590 – 710 0.2 0.5 -0.6 to 1.2 -1 to 2 < 0.06 < 0.05Notes: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 (445-535ppmCO2-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 perspective70amounts of emissions reduction. The rate and magnitude of futurehuman-induced climate change and its associated impacts are determinedby human choices defining alternative socio-economicfutures and mitigation actions that influence emission pathways.Figure 3.2 demonstrates that alternative SRES emission pathwayscould lead to substantial differences in climate change throughoutthe 21st century. Some of the impacts at the high temperature end ofFigure 3.6 could be avoided by socio-economic development pathwaysthat limit emissions and associated climate change towardsthe 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 therisk of, for example, affecting a significant number of ecosystems,the risk of extinctions, and the likelihood that cereal productivityin some regions would tend to fall. {SYR 3.3, Figure 3.6; WGII 4.4, 5.4,Table 20.6}5.8 Broader environmental andsustainability issuesSustainable development can reduce vulnerability to climatechange, and climate change could impede nations’ abilitiesto achieve sustainable development pathways. {WGII SPM}It is very likely that climate change can slow the pace of progresstoward sustainable development either directly through increasedexposure to adverse impacts or indirectly through erosion of thecapacity to adapt. Over the next half-century, climate change couldimpede achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. {WGIISPM}Climate change will interact at all scales with other trends inglobal environmental and natural resource concerns, includingwater, soil and air pollution, health hazards, disaster risk, and deforestation.Their combined impacts may be compounded in futurein the absence of integrated mitigation and adaptation measures.{WGII 20.3, 20.7, 20.8, SPM}Making development more sustainable can enhance mitigativeand adaptive capacities, reduce emissions, and reducevulnerability, but there may be barriers to implementation.{WGII 20.8; WGIII 12.2, SPM}Both adaptive and mitigative capacities can be enhanced throughsustainable 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 explicitlyincluded either adapting to climate change impacts, or promotingadaptive capacity. Similarly, changing development pathscan make a major contribution to mitigation but may require resourcesto overcome multiple barriers. {WGII 20.3, 20.5, SPM; WGIII2.1, 2.5, 12.1, SPM}6Robust findings, key uncertaintiesTopic 6 Robust findings, key uncertainties72Robust findings, key uncertaintiesAs in the TAR, a robust finding for climate change is definedas one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, modelsand assumptions, and is expected to be relatively unaffected byuncertainties. Key uncertainties are those that, if reduced, couldlead 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 areassociated with large uncertainties. {WGII 20.9}The robust findings and key uncertainties listed below do notrepresent an exhaustive list.6.1 Observed changes in climate and theireffects, and their causesRobust findingsWarming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evidentfrom observations of increases in global average air and oceantemperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globalaverage sea level. {WGI 3.9, SPM}Many natural systems, on all continents and in some oceans,are being affected by regional climate changes. Observed changesin many physical and biological systems are consistent with warming.As a result of the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 since 1750, theacidity of the surface ocean has increased. {WGI 5.4, WGII 1.3}Global total annual anthropogenic GHG emissions, weightedby their 100-year GWPs, have grown by 70% between 1970 and2004. As a result of anthropogenic emissions, atmospheric concentrationsof N2O now far exceed pre-industrial values spanning manythousands of years, and those of CH4 and CO2 now far exceed thenatural range over the last 650,000 years. {WGI SPM; WGIII 1.3}Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years isvery likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely thatthere is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over eachcontinent (except Antarctica). {WGI 9.4, SPM}Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likelyhad a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changesin many physical and biological systems. {WGII 1.4, SPM}Key uncertaintiesClimate data coverage remains limited in some regions and there

is a notable lack of geographic balance in data and literature onobserved changes in natural and managed systems, with markedscarcity in developing countries. {WGI SPM; WGII 1.3, SPM}Analysing and monitoring changes in extreme events, includingdrought, tropical cyclones, extreme temperatures and the frequencyand intensity of precipitation, is more difficult than for climaticaverages as longer data time-series of higher spatial and temporalresolutions are required. {WGI 3.8, SPM}Effects of climate changes on human and some natural systemsare difficult to detect due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers.{WGII 1.3}Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observedtemperature changes to natural or human causes at smallerthan continental scales. At these smaller scales, factors such as landusechange and pollution also complicate the detection of anthropogenicwarming influence on physical and biological systems. {WGI8.3, 9.4, SPM; WGII 1.4, SPM}The magnitude of CO2 emissions from land-use change andCH4 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 climatechanges and their impactsRobust findingsWith current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainabledevelopment practices, global GHG emissions will continueto grow over the next few decades. {WGIII 3.2, SPM}For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decadeis projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. {WGI 10.3,10.7, SPM}Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would causefurther warming and induce many changes in the global climatesystem during the 21st century that would very likely be larger thanthose observed during the 20th century. {WGI 10.3, 11.1, SPM}The pattern of future warming where land warms more than theadjacent oceans and more in northern high latitudes is seen in allscenarios. {WGI 10.3, 11.1, SPM}Warming tends to reduce terrestrial ecosystem and ocean uptakeof atmospheric CO2, increasing the fraction of anthropogenicemissions that remains in the atmosphere. {WGI 7.3, 10.4, 10.5, SPM}Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue forcenturies even if GHG emissions were to be reduced sufficientlyfor GHG concentrations to stabilise, due to the time scales associatedwith climate processes and feedbacks. {WGI 10.7, SPM}Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very unlikely to be less than1.5°C. {WGI 8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2, SPM}Some systems, sectors and regions are likely to be especiallyaffected 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-lyingcoasts, water resources in some dry regions at mid-latitudes and inthe dry topics and in areas dependent on snow and ice melt, agriculturein low-latitude regions, and human health in areas with lowadaptive capacity. The regions are the Arctic, Africa, small islandsand Asian and African megadeltas. Within other regions, even thosewith high incomes, some people, areas and activities can be particularlyat risk. {WGII TS.4.5}Impacts are very likely to increase due to increased frequenciesand intensities of some extreme weather events. Recent events havedemonstrated the vulnerability of some sectors and regions, includingin developed countries, to heat waves, tropical cyclones, floodsand drought, providing stronger reasons for concern as comparedto the findings of the TAR. {WGII Table SPM.2, 19.3}73Topic 6 Robust findings, key uncertaintiesKey uncertaintiesUncertainty in the equilibrium climate sensitivity creates uncertaintyin the expected warming for a given CO2-eq stabilisationscenario. Uncertainty in the carbon cycle feedback creates uncertaintyin the emissions trajectory required to achieve a particularstabilisation level. {WGI 7.3, 10.4, 10.5, SPM}Models differ considerably in their estimates of the strength ofdifferent feedbacks in the climate system, particularly cloud feedbacks,oceanic heat uptake and carbon cycle feedbacks, althoughprogress has been made in these areas. Also, the confidence in projectionsis higher for some variables (e.g. temperature) than forothers (e.g. precipitation), and it is higher for larger spatial scalesand 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 uncertaintythat could increase sea level rise projections. The uncertaintyin the penetration of the heat into the oceans also contributes to thefuture sea level rise uncertainty. {WGI 4.6, 6.4, 10.3, 10.7, SPM}Large-scale ocean circulation changes beyond the 21st centurycannot be reliably assessed because of uncertainties in the meltwatersupply from the Greenland ice sheet and model response to thewarming. {WGI 6.4, 8.7, 10.3 }Projections of climate change and its impacts beyond about 2050are strongly scenario- and model-dependent, and improved projectionswould require improved understanding of sources of uncertainty andenhancements in systematic observation networks. {WGII TS.6}Impacts research is hampered by uncertainties surrounding regionalprojections of climate change, particularly precipitation.

{WGII TS.6}Understanding of low-probability/high-impact events and thecumulative impacts of sequences of smaller events, which is requiredfor risk-based approaches to decision-making, is generallylimited. {WGII 19.4, 20.2, 20.4, 20.9, TS.6}6.3 Responses to climate changeRobust findingsSome planned adaptation (of human activities) is occurring now;more extensive adaptation is required to reduce vulnerability to climatechange. {WGII 17.ES, 20.5, Table 20.6, SPM}Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likelyto exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems toadapt. {WGII 20.7, SPM}A wide range of mitigation options is currently available or projectedto be available by 2030 in all sectors. The economic mitigationpotential, at costs that range from net negative up to US$100/tCO2-equivalent, is sufficient to offset the projected growth of globalemissions 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 threedecades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lowerstabilisation levels. Delayed emissions reductions significantly constrainthe opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels andincrease the risk of more severe climate change impacts. {WGII SPM,WGIII SPM}The range of stabilisation levels for GHG concentrations thathave been assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolioof technologies that are currently available and those that are expectedto be commercialised in coming decades, provided that appropriateand effective incentives are in place and barriers are removed.In addition, further RD&D would be required to improvethe technical performance, reduce the costs and achieve social acceptabilityof new technologies. The lower the stabilisation levels,the greater the need for investment in new technologies during thenext few decades. {WGIII 3.3, 3.4}Making development more sustainable by changing developmentpaths can make a major contribution to climate change mitigationand adaptation and to reducing vulnerability. {WGII 18.7, 20.3,SPM; WGIII 13.2, SPM}Decisions about macro-economic and other policies that seemunrelated to climate change can significantly affect emissions. {WGIII12.2}Key uncertaintiesUnderstanding of how development planners incorporate informationabout climate variability and change into their decisionsis limited. This limits the integrated assessment of vulnerability.{WGII 18.8, 20.9}

The evolution and utilisation of adaptive and mitigative capacitydepend 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 dependenton specific geographical and climate risk factors as well as institutional,political and financial constraints. {WGII SPM}Estimates of mitigation costs and potentials depend on assumptionsabout future socio-economic growth, technological changeand consumption patterns. Uncertainty arises in particular fromassumptions regarding the drivers of technology diffusion and thepotential of long-term technology performance and cost improvements.Also little is known about the effects of changes in behaviourand lifestyles. {WGIII 3.3, 3.4, 11.3}The effects of non-climate policies on emissions are poorlyquantified. {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, non-stock 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, off-shore 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, 22 Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a distinguished member of this Court, says:

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 non-impairment 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. L-24548, 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 APPEALSFOR THE FIFTH CIRCUITNo. 07-60756NED COMER, ET AL.Plaintiffs-Appellantsv.MURPHY OIL USA, ET AL.Defendants-AppelleesAppeal from the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of MississippiBefore DAVIS, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.DENNIS, Circuit Judge:The plaintiffs, residents and owners of lands and property along theMississippi Gulf coast, filed this putative class action in the district court againstthe named defendants, corporations that have principal offices in other statesbut are doing business in Mississippi. The plaintiffs allege that defendants’operation of energy, fossil fuels, and chemical industries in the United Statescaused the emission of greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming,viz., the increase in global surface air and water temperatures, that in turncaused a rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, whichcombined to destroy the plaintiffs’ private property, as well as public propertyuseful to them. The plaintiffs’ putative class action asserts claims forUnited States Court of AppealsFifth CircuitF I L E DOctober 16, 2009Charles R. Fulbruge IIIClerkNo. 07-60756We 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 incontroversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is aclass action in which . . . any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State differentfrom 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 leastone 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 classof plaintiffs, “residents of and/or property owners in the state of Mississippi who suffered lossand harm as a result of Hurricane Katrina,” and the extent of damages sought, includingpersonal injury and property damage resulting from Hurricane Katrina, makes it “faciallyapparent that at least $5 million is in controversy.” Frazier, 455 F.3d at 545; see also Allenv. R&H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that when a complaintalleges no specific amount of damages, the amount in controversy requirement may be met “ifit 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 2ruling 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 “thatthe problem [in this case] is one in which this court is simply ill-equipped or unequipped withthe power that it has to address these issues.” Describing this suit as a “debate” about globalwarming, the district court further reasoned:[I]t is a debate which simply has no place in the court, until such time asCongress enacts legislation which sets appropriate standards by which thiscourt can measure conduct . . . and develops standards by which . . . juries canadjudicate facts and apply the law. . . . Under the circumstances, I think thatthe plaintiffs are asking the court to develop those standards, and it issomething that this court simply is not empowered to do.2compensatory and punitive damages based on Mississippi common-law actionsof public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, unjust enrichment,fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs invoked thedistrict court’s subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. The 1plaintiffs do not assert any federal or public law actions and do not seekinjunctive relief.Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that theplaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims and that their claims presentnonjusticiable political questions. The district court granted the motion anddismissed the claims. The plaintiffs timely appealed. For the reasons discussed 2No. 07-60756Finally, the district court concluded:[Plaintiffs’ complaint asks] this court to do what Baker v. Carr told me not todo, and that is to balance economic, environmental, foreign policy, and nationalsecurity interests and make an initial policy determination of a kind which issimply nonjudicial. Adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims in this case wouldnecessitate the formulation of standards dictating, for example, the amount ofgreenhouse gas emissions that would be excessive and the scientific and policyreasons behind those standards. These policy decisions are best left to theexecutive and legislative branches of the government, who are not only in thebest position to make those decisions but are constitutionally empowered to doso.3herein, we conclude that the plaintiffs have standing to assert their public andprivate nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims, and that none of these claimspresent nonjusticiable political questions; but we conclude that their unjust

enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy claims must bedismissed for prudential standing reasons. Accordingly, we reverse the districtcourt’s judgment, dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit in part, and remand the case to thedistrict court for further proceedings.I.Plaintiffs’ public and private nuisance claims assert that defendantsintentionally and unreasonably used their property so as to produce massiveamounts of greenhouse gasses and thereby injure both plaintiffs and the generalpublic by contributing to global warming, which caused the sea level rise andadded to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, the combined effects of whichresulted in the destruction of plaintiffs’ private property, as well as their loss ofuse of certain public property in the vicinity of their dwellings. Plaintiffs’trespass claim asserts that defendants’ greenhouse gas emissions causedsaltwater, debris, sediment, hazardous substances, and other materials to enter,remain on, and damage plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs’ negligence claim assertsthat defendants have a duty to conduct their businesses so as to avoidNo. 07-607564unreasonably endangering the environment, public health, public and privateproperty, and the citizens of Mississippi; that defendants breached this duty byemitting substantial quantities of greenhouse gasses; and that these emissionscaused plaintiffs’ lands and property to be destroyed or damaged.Additionally, the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim asserts that certaindefendants artificially inflated the price of petrochemicals, such as gasoline,diesel fuel, and natural gas, and realized profits to which they are not lawfullyentitled and which, in part, rightfully belong to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ civilconspiracy claim asserts that certain defendants were aware for many years ofthe dangers of greenhouse gas emissions, but they unlawfully disseminatedmisinformation about these dangers in furtherance of a civil conspiracy todecrease public awareness of the dangers of global warming. Finally, plaintiffs’fraudulent misrepresentation claim asserts that defendants knowingly madematerially false statements in public relations campaigns to divert attentionfrom the dangers of global warming, so as to dissuade government regulation,public discontent and consumer repulsion; that both government actors and thegeneral public were unaware that these statements were false; that governmentofficials and the general public acted upon defendants’ statements; and thatplaintiffs 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 Env’t,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 arefirst obliged to examine the standing of appellees, as a matter of thecase-or-controversy requirement associated with Art. III”) “The standing inquiryis both plaintiff-specific and claim-specific. Thus, a reviewing court mustdetermine whether each particular plaintiff is entitled to have a federal courtNo. 07-607565

adjudicate each particular claim that he asserts.” Pagan v. Calderon, 448 F.3d16, 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 ofaction, plaintiffs must satisfy both state and federal standing requirements. SeeMid-Hudson Catskill Rural Migrant Ministry, Inc. v. Fine Host Corp., 418 F.3d168, 173 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Where, as here, jurisdiction is predicated on diversityof citizenship, a plaintiff must have standing under both Article III of theConstitution 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, 1369–70(8th Cir. 1994); City of Moore v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 699 F.2d507, 511 (10th Cir. 1983); Owen of Georgia, Inc. v. Shelby County, 648 F.2d 1084,1088–90 (6th Cir. 1981); 13B Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice &Procedure § 3531.14 n.28 (3d ed. 2009).Plaintiffs’ claims easily satisfy Mississippi’s “liberal standingrequirements.” See Van Slyke v. Board of Trustees of State Institutions of HigherLearning, 613 So.2d 872, 875 (1993) (“Van Slyke II”). The MississippiConstitution provides that “[a]ll courts shall be open; and every person for aninjury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy bydue course of law, and right and justice shall be administered without sale,denial, or delay,” Miss. Const. art. III § 24. Because Mississippi’s Constitutiondoes not limit the judicial power to cases or controversies, its courts have beenmore permissive than federal courts in granting standing to parties. See VanSlyke 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 theyassert a colorable interest in the subject matter of the litigation or experience anadverse effect from the conduct of the defendant, or as otherwise provided byNo. 07-607566law.’” State v. Quitman County, 807 So.2d 401, 405 (Miss. 2001) (quoting Fordicev. Bryan, 651 So.2d 998, 1003 (Miss. 1995); State ex rel. Moore v. Molpus, 578So.2d 624, 632 (Miss. 1991)). The plaintiffs clearly allege that their interests intheir lands and property have been damaged by the adverse effects ofdefendants’ greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, they have standing to assertall of their claims under Mississippi law.In our federal standing inquiry, more rigorous standards apply. Article IIIof the United States Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to “Cases” and“Controversies.” “Those two words confine ‘the business of federal courts toquestions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewedas 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,” whichrequires plaintiffs to demonstrate: they have suffered an “injury in fact”; theinjury is “fairly traceable’ to the defendant’s 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 claimantbears 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 onwhich the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degreeof 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 factualallegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice, for ona motion to dismiss we presum[e] that general allegations embrace those specificfacts 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 dismissNo. 07-607567for want of standing, both the trial and reviewing courts must accept as true allmaterial allegations of the complaint.” (citations omitted)); Gladstone Realtorsv. 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 theplaintiffs’ 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 gasemissions, global warming, and the destruction of the plaintiffs’ property byrising sea levels and the added ferocity of Hurricane Katrina; and, second, theplaintiffs’ unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent misrepresentationclaims based on plaintiffs’ alleged injuries caused by defendants’ public relationscampaigns and pricing of petrochemicals.In their nuisance, trespass and negligence claims, the plaintiffs haveclearly satisfied the first and third constitutional minimum standingrequirements. These state common-law tort claims, in which plaintiffs allegethat they sustained actual, concrete injury in fact to their particular lands andproperty, can be redressed by the compensatory and punitive damages they seekNo. 07-60756For the first set of claims, the plaintiffs assert private, common-law claims of the sort 3that have been long recognized to give rise to standing, see, e.g., Erwin Chemerinsky, FederalJurisdiction 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 anypublic-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 lawof standing is almost exclusively concerned with public-law questions involving determinationsof constitutionality and review of administrative or other governmental action. In theory, ofcourse, it is not so limited. The person suing for breach of contract or for a tort must be foundto be the real party of interest, but in practice those suits are brought only by a person harmedby the supposed wrong, and standing to sue is self-evident. It is only when a question is of apublic nature that the interested bystander is likely to attempt suit.”).As a number of scholars have noted, throughout American history lawsuits betweenprivate parties over private rights, such as the common-law claims asserted here, have nottriggered the standing concerns that public-law cases, calling for vindication of constitutionalor 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 atcommon law or under early code pleading rules, that is, under the traditional model. There thequestion of plaintiff's standing merged with the legal merits: On the facts pleaded, does thisparticular plaintiff have a right to the particular relief sought from the particular defendantfrom whom he is seeking it?”); Ann Woolhandler & Caleb Nelson, Does History DefeatStanding Doctrine?, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 689, 690-94 (2004) (noting that throughout Americanhistory private litigation asserting private rights, including individuals’ rights in property andbodily integrity, has not raised standing concerns); Cass R. Sunstein, Standing and thePrivatization of Public Law, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1432, 1439 (1988) (observing that “the existenceof 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 istherefore 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, theplaintiffs sued the Department of Interior in respect to its leasing program, which permitteddrilling 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 theirhabitats thereby harming the plaintiffs’ enjoyment. Id. at 478-79. The D.C. Circuit, in analternative holding, found no standing because the claims failed to satisfy the traceabilityrequirement. Id. However, the D.C. Circuit found that the plaintiffs could only speculate thatthe damages will occur only if many different actors (oil companies, consumers, carmanufacturers, and the department of Interior) all acted in a way that would increase globalwarming 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 harmsto the plaintiffs’ specific property and persons are “traceable” to the Defendants withoutspeculation as to the Defendants’ and third parties’ future actions and interactions. See id. at489 (Rogers, J., concurring) (noting that if the Plaintiffs had alleged particular harms causedby 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 futureharm created by a policy with suit for actual damages from an alleged past application of that8for those injuries. As to these claims, defendants do not contest standing on the 3No. 07-60756policy).9first and third prongs of the tripartite test.Defendants instead challenge the plaintiffs’ standing at the second prongof the federal standing inquiry. They argue that the plaintiffs have not shownthat the harms alleged are fairly traceable to defendants’ actions. Defendantscontend that the plaintiffs’ theory tracing their injuries to defendants’ actions istoo attenuated. However, this argument, which essentially calls upon us toevaluate the merits of plaintiffs’ causes of action, is misplaced at this thresholdstanding stage of the litigation. It is firmly established “that the absence of avalid (as opposed to arguable) cause of action does not implicate subject-matterjurisdiction, i.e., the courts’ statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate thecase.” Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89 (citing generally 5A Wright & Miller, FederalPractice and Procedure § 1350 n.8 and cases cited (2d ed. 1990)). As the SupremeCourt stated in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 685 (1946), “[j]urisdiction . . . is notdefeated . . . by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of

action on which petitioners could actually recover.” More specifically, for issuesof causation, the Article III traceability requirement “need not be as close as theproximate causation needed to succeed on the merits of a tort claim. Rather, anindirect causal relationship will suffice, so long as there is ‘a fairly traceableconnection between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged conduct of thedefendant.’” Toll Bros., Inc. v. Township of Readington, 555 F.3d 131, 142 (3dCir. 2009); see also Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 168 (1997) (“[P]roximatecause” 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 ‘notequivalent to a requirement of tort causation.’”); Tozzi v. U.S. Dep’t of HealthNo. 07-6075610and Human Servs.,271 F.3d 301, 308 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“[W]e have never applieda ‘tort’ standard of causation to the question of traceability.”).Plaintiffs’ complaint, relying on scientific reports, alleges a chain ofcausation between defendants’ substantial emissions and plaintiffs’ injuries, andwhile plaintiffs will be required to support these assertions at later stages in thelitigation, 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 thatthe alleged injury, loss of water for irrigation, was fairly traceable to a Fish andWildlife Service biological opinion recommending that water in lakes bemaintained at a minimum level to protect endangered fish); Metro. Wash.Airport Auth., 501 U.S. at 264-65 (accepting plaintiffs’ pleadings as true andholding, in an action challenging the constitutionality of the airport authority’sveto power over increased airport construction, that allegations that theconstruction plan would result in increased airport noise, pollution, and dangerof accidents constituted a personal injury to plaintiffs that was fairly traceableto the review board’s veto power).What is more, the defendants’ main contentions are similar to thoserecently rejected by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. Essentially,they argue that traceability is lacking because: (1) the causal link betweenemissions, sea level rise, and Hurricane Katrina is too attenuated, and (2) thedefendants’ actions are only one of many contributions to greenhouse gasemissions, thereby foreclosing traceability.In holding that Massachusetts had standing to challenge the EPA’sdecision 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-madegreenhouse gas emissions and global warming, id. at 523 (noting the “causalconnection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming”in finding that “EPA does not dispute the existence of a causal connectionNo. 07-60756The Court also recognized that the impact of Hurricane Katrina is arguably a result 4of this causation link. See Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 522 n.18.11between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. At aminimum, therefore, EPA’s refusal to regulate such emissions ‘contributes’ toMassachusetts’ injuries”), as well as the nexus of warmer climate and rising

ocean temperatures with the strength of hurricanes, id. at 521-24. The SupremeCourt noted that[t]he harms associated with climate change are serious and wellrecognized. . . . [R]ising ocean temperatures may contribute to theferocity of hurricanes. . . . According to petitioners’ unchallengedaffidavits, global sea levels rose somewhere between 10 and 20centimeters 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 Courtaccepted a causal chain virtually identical in part to that alleged by plaintiffs,viz., that defendants’ greenhouse gas emissions contributed to warming of theenvironment, including the ocean’s temperature, which damaged plaintiffs’coastal Mississippi property via sea level rise and the increased intensity ofHurricane Katrina. In fact, the Massachusetts Court recognized a causal chain 4extending one step further —– i.e., that because the EPA did not regulategreenhouse gas emissions, motor vehicles emitted more greenhouse gasses thanthey otherwise would have, thus contributing to global warming, which injuredNo. 07-60756The Massachusetts Court stated that Massachusetts was “entitled to special solicitude 5in our standing analysis” because it is a state. 549 U.S. at 520. However, the chain ofcausation at issue here is one step shorter than the one recognized in Massachusetts, so theseplaintiffs 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 plaintiffsdoes 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 speculationabout what the effects of the defendants’ actions will be, or about the actions anyone will takein the future. Cf. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 157-58 (1990). It involves only thepredictable effects of the defendants’ past actions on the natural environment, and theresulting harm to the plaintiffs’ property.12Massachusetts lands through sea level rise and increased storm ferocity.5Accordingly, the defendants’ contention here is without merit.Defendants’ contention that traceability is lacking because their emissionscontributed only minimally to plaintiffs’ injuries is also similar to another EPAargument rejected by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts. In rejecting theEPA’s argument that its regulation of domestic new car emissions would haveinsignificant, if any, salutary effect on global warming, the Court concluded that“[a]t a minimum . . . EPA’s refusal to regulate [greenhouse gas] emissions‘contributes’ to Massachusetts’ injuries,” and therefore sufficiently demonstratestraceability so as to support Massachusetts’ standing. 549 U.S. at 523. Thus, theCourt recognized, in the same context as the instant case, that injuries may befairly traceable to actions that contribute to, rather than solely or materiallycause, greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.This holding -- that alleged contribution to the harm is sufficient fortraceability purposes -- is consistent with the standing case-law in othercontexts. “[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., Moore’s 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 FourthNo. 07-6075613Circuits, that to satisfy the “fairly traceable” element of standing plaintiffs neednot “show to a scientific certainty that defendant's [pollutants], and defendant’s[pollutants] alone, caused the precise harm suffered by the plaintiffs.” Save OurCommunity v. E.P.A., 971 F.2d 1155, 1161 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Pub. InterestResearch Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Powell Duffryn Terminals Inc., 913 F.2d64, 72 (3d Cir. 1990); Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc. v. Watkins, 954 F.2d974, 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 hasarticulated the “fairly traceable” test not as an inquiry into whether adefendant’s pollutants are the sole cause of an injury but rather whether “thepollutant 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) (emphasisadded) (quoting Powell Duffryn Terminals Inc., 913 F.2d at 72); see TexansUnited 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; PineyRun Pres. Ass’n v. County Comm’rs of Carroll County, 268 F.3d 255, 263-64 (4thCir. 2001) (“Traceability does not mean that plaintiffs must show to a scientificcertainty that defendant’s [pollution] caused the precise harm suffered by theplaintiffs. Rather, a plaintiff must merely show that a defendant discharges apollutant that causes or contributes to the kinds of injuries alleged.” (internalcitations 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 ofPiney Run, 268 F.3d at 263-64); Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of VolusiaCounty, 148 F.3d 1231, 1247 (11th Cir. 1998) (“[S]tanding is not defeated merelybecause the alleged injury can be fairly traced to the actions of both parties andnon-parties.” (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560)). The en banc Fourth Circuitconcluded: “Rather than pinpointing the origins of particular molecules, aNo. 07-60756Defendants try to distinguish the above precedents on the ground that they are 6unique Clean Water Act (“CWA”) cases. Contrary to defendants' argument or suggestion, theClean Water Act could not and did not lower the constitutional minimum standingrequirements and make CWA cases inapposite here. The CWA’s “grant of standing reaches theouter limits of Article III . . . Thus, if a Clean Water Act plaintiff meets the constitutionalrequirements 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 theconstitutional standing jurisprudence under the CWA is fully applicable in this case. SeeFriends of the Earth, 204 F.3d at 155. Moreover, the reasoning of these standing decisions hasbeen applied to other contexts. See, e.g., Interfaith Community Org. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 399F.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 theinjury 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 inthe precedents above, the plaintiffs have satisfied constitutional standing requirements.14plaintiff must merely show that a defendant discharges a pollutant that causesor contributes to the kinds of injuries alleged in the specific geographic area ofconcern.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 204 F.3d149, 161 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marksomitted). 6Here, the plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that defendants’ emissions causedthe plaintiffs’ property damage, which is redressable through monetarydamages; for example, the plaintiffs allege that defendants’ willful, unreasonableuse of their property to emit greenhouse gasses constituted private nuisanceunder Mississippi law because it inflicted injury on the plaintiffs’ land bycausing both land loss due to sea level rise and property damage due toHurricane Katrina. See, e.g., Comet Delta, Inc. v. Pate Stevedore Co. ofPascagoula, Inc., 521 So.2d 857, 859 (Miss. 1988) (“One is subject to liability fora private nuisance if, but only if, his conduct is a legal cause of an invasion ofanother'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 aNo. 07-6075615public nuisance because they unreasonably interfered with a common right ofthe general public by causing the loss of use and enjoyment of public propertythrough erosion of beaches, rising sea levels, saltwater intrusion, habitatdestruction, and storm damage. See id. at 860 (“A public nuisance is anunreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.” (quotingRestatement (Second) of Torts § 821B)). Because the injury can be traced to thedefendants’ contributions, the plaintiffs’ first set of claims satisfies thetraceability requirement and the standing inquiry.The plaintiffs’ second set of claims (unjust enrichment, fraudulentmisrepresentation, and civil conspiracy) do not satisfy federal prudentialstanding requirements. The Supreme Court has described the prudentialstanding doctrine in this way:[O]ur standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article IIIstanding, which enforces the Constitution's case-or-controversyrequirement, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,559-562(1992); and prudential standing, which embodies “judiciallyself-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction,” Allen, 468U.S., at 751. The Article III limitations are familiar: The plaintiffmust show that the conduct of which he complains has caused himto suffer an “injury in fact” that a favorable judgment will redress.See Lujan, 504 U.S., at 560-561. Although we have not exhaustivelydefined the prudential dimensions of the standing doctrine, we haveexplained that prudential standing encompasses “the generalprohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, the

rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances moreappropriately addressed in the representative branches, and therequirement that a plaintiff's complaint fall within the zone ofinterests protected by the law invoked.” Allen, 468 U.S., at 751. Seealso Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S.947, 955-956 (1984). “Without such limitations -- closely related toArt. III concerns but essentially matters of judicial self-governance-- the courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions ofwide public significance even though other governmentalinstitutions may be more competent to address the questions andNo. 07-60756The nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims are clearly not barred by any aspect of 7the prudential standing doctrine. The plaintiffs do not seek to raise anyone else’s legal rights;they have asserted particularized injuries, not generalized grievances; and their injuriesinvolve the type of interests that have traditionally been protected by the body of law theyinvoke, namely the common law of Mississippi.16even though judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protectindividual rights.” Warth, 422 U.S., at 500.Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11-12 (2004). Each of the 7plaintiffs’ second set of claims presents a generalized grievance that is moreproperly dealt with by the representative branches and common to all consumersof petrochemicals and the American public. “[N]o matter how well intended,Plaintiffs have done little more than present a generalized grievance, commonto 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 alsoArizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997) (“An interestshared generally with the public at large in the proper application of theConstitution and laws will not [create standing].”); Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74(“We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally availablegrievance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen'sinterest 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 aparticularized “injury [that] must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individualway.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 & n.1. The source of the plaintiffs’ second set ofgrievances is the alleged failure of the government to properly regulate andenforce environmental laws (caused by the defendants’ engagement in anallegedly false public marketing campaign and wrongful dissuasion ofNo. 07-6075617government regulation) and therefore enabled the defendants to increase theirprices 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 FederalGovernments did not know that Defendants’ statements were false.

The State and Federal Governments, acting upon Defendants’statements and representations, refused to regulate greenhouse gasemissions. The public had a right to rely and did rely uponDefendants’ statements, and continued to consume products in waysthat increased Global Warming, all of which resulted in continuedand increased profits to the Defendants. Plaintiffs’ and PlaintiffClass’s injuries were proximately caused by that reliance.The interests at stake involve every purchaser of petrochemicals and the entireAmerican citizenry because the plaintiffs are essentially alleging a massivefraud on the political system resulting in the failure of environmental regulatorsto impose proper costs on the defendants. Cf. In re Multidistrict Vehicle AirPollution M.D.L. No. 31, 481 F.2d 122, 130 (9th Cir. 1973) (“Insofar as thecommon weal was injured the federal government was the proper party to seekredress . . . . 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; werefuse to entertain the second set of claims based on the prudential standingdoctrine.II.Since the plaintiffs have standing to bring their nuisance, trespass, andnegligence claims, we must determine whether any of those claims present anonjusticiable political question, as the district court believed they did. Becausethose claims do not present any specific question that is exclusively committedby law to the discretion of the legislative or executive branch, we hold that theyare justiciable.No. 07-6075618To begin with, it is useful to define the terms “justiciability” and “politicalquestion.” A question, issue, case or controversy is “justiciable” when it isconstitutionally capable of being decided by a federal court. Conversely, aquestion, etc., is “nonjusticiable” when it is not constitutionally capable of beingjudicially decided. Under the separation of powers of the Constitution and theSupreme Court’s cases, a question or subject matter that is committed by theConstitution, or by constitutional federal laws or regulations, exclusively toCongress or the president is not capable of being decided by a federal court.Thus, whether a question is constitutionally capable of being decided by afederal court depends ultimately on the separation of powers, other applicableconstitutional provisions, and federal laws or regulations, not upon federaljudges’ capability, intellect, knowledge, expertise or training, nor upon theinherent difficulty, complexity, novelty or esotery of the matter to be resolved.A “nonjusticiable” question is also known as a “political question,” denotingthat it has been constitutionally entrusted exclusively to either or both theexecutive 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 orparty politics, or the political system. A case or question that is “political” onlyin 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 thequestion has not been committed by constitutional means exclusively to theelected or political branches.The questions posed by this case, viz., whether defendants are liable toplaintiffs in damages under Mississippi’s common law torts of nuisance, trespassor negligence, are justiciable because they plainly have not been committed bythe Constitution or federal laws or regulations to Congress or the president.No. 07-6075619There is no federal constitutional or statutory provision making such acommitment, and the defendants do not point to any provision that has sucheffect. The most that the defendants legitimately could argue is that in thefuture Congress may enact laws, or federal agencies may adopt regulations, soas to comprehensively govern greenhouse gas emissions and that such laws orregulations might preempt certain aspects of state common law tort claims.Until Congress, the president, or a federal agency so acts, however, theMississippi common law tort rules questions posed by the present case arejusticiable, not political, because there is no commitment of those issuesexclusively to the political branches of the federal government by theConstitution itself or by federal statutes or regulations.A.Initially, the Supreme Court formulated a narrow but clear politicalquestion or nonjusticiability theory. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief JusticeMarshall stated: “By the Constitution of the United States, the President isinvested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he isto use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his politicalcharacter, and to his own conscience. . . . The subjects are political. They respectthe nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, thedecision 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 toenquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which theyhave a discretion. Questions, in their nature political, or which are by theconstitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in thiscourt.” Id. at 170. In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall contrasted politicalquestions with instances in which individual rights are at stake; the latter,according to the Court, never could be political questions. If there was a claimNo. 07-60756Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 2.6, at 149 n.7 (5th ed. 2007) (“But notice 8the effect of Marbury’s classification: Standing is just the obverse of political questions. If alitigant claims that an individual right has been invaded, the lawsuit by definition does notinvolve 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 9brought under the republican form of government clause even though the effect was to leavepeople in jail who contested the constitutionality of their conviction).20of an infringement of an individual right — in other words, if the plaintiff hadstanding — there was not a political question under the Marbury formulation.8

After Marbury, however, the Court blurred Chief Justice Marshall’s sharpline between individual rights violations and questions committed to the politicalbranches. The Court held some cases to be committed to the political branchesfor resolution, and therefore nonjusticiable, even though individuals claimedconcrete injuries by specific constitutional violations. The Court’s citation to 9Marbury in those cases, without explaining why Chief Justice Marshall’s theorywas not strictly adhered to, caused confusion.Eventually, in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), in which the Court heldjusticiable an equal protection challenge to the malapportionment of a statelegislature, Justice Brennan attempted to clarify why that alleged constitutionalviolation was justiciable whereas those alleged in other cases had been held tobe nonjusticiable political questions. He confirmed that “it is the relationshipbetween the judiciary and the coordinate branches of the Federal Government,and not the federal judiciary’s relationship with the States, which gives rise tothe ‘political question,’” id. at 210; that the separation of powers is the source ofthe political question doctrine, id. at 210, 217; that the purpose of the doctrineis to prevent judicial interference with the exercise of powers committed to thepolitical branches, see id. at 217; that the doctrine applies only when the federalcourt is required to decide a question that has “been committed by theConstitution to another branch of government,” id. at 211; and that a courtNo. 07-6075621determining such a commitment must “analyze representative cases and . . .infer from them the analytical threads that make up the political questiondoctrine,” id.After a survey of the Court’s cases, Justice Brennan identified thecategories in which the political question doctrine had been discussed: foreignrelations; dates of duration of hostilities; validity of enactments; status of Indiantribes; and republican form of government. From these cases, he derived Bakerv. Carr’s classic, oft-quoted “formulations” setting forth criteria to aid indetermining whether a case would require a federal court to decide a questionthat is committed to a political branch and is therefore nonjusticiable. TheCourt stated:It is apparent that several formulations which vary slightlyaccording to the settings in which the questions arise may describea political question, although each has one or more elements whichidentify it as essentially a function of the separation of powers.Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a politicalquestion is found a textually demonstrable constitutionalcommitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or alack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards forresolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policydetermination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or theimpossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolutionwithout expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches ofgovernment; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to apolitical decision already made; or the potentiality ofembarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various

departments on one question.Unless one of these formulations is inextricable from the caseat bar, there should be no dismissal for non-justiciability on theground of a political question's presence. The doctrine of which wetreat is one of ‘political questions,’ not one of ‘political cases.’ Thecourts cannot reject as ‘no law suit’ a bona fide controversy as towhether some action denominated ‘political’ exceeds constitutionalauthority. The cases we have reviewed show the necessity fordiscriminating inquiry into the precise facts and posture of theNo. 07-60756See Lane v. 10 Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 559 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Although the Bakerformulations provide useful analytical guideposts in our analysis, ‘[w]hether an issue presentsa nonjusticiable political question cannot be determined by a precise formula.’”) (quotingSaldano v. O’Connell, 322 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2003)).22particular case, and the impossibility of resolution by any semanticcataloguing.Id. at 217.Plainly, the Baker v. Carr “formulations” were not written as stand-alonedefinitions of a “political question.” They are open-textured, interpretiveguides to aid federal courts in deciding whether a question is entrusted by the 10Constitution or federal laws exclusively to a federal political branch for itsdecision. The Baker formulations are not self-sufficient definitions, but must beused together with the Constitution and federal laws to decide whether aparticular constitutional or statutory provision commits a question solely to apolitical branch for decision. Consequently, if a party moving to dismiss underthe political question doctrine is unable to identify a constitutional provision orfederal law that arguably commits a material issue in the case exclusively to apolitical branch, the issue is clearly justiciable and the motion should be deniedwithout applying the Baker formulations.In deciding whether a case should be dismissed as a nonjusticiablepolitical question, we must bear in mind the principles that govern thejurisdiction of federal courts: “It is emphatically the province and duty of thejudicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). “[F]ederal courts lack the authority toabstain from the exercise of jurisdiction that has been conferred.” New OrleansPublic 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 Court’sreasoning reflected the principle that when a decision is committed exclusivelyto Congress, as the suspension of habeas corpus is, federal courts must considerNo. 07-6075623the issue nonjusticiable; but when the an issue is not so committed, federalcourts are not free to abstain, and must exercise their jurisdiction if they haveit. See id. at 2262 (“This Court may not impose a de facto suspension byabstaining from these controversies.”). “We have no more right to decline theexercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. Theone 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, 19U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404 (1821). In sum, “[w]hen a Federal court is properlyappealed to in a case over which it has by law jurisdiction, it is its duty to takesuch 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 thathas been conferred,” New Orleans Public Service, 491 U.S. at 358. “Where theConstitution assigns a particular function wholly and indivisibly to anotherdepartment, the federal judiciary does not intervene.” Baker, 369 U.S. at 246(Douglas, J., concurring). “The converse of this proposition is that a federal courtmust not abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction that has been conferred, unlessit has been asked to conclusively resolve a question that is ‘wholly andindivisibly’ 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 thatCongress, and not the Judiciary, defines the scope of federal jurisdiction withinthe constitutionally permissible bounds.” New Orleans Public Service, 491 U.S.at 359. Therefore, the federal courts are not free to invoke the political questiondoctrine to abstain from deciding politically charged cases like this one, but mustexercise their jurisdiction as defined by Congress whenever a question is notexclusively committed to another branch of the federal government.No. 07-60756The Ninth Circuit observed in 1992 that “we have found no Supreme Court or Court 11of Appeals decisions which have dismissed a suit brought against a private party on the basisof the political question doctrine.” Koohi v. United States, 976 F.2d 1328, 1332 n.3 (1992).24Unsurprisingly, federal cases in which subject matter jurisdiction andstanding are properly asserted are rarely dismissed as nonjusticiable pursuantto the political question doctrine. Indeed, since Baker, the Supreme Court hasonly dismissed two cases as presenting nonjusticiable political questions. SeeZivotofsky, 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 assumecontinuing regulatory jurisdiction over the activities of the Ohio National Guard”on the basis of an explicit constitutional textual commitment of that power toCongress and president), and Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)(finding a request to review Senate impeachment proceedings nonjusticiable inlight of the explicit textual constitutional commitment of the impeachmentpower to the Senate)).A federal court’s dismissal of litigation between private citizens based onstate 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 11Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 3534.3, at 806 (3d ed. 2008) (“It seems unlikely that . . . one private citizensuing another . . . call[s] for resolution of a political question. Challenges toofficial action or inaction are the stuff of the separation of powers concerns thatunderlie political question reasoning.”) (citing, as illustration, In reAfrican-American Slave Descendants Litigation, 471 F.3d 754, 758 (7th Cir.

2006) (per Posner, J.) (holding that no political question was presented when theslave descendant plaintiffs carefully cast their diversity suits againstNo. 07-60756See 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 bya coordinate branch of the federal government,” whereas “American courts have resolved suchmatters 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’ 13action is justiciable is the fact that the plaintiffs seek only damages for their injuries. Damageactions 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 andtraining 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), andScheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 247-49 (1974) (allowing such a suit).25corporations for reparations under state common law “as a quest forconventional legal relief”)).12Common-law tort claims are rarely thought to present nonjusticiablepolitical questions. Three Circuits have stated, in the political question context,that “the common law of tort provides clear and well-settled rules on which thedistrict court can easily rely.” McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc., 502 F.3d1331, 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 hassimilarly observed that, “when faced with an ‘ordinary tort suit,’ the textualcommitment factor actually weighs in favor of resolution by the judiciary.” Lanev. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 560 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Klinghoffer, 937 F.2dat 49). And the Tenth Circuit, in a case governed by state negligence law, statedthat “the political question theory . . . do[es] not ordinarily prevent individualtort recoveries.” McKay v. United States, 703 F.2d 464, 470 (1983). Claims fordamages are also considerably less likely to present nonjusticiable politicalquestions, compared with claims for injunctive relief. Indeed, the Fifth Circuitin 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). 13No. 07-6075626Although federal courts may not decide an issue whose resolution iscommitted by the Constitution to the exclusive authority of a political branch ofgovernment, see Baker, 369 U.S. at 217; Gilligan, 413 U.S. at 6-7; Nixon, 506U.S. at 228, a federal court may decide a case that merely implicates a matterwithin the authority of a political branch. For example, Congress alone has theauthority to pass legislation, but the courts have authority to assess theconstitutionality of a statute that has been properly challenged. “[T]he politicalquestion doctrine bars judicial review only when the precise matter to be decidedhas been constitutionally committed to the exclusive authority of a politicalbranch 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, 395U.S. 486, 519-22 (1969) (holding that a claim for review of the House’s refusalto seat an elected representative did not present a nonjusticiable politicalquestion).Further, federal courts may decide whether and to what extent a matteris reserved to the exclusive authority of a political branch. Baker, 369 U.S. at211 (“Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by theConstitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of thatbranch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicateexercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court asultimate interpreter of the Constitution.”); Powell, 395 U.S. at 521 (“[W]hetherthere is a ‘textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to acoordinate political department’ of government and what is the scope of suchcommitment are questions we must resolve . . . .”); Nixon, 506 U.S. at 238(“[C]ourts possess power to review either legislative or executive action thattransgresses identifiable textual limits.”).No. 07-6075627The federal courts must decide matters of statutory construction,constitutional interpretation, and, when applicable, state common law andstatutes, and cannot avoid this responsibility when their decisions may havepolitical implications. Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society,478 U.S. 221, 230 (1986) (“[U]nder the Constitution, one of the Judiciary’scharacteristic roles is to interpret statutes, and we cannot shirk thisresponsibility merely because our decision may have significant politicalovertones.”); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (“Resolution of litigationchallenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches cannot beevaded by courts because the issues have political implications . . . .”).Following the framework laid out in Nixon v. United States, we mustbegin by “interpret[ing] the [constitutional] text in question and determin[ing]whether and to what extent the issue is textually committed” to a politicalbranch. 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 athand and the federal constitutional or statutory “text” asserted to havecommitted that issue exclusively to a political branch. “Only then can we decidewhether that issue has been committed by the Constitution solely to the politicalbranches 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 ofplaintiffs’ Mississippi common law tort claims for damages. There is no federalconstitutional or statutory provision committing any of those issues exclusivelyto a federal political branch. The district court’s adjudication of this case is wellwithin the authority of the federal judiciary. Under the Constitution and federallaws, one of the judiciary’s characteristic roles is to adjudicate diversity casesbased on state law.No. 07-60756See, 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. Itis quite true that the judiciary must ascertain the broad applicable policy, but it does not itselfmake that policy in the specific case. It finds it.”).28Because the defendants have failed to articulate how any material issueis exclusively committed by the Constitution or federal laws to the federalpolitical branches, the application of the Baker formulations is not necessary orproperly useful in this case. Even if applied, the formulations do not make thedefendants’ argument for nonjusticiability any more persuasive. The defendantshave not shown any exclusive textual commitment of the issues in this case toa federal political branch. Nor have they shown the absence of judiciallydiscoverable or manageable standards with which to decide this case.Mississippi and other states’ common law tort rules provide long-establishedstandards for adjudicating the nuisance, trespass and negligence claims at issue.The policy determinations underlying those common law tort rules present noneed for nonjudicial policy determinations to adjudicate this case. Nor would 14the district court’s adjudication of this case express or imply any lack of therespect due coordinate branches of the federal government. Even when a courtfinds that Congress has passed an unconstitutional law, there is no “lack ofrespect” for Congress’s judgment. See United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S.385, 390 (1990). There is no unusual need for unquestioning adherence to afederal political branch decision already made, and no potentiality ofembarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various federaldepartments on one question. For example, this is not a case in which, for thosereasons, federal courts must completely defer to the executive’s recognition of orrefusal to recognize a foreign government.B.No. 07-60756The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed the district court's decision 15in American Electric, holding that the case was justiciable. No. 05-5104-cv, 05-5119-cv(September 21, 2009). Although we arrived at our own decision independently, the SecondCircuit’s reasoning is fully consistent with ours, particularly in its careful analysis of whetherthe case requires the court to address any specific issue that is constitutionally committed toanother branch of government. The reversal of American Electric casts additional doubt onthe persuasiveness of General Motors, whose reasoning drew heavily from that of the districtcourt in American Electric.As the Court’s cases make clear, the historic and traditional function of the federal 16judiciary is not legislation, but adjudication of controversies between adversaries based on29The defendants’ reliance upon the district courts’ decisions in Californiav. 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. 15Those decisions are legally flawed and clearly distinguishable from the presentcase.First, the decisions in both American Electric and General Motors arebased on a serious error of law. In each case, the district court incorrectly readthe Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, Inc. as holding that federal courts in air pollution cases must balance

social and economic interests like a legislative body. They mistook Chevron tostate that:to resolve typical air pollution cases, courts must strike a balance“between interests seeking strict schemes to reduce pollutionrapidly to eliminate its social costs and interests advancing theeconomic concern that strict schemes [will] retard industrialdevelopment 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 DefenseCouncil, 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 anddescribing the balancing of interests in Congress’s legislative process. Chevrondoes not require federal courts to imitate the legislative process. 16No. 07-60756rules furnished by precedent or legislated law. Neither judges nor Congress can assign thecourts a legislative or non-judicial function. Justice Scalia, writing for the plurality in Viethv. Jubelirer, explained the difference between the branches’ traditional roles as follows:“The judicial Power” created by Article III, § 1, of the Constitution is notwhatever judges choose to do, see Valley Forge Christian College v. AmericansUnited 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 Lujanv. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 576-577 (1992); Chicago & Southern AirLines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 110-114 (1948). It is thepower to act in the manner traditional for English and American courts. Oneof the most obvious limitations imposed by that requirement is that judicialaction must be governed by standard, by rule. Laws promulgated by theLegislative Branch can be inconsistent, illogical, and ad hoc; law pronounced bythe 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 17pollution cases” would pose nonjusticiable political questions and would have to be dismissedat the outset.Even if a particular case involves a claim for injunctive or other equitable relief thatthe court finds to be impracticable, a court sitting in equity has the discretion to limit or moldrelief for reasons of practicality. There is no need or authority to invoke the political questiondoctrine 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 WaterPollution Control Act through its training operations near Puerto Rico. See id. at 306-07. TheCourt noted that “a federal judge sitting as chancellor is not mechanically obligated to grantan injunction for every violation of law,” id. at 313, and remanded the case for consideration30From their erroneous premise, the two district courts reasoned in a circle:“In this case, balancing those interests, together with the other interestsinvolved, is impossible without an ‘initial policy determination’ first having beenmade 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; seealso General Motors, 2007 WL 2726871 at *7 (using almost identical language).

Because they took an erroneous reading of Chevron as their premise, theirconclusion as to the nature of the questions presented in the cases before themwas erroneous also. Neither Chevron nor any other Supreme Court decisionrequires federal courts to imitate the functions of legislative or regulatory bodiesin “typical air pollution cases.” 17No. 07-60756of whether the federal courts in their “equitable discretion” should grant an injunction, see id.at 320. Despite the case’s obvious political implications, the Court analyzed it in terms ofequitable discretion, not the political question doctrine. See also Kimberly Breedon, RemedialProblems at the Intersection of the Political Question Doctrine, the Standing Doctrine, and theDoctrine of Equitable Discretion, 34 Ohio N. U. L. Rev. 523, 552-57 (2008) (pointing out thatmany cases that might be thought to implicate the Baker formulation requiring “judiciallymanageable standards” can best be addressed through the exercise of equitable discretion).See Philip Weinberg, “Political Questions”: An Invasive Species Infecting The Courts, 1819 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 155,162-63 (2008). The General Motors court attempted todistinguish the transboundary nuisance cases, 2007 WL 2726871 at *15, but its reasoning onthis point is unpersuasive. The court did not explain why it believed that those cases weresomehow more justiciable rather than less so because they involved injunctive relief ratherthan damages. As discussed above, the Fifth Circuit in Gordon v. Texas found monetarydamages 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 policyissues” implicated by global warming, or the impossibility of attributing pollution to specificexternal sources in the global warming context, would render the political question doctrineapplicable. See 2007 WL 2726871 at *15. Although the worldwide effects of greenhouse gasemissions 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 fordecision.Id. at 496 (distinguishing Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475 (1867) (suit 19to enjoin the president from executing the Reconstruction Acts), and Georgia v. Stanton, 73U.S. (6 Wall.) 50 (1868) (same, but against the Secretary of War and other officials)).31Second, the American Electric and General Motors courts’ application ofthe political question doctrine appears to be at odds with the Supreme Court’sand Congress’s treatment of the analogous issue of transboundary water qualitycontrol. In Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U.S. 493 (1971), the State 18of Ohio sought to enjoin chemical manufacturers in other states and Canadafrom discharging mercury into the tributaries of Lake Erie as a public nuisance.While ultimately declining to hear the suit as an original jurisdiction action, theCourt explicitly distinguished cases in which the political question defense wassustained ; recognized that it had often adjudicated controversies between 19States and between a State and citizens of another State seeking to abate anuisance that exists in one State yet produces noxious consequences inNo. 07-60756Id. (citing Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496 (1906), Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 20206 U.S. 230 (1907), New York v. New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296 (1921), and New Jersey v. NewYork City, 283 U.S. 473 (1931)).Id. 2132

another ; and ruled that “precedent leads almost ineluctably to the conclusion 20that we are empowered to resolve this dispute.”21Moreover, “[t]he courts have long and consistently rejected assertions thatthe enactment of regulatory statutes like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Actpreempt states from public nuisance actions.” Weinberg, supra note 10, at 163n.72. In City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981), the Court held thatthe federal common law of nuisance was preempted by the 1972 amendments tothe Clean Water Act, which comprehensively occupied the field. Id. at 327-32.In doing so, however, the Court noted that the CWA preserved nuisance suitsunder state common law, see id. at 327-29, and stated further that:[T]he appropriate analysis in determining if federal statutory lawgoverns a question previously the subject of federal common law isnot the same as that employed in deciding if federal law pre-emptsstate law. In considering the latter question “‘we start with theassumption that the historic police powers of the States were not tobe superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear andmanifest 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-emptionof state law, whether express or implied, when Congress has soindicated, 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 & AvocadoGrowers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 (1963), our analysis hasincluded “due regard for the presuppositions of our embracingfederal system, including the principle of diffusion of power not asa matter of doctrinaire localism but as a promoter of democracy.”San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 243(1959).No. 07-6075633Id. at 316 (parallel citations omitted). The Clean Air Act and other federallegislation on air quality are much less comprehensive than the CWA, asamended. The defendants here do not contend, and the district courts inAmerican Electric and General Motors did not hold, that any act of Congress haspreempted state law with respect to global warming. Even if Congress doeseventually enact a comprehensive federal law concerning greenhouse gasemissions, it might very well preserve state common law remedies, as the CWAdid. The defendants’ briefs in this case fall far short of showing the “clear andmanifest purpose” of Congress that the Supreme Court in Milwaukee v. Illinoisstated was necessary to overcome the “assumption that the historic policepowers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act[s],” id. Giventhe clear inapplicability of federal preemption in this case, we will not employthe political question doctrine in a way that would amount to a de factopreemption of state law.Third, American Electric and General Motors were not diversity suitsunder 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 broughtby state attorneys general for their state governments based partly on federalcommon law. Unlike the present plaintiffs’ “damages only” state law tort suit,the American Electric suit asked for an injunction explicitly imposing futureemissions standards and allowances, and the General Motors suit pressed for adeclaratory judgment having future effects in addition to damages. Despitethese distinguishing characteristics, American Electric and General Motors didnot genuinely present nonjusticiable political questions, because neither courtcould demonstrate (rather than assume as a false premise) that a specific issuethat had been exclusively committed to a political branch by a federalconstitutional or statutory provision.No. 07-60756Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 246 (1962). 2234We need not decide whether the district courts in American Electric andGeneral Motors properly decided the federal common law questions with whichthey were presented. It suffices to recognize that the initial flaw or false premisein those decisions is essentially the same as that which undermines thedefendants’ argument in this case. Similarly to those district courts, thedefendants here have failed to follow the method laid out by the Supreme Courtin 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 politicalbranch. Id. Like the district courts in American Electric and General Motors,the defendants begin with an assumption they cannot support, viz., that theadjudication of plaintiffs’ claims will require the district court to fix and imposefuture emission standards upon defendants and all other emitters. Then, againin a fashion similar to those district courts, the defendants proclaim that itwould be “impossible” for a court to perform such an obviously legislative orregulatory task so that the case must present a nonjusticiable political question.The defendants have failed to show how any of the issues inherent in theplaintiffs’ nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims have been committed by theConstitution or federal laws “wholly and indivisibly” to a federal political 22branch.CONCLUSIONThe plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to demonstrate standing fortheir public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims. We declineto find standing for the unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and fraudulentNo. 07-6075635misrepresentation claims and DISMISS these claims. We find that theplaintiffs’ remaining claims are justiciable and do not present a politicalquestion. We do not hazard, at this early procedural stage, an Erie guess intowhether these claims actually state all the elements of a claim under Mississippitort law, e.g., whether the alleged chain of causation satisfies the proximatecause requirement under Mississippi state common law; we leave this analysisto 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 thedistrict court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.No. 07-6075636DAVIS, Specially Concurring:I agree with the panel opinion that the plaintiffs in this case have standingto bring their claims. In addition, because there is no clear authority dictatingthat we do not have jurisdiction over this case under the political questiondoctrine, I agree as well with the result the panel reaches on that point.The defendants argued an alternative basis for dismissal to the districtcourt – that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under common law.Specifically, the defendants argued to the district court that the plaintiffs failedto allege facts that could establish that the defendant’s actions were a proximatecause of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. If it were up to me, I would affirm thedistrict court on this alternative ground.I recognize however that the panel has discretion whether to decide thiscase on a ground other than one relied on by the district court and I defer to the

panel’s discretion not to address that argument. With this reservation, I concur.

Petitioner’s Legal Representative:Paul CrowleyP.O. Box 1630Iqaluit, Nunavut X0A 0H0Canada(867) 979-3396pcrowley@nv.sympatico.caDECEMBER 7, 2005PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSSEEKING RELIEF FROM VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBALWARMING CAUSED BY ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF THE UNITED STATESSUBMITTED 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, NunavutHeather Angnatok, Nain, Newfoundland and LabradorEvie Anilniliak, Pangnirtung, NunavutLouis Autut, Chesterfield Inlet, NunavutChristine Baikie, Nain, Newfoundland and LabradorEugene Brower, Barrow, AlaskaRonald Brower, Barrow, AlaskaJohnnie Cookie, Umiujaq, QuebecSappa Fleming, Kuujjuarapik, QuébecLizzie Gordon, Kuujjuaq, QuébecSandy Gordon, Kuujjuaq, QuébecDavid Haogak, Sachs Harbour, Northwest TerritoriesEdith Haogak, Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories

Julius Ikkusek, Nain, Newfoundland and LabradorLucas Ittulak, Nain, Newfoundland and LabradorSarah Ittulak, Nain, Newfoundland and LabradorWillie Jooktoo, Kuujjuarapik, QuébecMina Jooktoo, Kuujjuarapik, QuébecIrving Kava, Savoonga, AlaskaJohn Keogak, Sachs Harbour, Northwest TerritoriesDavid Koneak, Kuujjuaq, QuébecGeorge Koneak, Kuujjuaq, QuebecBen Kovic, Iqaluit, NunavutFrank Kudlak, Sachs Harbour, Northwest TerritoriesNora Kuzuguk, Shishmaref, AlaskaJohn Lucas, Sachs Harbour, Northwest TerritoriesSamantha Lucas, Sachs Harbour, Northwest TerritoriesPauloosie Lucassie, Iqaluit, NunavutTrevor Lucas, Sachs Harbour, Northwest TerritoriesTony Manernaluk, Rankin Inlet, NunavutJack Maniapik, Mayor, Pangnirtung, NunavutRosemund Martin, Savoonga, AlaskaWarren Matumeak, Barrow, AlaskaJamesie Mike, Pangnirtung, NunavutMeeka Mike, Iqaluit, NunavutRoy Nageak, Barrow, AlaskaAnnie Napayok, Whale Cove, NunavutEnosilk Nashalik, Pangnirtung, NunavutSimon Nattaq, Iqaluit, NunavutHerbert Nayokpuk, Shishmaref, AlaskaGeorge Noongwook, Savoonga, AlaskaPeter Paneak, Clyde River, NunavutUqallak Panikpak, Clyde River, NunavutJoanasie Qappik, Pangnirtung, NunavutApak Qaqqasiq, Clyde River, NunavutJames Qillaq, Clyde River, Nunavut,Paul Rookok, Savoonga, AlaskaJoshua Sala, Umiujaq, QuébecAkittiq Sanguya, Clyde River, NunavutJohn Sinnok, Shishmaref, AlaskaJerome Tattuinee, Rankin Inlet, NunavutStanley Tocktoo, Shishmaref, AlaskaRobbie Tookalak, Umiujaq, QuébecKenneth Toovak, Barrow, AlaskaAlec Tuckatuck, Kuujjuarapik, QuébecClara Tumic, Umiujaq, QuébecIsaac Tumic, Umiujaq, QuébecSheila Watt-Cloutier, Iqaluit, NunavutMoses Weetaltuk, Kuujjuarapik, QuébecStephen Weyiouanna, Shishmaref, AlaskaGeddes Wolki, Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories

Lena Wolki, Sachs Harbour Northwest TerritoriesJerry Wongitillin, Savoonga, Alaska

PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005iCONTENTSPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS SEEKINGRELIEF FROM VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BYACTS AND OMISSIONS OF THE UNITED STATESI. SUMMARY OF THE PETITION …..1II. JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION…..9III. PETITIONER AND INDIVIDUALSWHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED…..9A. PETITIONER…..9B. INDIVIDUALS WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED…..10IV. FACTS: GLOBAL WARMING IS HARMING EVERY ASPECT OF INUIT LIFEAND CULTURE…..13A. THE LIFE AND CULTURE OF THE INUIT ARE COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON THE ARCTICENVIRONMENT…..131. HISTORY OF THE INUIT…..132. INUIT CULTURE TODAY…..15a. Hunting and gathering…..15b. Inuit economy…..16c. Social and cultural conditions and practices…..17i. Living on the land.....17ii. Sharing the hunt…..18d. Inuit traditional knowledge regarding climate…..19B. GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED BY HUMAN EMISSIONS OFGREENHOUSE GASES ARE DAMAGING THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT…..201. GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE RISING AND THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING…..21a. Global Temperature Trends…..21b. Key Indicators Confirm that the Earth Is Warming…..23i. Melting sea ice…..23ii. Thawing permafrost…..24iii. Sea-level rise…..25iv. Melting ice sheets and glaciers…..25v. Alterations in species and habitat…..262. GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY…..27a. The Greenhouse Effect…..28PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005iib. IPCC Third Assessment Report…..29c. Scientific Studies…..30

d. Statements by U.S. Scientific Organizations…..30e. Research and Reports by the U.S. Government…..30i. Report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (2001)…..31ii. Report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences …..31iii. U.S. State Department Report to the UNFCCC…..32iv. Report to the U.S. Interagency Climate Change Science Program…..323. GLOBAL WARMING IS MOST SEVERE IN THE ARCTIC…..33C. GLOBAL WARMING HARMS EVERY ASPECT OF INUIT LIFE AND CULTURE…..351. GLOBAL WARMING IS DESTROYING THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT…..35a. Global Warming has already altered the Arctic…..35b. Global Warming will continue to damage the Arctic environment in thefuture.....382. CHANGES IN ICE AND SNOW CONDITIONS HAVE HARMED THE INUIT’S SUBSISTENCEHARVEST, TRAVEL, SAFETY, HEALTH AND EDUCATION, AND HAVE PERMANENTLYDAMAGED INUIT CULTURE…..39a. Deteriorating ice and snow conditions have diminished the Inuit’s ability to travelin safety and comfort, damaging their health, safety, subsistence harvest, andculture…..39b. Changes in ice and snow have affected animals on which the Inuit rely, damagingtheir subsistence harvest, safety, and health…..45c. Deteriorating ice and snow conditions have undermined the Inuit’s traditional wayof life…..483. THAWING PERMAFROST HAS CAUSED LANDSLIDES AND SLUMPING, AND COMPLICATEDFOOD STORAGE, HARMING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, CULTURE AND PROPERTY OF THEINUIT…..494. COASTAL EROSION, STORM SURGES AND FLOODING ARE THREATENING INUIT HOMES,CAMPS, COMMUNITIES, AND CULTURAL SITES, JEOPARDIZING THEIR PROPERTY, ANDCULTURE…..515. CHANGING SPECIES DISTRIBUTION HAS HARMED THE NUTRITION, HEALTH ANDSUBSISTENCE HARVEST OF THE INUIT…..546. INCREASINGLY UNPREDICTABLE WEATHER IN THE ARCTIC HAS DIMINISHED THE INUIT’SABILITY TO FORECAST THE WEATHER ACCURATELY, CREATING PROBLEMS FORHARVESTERS AND TRAVELERS, AND HARMING INUIT CULTURE…..56a. Travel and subsistence harvest have become more dangerous and difficult becauseof the unpredictable weather…..56b. The increasingly unpredictable weather has also harmed Inuit culture…..587. INCREASED TEMPERATURES HAVE LED TO AN INCREASE IN HEAT-RELATED HEALTHPROBLEMS, AND HAVE IMPEDED THE HARVEST AND PROCESSING OF ESSENTIAL FOOD ANDHIDES…..598. THE COMBINED IMPACTS OF CHANGES IN ICE, LAND, SNOW, AND WEATHERCONDITIONS ARE FURTHER JEOPARDIZING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, TRAVEL, PROPERTY,HARVEST, AND CULTURE OF THE INUIT…..61PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005iiia. The health and safety impacts stemming from the combination of changing

conditions include decreased drinking water quality and quantity, changes in theInuit’s diet, illness resulting from increased pest populations, and damage to overallmental health…..61b. Travel, subsistence, and culture have been damaged as a result of the combinationof changes…..64D. THE UNITED STATES IS THE WORLD’S LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMINGAND ITS DAMAGING EFFECTS ON THE INUIT…..681. HISTORICAL EMISSIONS OF CO2.....682. CONTRIBUTION TO TEMPERATURE INCREASE…..683. CURRENT EMISSIONS…..694. PER CAPITA EMISSIONS…..69V. VIOLATIONS: THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING CONSTITUTEVIOLATIONS OF INUIT HUMAN RIGHTS, FOR WHICH THE UNITED STATES ISRESPONSIBLE…..70A. THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN THECONTEXT OF INDIGENOUS CULTURE AND HISTORY, WHICH REQUIRES PROTECTION OFTHEIR LAND AND ENVIRONMENT…..701. “[E]NSURING THE FULL AND EFFECTIVE ENJOYMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS BY INDIGENOUSPEOPLES REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF THEIR PARTICULAR HISTORICAL, CULTURAL, SOCIALAND ECONOMIC SITUATION AND EXPERIENCE”…..702. BECAUSE OF THEIR CLOSE TIES TO THE LAND AND THE ENVIRONMENT, PROTECTION OFTHE INUIT’S HUMAN RIGHTS NECESSARILY REQUIRES PROTECTION OF THE ARCTICENVIRONMENT…..72B. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE INUIT HUMAN RIGHTS…..741. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHT TO ENJOY THEBENEFITS OF THEIR CULTURE…..74a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuit’s right to the benefits ofculture…..74b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to enjoy the benefits of theirculture…..762. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHT TO USE AND ENJOYTHE LANDS THEY HAVE TRADITIONALLY USED AND OCCUPIED…..79a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuit’s right to use and enjoy the landsthey have traditionally occupied…..79b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to use and enjoy the landsthey have traditionally occupied…..813. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHT TO USE AND ENJOYTHEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY…..83a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuit’s right to use and enjoy theirpersonal and intellectual property…..83PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005ivb. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to use and enjoy theirpersonal and intellectual property…..844. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHT TO THE

PRESERVATION OF HEALTH …..85a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuit the right to the preservation ofhealth…..85b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to the preservation ofhealth…..875. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHT TO LIFE, PHYSICALINTEGRITY AND SECURITY…..89a. The American Declaration protects the Inuit’s right to life, physical protection andsecurity…..89b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to life, physical protectionand security…..906. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHT TO THEIR OWNMEANS OF SUBSISTENCE…..92a. The American Declaration protects the Inuit’s right to their own means ofsubsistence…..92b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to their own means ofsubsistence…..937. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHTS TO RESIDENCE ANDMOVEMENT AND INVIOLABILITY OF THE HOME…..94a. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuit’s right to residence and movementand inviolability of the home…..94b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to residence and movementand inviolability of the home…..95C. THE AMERICAN DECLARATION SHOULD BE APPLIED IN THE CONTEXT OF RELEVANTINTERNATIONAL NORMS AND PRINCIPLES…..961. THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS BEARS ON INTERPRETATION OF THEAMERICAN DECLARATION…..962. DEVELOPMENTS IN OTHER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEMS SHOULD BETAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE AMERICANDECLARATION…..963. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL NORMS AND PRINCIPLES ARE RELEVANT TO THEINTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE AMERICAN DECLARATION…..97a. The United States is violating its obligations under the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol…..97b. The United States is violating its obligation to avoid transboundary harm and torespect the principle of sustainable development…..99c. The United States is violating its obligation to act with precaution…..1014. THE UNITED STATES HAS A DUTY TO REMEDY BREACHES OF ITS INTERNATIONALOBLIGATIONS…..102PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005vD. BY ITS ACTS AND OMISSIONS, THE UNITED STATES VIOLATES THE HUMAN RIGHTS OFTHE INUIT…..1031. THE UNITED STATES IS THE WORLD’S LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMINGAND ITS DAMAGING EFFECTS ON THE INUIT…..103

2. U.S. CLIMATE POLICY DOES NOT REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS…..103a. U.S. climate policy…..103b. U.S. climate policy is not effective…..105i. Misleading and ineffective targets…..105ii. No mandatory controls…..106iii. U.S. research cannot ensure adequate reductions…..106c. Indirect regulation…..107i. Power Plants…..107ii. Vehicles…..107d. State and Local Measures are not enough.....1083. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS OBSCURED CLIMATE SCIENCE, MISLEADING BOTH THEPUBLIC AND INDUSTRY AS TO THE SCALE AND URGENCY OF THE PROBLEM OF GLOBALWARMING …..1094. THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TOREDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS…..110VI. EXCEPTION TO EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES…..111A. U.S. LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE OR EFFECTIVE PROTECTION AGAINST THEHUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS SUFFERED BY THE INUIT…..1121. THE RIGHT TO LIFE…..1122. THE RIGHT TO RESIDENCE AND MOVEMENT…..1133. THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY…..1134. THE RIGHT TO INVIOLABILITY OF THE HOME….. 1145. THE RIGHTS TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF CULTURE, TO HEALTH AND TO MEANS OFSUBSISTENCE …..114B. U.S. LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE OR EFFECTIVE REMEDIES FOR THE HARMSTHAT HAVE CAUSED THE VIOLATIONS SUFFERED BY THE INUIT…..1141. U.S. TORT LAWS…..1142. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS…..115VII. TIMELINESS…..116VIII. ABSENCE OF PARALLEL INTERNATIONAL PROCEEDINGS…..117IX. REQUEST FOR RELIEF…..118X. VERIFICATION, SIGNATURE AND DESIGNATION OF ATTORNEYS…..119PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005viPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSSEEKING RELIEF FROM VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF THE UNITED STATESI. SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONIn this petition, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Inuk woman and Chair of the Inuit CircumpolarConference, requests the assistance of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights inobtaining relief from human rights violations resulting from the impacts of global warming andclimate change caused by acts and omissions of the United States. Ms. Watt-Cloutier submitsthis petition on behalf of herself, 62 other named individuals, and all Inuit of the arctic regions ofthe United States of America and Canada who have been affected by the impacts of climatechange described in this petition.

Global warming refers to an average increase in the Earth’s temperature, causing changesin climate that lead to a wide range of adverse impacts on plants, wildlife, and humans. There isbroad scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the increase in concentrations ofgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere as a result of human activity. The United States is, by anymeasure, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and thus bears the greatestresponsibility among nations for causing global warming.The Inuit, meaning “the people” in their native Inuktitut, are a linguistic and cultural groupdescended from the Thule people whose traditional range spans four countries – Chukotka in theFederation of Russia, northern and western Alaska in the United States, northern Canada, andGreenland. While there are local characteristics and differences within the broad ethnic categoryof “Inuit,” all Inuit share a common culture characterized by dependence on subsistenceharvesting in both the terrestrial and marine environments, sharing of food, travel on snow andice, 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 manywestern innovations, and have adopted a mixed subsistence- and cash-based economy. Althoughmany Inuit are engaged in wage employment, the Inuit continue to depend heavily on thesubsistence harvest for food. Traditional “country food” is far more nutritious than imported“store-bought” food. Subsistence harvesting also provides spiritual and cultural affirmation, andis crucial for passing skills, knowledge and values from one generation to the next, thus ensuringcultural continuity and vibrancy.Like many indigenous peoples, the Inuit are the product of the physical environment inwhich they live. The Inuit have fine-tuned tools, techniques and knowledge over thousands ofyears to adapt to the arctic environment. They have developed an intimate relationship with theirsurroundings, using their understanding of the arctic environment to develop a complex culturethat has enabled them to thrive on scarce resources. The culture, economy and identity of theInuit 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 2004PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 20052Arctic Climate Impact Assessment – a comprehensive international evaluation of arctic climatechange 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 itsimpacts. The Arctic is now experiencing some of the most rapid and severe climatechange on Earth. Over the next 100 years, climate change is expected to accelerate,contributing to major physical, ecological, social, and economic changes, many of whichhave already begun.Because annual average arctic temperatures are increasing more than twice as fast astemperatures in the rest of the world, climate change has already caused severe impacts in theArctic, 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 atan alarming rate, causing slumping, landslides, and severe erosion in some coastal areas. Inuitobservations and scientific studies consistently document these changes. For the last 15 to 20years, 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 suddenthaws. Sea ice is a critical resource for the Inuit, who use it to travel to hunting and harvestinglocations, 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, moredifficult or, at times, impossible. In many regions, traditional knowledge regarding the safety ofthe sea ice has become unreliable. As a result, more hunters and other travelers are fallingthrough the sea ice into the frigid water below. The shorter season for safe sea ice travel has alsomade some hunting and harvest activities impossible, and curtailed others. For the Inuit, thedeterioration in sea ice conditions has made travel, harvest, and everyday life more difficult anddangerous.The quality, quantity and timing of snowfall have also changed. Snow generally fallslater in the year, and the average snow cover over the region has decreased ten percent over thelast three decades. The spring thaw comes earlier and is more sudden than in the past. As withdecreased 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 travelersto rely on tents, which are less safe, much colder and more cumbersome than igloos. The lack ofigloo-quality snow can be life threatening for travelers stranded by unforeseen storms or otheremergencies. These changes have also contributed to the loss of traditional igloo buildingknowledge, an important component of Inuit culture.Permafrost, which holds together unstable underground gravel and inhibits waterdrainage, is melting at an alarming rate, causing slumping, landslides, severe erosion and loss ofground moisture, wetlands and lakes. The loss of sea ice, which dampens the impact of stormsPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 20053on coastal areas, has resulted in increasingly violent storms hitting the coastline, exacerbatingerosion 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 onsome coastal communities, particularly in Alaska and the Canadian Beaufort Sea region.Erosion, storms, flooding and slumping harm homes, infrastructure, and communities, and havedamaged Inuit property, forcing relocation in some cases and requiring many communities todevelop relocation contingency plans. In addition, these impacts have contributed to decreasedwater 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 temperaturehave led to sudden spring thaws that release unusually large amounts of water, flooding riversand eroding their streambeds. Yet, after spring floods, rivers and lakes are left with unusuallylow 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 fishstocks upon which Inuit rely are profoundly affected by changing water levels. Fish sometimescan not reach their spawning grounds, their eggs are exposed or washed ashore, or northwardmoving species compete with the native stocks for ecological niches.The weather has become increasingly unpredictable. In the past, Inuit elders couldaccurately 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 windincreasingly erratic and less useful for predicting weather. Accurate forecasting is crucial toplanning safe travel and hunting. The inability to forecast has resulted in hunters being strandedby sudden storms, trip cancellations, and increased anxiety about formerly commonplaceactivities.Observers have also noted changes in the location, characteristics, number, and health ofplant 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 tonew locations, exacerbating the travel problems resulting from climate change. Still otherscannot complete their annual migrations because the ice they travel on no longer exists, orbecause they cannot cross rivers swollen by sudden floods. More frequent autumn freeze-thawcycles have created layers of solid ice under the snow that makes winter foraging more difficultfor some game animals, including caribou, decreasing their numbers and health. These impactson animals have impaired the Inuit’s ability to subsist.Increased temperatures and sun intensity have heightened the risk of previously rarehealth problems such as sunburn, skin cancer, cataracts, immune system disorders and heatrelatedhealth problems. Warmer weather has increased the mortality and decreased the health ofPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 20054some harvested species, impacting important sources of protein for the Inuit. Traditionalmethods of food and hide storage and preservation are less safe because of increased daytimetemperatures and melting permafrost.The current impacts in the Arctic of climate change are severe, but projected impacts areexpected to be much worse. Using moderate – not worst case – greenhouse gas emissionscenarios, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment finds that:• “Increasing global concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases due tohuman activities, primarily fossil fuel burning, are projected to contribute to additionalarctic warming of about 4-7°C, about twice the global average rise, over the next 100years.”• “Increasing precipitation, shorter and warmer winters, and substantial decreases in snowand ice cover are among the projected changes that are very likely to persist forcenturies.”• “Unexpected and even larger shifts and fluctuations in climate are also possible.”• “Reductions in sea ice will drastically shrink marine habitat for polar bears, iceinhabitingseals, and some seabirds, pushing some species toward extinction.”• “Caribou/reindeer and other animals on land are likely to be increasingly stressed asclimate warming alters their access to food sources, breeding grounds, and historicmigration routes.”• “Species ranges are projected to shift northward on both land and sea, bringing newspecies into the Arctic while severely limiting some species currently present.”• “As new species move in, animal diseases that can be transmitted to humans, such asWest Nile Virus, are likely to pose increasing health risks.”

• “Severe coastal erosion will be a growing problem as rising sea level and a reduction insea ice allow higher waves and storm surges to reach shore.”• “Along some Arctic coastlines, thawing permafrost weakens coastal lands, adding to theirvulnerability.”• “The risk of flooding in coastal wetlands is projected to increase, with impacts on societyand natural ecosystems.”• “In some cases, communities and industrial facilities in coastal zones are alreadythreatened 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 localeconomy, but also as the basis for cultural and social identity.”• “Changes in species’ ranges and availability, access to these species, a perceivedreduction in weather predictability, and travel safety in changing ice and weatherconditions present serious challenges to human health and food security, and possiblyeven the survival of many cultures.”Noting the particular impact these changes will have on the Inuit, the ACIA states: “ForInuit, warming is likely to disrupt or even destroy their hunting and food sharing culture asPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 20055reduced 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 inthis case. Most directly, the United States is obligated by its membership in the Organization ofAmerican States and its acceptance of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Manto protect the rights of the Inuit described above. Other international human rights instrumentsgive meaning to the United States’ obligations under the Declaration. For example, as a party tothe International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), the United States is boundby 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 ofthat agreement.The United States also has international environmental law obligations that are relevantto this petition. For instance, the United States also has an obligation to ensure that activitieswithin 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 hascommitted to developing and implementing policies aimed at returning its greenhouse gasemissions to 1990 levels. All of these international obligations are relevant to the application ofthe 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 ofinternational human rights law … and with due regard to other relevant rules of international lawapplicable to [OAS] member states.”The impacts of climate change, caused by acts and omissions by the United States,violate the Inuit’s fundamental human rights protected by the American Declaration of theRights and Duties of Man and other international instruments. These include their rights to thebenefits of culture, to property, to the preservation of health, life, physical integrity, security, anda means of subsistence, and to residence, movement, and inviolability of the home.

Because Inuit culture is inseparable from the condition of their physical surroundings, thewidespread environmental upheaval resulting from climate change violates the Inuit’s right topractice and enjoy the benefits of their culture. The subsistence culture central to Inuit culturalidentity has been damaged by climate change, and may cease to exist if action is not taken by theUnited States in concert with the community of nationsThe Inuit’s fundamental right to use and enjoy their traditional lands is violated as aresult of the impacts of climate change because large tracks of Inuit traditional lands arefundamentally changing, and still other areas are becoming inaccessible. Summer sea ice, acritical extension of traditional Inuit land, is literally ceasing to exist. Winter sea ice is thinnerand unsafe in some areas. Slumping, erosion, landslides, drainage, and more violent sea stormshave destroyed coastal land, wetlands, and lakes, and have detrimentally changed thecharacteristics of the landscape upon which the Inuit depend. The inability to travel to landsPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 20056traditionally used for subsistence and the reduced harvest have diminished the value of theInuit’s right of access to these lands.The Inuit’s fundamental right to enjoy their personal property is violated because climatechange has reduced the value of the Inuit’s personal effects, decreasing the quality of food andhides, and damaging snowmobiles, dog sleds and other tools. Their right to cultural intellectualproperty is also violated, because much of the Inuit’s traditional knowledge, a formerly pricelessasset, has become frequently unreliable or inaccurate as a result of climate change.The Inuit’s fundamental rights to health and life are violated as climate changeexacerbates pressure on the Inuit to change their diet, which for millennia has consisted of wildmeat and a few wild plants. Climate change is accelerating a transition by Inuit to a morewestern store-bought diet with all of its inherent health problems. Life-threatening accidents areincreasing because of rapid changes to ice, snow, and land. Traditional food preservationmethods are becoming difficult to practice safely. Natural sources of drinking water aredisappearing and diminishing in quality. Increased risks of previously rare heat and sun relatedillnesses also implicate the right to health and life.The Inuit’s fundamental rights to residence and movement, and inviolability of the homeare likewise violated as a result of the impacts of climate change because the physical integrity ofInuit homes is threatened. Most Inuit settlements are located in coastal areas, where stormsurges, permafrost melt, and erosion are destroying certain coastal Inuit homes and communities.In inland areas, slumping and landslides threaten Inuit homes and infrastructure.The Inuit’s fundamental right to their own means of subsistence has also been violated asa result of the impacts of climate change. The travel problems, lack of wildlife, and diminishedquality of harvested game resulting from climate change have deprived the Inuit of the ability torely on the harvest for year-round sustenance. Traditional Inuit knowledge, passed from Inuitelders in their role as keepers of the Inuit culture, is also becoming outdated because of therapidly changing environment.The United States of America, currently the largest contributor to greenhouse emissionsin the world, has nevertheless repeatedly declined to take steps to regulate and reduce itsemissions of the gases responsible for climate change. As a result of well-documented increasesin atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is beyond dispute that most of the observedchange 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 everymajor US scientific body with expertise on the subject. Even the Government of the UnitedStates has accepted this conclusion.However, and notwithstanding its ratification of the UN Framework Convention onClimate Change, United States has explicitly rejected international overtures and compromises,including the Kyoto Protocol to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, aimed atsecuring agreement to curtail destructive greenhouse gas emissions. With full knowledge thatPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 20057this course of action is radically transforming the arctic environment upon which the Inuitdepend for their cultural survival, the United States has persisted in permitting the unregulatedemission 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 isthe responsibility of the United States, as the largest source of greenhouse gases, to takeimmediate and effective action to protect the rights of the Inuit.Because this petition raises violations of the American Declaration of the Rights andDuties of Man by the United States of American, the Inter-American Commission on HumanRights has jurisdiction to receive and consider it. The petition is timely because the acts andomissions of the United States that form the basis for the petition are ongoing, and the humanrights violations they are causing is increasing. Because there are no domestic remedies suitableto address the violations, the requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted does not apply inthis case.The violations detailed in the petition can be remedied. As such, the Petitionerrespectfully requests that the Commission:1. Make an onsite visit to investigate and confirm the harms suffered by the namedindividuals 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 theUnited States of America is internationally responsible for violations of rightsaffirmed in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and in otherinstruments of international law, and recommending that the United States:a. Adopt mandatory measures to limit its emissions of greenhouse gases andcooperate in efforts of the community of nations – as expressed, for example,in activities relating to the United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange – to limit such emissions at the global level;b. Take into account the impacts of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions on the Arcticand affected Inuit in evaluating and before approving all major governmentactions;c. Establish and implement, in coordination with Petitioner and the affectedInuit, a plan to protect Inuit culture and resources, including, inter alia, theland, water, snow, ice, and plant and animal species used or occupied by thenamed individuals whose rights have been violated and other affected Inuit;PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING

CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 20058and mitigate any harm to these resources caused by US greenhouse gasemissions;d. Establish and implement, in coordination with Petitioner and the affected Inuitcommunities, a plan to provide assistance necessary for Inuit to adapt to theimpacts 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 20059II. JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONThe Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has competence to receive and act onthis petition in accordance with articles 1.2.b, 18, 20.b, and 24 of the Commission’s Statute.III. PETITIONER AND INDIVIDUALSWHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATEDA. PETITIONERThis petition is submitted by Sheila Watt-Cloutier, with the support of the InuitCircumpolar 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 Inuitorganization 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 raisedtraditionally in her early years before attending school in southern Canada. She is a mother oftwo and a grandmother of one. Ms. Watt-Cloutier is an avid berry picker and eats a diet ofcountry food whenever possible. She is particularly concerned that her grandson will not be ableto live the Inuit hunting and food-sharing culture that has sustained Inuit physically andspiritually for generations.The Inuit Circumpolar ConferenceThe Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) was founded in 1977. It is an international nongovernmentorganization representing approximately 150,000 Inuit of Alaska, Canada,Greenland, and Chukotka (Russia). The ICC has an organization in each country that isincorporated in accordance to the laws of the respective country, as well as an internationaloffice, which is the Office of the Chair. The Office of the Chair of ICC is led by Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the elected Chair of ICC.Inuit Circumpolar Conference (Office of the Chair)P.O. Box 20991084 Aeroplex BuildingIqaluit, NUX0A 0H0P: (867) 979-4661F: (867) 979-4662PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 7, 200510B. INDIVIDUALS WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATEDThe individuals whose rights have been violated in this case are the Inuit of the Arcticregions of the United States and Canada whose property, physical well-being and cultural life arebeing adversely affected by the acts and omissions described in this petition. These include thefollowing individuals, all of whom have experienced one or more of the human rights violationsdescribed in this petition. Annex I provides a brief description of each of the named individualswhose rights have been violated.Pitseolak Alainga, P.O. Box 595, Iqaluit, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone: (867) 979-0285.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) 898-9094.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) 929-3642.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) 690-3029.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) 929-3870.Willie Jooktoo, PO Box 345, Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, JOM IGO, Canada. Telephone: (819) 929-3870.Irving Kava, PO Box 102, Savoonga, AK 99769, USA. No telephone.John Keogak, General Delivery, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: 867-690-4003.David Koneak, PO Box 505, Kuujjuaq, Quebec, JOM 1C0, Canada. Telephone: (819) 964-1407.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005

11George 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) 690-4009.Samantha Lucas, PO Box 67, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867) 690-4009.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) 979-3691.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) 645-3184.Rosemund Martin, PO Box 6, Savoonga, AK 99769, USA. No telephone.Warren Matumeak, PO Box 405, Barrow, AK 99723, USA. Telephone: (907) 852-5218.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) 896-9025.Enosilk Nashalik, Pangnirtung, Nunavut, XOA ORO, Canada. No telephone.Simon Nattaq II, PO Box 972, Iqaluit, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone: (867) 979-6015.Herbert Nayokpuk, PO Box 30, Shishmaref, AK 99772, USA. Telephone: (907) 649-3301.George Noongwook, PO Box 81, Savoonga, AK 99769, USA. Telephone: work: (907) 984-6414; home: (907) 984-6231.Peter Paneak, PO Box 56, Clyde River, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone: (867) 924-6135.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) 924-6288.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) 649-8594.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 7, 200512Robbie 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) 331-7095.Isaac Tumic, PO Box 58, Umiujaq, Quebec, JOM IYO, Canada. Telephone: (819) 331-7095.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) 984-6676.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200513IV. FACTS: GLOBAL WARMING IS HARMING INUIT LIFE AND CULTUREA. THE LIFE AND CULTURE OF THE INUIT* DEPEND ON THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTThe Arctic is magnificent. It is not wilderness, for almost every square kilometeris used, known, and named. Inuit hunters travel hundreds of kilometers for seals,walrus, polar bear, whales, and caribou. Our rich and vibrant traditionalknowledge is passed forward from generation to generation.1†1. HISTORY OF THE INUITThe Inuit oral tradition tells of their ancestors, their history, the peoples that came beforethem, and of the origin of their culture. Western archeological evidence also illuminates Inuithistory and culture.When we speak about the origins and history of our culture, we do so froma perspective that is different from that often used by non-Inuit who havestudied our past…. Our past is preserved and explained through the tellingof stories and the passing of information from one generation to the nextthrough what is called the oral tradition. Inuit recognize the importance ofmaintaining 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 pastthrough 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 andour schools that will provide the necessary tools.2Inuit oral tradition and western archeological evidence agree that the Inuit culture hasdeveloped over millennia, incorporating aspects of both the Thule culture and Sivullirmiutculture.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 andcultural family of indigenous people whose common roots come from the Thule (so-named afterthe 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 samepeople or subdivisions thereof include Inupiat, Inupiaq, Yuit, Yuik, and Yu’pik. Althoughlinguistically 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 isconsidered pejorative. “Eskimo,” however, is the name most associated with these variousnorthern peoples in the Western consciousness. It is therefore found in some passages quoted inthis petition.† For the Commission’s convenience, this petition uses the following format. Explanatory notesand comments are provided in footnotes at the bottom of the page. Citations to sourcedocuments and other legal and factual support are provided in endnotes.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200514Aleut, 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 Dorsetpeoples.4 The Sivullirmiut migrated eastward from the north coast of Alaska through Canada toGreenland approximately 5000 years ago.5 These people were successful sea mammal hunters,but did not hunt whales.The classic Thuleculture in Greenland firstdeveloped the tools, weapons,skills, and boats necessary tohunt the large whales in thenorthern seas approximately1000 to 1600 years ago.6 Thisinnovation probablycontributed to the rapidmigration of the Thule peopleand the absorption of theSivullirmiut people. About1000 years ago, the Thulepeople migrated throughout theArctic from Alaska, throughCanada and Greenland, to northern Russia in only a few generations, absorbing the Dorsetculture and becoming the present Inuit culture.7 Inuit now live in four arctic countries and ineight different time zones.8 Across the Russian Federation, Alaska, Canada and Greenland, Inuitshare the same language and cultural practices.The ability to adapt their way of life to changing conditions served the Inuit well in theharsh 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 latesixteenth and early nineteenth centuries, was very limited and had little impact on the Inuit. By1848, however, American whalers had discovered the bowhead whale in the Chukchi Sea, andthe commercial exploitation of the Inuit’s main subsistence food source began in earnest.10 Inthe late nineteenth century, missionaries in Alaska began coercing Inuit to form permanentvillages.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, thestruggle to convert Inuit often caused deep divisions in groups and families that depended oncohesion and co-operation to survive. Ultimately, contact with the first visitors to the Arctic andthe move from traditional camps on the land to settlements caused a decisive loss ofindependence.13Since intensive European contact began, Inuit have tried to adapt to social and economicchange and to reconcile their traditional world view with the values of western society and theeconomic development policies of national governments in the four countries in which theyPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200515reside. Inuit have been very active politically and continue to promote self-determination, selfgovernment,and Inuit ownership, control, and management of areas they use and occupy. Thispolitical movement has resulted in detailed agreements with national governments whichcontinue 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 agreementsdiffer, but all enable the Inuit to design and implementpolicies and programs to promote sustainabledevelopment and, in a very broad sense, to combine thebest of the old with the best of the new. Effectiveimplementation of these agreements is key topromoting Inuit culture, protecting Inuit homelands,and raising the material standard of living of Inuit,many of whom continue to live in conditions akin tothe developing world. Climate change undercuts manyof the rights and benefits that Inuit have secured inthese agreements, and hinders implementation.2. INUIT CULTURE TODAYThe process of the hunt and eating of our country food personifies what itmeans to be Inuit. It is on the land that our values and age-old knowledge arepassed down from generation to generation. Generations—young and old—meet on the land. The wisdom of the land and process of the hunt teachesyoung 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.14a. Hunting and GatheringInuit in different areas harvest whale, seal, caribou, arctic hare, berries, and fish. Theharvest provides needed food for the Inuit, in addition to providing the opportunity to engage inand pass on cultural practices. The Inuit have adopted numerous innovations of moderntechnology 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 andpersonal observation tells Inuit hunters how and where their harvest can be found, to what usesthe harvest can be put, and how to sustainably manage the animal and plant populations.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200516Inuit describe the behavior of animals in where the animals feed, breed, calveor rest, and in terms of their routes of movement from one location to another atdifferent times of the year. Each type of animal has a characteristic pattern ofmovement and these often change from season to the next. Our knowledgetakes into account the relative abundance of various types of animals andchanges in this abundance, but it does not necessarily deal with absolutenumbers. Inuit knowledge is not quantitative in nature, but this does not meanthat it is not precise. In fact, the need to be precise is one of the primaryidentifying elements of our knowledge base.15While harvest methods and technology have changed, the need for this knowledge andskill remains constant. The knowledge and skill passes from one generation to the next, witheach generation adding its own observations to thestore of knowledge and skill. This method ofteaching and learning has made the Inuit verysuccessful harvesters.The harvest provides necessary “countryfood” to the Inuit, in addition to providingopportunities to engage in traditional practicesand teach the next generation. As described in thefollowing section, the harvest is a vital part of theeconomic well being of the Inuit.b. Inuit EconomyThe modern Inuit economy is an interdependent mix of old and new. Cash flow hasenabled Inuit to adapt their culture to changing conditions by purchasing modern equipment thathelps them to hunt more efficiently and safely.16 The harvest in turn complements andsupplements the newer cash-based aspects of the economy and provides Inuit with necessarynutrition, which they would otherwise need to purchase.17[I]t is impossible to discuss our future as part of the larger Canadian fabricwithout giving serious consideration to the role we will play in the next phaseof economic and political development throughout the Canadian North. Wecannot, however, assume that this new role will be developed at the expense ofmore traditional activities which characterize our mixed subsistence basedeconomies that are so vital for the long term economic and social health of ourcommunities.18PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200517The government of Nunavut, Canada, estimates that to replace the annual subsistence

harvest in that territory with a population of approximately thirty thousand people would costover thirty-five million Canadian dollars.19 On the other hand, there is no way to convert thatvast wealth into actual cash that can be used to purchase other goods and services, so theeconomic value of the subsistence harvest may be undervalued or discounted altogether.20 Thevalue of Inuit traditional knowledge and intellectual property has also not yet been quantified orprotected.21 These aspects of the Inuiteconomy, though nearly invisible tothe Western eye, are vital and integralpillars of the Inuit’s standard of living,economy, and way of life.The conundrum of how todevelop the cash economy andimprove the standard of living incommunities without compromisingthe traditional Inuit subsistenceeconomy or culture is a consistenttheme in discussions among Inuitleaders. Sustainable developmentrequires carefully thought out strategies for future development. The traditional subsistenceharvest is sustainable over the long term, and makes up a large part of this developing strategy.c. Social and Cultural Conditions and PracticesThere is no denying that Inuit culture and society are under significant economic,spiritual and psychological strain. Inuit people are navigating immense economic and socialchanges. The rapid change from a way of life that is purely subsistence to a mixed one hasbrought with it upheaval and insecurity in the lives of the Inuit. The culture has yet to fill all ofthe holes that this transformation has created, but Inuit organizations, the government ofNunavut, and the governments of the States in which Inuit live are all working to remedy theseproblems. The traditional culture of living on the land and harvesting continues to play a centralrole in the well-being of Inuit.i. Living on the Land“Despite the considerable changes that have occurred in our society over the past 50years, the relationship between Inuit and the land continues to be a fundamental element of Inuitculture and identity.”22Generations – young and old – meet on the land. The wisdom of the land and process ofthe 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.23PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200518The “land” that Inuit refer to when speaking of living on the land includes not only theground underfoot, but the ice, oceans, lakes, tidal zones, islands, and the total environment.24Depending on where they lived and the time of year, Inuit traditionally lived in tents, whaleboneor 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 permanentmodern style housing. However, many Inuit harvesters spend several months each yeartraveling, harvesting, and “living on the land.”

Inuit remain intimately connected to the land and to the weather. In Greenland, the Inuituse the word “sila” for “weather.”Sila is also used to mean“the elements” or “the air.” Butsila is also the word for“intelligence/consciousness,” or“mind” and is understood to be thefundamental principle underlyingthe natural world. Sila is manifestin each and every person. It is anall-pervading, life-giving force –the natural order, a universalconsciousness, and a breath soul.Sila connects a person with therhythms of the universe,integrating the self with the natural world. As sila links the individual and theenvironment, a person who lacks sila is said to be separated from an essential relationshipwith the environment that is necessary for human well-being.”26ii. Sharing the HuntAn integral part of the Inuit culture is the sharing of the hunt.27 In addition to traditionaland cultural reasons, there are several practical reasons why Inuit share the harvest amongcommunity members. First, the harvest of large mammals requires a cooperative effort that asingle 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 forsharing is also underscored by the risk of an unsuccessful hunt. No single hunter or group ofhunters can be assured of success, so interdependence is necessary to sustain the families of thehunters whose endeavors do not result in success.28More than providing an efficient and practical food distribution system, food sharingprovides less tangible benefits. The bonds that are formed by the sharing of food and laboramong many in the community are central to Inuit culture.29PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200519Across the Arctic, the sharing and distribution of meat and fish is central to daily sociallife and expresses and sustains social relationships.… Harvesting and its associatedprocessing and sharing activities reaffirm fundamental values and attitudes towardsanimals and the environment and provide a moral foundation for continuity betweengenerations…. Complex and precise local rules determine the sharing and distribution ofthe 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, sharingcan only be understood with reference to the sense of social relatedness that people feelthey have with each other and with animals and the environment.30d. Inuit Traditional Knowledge Regarding ClimateThis is a story about knowledge. For the Iñupiat, knowledge means survival onthe ice. Scientists started coming to Barrow, Alaska, in the 1940s, sent by theNavy to study the ice and cold weather. They brought Native guides along for

safety, but they didn’t often rely on Iñupiat knowledge for their studies. Theydidn’t know how.For each side, the knowledge held by the other contains a strong element ofmagic. Arnold Brower Sr. can see the value of a Global Positioning Systemreceiver, for example, but he has yet to master the instrument, much less explainhow it works. He knows how to navigate by the stars. Scientists coming toBarrow could see that Natives could keep them safe, but they didn’t know howthey did it any better than a layman understands the internal workings of a GPSunit.31Inuit elders, after years of careful observation and practice as well as oral tradition passedfrom the previous generation’s observations and practice, have developed a living, adaptablebody of knowledge about their physical surroundings. Called Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, or IQ bythe Inuit, the term “traditional knowledge” (“TK”) or “traditional ecological knowledge”PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200520(“TEK”) describes a worldview that has proven itself reliable time and again.32 Inuit who liveoff the land, travel over precarious ice, and have, until recently, survived solely on what they canfind or make from a sparse environment can attest to the accuracy of IQ. Western scientists nowunderstand that traditional knowledge can describe reality as well as or better than results of thescientific method.Perhaps the most famous and documented demonstration of IQ’s reliability is thebowhead whale count of 1977.33 United States government scientists used commonly acceptedscientific methods to estimate the bowhead whale population, counting individual migratingwhales from one vantage, and using statisticalanalysis to estimate the number that would bemissed from that vantage point. The scientificconclusion was that only 600 to 2000 whaleswere left in the world, and drastic measureswould be needed to save the species; includingcutting off the Iñupiat subsistence whale hunt.The Iñupiat hunters insisted that whalepopulations were much higher, based on theirtraditional knowledge of whale behavior. Thegovernment scientists refused to believe them,so the Iñupiat set about proving their theory, in terms that the government could understand andaccept. The North Slope Borough* hired a scientist to improve the count using the Iñupiatknowledge. Eventually, the improved count showed that traditional knowledge was correct, andmore 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 theInuit 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 TEKcontinuously. An Inuk on the land is ‘like a scientist studying his whole life - every day - neverwriting 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 OFGREENHOUSE GASES ARE DAMAGING THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTOf all the challenges faced by the Inuit in recent decades, global warming is the mostdaunting. As described below, no region on Earth has been hit harder by global warming thanthe Arctic. In a frozen land, where even small changes in the climate can be significant, therapid 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 theUnited States.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200521warming is forcing the Inuit to shoulder the burden of the rest of the world’s development, withno corresponding benefit.Some effects of global warming are obvious to anyone. Rapidly retreating glaciers leavebehind barren rock attesting to their recent coverage of ice. Melting permafrost causes land toslump dramatically, leaving a wave-like cornice and precipice, when the unstable undergroundgravel 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, thatthe 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 weatheris not just warmer in the Arctic, but the entire familiar landscape is metamorphosing into anunknown land.1. GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE RISING AND THE CLIMATE IS CHANGINGExhaustive recent studies of theEarth’s climate and temperature trends all leadto the same conclusion: the Earth is warmingand the climate is changing. Observations ofkey planetary systems – sea ice, permafrost,sea levels, glaciers, and the range and habitatof plants and animals – support thisconclusion. Although there remains somescientific uncertainty with respect to thenature and timing of sub-regional impacts,there is no scientific uncertainty with respectto the buildup of greenhouse gases in theatmosphere as a result of human activities.Nor is there any credible scientific doubtregarding the fundamental premises of this petition: that increased concentrations of greenhousegases in the atmosphere have caused a rapid and persistent warming of the Arctic, and thiswarming has had a highly adverse effect on the lives and culture of the Inuit.a. Global Temperature TrendsIn 1988, the United Nations responded to mounting international concern about the threatof global warming by creating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).* The* Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United NationsEnvironmental Programme, the IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as abasis 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 peerreviewedbody of climate-change scientists in history, composed of the top scientists fromaround the globe, and employs a decision-by-consensus approach.Summer Landscape, Baffin Island, Nunavut, CanadaPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200522U.N. gave this international group of scientists the task of assessing climate change, its potentialimpacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.35 The IPCC’s “assessment reports” are basedon peer-reviewed and published scientific literature.* With increasing certainty, the reportsexpress a scientific consensus that the Earth is warming, increasing the risk of potentiallydevastating consequences.The IPCC’s most recent assessment, entitled the Third Assessment Report (TAR), foundthat the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.6ºC since the late1800s.36 This warming is likely to have been the most significant in the Northern Hemispherefor any century in the past 1,000 years (data for the Southern Hemisphere and the periodpreceding the last millennium is too limited to make such an assessment).37 Therefore, it is “verylikely” (i.e., more than 90% certain) that the 1990s was the warmest decade in the instrumentalrecord, with 1998 as the warmest year.38In 2001, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences prepared a report at the request ofPresident George W. Bush which affirmed the TAR’s findings. The report states that “globalmean surface air temperature warmed between 0.4 and 0.8ºC (0.7 and 1.5ºF) during the 20thcentury.”39 Many U.S. Governmental agencies support this view, including the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Office ofScience and Technology.40 Indeed, a report issued by the U.S. Interagency Climate ChangeScience Program (CCSP) found that recent warming has been even more rapid. Specifically, theCCSP found that during the past 20 years the global annual average surface temperature hasincreased by about 0.2°C per decade, a rate equivalent to 2°C per century.41According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), global temperatures haveincreased since the publication of the TAR. The WMO reports that the ten-year period from1995 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 bodyestablished to provide objective scientific and technical assessments on climate change. S. Exec.Rep. No. 102-55, 102nd Cong., 2d Sess. (1992) (IPCC’s work is “viewed throughout most of theinternational scientific and global diplomatic community as the definitive statement on the stateof-the-knowledge about global climate change.”)PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005231880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000(a) Combined annual global land and sea-surface temperature anomalies from 1861–2004; (b) Combinedannual land and sea-surface temperature anomalies in the northern hemisphere from 1861–2004

Source: WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2004.b. Key Indicators Confirm that the Earth Is WarmingRecently observed changes to natural systems provide additional evidence that globaltemperatures are rising. Key indicators of global warming include: melting sea ice, thawingpermafrost, 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 IceOne of the most dramatic indicators of global warming is the reduction of arctic sea icedue to melting. The ACIA estimates an 8% decrease in the annual average amount of sea ice inthe last 30 years, and notes that the melting trend is further accelerating.44 The highest reductionof sea ice occurs during warm seasons. In fact, the past several decades show an Arctic-widedecrease of 10-15% of the total amount of sea ice during the summer months.45 Specifically, inthe 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.46Sea ice in the Arctic has also grown substantially thinner because of the warmingtemperatures. For example, the ACIA reports a reduction in the average thickness of sea iceranging from 10-15% over the past few decades.47 Similarly, in the central Arctic Ocean, sea icethickness has decreased by up to 40%.48PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005241979 2003Observed September sea-ice coverSource: NASA Goddard Space Flight CenterAs discussed Section II-C(2), the loss of sea ice due to this warming has been devastatingto 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 icethat forms along the western and northern coasts [of Alaska]. Loss of sea iceleaves coasts more vulnerable to waves, storm surges, and erosion. Whencombined with the thawing of permafrost along the coast, loss of sea ice seriouslythreatens coastal Alaska Native villages. Furthermore, loss of sea ice alters thehabitat and accessibility of many of the marine mammals that Alaska Nativesdepend 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.49ii. Thawing PermafrostPermafrost, defined as permanently frozen ground or soil, underlies 20-25% of theNorthern Hemisphere’s land area. Ice that forms during cold seasons accounts for 20-30% of thepermafrost’s volume. Higher temperatures due to warming can cause that ice to melt, makingthe land unstable and leading to collapse of land surfaces. Furthermore, the thawing of arcticpermafrost has deformed roads, railway lines, and airport runways, in addition to fracturing oiland gas pipelines. These fractures resulted in severe spills that have made large tracts of landunusable.50The U.S. Government report on Alaska Native villages, mentioned above, states:Permafrost (permanently frozen subsoil) is found over approximately 80 percentof Alaska.… However, rising temperatures in recent years have led to widespreadthawing of the permafrost, causing serious damage. As permafrost melts, land

slumps and erodes, buildings and runways sink, and bulk fuel tank areas arethreatened.51PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200525Sea erosion and permafrost melting in Shishmaref, AlaskaSource: U.S. General Accounting Officeiii. Sea-level RiseDuring the twentieth century, sea levels have risen at ten times the rate of the past 3,000years.52 Evidence based on both direct observation and climate models shows that thermalexpansion (an increase in water volume caused by warming) is estimated to contribute about 1.0mm/yr to rising sea-levels.53 Moreover, melting glaciers and ice caps contribute to the rising sealevels, adding both mass and volume to the oceans. These observations and models of glaciersand ice caps indicate that they contribute, on average, 0.2 to 0.4 mm/yr to sea levels.54iv. Melting Ice Sheets and GlaciersThroughout the world, ice sheets and glaciers are also receding due to warming. Asurvey of Alaskan glaciers recorded typical decreases in ice-thickness of ten meters over the past40 years.55 In addition, a U.S. Government study based on satellite imaging determined that themargins of Greenland’s ice sheet were decreasing in height at a rate of one meter per year.56 Amore recent study, employing on-the-ground monitors, found rates of decline as high as tenmeters per year.57** Glacier melting is not limited to the Arctic. In fact, Mount Kilimanjaro’s glaciers have recededby over 80% during the past century. Paul V. Desanker, Impact of Climate Change on Life inAfrica, World Wildlife Fund, available at www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/africa_climate.pdf(last visited May 20, 2004). Similarly, Peru’s Yanamarey Glacier has declined by 25% in thePETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200526v. Alterations in Species and HabitatThe habitat and behavior of thousands of plants and animals have been altered by risingtemperatures. Based on 43 studies completed before 2001, the TAR finds that 61% of observedhabitat or species exhibited change.58 For example, inland land and stream environmentsexhibited earlier ice-off and later freeze dates.59 In addition, plant and animal species exhibitedearlier breeding times, shifts in habitat ranges, and changes in density, development, morphology(physical shape), and genetics.60 Alarmingly, up to 25% of the world’s mammals (roughly 1,125species) and 12% of birds (roughly 1,150 species) were found to be at significant risk of globalextinction.61Several other recent studies support these observations. A 2003 study of over 1,473 plantand animal species found that over 80% had altered traits or behaviors in ways that correspondedwith 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.63last 50 years, and Bolivia’s 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 thepast two decades. Id., at 4. In Asia, the glaciers of the Himalayas have been receding for thepast 30 years, however, the loss has accelerated over the past decade. Id.Changes in Arctic glacier volumeSource: Arctic Climate Impact AssessmentPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200527Furthermore, the same study reported that 172 species of plants, birds, butterflies, andamphibians have shifted their spring season events earlier by 2.3 days per decade.64The warming allows some insects to reproduce more quickly. Accelerated reproductionof spruce bark beetles caused over 2.3 million acres of tree mortality on Alaska’s KenaiPeninsula, the largest loss recorded in North America.65 Additionally, outbreaks of otherdefoliating insects in the boreal forest, such as spruce budworm, coneworm, and larch sawfly,have also increased sharply in the past decade.66Rising 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 tomore than 7 million acres per year.67 In fact, a fire in 1996 burned 37,000 acres of forest andpeat, 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. Thesemass die-offs appear to occur whenever sea temperatures exceed summer averages by more than1.0º C for a period of more than a few weeks.68 It is estimated that 16% of the world’s reefbuildingcorals died in 1998, and the frequency and intensity of bleaching is expected to increaseas ocean temperatures rise.692. GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITYA scientific consensus has emerged that global warming is caused by the increase inconcentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as a result of human activity. This isborne out by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), numerousSource: US Global Change Research ProgramPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200528scientific studies, statements by U.S. scientific organizations, and the U.S. Government’s ownresearch.a. The Greenhouse EffectGreenhouse gases are natural and manmade constituents of the atmosphere with theability to trap and retain heat, thereby warming the planet. Greenhouse gases are relativelytranslucent 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 wouldotherwise radiate back to space. This heat trapping characteristic is vital, because it keeps theearth warm enough to sustain life.Source: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyUnder “normal” conditions, naturally-occurring greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide(CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), keep the Earth’s heat budget in balance. With

occasional periodic or episodic fluctuations, the amount of energy retained at the Earth’s surfaceand in its lower stratosphere equals the energy reflected back to space. Thus, the temperature ofthe Earth’s land area and oceans remain generally constant.Since the industrial revolution at the end of the 18th Century, greenhouse gas emissionshave risen inexorably, primarily due to ever-increasing combustion of fossil fuels for energy andindustrial processes. In addition, industry has introduced new, exceedingly powerful greenhousegases to the atmosphere – including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride – thathave exacerbated the problem of global warming. Some of these, notably CFCs and HFCs arePETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200529also ozone-depleting substance regulated by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Depletethe Ozone Layer.70At the beginning of the industrial revolution, the atmospheric concentration of CO2, theprincipal greenhouse gas, was about 280 parts per million (ppm).71 Currently it is about 375ppm, an increase of 34%,72 with most of the increase having occurred after 1950.* Methane, thesecond most abundant greenhouse gas, has increased 150% and nitrous oxide has increased 16%since the pre-industrial era.73Trends in Atmospheric Concentrations and Anthropogenic Emissions of Carbon DioxideSource: US Energy Information Administrationb. IPCC Third Assessment ReportThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change determined that human activities arealtering the makeup of the atmosphere in ways that are very likely causing the Earth to warm andthe global climate to change.74 The Third Assessment Report (TAR) surveys the range ofclimate observations and models, and notes that “[t]here is a wide range of evidence ofqualitative consistencies between observed climate changes and model responses toanthropogenic 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 latterhalf 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 ½ times since 1950.http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BWK2R/$File/wh_trends.pdf.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200530The TAR notes that in the five years between publication of its second and thirdassessment reports, every study published has found that “a significant anthropogeniccontribution is required to account for surface and tropospheric trends over at least the last 30years.”77 Similarly, “all recent studies reject natural forcing and internal variability alone as apossible explanation of recent climate change.”78 Considering all the studies available at thetime of publication, the TAR concludes: “[a]nthropogenic greenhouse gases are likely to havemade a significant and substantial contribution to the warming observed over the second half ofthe 20th century, possibly larger than the total observed warming.”79 (Emphasis added.)

c. Scientific StudiesThe findings of the TAR are supported by numerous scientific studies. For example, arecent survey of peer-reviewed papers demonstrates that there is general agreement within thescientific community that greenhouse gas emissions are causing the Earth to warm. The surveyanalyzed 928 climate change abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and2003. In fact, 75% of these papers explicitly endorsed the view that global warming is caused byhuman activity, evaluated impacts, or proposed mitigation strategies. Although the remaining25% took no position on the cause of global warming; not a single paper disagreed with theconsensus position.80d. Statements by U.S. Scientific OrganizationsMajor scientific organizations in the United States whose members’ expertise bearsdirectly on the matter have issued statements supporting the consensus view.81 The NationalGeographic Society, which is the largest nonprofit scientific and educational institution in theworld, has produced numerous articles, papers, and television documentaries attesting to thedangers of global warming and to the fact that human activities are contributing to the problem.82Moreover, the American Association for the Advancement of Science concluded that theevidence for human modification of climate is undeniable.83 The American MeteorologicalSociety states “there is a broad consensus that greenhouse forcing is responsible for about halfthe warming in global mean temperature in the past century.”84 The American GeophysicalUnion, with a membership of over 41,000 scientists from 130 countries, said “[t]he globalclimate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.”85e. Research and Reports by the U.S. GovernmentAlthough the U.S. Government in many of its public statements has chosen to portray thescience 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 andAtmosphere at the Department of Commerce under the Clinton administration, remarked abouthuman contributions to global warming that “there's no better scientific consensus than this onPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200531have endorsed the scientific consensus that the primary cause of global warming is humanemissions 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 itsconsequences to be released during the Bush administration was entitled Climate ChangeImpacts on the United States. The assessment was prepared by the U.S. Global ChangeResearch Program, and its findings are consistent with the IPCC TAR. It notes that “[l]ong-termobservations confirm that our climate is now changing at a rapid rate. Over the 20th century, theaverage annual US temperature has risen by almost 1ºF (0.6ºC) and precipitation has increasednationally by 5-10%, mostly due to increases in heavy downpours…. The science indicates thatthe warming in the 21st century will be significantly greater than in the 20th century.”86The assessment’s findings with respect to the Alaska are sobering:Recent warming has been accompanied by several decades of thawing indiscontinuous permafrost, which is present in most of central and southernAlaska, causing increased ground subsidence, erosion, landslides, and disruption

and damage to forests, buildings, and infrastructure. Sea ice off the Alaskan coastis retreating (by 14% since 1978) and thinning (by 40% since the 1960s), withwidespread effects on marine ecosystems, coastal climate, human settlements, andsubsistence activities.87Present 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 andother changes. Projected climate changes are likely to intensify these impacts. In thelonger term, projected ecosystem shifts are likely to displace or change the resourcesavailable for subsistence, requiring communities to change their practices or move.88ii. Report by the U.S. National Academy of SciencesIn preparation for international discussions on global warming, the Bush administrationasked a committee of the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council to sum upscience’s current understanding of global climate change in general, in addition to assessing theparticular conclusions of the IPCC’s TAR.* The resulting report, Climate Change Science: Anany issue I know—except 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 ofSciences and National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that providesscientific and technical advice under a congressional charter. The committee was made up of 11PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200532Analysis of Some Key Questions, confirms the IPCC’s findings (“[g]reenhouse gases areaccumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface airtemperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.”).89 and agrees that the IPCC reportaccurately reflects the consensus view of scientists (“[t]he IPCC's conclusion that most of theobserved warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhousegas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on thisissue.”).90iii. U.S. State Department Report to the UNFCCCThe U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) requires industrializedcountries to periodically submit national reports describing actions they have taken to reducegreenhouse 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 reportacknowledges that global warming is due primarily to human activities, concluding that“[g]reenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities,causing global mean surface air temperature and subsurface ocean temperature to rise.”92 Itfurther reports that “warming over the 48 contiguous states amounted to about 0.6ºC (about 1ºF),causing changes ranging from the thawing of permafrost to aggravated coastal erosion resultingfrom melting of sea ice.”93 With regard to the Arctic, the report found that in Alaska “[s]harpwinter and springtime temperature increases are very likely to cause continued melting of sea iceand thawing of permafrost, further disrupting ecosystems, infrastructure, and communities.”94iv. Report by the U.S. Interagency Climate Change Science ProgramOn June 11, 2001, President Bush announced that his administration would establish theU.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 ClimateChange Science Program (CCSP),* which released its first report in August 2004.† The reportconfirmed 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 andother heat-trapping gases are the only likely explanation for global warming over the last threedecades:of the nation's top climate scientists, including seven members of the National Academy ofSciences, 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 TechnologyPolicy, the Council on Environmental Quality, the National Economic Council and the Office ofManagement and Budget. http://www.climatescience.gov/about/default.htm† The report is among those submitted regularly to Congress as a summary of recent and plannedfederal research on shifting global conditions of all sorts. The report is accompanied by a lettersigned by Mr. Bush's secretaries of energy and commerce and his science adviser. Seehttp://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/default.htmPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200533Multiple ensemble simulations of the 20th century climate have been conductedusing climate models that include new and improved estimates of natural andanthropogenic forcing. The simulations show that observed globally averagedsurface air temperatures can be replicated only when both anthropogenic forcings,for example, greenhouse gases, as well as natural forcings such as solar variabilityand volcanic eruptions are included in the model.96Despite the robust findings of the CCSP, the IPCC TAR, and the other major reportsissued on climate change, a small minority still maintains that today’s rising temperatures are theresult of the climate’s natural variations and/or there is insufficient scientific evidence toattribute climate change to anthropogenic causes. This minority view, which is frequentlyfunded by industry interests that oppose restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions,97 has beensuccessful in deflecting attention away from the overwhelming scientific consensus that humancontributions are responsible for the current global warming trend. Based on the reportsdiscussed above, however, it is clear that the debate is over. There is no longer a serioussubstantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climatechange and the science supporting that phenomenon.3. GLOBAL WARMING IS MOST SEVERE IN THE ARCTICClimate models have long predicted that global warming would be most pronounced inthe Arctic.98 In fact, annual arctic temperatures have increased at almost twice the rate as that ofthe 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 theACIA Overview, were presented at the ACIA International Scientific Symposium held inReykjavik, Iceland in November 2004.Climate model simulationsof the Earth’s temperaturevariations compared with

observed changes (1890-1999). The black line showsobserved temperature; theblue line shows meantemperature based onsimulations using naturalforcings only; and the redline shows mean temperaturebased on simulations usingboth natural andanthropogenic forcings.Source: U.S. Climate ChangeScience ProgramPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200534at work: First, melting of arctic snow and ice reveals darker land and ocean surfaces that absorbmore of the sun’s energy, increasing arctic warming.100 This effect is not offset by increasedevaporation, as it is in the tropics.101 Second, the depth of the atmospheric layer in the Arcticthat has to warm in order to cause warming of near-surface air is much shallower than in thetropics, resulting in a larger arctic temperature increase.102 Third, the reduction in sea ice causedby global warming allows the solar heat absorbed by the oceans in the summer to be more easilytransferred to the atmosphere in the winter, making the air temperature warmer than it would beotherwise.103 Finally, alterations in ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns caused by globalwarming allow more heat to be transported to the Arctic, further increasing arctic warming.104The pattern of warming in the Arctic closely mirrors global trends, with a warmingperiod in the 1940s, followed by some cooling through the mid-1960s, and a steep increase inwarming thereafter.105 Since the 1960s, the Arctic has warmed at the rate of 0.4ºC per decade,which is more than twice the global rate.106 The U.S. Government’s own studies agree withthese findings.107Annual average change in near surface land temperaturerelative to the average for 1961-1990 for the region from 60 to 90ºN.Source: Arctic Climate Impact AssessmentPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200535Key Findings of the Arctic Climate Impact AssessmentThe Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a “comprehensivelyresearched, fully referenced and independently reviewed evaluation ofarctic climate change and its impacts[,] … involved an internationaleffort by hundreds of scientists over four years, and also includes thespecial knowledge of indigenous people.” It presents a “moderatescenario,”* using several models to project likely changes and impactsto the arctic environment as a result of climate change. The ACIA’s

key findings are as follows:1. Arctic Climate is now warming rapidly and much largerchanges are projected.2. Arctic warming and its consequences have worldwideimplications.3. Arctic vegetation zones are very likely to shift, causingwide-ranging impacts.4. Animal species’ diversity, ranges, and distribution willchange.5. Many coastal communities and facilities face increasingexposure to storms.6. Reduced sea ice is very likely to increase marine transportand access to resources…. Sovereignty, security and safetyissues, as well as social, cultural, and environmentalconcerns are likely to arise as marine access increases.7. Thawing ground will disrupt transportation, buildings, andother infrastructure.8. Indigenous communities are facing major economic andcultural impacts.9. Elevated ultraviolet radiation levels will affect people,plants, and animals.10. Multiple influences interact to cause impacts to people andecosystems.* The report is careful to note that it is not a worst-case scenario.“Judgments of likelihood… are indicated using a five-tier lexiconconsistent with everyday usage (very unlikely, unlikely, possible,likely, and very likely). Confidence in results is highest at both endsof this scale. A conclusion that an impact ‘will’ result is reserved forsituation where experience and multiple methods of analysis all makeclear that the consequence would follow inevitably from the projectedchange in climate.”(Source: ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at Preface, “How to readthis report,” pp. 10-11.)C. GLOBAL WARMING HARMS INUIT LIFE AND CULTURE1. GLOBAL WARMING IS DESTROYING THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTa. Global Warming has already altered the ArcticAs previously described,Inuit culture has developed overthousands of years in relationshipwith, and in response to, thephysical environment of theArctic.108 The Inuit havedeveloped an intimate relationshipwith their surroundings, using theirunderstanding of the arcticenvironment to develop a culture,including tools, techniques andknowledge, that has enabled them

to subsist and thrive on the scarceresources available.109 All aspectsof the Inuit’s lives depend upontheir culture, and the continuedviability of the culture depends inturn on the Inuit’s reliance on theice, snow, land and weatherconditions in the Arctic.110 Tounderstand the impacts of climatechange on the Inuit, therefore, it isnecessary to understand howclimate change has altered thearctic environment. This sectiondescribes those changes;subsequent sections address howthese changes have affected theInuit.Global warming hasalready visibly transformed theArctic. Inuit observations andscientific studies are consistent indocumenting substantial andlasting alterations in the physicalenvironment of the Arctic due toglobal climate change.111PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200536Although the effects of climate change on weather patterns, temperatures, and the environmentvary somewhat throughout the Arctic, all regions are experiencing disturbing changes, and manyof the effects are constant throughout the region.112 Because the Arctic is especially vulnerableto the effects of global climate change, the “[a]nnual average arctic temperature has increased atalmost twice the rate as that of the rest of the world over the past few decades.”113 The risingtemperature has set in motion an ever-escalating series of changes in the arctic climate andenvironment.114 Some of the more observable changes include deteriorating ice conditions,decreasing quantity and quality of snow, unpredictable and unfamiliar weather, and atransfigured landscape.115Commonly observed ice changes include thinner ice, later freezes, and earlier, moresudden thaws.116 In the past, sea ice and lake ice froze hard enough for safe travel earlier in theyear.117 Now the freeze comes later,118 and once the ice freezes it is generally thinner than in thepast.119 “[A]rctic-wide average thickness [has decreased] ten to fifteen percent … with particularareas showing reductions of up to 40% between the 1960s and late 1990s.”120 Thinner ice meltsearlier and more suddenly in the spring, further shortening winter travel and hunting seasons.121In some areas, the floe edge* is closer to the land than in the past, and the edge is lessstable.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.”123The quality, quantity andtiming of snowfall have changeddramatically due to globalwarming. For example, snow fallslater in the year, and the overallquantity has diminished in mostareas.124 Average snow cover overthe region has decreased tenpercent over the last three decades,and climate-modeling projectionspredict a further loss of another tento twenty percent in comingdecades.125 The snow that does fallis of a different quality.126 The* “The floe edge is a constantly moving and dynamic line that marks the end of fixed fast ice (icethat is anchored to the shore) and the start of the Arctic Ocean…. In the fall as the oceanfreezers, the floe edge moves farther and farther out from land and may eventually completelydisappear once the body of water is frozen completely solid. In the spring, as the ice starts tobreak up, the floe edge recedes and gradually comes closer to land until it eventually disappearscompletely.” GRAHAM DICKSON, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE ARCTIC vol. 1, p. 82 (Mark Nutall, ed.Routledge 2004).PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200537spring thaw comes earlier and is much more sudden than in the past.127 Changing winds anddecreased snowfall embed more particles in the snow;128 the particles hasten the spring melt,contributing to the suddenness of the thaw.129Global warming is also altering land conditions. Permafrost, which holds togetherunstable underground gravel, is melting at an alarming rate,130 causing slumping andlandslides.131 Severe erosion is also increasing dramatically.132 The loss of sea ice that used toprevent the creation of large waves has resulted in increasingly violent sea storms, resulting incoastal erosion.133 The erosion exposes more coastal permafrost to the warmer air, resulting infaster permafrost melt.134 The accelerating loss of ice can only be expected to aggravate thisproblem in the future.The weather of the Arctic has become increasingly unpredictable.135 Inuit elders, whohave long experience in reading the weather, report various changes in weather patterns indifferent areas of the Arctic.136 In the past, elders could accurately predict the weather for thecoming days based on cloud formations and cloud movement, allowing the Inuit to plan forinclement weather and schedule safe travel.137 Now, however, the clouds do not accuratelypredict upcoming weather.138 In some areas, elders used to be able to predict changes in winddirection by the period of calm that preceded them.139 This period of calm no longer necessarilycomes before a shift in wind direction.140 In other areas, good weather can no longer bepredicted by particular changes in wind patterns.141 Shifts in the prevailing wind direction andintensity have added to the unpredictability of the weather.142 Sudden changes in wind directionand speed have rendered traditional weather forecasting methods useless.143

The combination of these changes further alters the arctic environment. Lack ofsnowfall, early thaws, increased erosion, melting permafrost, melting ice caps and changing windconditions have combined to decrease water levels in lakes and rivers.144 In addition, the suddenspring thaw fills rivers with more water at one time than in the past, which erodes the banks andstraightens the river paths.145 Because the water flows more intensely during a shorter period oftime, the water level is unusually low once the spring flood is over.146 Water levels are furtherreduced by the longer warm season and increased temperatures, which evaporate more waterthan in the past.147Observers have also noted changes in the location, characteristics and health of plant andanimal species caused by changes in climate conditions.148 The harder snow pack, lower waterlevels, unusual vegetation, changing seasons and deteriorating ice conditions have altered thequantity, quality, behavior and location of the Inuit’s sources of harvested game.149 New orseldom-seen species are also moving north.150 Certain plants, such as berries, are now smallerand drier, whereas others, including grasses and some trees, are growing larger.151Consequently, some animals have lost body fat, and others have gained fat.152The combination of increased temperatures, more wind in winter and spring, and ashortage of snowfall have caused permanent ice caps, multi-year snow, and glaciers to diminishPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200538or disappear.153 The loss of the highly reflective snow and ice further aggravates the problem ofhigher global temperatures by exposing the darker, more heat-absorbing land below.154b. Global Warming will continue to damage the arctic environment in thefutureUsing conservative projections based on current conditions and likely continuedemissions, scientists have determined that climate change in the Arctic will continue, withdevastating consequences.* Arctic temperatures will probably rise at least another 2.5 degreesCelsius by the middle of this century. By the end of this century, arctic temperatures will haverisen 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 scenariosprepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), designated A2 and B2.Based on these scenarios, the ACIA models project an increase of 2.5°C for the region north of60° N by the mid-21st century. By the end of the 21st century, the models project arctictemperatures to be 5 to 7°C above current temperatures. Descriptions of the two scenarios arefound in the IPCC Working Group I report Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, technicalsummary. The A2 scenario is based on the following assumptions:• Relatively slow demographic transition and relatively slow convergence in regionalfertility patterns.• Relatively slow convergence in inter-regional GDP per capita differences.• Relatively slow end-use and supply-side energy efficiency improvements (compared toother storylines).• Delayed development of renewable energy.• No barriers to the use of nuclear energy. The B2 scenario assumes a more fragmentedpattern of future development, precluding any future strong convergence tendencies.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200539In addition to temperature increases, precipitation is likely to increase, perhaps by asmuch as thirty five percent over current levels by the end of this century. Snow and sea-icecover over the most of the Arctic will decrease dramatically as well. Some models show that thepolar ice cap will be virtually nonexistent by 2100.155 In particular, fall and winter in the Arcticwill become warmer and wetter.156 Moreover, the changes that have already occurred willcontinue to accelerate, along with their impacts on the environment, landscape, and people of theregion.As the preceding discussion demonstrates, global warming is profoundly changing theenvironment in which the Inuit live, and will continue to do so in the absence of clear limits ongreenhouse gas emissions. The following sections will describe in greater detail how thesechanges affect the Inuit.2. CHANGES IN ICE AND SNOW CONDITIONS HAVE HARMED THE INUIT’SSUBSISTENCE HARVEST, TRAVEL, SAFETY, HEALTH AND EDUCATION, AND HAVEPERMANENTLY DAMAGED INUIT CULTUREFor the Inuit, “[i]ce is a supporter of life. It brings the sea animals from the north … andin 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 morecritical to their continued survival as a people, these changes have damaged their subsistenceharvest, the animals they harvest to survive, and their cultural practices.The conservation of arctic wildlife and ecosystems depends in part on maintaining thestrength of the relationship between indigenous peoples, animals, and the environment,and in part on securing the rights of indigenous peoples to continue customary harvestingactivities…. [T]hese activities and relationships appear to be threatened by severe climatechange. The potential impacts of climate change on harvesting wildlife resources are offundamental concern for the social and economic well-being, the health, and the culturalsurvival of indigenous peoples throughout the Arctic, who live within institutional, legal,economic, and political situations that are often quite different from non-indigenousresidents. Furthermore, indigenous peoples rely on different forms of social organizationfor their livelihoods and well-being.158a. Deteriorating ice and snow conditions have diminished the Inuit’s abilityto travel in safety, damaging their health, safety, subsistence harvest, andculture.The deteriorating ice conditions have made travel, harvest, and everyday life moredangerous for the Inuit because the location of unsafe ice is harder to predict.159 In the past, thedangerous areas were those covered with snow or known recurring thin areas, but bare, formerlysafe areas are now thin and dangerous.160 An Inuk woman from Baker Lake, an inland Inuitsettlement in Nunavut, Canada, described the impact of the more dangerous lake ice: “Youknow it is scary because we can no longer depend on … traditional knowledge, where it was safePETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200540to travel on these areas, now we don’t 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 tounsafe much more rapidly, sometimes in a matter of hours.162 New, unexpected, andunpredictable areas of open water now persist through the cold season.163 As an Inuk inPangnirtung, Nunavut, explained,Even areas with little current are not freezing over and they have non-recurringpolynias [areas of open water] all over the place now. This used to only occur atthe areas where there were really strong currents…. [T]hese were known areasof strong currents. These days, even in place where we have no known polynias,there are occurrences now happening all over the area. Near Pangnirtung, weare starting to get polynias where there never used to be one.164As a consequence of these changes, more travelers are falling through the ice into the frigidwater 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 throughthe ice half-way out to that camp. I’ve seen my fellow whalers trying to gowhaling break through the ice, because it’s melting from the bottom, and oursnow machines have fallen through the ice.166In general, the people have less confidence in the safety of ice travel, and are fearful and anxiouswhen traveling.167Thick 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 ofwhale harvesters:You need thick ice for the weight of the whale to bring it up. You need at leastsix feet of solid ice to bring up a whale. When it’s like three, four feet,especially if somebody got a bigger whale, it’s going to keep breaking up. Andthat reflects on the sizes of the whale that we catch, too. More so, we’re tryingto catch smaller whales, which are much easier to pull up on the ice. Thatmeans that we’re getting a smaller share of the whales and with a quota of 22,the smaller the whale, the less [meat] the people get.168Not only are Inuit getting less whale meat because of thinner ice, they are sometimesinjured and killed during whaling activities as a result of the thinner ice. Ronald Brower ofBarrow described several injuries resulting from whales breaking through the ice:So when we’re drilling through, we’re doing at least two layers, now we’re …running our rope through just to try and maintain the tensile strength of the ice sothat it doesn’t break when we pull on the whale. That’s creating a verydangerous condition for us…. We have lost several people in trying to pull thePETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200541whale out of the water. I believe we now have lost two or three people, membersof our community, because the ice broke, or the rope broke, and, when it swungback, it went faster than a bullet. One lady’s arm was severed. One, her brainwas scattered over the ice because she got hit. She never had a chance. And thethird one, her jaw and skull was scattered into hundreds of pieces. But shesurvived. There’s others that have not been so fortunate.169The whale hunt is not the only subsistence harvest that is affected by changing iceconditions. 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 ofBarrow. That’s no longer happening. Our people are going bearded sealhunting, walrus hunting, in the spring, are having to go farther and farther outto find the game. This summer, we were hearing of crews going 20 to 30 milespast Point Barrow north to try and find game. The people were trying to gettheir subsistence hunting done while the ice was close to us, but there are a lotof people who are still short their normal supply of sea mammals for the year.I’m one of those very unfortunate ones who didn’t land any bearded seals thisspring. My boys went out trying, and some of my crew members went out tryingbut they didn’t land any.170Roy Nageak agreed with this assessment:When I was younger, there was more ice…. The seals, you had time, you had thewhole summer to hunt, you had June and July; when the shore ice broke up wasusually around the second week of July to the middle week of July, the break ofthe shore-fast ice…. As we were hunting this summer, I heard a lot of men say,“I’m going to go out hunting after the ice goes out and comes back,” becauseafter all the ice goes out, for some distance, then comes back to shore it bringsback a lot of animals…. But this year, when all the ice went away from theshore-fast ice, it never came back…. We were fortunate that we hunted realearlier and went gung-ho instead of waiting around for the ice to move out, andonce it moved out, there were a lot of people that never got the bearded seals orwalrus…. The ones that didn’t go early … they’re short a lot of ugruk meat andblubber, the seal-oil blubber. You could hear it through the radio; people thatwant seal oil, and they don’t have it.171Travel has also become more dangerous and inconvenient because of the deterioratingsnow conditions, harming the subsistence harvest. Lucas Ittulak of Nain, Newfoundland andLabrador, 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 gohunting, some of them we can’t even use anymore because there is not enoughPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200542snow or the snow is not the same. We have to find new routes now even to travelout onto the land to go to our hunting grounds so the snow is not the same as itused to be.172An Inuk hunter from Baker Lake described how the changing snow conditions also affect travelequipment:The first effect I have is on my qamutik [sled] runners. They wear out fast whenthere is not much snow coverage. Also if you don’t have a cabin[, t]here is verylittle snow to make a shelter. Maybe because there is less snow the snow appearsto be harder. According to my traditional knowledge there is pukaq snow and it isalways 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 thepukaq.173

The deep, dense snowrequired for igloo building hasbecome extremely scarce, forcingInuit to rely on tents and cabins.174The snow is not the sameanymore. The bottom of thesnow is a lot softer than itused to be. It’s no good forigloos anymore. [Twentyyears ago] we used to be ableto stop anywhere we neededa place to sleep just to buildan igloo and sleep in thatigloo. And nowadays you can’t just find good snow anywhere. In [those] dayswe used to find them anywhere. The condition of the snow is not very good, thebottom of it is very soft. So that’s what I’ve notice in the snow as well - not onlyon the bottom but on the top as well.175Tents are much colder because they lack the insulation properties of igloos, as an Inuk man fromPangnirtung explained:176We used to stay in igloos most of the winters those days, these days we mostly stayin tents…. [D]uring winter the tents get cold due to not enough insulation. Thesedays the snow seems to be much harder.177The lack of good igloo snow also creates a greater danger in emergency situationsbecause these snow shelters are important as emergency shelters.178 Furthermore, the dearth ofPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200543igloo snow has resulted in a loss of traditional igloo-building knowledge, creating a generationwho would not know how to build an igloo in an emergency situation even if the better snowwere available.179 Heather Angnatok explained the impact of this loss:We’ve had incidents where young people have perished in the winter-time.Because they didn’t, perhaps, know how to make a shelter, even a temporary one,or a small one, or whatever. We’ve 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 anigloo.180Travel difficulties due to the deterioration of ice and snow conditions have resulted infewer, shorter and more dangerous hunting trips, impairing the Inuit’s subsistence harvest.181The later freeze and earlier, more sudden thaw force travelers to wait until much later into thewinter season before traveling, and to stop spring travel earlier, dramatically shortening theseason for safe ice travel.182 In addition, some bays that formerly froze in winter no longerfreeze all the way across, requiring the use of longer, more time-consuming land routes.183Where the ice is frozen thick enough to traverse, it is rougher, less slippery, more crumbled andpacked, and softer, making sled and snowmobile travel more difficult.184 The gradual melt thathappened in the past supported travel to hunting grounds and ice hunting later into the spring.185Now, the soft spring ice is too dangerous to travel on, but too solid to allow for travel by boat.186The 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 toharvest.188The snow travel season has also become much shorter, more arduous and more dangerousbecause of the later snowfall and earlier, sudden melt.189 Kenneth Toovak of Barrow describedhow the sudden melt affects him:Back in the early days in my lifetime, the snow melted kind of gradually; slowmelting. 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 thesun is in a clear sky, and all of a sudden, the snow melted really fast. And thenit’s disappearing kind of fast.… [A]ll of a sudden, the snow starts to melt, andyou have to come back…. We might be losing what we planned, due to thesudden snowmelt. Before, we had the gradual thaw, that froze in the night, andmelted a little in the day, a gradual thaw.190Eugene 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 harderbecause there’s no snow, you have to take a boat. But also, if you take a boat,you’re more inclined to be weather bound because of the wind conditions. As amatter of fact, I’ve just seen my nephew this afternoon, who was lucky to meetsomeone in a four-wheeler up there hunting, and had to leave his boat, and thePETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200544animals he’d caught by the river … because of the massive waves that were outin the inlet – the boat couldn’t take them.… [Boat travel] is getting difficult.…Not everybody has a skiff or a boat to go camping with. But they do own snowmachines that they travel with in the fall time and in the winter months to go totheir fish camps and camping sites to do their subsistence hunting. Now theyhave to wait until later in the season. By the time they get out there, sometimesthe game’s already gone because they go with the cycle.191The sudden thaw can also strand sled and snowmobile travelers who rely on the snow for travelwhen the unexpected thaw suddenly eliminates their travel surface.192 David Haogak of SachsHarbour described the sudden thaw’s effect on his spring subsistence harvest activities:When we go out hunting, we usually expect we’ve got a couple of days to get ourload of snow geese, and still be able to cross without having the water levels gohigh. Every year it’s high, it’s just that now we can’t judge or we can’t estimate… we can’t predict when to leave because of that rain. It’ll be a constant. Youfigure that it’s going to stop, we still could travel, but the water level comes up asit rains, the rivers break. We can’t cut across, even with our snow machinesalone, we can’t make it home in the spring-time. That’s just in the last 2 or 3years. No one goes very far now, whereas long ago, even a few years ago, weused to go 40 or 50 miles. Now we don’t even go 20. It’s just not worth therisk.193Heather Angnatok of Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, also described an incident in which thesudden and unpredictable spring thaw caused a dangerous accident:We were driving our skidoo in the Spring - early Spring - normal, I mean we knewthat 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 wewaited for my brother and his wife to come up and join us. And as we werewaiting, we no sooner stopped the skidoo and were just about to start our skidoosagain when the ice just collapsed underneath the skidoo and the skidoo wentthrough the ice. And so my son fell in the water. My husband jumped off and justmissed going in the water. But he fell in the water. And it just crumbled all theway. So we hadn’t realized that it was a black area, because there was, well, abit of snow on top which made it look white I guess. But, we hadn’t realized thatit was soft underneath. Anyway, we got him out and he was alright. He just gotpretty shook up because he couldn’t climb out. Every time he tried to climb out itwould break off. And it would just crumble under his hands. So we managed toget 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.194The sudden melt has also increased the number and unpredictability of avalanches insome areas, further endangering travelers.195 In the past, the gradual spring melt would freeze atPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200545night, leaving a hard crust on top of the snow, which was easy to travel on.196 That crust nolonger appears.197 “When the snow layer has not frozen during the evening, then it is difficult totravel. When the snow does not freeze ‘qiqsuqqaq,’ then it is really soft and hard to travel on. Itseems to be really soft now once it really starts to melt.”198The decrease in overallsnowfall has exposed more rocks,damaging sled and snowmobilerunners.199 Dogsled travel alsohas become more difficultbecause the dogs’ pawssometimes bleed when there isnot enough snow.200 Even whenthe animals are nearby,subsistence users may not be ableto reach them, as an Inuk hunterfrom Deering, Alaska, hasexplained:Last year there were more caribou than I’ve ever seen or heard of in my lifehere, but the guys couldn’t go out hunting due to lack of snow. I guess itprobably could be done, if you wanted to really hurt your snow machine.But you’d have to weigh whether the cost of parts for your snow machinewould be worth the effort of getting the caribou while they’re this close tous.201All of these travel problems have led to a decrease in the number and length of hunting trips, andhave made travel and harvest more cumbersome and more dangerous.202b. 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 Inuit’s

subsistence harvest. Ice dependent species such as seals, walrus, polar bears and sea birds arealready suffering population decreases as a result of the disappearing ice.203 “Polar bears areunlikely to survive as a species” without the ice, and “[i]ce dependent seals … are particularlyvulnerable to the observed and projected reductions in arctic sea ice.”204 Ringed seal, ribbonseal, and bearded seal forage near the ice edge, give birth and nurse on the ice, and rest on the icewhile hunting.205 “Ringed seals are likely to be the most highly affected species of seal becauseall aspects of their lives are tied to the sea ice.”206 Floe edge instability, early breakup andthinner ice have caused seal pups to lose their mothers, affecting the numbers of breedingfemales and the health of the existing pups.207 Increasing storm surges caused by the loss of theice’s wave-dampening effect have virtually wiped out entire years’ seal pups.208 The earlierPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200546breakup has also caused seals to change their location, making another traditional source of foodand clothing less accessible to the Inuit.209 “The ringed seal is the single most important foodsource for [some] Inuit…. No other species is present … in the quantities needed to sustain thedietary requirements of the [coastal] Inuit.”210 “Asthe ice melts or moves away early, walruses, seals,and polar bears move with it, taking them too faraway 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 it’s becausethe seal pups grow up on the flat sea ice where thepolar bears can’t get to them and when you don’thave [flat sea ice] you don’t have seal pups.”212Ice changes also affect land animals that travel on the ice. For example, in Dolphin andUnion Strait, between Victoria Island and mainland Northwest Territories, the annual cariboumigration across the ice is in jeopardy because of the late freeze.213 The caribou, accustomed tocrossing solid ice at the same time every year, have encountered thinner ice later in the year.214The 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 havebeen forced to alter their migration routes, making them less accessible to the Inuit for harvest.216The Porcupine caribou herd has also experienced problems because of the earlier thaw.217 Whenthe herd reaches the Porcupine River to cross into its calving grounds, the river is no longerfrozen, forcing the herd to swim the meltswollenriver.218Changes in ice conditions have alsocontributed to more dangerous encountersbetween polar bears and humans because the icefloe edge is closer to the land than in the past,reducing the amount of habitat available for thepolar bears. The bears are forced into a smallerarea, closer to Inuit settlements and campingareas.219 Isa Piungituq of Clyde River, Nunavutexplained 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 isn’t formed the way it used to be that thepolar bears are coming closer. This is why we now have polar bears in thecommunity even before the dark season would start to come. It used to be thatwhen it would start to get dark at night the polar bears would start to come thisway, but now they’re always around.220PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200547Harvested species have also been harmed by changes in snow conditions, impairing theInuit’s ability to subsist. In many regions, a hard layer of ice has appeared under the snow inrecent years, cutting off access to winter food for herbivores.221 Whereas in the past, autumnsnow fell on frozen ground and remained until the spring thaw, now the snow sometimes falls onwarmer ground, and a warmer period often follows the first snows.222 Snow, followed by rainand freezing rain, followed by more snow has resulted in an impenetrable layer of ice over thewinter vegetation.223This ice layer makes winter foraging muchmore difficult for game animals, especiallycaribou, contributing to a decrease in numbers,change in habits and location, and deterioration inthe health of major sources of traditionalsubsistence protein.224 “That is the biggestworry, these caribou, and others that feed off theland. When there should be snow on the land,instead ice forms and the food is then notaccessible.”225A study of the effects of climate change explains the connection between theimpenetrable ice layer and caribou and reindeer numbers:During the long arctic winter, reindeer depend on access to range that is rich inlichens. The lichens provide carbohydrates almost exclusively as a source ofenergy to maintain body temperature in winter. Reindeer can effectively pawthrough snow to reach the lichens. If warmer than normal temperatures producefreezing rain, the resulting ice cover makes the lichens unavailable and this oftencauses reindeer to starve to death.226One 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 ofcatastrophic die-off likely related to severe icing episodes.”227 The Porcupine caribou herd, theeighth largest herd in North America, has declined at a rate of 3.5% per year since 1989.228 Thescarcity and changes in location force harvesters to travel farther, and under more dangeroustravel conditions, to find healthy animals.229 The ice layer can also kill the plants and lichensthemselves, or make them less healthy.230 Changes in snow conditions have thus impaired thesubsistence harvest.Projections indicate that ice and snow conditions will continue to deteriorate. The loss ofheat-reflective snow and ice will contribute to further warming, which will in turn lead to theloss of more snow and ice.231 These continuing changes will likely affect the distribution of fishstocks, and will force marine mammals that rely on sea ice to find new habitats.232 Habitat forharvested land animals will continue to change.233 Whale migration routes will probably change

PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200548as well.234 All of these effects on animals and habitat will continue to diminish the Inuit’s abilityto subsist on the harvest.c. Deteriorating ice and snow conditions have undermined the Inuit’straditional way of life.As climate change has reduced the capacity to travel, access to game, and safety, the Inuithave been forced to modify their traditional travel and harvest methods, damaging the Inuitculture.235 The changes in traditional subsistence harvest activities have interfered with one ofthe most important opportunities to educate the younger generation in fundamental culturalvalues and traditions, and have diminished the role of elders in the younger generation’s lives.236Roy Nageak of Barrow explained the impact on passing traditional hunting knowledge to theyounger generation:[W]ith the hunting out in the ocean, we justhad a short season, and between hunting outthere, and waiting for the caribou to come in,there’s a span of time when ... there’s a lot ofdead time. With young people ... you knowwhere that’s going to take them. It’s notproductive. And then experience that isneeded, they’re getting shorter, or lessexperience in what they need to learn,especially at a time when they need to learnit. The learning curve for them is gettingshorter. The less time they spend outhunting, the less that they learn. Becauseyou need to learn about the weather, thecurrents, the sea and the ice, and when theydon’t have those types of experiences and it’sshorter, the knowledge that they need tolearn concerning the sea current and the ice,it’s a shorter learning curve. If they’re notout there hunting, and the ice is not there, then they’re not learning what theyneed to learn, and that’s through experience.... The experience is not there.237The summer seal hunt traditionally involved boating to the edge of the ice, and harvestingseals basking on the ice.238 For the last few years the ice has been too far away in summer toboat to the edge.239 Hunters are now forced to harvest from boats and from shore.240The ice goes out, and the game goes out with it. No more game. Seals, walrus,they go out with the ice … we’ve been bringing in less game nowadays, and wehave to hunt further out. The game was very close before, and the game is gettingfurther out … sometimes as far as 90 miles out. That’s the farthest I’ve heard.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005

49Mostly 70, 50 miles out. If you’re lucky, you go 17 miles to get game, but that’sthe closest you’re going to go, if you’re lucky.241Because of the deterioration of the snow, the art of building igloos cannot easily bepassed on to the next generation, resulting in a loss of traditional knowledge about a truly uniquefeature of the Inuit culture.242It would be nice to be able to pass on how to build an igloo, especially before ourelders are all passed away. And that is coming right around the corner, becausea lot of our elders are passing on. We do have some elders who are capable yetof 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 we’venever - in my five years of working with the Labrador Inuit Youth Division wehave been unsuccessful so far…. [T]he snow is just a different texture.243The early melt has also forced a change in the timing of the traditional Toonik Tymespring festivities in one community, which now begins two weeks earlier than the traditionaltime.244 The loss of ice and snow, significant and formerly abundant natural resources, hasproduced a lasting and destructive transformation in many aspects of the Inuit’s lives. Projectedchanges can only be expected to damage the Inuit culture further in the future.3. THAWING PERMAFROST HAS CAUSED LANDSLIDES AND SLUMPING, ANDCOMPLICATED FOOD STORAGE, HARMING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, CULTURE ANDPROPERTY OF THE INUITThe health, safety, property and culture of the Inuit are threatened by the transformationof the landscape. Permafrost, which holds together unstable underground gravel, is melting at analarming rate,245 causing unpredictable mudslides and slumping that endanger travelers andresidents.246 “Hot weather in the summer is melting the permafrost and causing large-scaleslumping on the coastline and along the shores of inland lakes” where many Inuit have built theircommunities and homes.247 “In northern barrier island communities, the permafrost literallyhelps hold the island together…. As permafrost melts … slumping and erosion of landensue.”248In 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 ofsliding into the sea because of slumping, erosion, and mudslides caused by permafrost melt andincreased storm surges.250 David Haogak of Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories, said, “Evenin my office, there are these big cracks in the walls. And that was March and April. That’sbefore the spring thaw. Usually the spring thaw moves the housing pads. This year they allmoved early. And it’s caused a lot of damage. I mean, it costs money to fix a crack. It’s likeevery year we’re fixing my office. There’s cracks everywhere.”251 Slumping and landslides havealso threatened important cultural and historic sites, including Inuit cemeteries.252PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200550Because permafrost impedes drainage of surface water,the loss of permafrost also affects surface water levels.253 Forexample, current wetlands are drying up, and new wetlands areforming due to permafrost subsidence.254 Water levels in lakesare also affected by the loss of permafrost, with some smaller

lakes disappearing entirely.255 “Where there were small lakesin areas they are totally dried up, they are part of the tundra.These lakes don’t exist anymore.”256 Permafrost melt willcause changes in surface drainage and wetness that is likely toresult in vegetative changes as well as changes to the terrestrialecosystem, affecting not only Inuit and animal foraging, butalso the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere,further accelerating global warming.257In addition, “[c]ontainment structures [such as] tailing ponds and sewage lagoons oftenrely on the impermeable nature of frozen ground; thawing permafrost will reduce the integrity ofthese structures. Over the long term, infrastructure replacement will be necessary to eliminatemany of the concerns related to the disappearance of the permafrost.”258 The implications ofpermafrost melt for the Inuit’s health, as well as economic concerns, are clear.Traditional methods of food preservation have also become dangerous or infeasible withthe loss of permafrost.259 Inuit have traditionally used the convenient permafrost for meatstorage. Permafrost melt has made this method more arduous and more dangerous, requiringdeeper holes or abandonment of the method, and increasing the risk of food-borne illnesses. “Awarmer 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 histraditional underground cellars:I can talk about the permafrost because I’ve got two ice cellars that I see wherethe changes are. They’re no longer cold like they used to be. It’s melting. Theheat is going into the ground. I’ve got one ice cellar that’s about 12 feet into thepermafrost … even with the layer of 5” of snow on the bottom of the ice cellar, mygame is melting on top, it’s thawing out, it’s not frozen solid. So, natural icecellars are warming up … the food you stored there is going to be no longer goodto eat. They’re going to get rancid, and they’re going to spoil.… And that’salready happening. When ABC came up last month … I took them down to seemy ice cellar, and I was surprised by how warm my whale meat, my muktuk, theskin and the blubber were thawed, already…. I had to go out and buy some chestfreezers to try and protect them from rotting.… I’ve got another ice cellar that’sabout twenty-five feet into the ground, and you’re starting to feel that in there,too.261Cracking due to permafrost meltingPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200551Permafrost melt has also made travel over traditional routes more problematic and evenimpossible in some cases because of erosion and deteriorating ice paths.262I do a lot of hunting inland, for caribou, and last year was especially bad becausewe had a real wet summer, and it was hot, real hot and wetter than usual andhotter than usual. At the tail end of the summer - we’ve got longer summers toonow - then it was raining and there’s places in the tundra that I know were solidbefore. I hunt with my four-wheeler, and I usually go where there’s solid, whereit’s 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 ... aswe were coming home, we must have gotten stuck like six different times, wherewe never used to get stuck before.263Several factors are projected to contribute to the continued degradation of thepermafrost. In addition to increased air temperatures, increases in sea level and longeropen-water seasons are likely to expose coastal environments to more storms, leading torapid erosion and exposing more permafrost to warmer air.264The impact on the Inuit’s health, safety, property, subsistence and culture will continue toincrease as the melting accelerates. The transformation of the landscape due to climate changehas profoundly affected the Inuit, and it is highly likely that projected changes will continue toaffect the Inuit into the next century.2654. COASTAL EROSION, STORM SURGES AND FLOODING ARE THREATENING INUITHOMES, CAMPS, COMMUNITIES, AND CULTURAL SITES, JEOPARDIZING THEIRPROPERTY, AND CULTURELoss 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 arehaving a cataclysmic impact on the Inuit. “Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86percent, of Alaska Native villages to some extent…. [V]arious studies indicate that coastalvillages are becoming more susceptible to flooding and erosion due in part to risingtemperatures.”266The loss of sea ice threatens Inuit homes and communities because of the increased stormsurges resulting from the loss of the ice’s wave-suppressing effects.267 “Solid ice cover, andeven floating ice dampens wave activity, reducing its intensity. By contrast, in areas of openwater, 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 fromwaves.”268 The erosion exposes more coastal permafrost to the warmer air, resulting in fasterpermafrost melt, leading to more slumping and erosion.269 Storm surges and erosion threatenPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200552Inuit homes, camps, communities, and cultural sites.270 People whose houses are located nearembankments and coasts fear for the security of their homes.271Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, has noted theincrease in the ferocity of storms and the accompanyingincrease in the damage they cause:When the current and the wind goes together,the intensity of the ocean is stronger, and herein Barrow, we’re way at the point, and, with agood Northwest wind, and the current is comingfrom the northwest, and the water rises togetherand a good wind, with the two together, then itfloods, the water level gets higher, and there’s nothing stopping it - the ice is 150to 200 miles away - the intensity of the ocean is stronger and that’s what’scausing a lot of erosion here, because there’s no ice to diminish the strength ofthe sea … our beaches, the houses that used to be high and dry and now are somuch closer to the ocean, we see a lot of erosion…. A lot of this wouldn’t have

happened if the ice was still stable. Our ice is not there like it used to be.272Eugene Brower, also of Barrow, agreed:We have erosion danger out on our beach. Some years ago, the North SlopeBorough, the local government, did some dredging off the beach ... to try andbuild up our gravel. But one storm came in and took all that gravel out anddeposited it up toward the point.... We used to have a beach front of about 200feet out in front of us, it’s no longer there in Barrow … the lack of ice haschanged that because, in the fall time, we used to have multi-year ice that wouldflow in, and broke up the waves coming in, the wave action. Now we don’t havethat anymore, so we have big rollers coming in and pounding the shoreline.273In the island community of Shishmaref, Alaska, the erosion, slumping and storm surgesare so bad that the only option left to residents is to move the community off the island.274Several residents described the devastating effects of the storms and erosion:Some of the houses moved because of erosion. And our old school building wehad burned up, and the second one we had, the ocean practically reached thesteps.... We used to walk a long ways to the lagoon. Even the lagoon is erodingaway. So, from both sides, we’re eroding away. They’ve tried all kinds of seawalls…. Cement didn’t even last.275John Sinnok, also of Shishmaref, added these observations:PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200553[The ice] normally saved our beach from eroding so much more - the ice thatbuffers the waves. Nowadays … we don’t have ice to protect our beachesanymore. Waves and storms are becoming more frequent, sometimes fifteen feetat a time. So, if there’s two or three storms, it could be fifteen feet three times.That’s how much land we would lose where our drying racks are, on the west sideof the island, west of here. My wife and I usually put our drying racks every fallafter it freezes over but we’re still able to dig into the ground, and we know thatthe ground is freezing. But now, after we do that, if there’s a storm it starts tothaw out the frozen ground and then we have to move the racks again. Thingsthat didn’t happen before. That ice is usually our life-saver during the fall.276Stanley Tocktoo described how the storms and erosion have gotten worse, affecting his attemptsat traditional food preservation:Erosion wiped out all our drying racks on the last Fall. And this fall, all the rackswere wiped out because of the storms. And these are not the mean storms. Ourmean storms are the west winds, high winds, and that’s where we do a lot oferosion, you see a lot of debris falling into the ocean…. [W]hen I was ayoungster, we had a big beach out there on the ocean. We had tents out there,boats out there. And then every fall, we’d very rarely have a big storm, but we’dhave a high tide storm, but not as severe as nowadays. But nowadays, when youlook at it, we have high tides for no reason; could, could be nice and calm likethis…. No matter what we put out there, Mother Nature is pretty tough, youknow. All the sand-bag barriers we put out there either puncture or sink. Itseems like this rock sea wall seems to hold on pretty well because I think whenthey built it ... there’s 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. That’s what we’retrying to do on the whole North side of our island, protect the permafrost fromhigh-tide. Once the high tide comes around, the permafrost melts, and the nexttime we get low-tide the ground will collapse.277One 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 onresidents and infrastructure. During the October 2004 storm in Nome [Alaska],forty-five people had to be evacuated and thirteen homes were damaged. Otherhomes … 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 againstbuildings. The seawall that protects the harbor was also damaged.278PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200554Many other Alaskan coastal villages are similarly at risk from erosion, storm, and flooddamage resulting from the loss of sea ice:279 “Increases in the frequency and ferocity of stormsurges 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 alsowashed away former camping areas that the Inuit have traditionally used and occupied.281As storm surges and coastal flood events increase in frequency and intensity, bird andfishery habitats in the affected areas are also likely to be adversely affected.282 These changeswill further jeopardize Inuit hunting and foraging practices. Coastal communities will continueto 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 coastalcommunities.5. CHANGING SPECIES DISTRIBUTION HAS HARMED THE NUTRITION, HEALTH ANDSUBSISTENCE HARVEST OF THE INUITVarious species of land plants and animals are changing range and abundance due to theeffects of global warming. For example, the white pine has pushed northward due to warmingtemperatures, causing allergy problems in Inuit populations unaccustomed to the pollen.283Likewise, an increase in the crow population has become a nuisance because the crows get intocommunities’ garbage and spread it.284Reductions in the quantity and quality of berries and wild greens in some areas havemade harvest more difficult and less fruitful.285 In some areas, berries, an important componentof the Inuit diet, are smaller, drier and scarcer because of a decrease in spring and summerprecipitation.286 “The [gathering] seasons are getting shorter for picking berries. And some ofthe berries I noticed we picked around here, they dry up before we can pick them. I think that’sdue to a warmer climate here than before.”287 Sudden heavy rains in autumn then sometimescause the berries to spoil before they can be harvested.288 Harvesting of greens has also beenaffected by climate changes:My mom, before she died, used to go picking greens with us girls. We used to fillup maybe four barrels to keep for the winter, and she taught us how to pack themand 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 greensto be ready to be picked but I noticed that we are starting kind of early this yearbecause 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 … seemslike to me like the sun is getting warming. The weather changes faster. So wehave to pick greens real fast.289Important protein sources are also changing location and are of lower quality in someareas because of the changes in habitat and flora. A study of climate change in Alaska sponsoredPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200555by the U.S. Global Change Research Program makes clear the likely impacts of global warmingon the health of subsistence communities:Climate change is likely to have significant impacts on key … terrestrialspecies availabl[e] for subsistence purposes. At a minimum … caribou,moose, and various species of waterfowl are likely to undergo shifts in rangeand abundance…. Changes in diet [and] nutritional health … can also beexpected.290Pitseolak 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 findingmore 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 norththat 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 plantsfrom down south are coming up here and plants from different communities arecoming here. Different plants, almost like bushes, are growing. These are thechanges that the elders are seeing.291Inuit have already noticed a deterioration in their health because of a lack of countryfood: “The store-bought food has had an effect on our bodies. The doctors are telling us todaythat we have too much fat in our blood. Our blood system has changed and as a result of that ithas 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 preparebecause these are healthy foods that I’m talking about, the native foods. Theyhave 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 beingclogged or something. It might be from the foods, from the oils that they by in thestore. The fat from pork-chops or chicken or whatever.293These environmental changes havealso impaired the Inuit’s subsistence harvest.Changes in location and size of vegetation andhabitat have altered the quantity, quality,habits and range of game, impairing theInuit’s ability to engage in traditionalsubsistence harvest activities.294 Community

members in some areas have noticed less faton bears, caribou, hare and ptarmigan as aresult.295 Tony Mannernaluk of Rankin Inlet,Nunavut, remembers, “Back then, at this timePETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200556of the year, in the end of August, bull caribou were fatted, but now, often times, bull caribou arevery 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 usedto be. Right now, when you go out here and get a caribou, they’re not fatanymore. It’s almost the end of August, but when you go back thirty years by thistime they should be well fed and well fat.297Consequently, Inuit must travel farther to different areas to harvest the plants and game.298These problems associated with changes in land conditions jeopardize several aspects ofInuit culture. The Inuit have been forced to alter traditional hunting patterns because of thechanges in availability and quality of game, compounded with increased travel difficulties.299Travel over traditional routes has become more problematic and even impossible in some casesbecause of erosion and deteriorating ice paths.300 Slumping and erosion have threatenedimportant 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 landscapedue to climate change has profoundly affected Inuit culture.The projected changes in species distribution will exacerbate these problems. Terrestrialecosystems will continue to change as permafrost melt alters drainage and ground moisture andtemperatures rise.303 The decreased runoff into the sea will likely decrease salinity in coastalareas, further altering ecosystems.304 Projected increases in sea level will affect the ecosystemsof extensive coastal lowlands and immense deltas, moving wetlands farther inland and increasingcoastal flooding.305 “If storm surges and coastal flood events increase in frequency and/orintensity, bird and fishery habitats in the affected areas are likely to be adversely affected.”306These changes will further jeopardize Inuit hunting and foraging practices.6. INCREASINGLY UNPREDICTABLE WEATHER IN THE ARCTIC HAS DIMINISHED THEINUIT’S ABILITY TO FORECAST THE WEATHER ACCURATELY, CREATINGPROBLEMS FOR HARVESTERS AND TRAVELERS, AND HARMING INUIT CULTUREa. Travel and subsistence harvest have become more dangerous anddifficult because of the unpredictable weather307For the Inuit, forecasting the weather is essential to planning safe and convenienttravel.308 Unfortunately, global warming has caused sudden fluctuations in the weather, andrendered traditional forecasting methods inaccurate. Jerome Tattuinee of Rankin Inlet describedthese changes:With the traditional knowledge of the Inuit we [were] able to tell … whether it’sgoing to be warm or cold.… In the old days, we were able to tell just by looking atthe clouds and by studying and observing the weather itself. [Now it’s] hard toPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 7, 200557predict how it’s going to be…. I can’t tell you how it’s going to be, say fortomorrow or this evening because it’s so hard to predict the weather now….Looking at the clouds itself, sometimes they’re … really stressed or they’re reallyloose and we were able to tell how it’s going to be for the rest of the day but nowit’s almost quite impossible to tell how it’s going to be … the clouds that I’mtalking about, right now they’re grey and stressed. [In the past that meant] thatit’s going to be really windy. And with the clouds, if they’re really really high, I[could] tell you that looking at the clouds itself, cause they’re so high, I [could] tellyou that it’s going to be really nice for the next few days. Calm wind, no wind atall. And today it’s not like in the old days anymore. So hard to predict the weathernow.309An 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 notthere. Also other cloud formations that we also used are not there as often asthey used to be…. [D]uring the winter – years ago – you would have clearskies and then from the south you would see lone clouds forming, even duringthe clear skies. Somewhere in the near future you were going to have asnowstorm. We knew this then. But this is not the case now. You don’t seethose clouds…. When you are predicting the weather – good or bad – youalways look[ed] to kivativut [southwest]. The clouds … are formations thatare going to result in either storms or good weather. These clouds traveledtowards kanangnavut. This knowledge … has been passed down forgenerations. This is something I learned from my parents. It is used by otherelders…. This is how many people predict the weather. It is not just my style itis a traditional style.310Because the Inuit can no longer predict weather accurately, travelers are burdened byhaving to bring extra equipment to deal with various weather conditions, or risk beingunprepared should the weather become volatile.311 Planned trips are sometimes canceled whenunforeseen storms develop, and travelers are more frequently stranded by unforeseen storms.312Prevailing winds have also changed, asEugene Brower of Barrow describes:The wind patterns have changed towhere we have constantly East toNortheast winds with higher velocitythan in the past. One big indicatorhere in Barrow is the realignment ofthe Barrow airport. The state ofPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200558Alaska is doing a re-alignment on the current runway – we have to realign to theprevailing winds that are now coming in. Our winds used to be from the East toSoutheast winds, but they’ve shifted more toward the Northeast.313

Changes in the prevailing winds have also affected the location and movement of floatingpack ice, which in turn has impaired the subsistence harvest.Our winds are changing; we are constantly getting more Northeast winds andblowing the ice out farther and farther away from us. And, when you find it doeshappen that we get the Southwest winds, it takes forever for the ice to come in, orit doesn’t come in at all. It’s receding north so far.314The 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 thiscommon harvesting strategy unsuccessful: “As we were hunting this summer, I heard a lot ofmen say, ‘I’m going to go out hunting after the ice goes out and comes back,’ because after allthe 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.”315In addition, changes in the prevailing winds in some regions have altered the orientationof 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 acritical navigation tool and caused disorientation among travelers.318 A Baker Lake Inukdescribed his confusion when he first noticed the snowdrift change: “I navigated by the patternof the snowdrifts. I was traveling during a storm and I started to get lost, because the pattern ofthe snowdrifts changed…. All the snowdrifts have moved. I started going the wrong directionduring the storms. I felt kind of silly but I started asking has the earth moved?”319These 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 becauseof the increased risks and inconveniences associated with travel.321b. The increasingly unpredictable weather has also harmed Inuit cultureTravel and harvesting, two critical components of Inuit culture, have been damaged as aresult of the elders’ inability to forecast accurately.322 The inability to forecast the weather hasalso diminished the important role of elders in planning hunting, travel, and day-to-daypreparation for bad weather.323 An Inuk from Baker Lake described how the changedcircumstances have affected reliance on traditional knowledge:Things have changed so much it is hard to rely on what you knew traditionallyanymore. What happened years ago is different than what it is today. I feel thateach individual must do their own observing and use their own experience tounderstand the change. You may ask an expert what his knowledge is but hisPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200559knowledge is not going to apply to what is happening today. For example an eldermight say by November 1 you are able to cross this area, it is now safe to cross thislake, but according to the way things are today, it may not be the case.324Travelers and hunters increasinglyrely on FM radio instead of traditionalknowledge for weather forecasts andcommunication about dangerousconditions.325 In addition, the science oftraditional weather forecast can no longerbe passed on to younger generations.326 In

these ways, the increasingly unpredictableweather has damaged Inuit culture.7. INCREASED TEMPERATURES HAVE LED TO AN INCREASE IN HEAT-RELATEDHEALTH PROBLEMS, AND HAVE IMPEDED THE HARVEST AND PROCESSING OFESSENTIAL FOOD AND HIDESAs noted above, the “[a]nnual average Arctic temperature has increased at almost twicethe rate as that of the rest of the world over the past few decades.”327* In communities along theNewfoundland and Labrador North Coast in Canada, more people are experiencing sun- andheat-related headaches and rashes because of higher temperatures during daylight hours.328Sappa Fleming of Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, explained that the sun has affected her skin:It triggers a rash that I get when it’s too hot nowadays. Like, if I had the rashthere in the day, in the evening, even though the sun has gone, it hurts a lot. Itaffects my whole body when I have a rash. So, sometimes it is very severe pain onmy chest, because [of] what I have endured during the day. It affects me in theevening still, even though the sun has gone. Sometime I do not even go out therein the day because of the heat.329These formerly rare health problems are a direct result of increased temperatures.330In addition, traditional methods of food storage and preservation are less safe because ofincreased 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 increasedmarkedly. ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200560In the Spring time, when I’m making dried fish, … I lay it on the rock so I canhang it later. What I’ve 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.It’s not too bad when there’s a little bit of clouds out, but now when there’s noclouds it can really cook the fish. And even after trying to put the fish in a bucketfor later or to salt for later, the texture of the fish is really really soft. So, the sunis really affecting the way you also prepare your fish.332The subsistence harvest of foodand clothing has been affected by the heatas well. For instance, in the Kivalliq, thecentral region of Nunavut, Canada,observers have noted an increase in thenumber of unhealthy and dead gameanimals during periods of hotter weather,which affects an important source ofsubsistence protein for the Inuit.333In the past, the time for caching(storing) meat coincided with the time thatthe caribou hides were of the bestquality.334 Now, because of warmer temperatures, caching must come later in the season.335 Theresult 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 putaway the meat to pick up later in the winter - we would start our cariboucaching in August – the middle of August. It was safe to start your cariboucaching, but now it is just too warm. Either the meat is just going to rot, or themaggots are there…. [T]he month of August is very important traditionally. Ithas always been an important part of summer. This is when they collect skinsfor clothing, and at the same time they do their caribou caching. Now peopledo most of their caribou caching in September. Even by the second week ofSeptember they are doing their caribou caching. Inuit were very selective ofwhen to cache the meat, because of the taste and the whole thing…. Theychose the weather for caribou caching and now we see people going out stillcamping in the 2nd week of September doing their caribou caching.337Processing animal hides has also become more problematic because of higher temperatures andchanges in precipitation:338The skins that we do prepare are sometimes too dry now because of the climatechange. In the old days, it never used to be like so. We even have to dry themPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200561now 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.339Increased temperatures and sun intensity have had a direct impact on the Inuit’s harvest,property, and health, and caused a multitude of detrimental changes to their physicalenvironment.340 Temperatures are expected to continue to increase in the coming years, furtherexacerbating 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 WEATHERCONDITIONS ARE FURTHER JEOPARDIZING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, TRAVEL,PROPERTY, HARVEST, AND CULTURE OF THE INUITa. The health and safety impacts stemming from the combination of changingconditions include decreased drinking water quality and quantity, changes inthe Inuit’s diet, illness resulting from increased pest populations, anddamage to overall mental health.Natural drinking water sources have become scarcer and less drinkable, harming Inuithealth. Drinking water quality and quantity have decreased significantly because of thecombined 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 droppeddramatically, and some ponds and lakes have dried up completely,342 reducing the availability ofdrinking 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 don’tremember ever drying up, but it’s been drying up every year the last few years.The lakes around our camp, which we used to use for waste water, there’s hardlyany water, and the water is so brown now, we don’t use it for drinking and hardlyeven for waste water.344Increased algal blooms and breeding insects in the water have also diminished theusefulness 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 soclear you wanted to drink from them and now they are foggy even in the latesummer. They’re not as clear as they used to be.347Residents 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 gointo a stream and make tea with it. There seems to be more dirt in the water thanthere used to be…. In the past I used to drink the water from my camp but nowPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200562when I make tea with it it turns real black so it must be something in the waterthat makes it almost undrinkable.348The quality of melted snow, a traditional source of drinking water in winter, particularlyfor travelers, has also deteriorated.349 The decreased snowfall is more susceptible to thechanging winds, and thus contains more dust particles, which decreases its desirability formelting and drinking.350Some freshwater sources near the sea are becoming more saline, either because shiftingwinds and tides push saltwater into freshwater sources, or because decreased levels of freshwaterlead to increased salinity.351 For example, Baker Lake in Nunavut has increased in salinityfurther from the ocean. “[I]t used to be the Bowell Islands area where you could taste salt. Butnow when there are big waves on Baker Lake, one can even taste salt here at the settlement ofBaker Lake. I noticed just recently how salty it is on the windy days. I have been in this areabefore and it was not as bad. It has worsened.”352Increased obstacles to harvesting country food, and the reduced quality of that food, alsothreaten the health of the Inuit.353 The shift from a traditional diet to store-bought food is beingexacerbated because of the travel and harvest problems associated with thinning ice, weatherchanges, decreased game availability, and changed snow conditions.354 Subsistence harvest offish, game, and edible plants has fallen off in recent years because of the danger, inconvenienceand anxiety associated with travel, as well as the decrease in quantity and quality of game.355As a consequence, the Inuit are increasingly unable to rely on traditional foods for yearroundsustenance, and must supplement their traditional diet with commercially processed foodpurchased from stores, which contributes to health problems.356 Alec Tuckatuck ofKuujjuarapik, Quebec, described his experience with the decreased harvest:We are forced to buy store-bought food a lot more than before, a lot more. Forinstance, even when I hunt I do get some wild meat but it doesn’t last that longwith a large family like mine, so we’re very much forced to buy store-boughtfood.357Another Kuujjuarapik resident put it this way:It has affected everybody. Even if it affects me when I am out hunting, it willaffect my community. It has affected my family. In a way like eating less countryfood because of less time out hunting. More relying on store-bought foods. So, ithas affected in a lot of ways.358Diabetes, associated with some processed store-bought foods, has increased among theInuit 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 anddiabetes because of relying on more store-bought foods rather than having healthy countryPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200563food.”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 particularlyaffected because their bodies are less accustomed to the processed store-bought food.362The quality of the available country food is also deteriorating. For example, gameanimals are undernourished because of changes in habitat caused by climate change.363 Whilecaribou in some areas are reportedly fatter because of the longer summer growing season, inother areas they are noticeably undernourished, due to the combination of less healthy plantsduring the hotter summers and a hard layer of ice under the snow that prevents winter access tofood.364 Several other health problems have increased among caribou, including swollen jointsand testicles, discoloration of meat, and white spots on the meat due to lack of nutrition andincreased parasites,365 problems generally affecting increasing numbers of game animals.366People 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, wastingscarce resources and decreasing the supply of subsistence protein.369Polar bear, seals, whales and other game are also undernourished.370 “Polar bears in [theJames and Hudson Bays in Canada] suffered 15% declines in both average weight and number ofcubs born between 1981 and 1998.”371 Seals sink faster when they are thinner, meaning they aremore difficult to harvest, and people have observed seals spending less time in the water becauseof the lack of insulating fat.372Inuit health has also been harmed bychanges in the pest population. “Climatestress and shifting animal populations …create conditions for the spread of infectiousdiseases in animals that can be transmittedto humans, such as West Nile virus.”373 Anincrease in the mouse and fox populationhas increased the incidence of rabies.374 Inaddition, the mosquito population ischanging.375 Although in some areas thedrying up of ponds and small lakes hasdecreased mosquito-breeding habitat, inother areas the increased temperatures and longer warm season have caused an increase in themosquito and biting fly population.376 As a result, infections from the bites have increased, andpeople are concerned about diseases that the insects may carry.377The combination of these worrisome changes has also affected the Inuit’s mental health.“Reduced opportunities for subsistence hunting, fishing, herding, and gathering are likely tocause psychological stresses due to the loss of important cultural activities.”378 The additionaltravel danger, unfamiliarity of weather conditions, changes in land conditions and appearance,and changes in familiar flora and fauna have exacerbated anxiety, stress, and uncertainty.379Barrow resident Roy Nageak explains:PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200564The 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. It’s theanxiety level; it’s not [only] a matter of whether more people are hurt.380Eugene Brower, also of Barrow, describes it this way:There’s a lot of anxieties and angers that are being felt by some of the huntersthat no longer can go and hunt. We see the change, but we can’t stop it, we can’texplain why it’s changing it … our way of life is changing up here, our ocean ischanging.... I think it’s widely felt, because you can feel it further from the folksthat live in the villages outside of Barrow, where they do a lot of subsistencehunting.381The 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. Thedislocation and disruption caused by the destruction and relocation of homes and communitiesalso affects mental health.382The changes in the Inuit’s physical surroundings thus jeopardize both their health andtheir safety.b. Travel, subsistence and culture have been damaged as a result of thecombination of changes.Traditional travel routes have been eliminated due to lower water levels and melting icecaps.383 The loss of ice caps, glaciers, and permanent snow have destroyed some travel routesthat were formerly passable by sled year-round, and caused problems with other routes.384 RoyNageak 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 becausewe had a real wet summer, and it was hot, real hot and wetter than usual andhotter than usual. At the tail end of the summer – we’ve got longer summers toonow – then it was raining and there’s places in the tundra that I know were solidbefore. I hunt with my four-wheeler, and I usually go where there’s solid, whereit’s 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 ... aswe were coming home, we must have gotten stuck like six different times, wherewe never used to get stuck before.385The decreased water level in rivers has also made summer boat travel more dangerous.386As Eugene Brower, of Barrow, Alaska, explained:PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200565Going out to your fish camps this time of year is getting harder and harder becausethere’s no snow, you have to take a boat. But also, if you take a boat, you’re moreinclined to be weather bound because of the wind conditions. As a matter of fact,I’ve just seen my nephew this afternoon, who was lucky to meet someone in a fourwheelerup there hunting, and had to leave his boat, and the animals he’d caught

by the river to report to work because of the massive waves that were out in theinlet - the boat couldn’t take them … [boat travel] is getting difficult…. Noteverybody has a skiff or a boat to go camping with. But they do own snowmachines that they travel with in the fall time and in the winter months to go totheir fish camps and camping sites to do their subsistence hunting. Now they haveto wait until later in the season. By the time they get out there, sometimes thegame’s already gone because they go with the cycle.387Some previously navigable rivers are now impossible to use for transportation.388 TonyMannernaluk of Rankin Inlet said, “When I first came here to Rankin in 1965, they could go upby boat up the … river. But now it’s impossible to go up that river by boat at all.”389Disappearing sea ice, combined with changes in prevailing winds and currents havewreaked havoc with travel and harvest. Roy Nageak described the work of several weeksfloating away because of the combination of changes:This year, some of the trails that they made for two weeks, just when the icestarted opening up for whaling, a lot of the trails that they made took off. Theshore-ice that we thought was stable and piled up solid, [with] the first goodeasterly wind, maybe with the help of a quick current, the ice just went out.... Alot of the trails that they made, three-quarters, or half of them were gone. So thatwas a lot of work that just floated away. A lot of people thought that the ice wasstable; it was shore-fast ice.… It’s not following what we have learned in thepast. It’s more unstable. It’s not solid ice.390These travel difficultiesnecessarily impair thesubsistence harvest.391Changes in animalhabitat, combined withincreased travel difficulty,have diminished the Inuit’sability to engage intraditional harvest activities.The harvest now requirestraveling farther, which ismore expensive and, becauseof travel difficulties causedPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200566by deteriorating snow and ice conditions, more dangerous, arduous and worrisome.392 AsBarrow resident Ronald Brower explained:The climatic changes, especially the changes to our ocean, are affecting ourability to feed our families…. We’re not catching as many spring whales as weused to. Now were becoming more dependent on fall whaling…. We never usedto do that much fall whaling, but we did occasionally. Now we’re moredependent on fall whaling than we are on spring whaling. And that takes a lot ofgas. We’re hunting in open seas. Whereas the ice used to be twenty-five milesoff-shore, right now its over two-hundred miles, maybe two-hundred fifty miles

off-shore. Now we’re endangered with storms, and requiring more use of gas tohunt the bowhead whale. So we’ve changed dramatically. In supporting oursubsistence, we need more cash to accomplish that same objective, of bringingfood to the table. We’re having to go further away.393Changes in summer vegetation combined with the new hard layer of ice under the snowhave made game more scarce and less accessible, and have diminished the quality of meat andhides.394 Pitseolak Alainga of Iqaluit noticed that,In the last fifteen years, the caribou migration has changed. There used to be abig migration that would happen around three or four different communities, andthe migration of the caribou has come a lot quicker than it used to…. Themigration route has changed. There have been different groups of cariboumigrating with other groups of caribou in different areas and once they gettogether they migrate in one big herd and that’s part of a change that has affectedthe hunters from not just this community but other communities that have beentalking to the families here…. The caribou calves are not as healthy as they usedto be. There’s not enough food for the caribou to have. There’s been a bigchange in what the caribou eat or when they go on a migration. And it’s hard forhunters to read where the caribou will be and that stuff that we used to know.395New 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.396Grizzly bears have begun hunting seals on the ice, as well as raiding caribou caches.397Lower water levels have damaged the fish harvest because fewer migrating fish reachtheir spawning beds in the shallower rivers, and the eggs sometimes get exposed or washedashore.398 In order to preserve traditional fish spawning rivers, the Inuit have been forced todredge and divert rivers to allow for sufficient water flow for the traveling fish.399 JeromeTattuinee of Rankin Inlet explained that the lower water levels also affect the quality of fishcaught: “Because the water itself is becoming low, it has also impacted on the fish itself. Thefish aren’t as good as they used to be anymore because of the global warming. A lot [of fish]seem to be a lot smaller.”400PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200567Different species of fish are also moving northward, possibly jeopardizing native fishstocks. 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 moreKing Salmon in their nets. They’re catching Red Salmon. Catching Red Salmonup here is a rarity, but this fall the people that were setting nets out in the lagoonsaid that they were surprised to see the amount of King Salmon and Red Salmonthat they caught in their nets; that’s a new species of fish that are coming uphere. Normally we don’t have those.401* * *The impacts described above demonstrate that Inuit culture has been jeopardized by thecombined effects of changes in the ice, land, weather, and snow. Harvest and travel, importantaspects of the Inuit culture, are less likely to take place because of the danger, fear, and problemscaused by the combined impacts of climate change. Such activities, once familiar and habitual tothe 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 aresometimes unable to educate the younger generation because the changing conditions havedisplaced traditional knowledge.402The transformation of their physical environment due to the individual and cumulativeeffects of climate change have undercut the Inuit’s ability to enjoy the benefits of their traditionalway of life and property, and have imperiled Inuit health, safety, subsistence harvest, travel.These changes are projected to accelerate, seriously threatening the Inuit’s continued survival asa distinct and unique society.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200568D. THE UNITED STATES IS THE WORLD’S LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMINGAND ITS DAMAGING EFFECTS ON THE INUIT1. HISTORICAL EMISSIONS OF CO2*Among nations, the United States has long been the world’s 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 anynation. In 1890, the United States emitted 31% of the world’s energy-related carbon dioxide(CO2).† By 1950, U.S. emissions peaked, relative to other countries, at 43% of the world’s CO2emissions.403It follows that the United States also leads the world in cumulative emissions (totalhistoric emissions) of CO2. Precise historic comparisons for more than a few decades aredifficult for several reasons: historical data may vary in quality and may not be available at allfor some periods; national borders may shift; and regional groupings, such as the EuropeanUnion, may change. Nevertheless, some comparisons are possible and illuminating.From 1950 to 2000, the United States emitted 57,874 million metric tons (MMTC) ofCO2, making it the largest cumulative emitter over that period of time.404 Indeed, this is morethan 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 thanall the “economies-in-transition” states together.406 They were also 46% greater than those of theEuropean Union-15 (EU-15).‡ Further, the U.S.’s cumulative emissions were approximatelythree times greater than China’s, twelve times greater than India’s, and twenty-nine times greaterthan those of Brazil.407Looking across the entire period of significant growth in energy-related CO2 emissionsfrom 1850 to 2000, the numbers are even more dramatic, with one exception. Theexception 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 of29%.4082. CONTRIBUTION TO TEMPERATURE INCREASEThe dominant role of the United States in carbon emissions correlates well with thecountry’s estimated contribution to the global temperature increase. U.S. greenhouse gasemissions between 1850 and 2000 are responsible for 0.18ºC (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 economiesin-transition countries.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200569increase of 0.6ºC during that period.409 This exceeds the European Union’s contribution of0.14ºC (23%), and by far surpasses the 0.05ºC (9%), 0.04ºC (7%), and 0.01ºC (2%) warmingcaused by Russia, China and India respectively. Although the actual correlation betweencumulative emissions and temperature increase is subject to some uncertainty, there is no doubtthat the United States has contributed far more to global warming than any other country.4103. CURRENT EMISSIONSThe United States continues to be the world’s largest emitter of energy-related CO2,accounting for nearly one quarter of the world’s current emissions.411 It far exceeds the next twolargest emitters, China and the European Union, which each account for approximately 14% ofglobal greenhouse gas emissions.412 In 2000, the United States produced 1,574 MMTC, 24% ofthe world total of 6,518 MMTC.413 The 2004 U.S. emissions are estimated by the U.S. EnergyInformation Administration (EIA) at 1,608 MMTC. This rising trend is expected to continue inthe future, with the EIA projecting U.S. CO2 emissions to rise 40% above the 2000 level, to2,198 MMTC by 2025.4144. PER CAPITA EMISSIONSU.S. emissions of energy-related CO2 are vastly out of proportion to its population size.With only 4.7% of the world’s population, the United States produced 24% of global emissionsin 2000.415 On a per-person basis, U.S. emissions in 2000 were more than five times the globalaverage.416 They were nearly two-and-a-half times the per capita emissions in Europe,417 andnine times those in Asia and South America.418 Only five countries exceeded the United Statesin per capita emissions in 2000—Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain—all ofwhich have much smaller populations and huge reserves of highly carbon-intensivecommodities.419 Yet among the countries with significant emissions, the United States had thehighest level of per capita emissions.420PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200570V. VIOLATIONS: THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMINGCONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS OF INUIT HUMAN RIGHTS,FOR WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS RESPONSIBLEA. THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN THE CONTEXTOF INDIGENOUS CULTURE AND HISTORY, WHICH REQUIRES PROTECTION OF THEIR LAND ANDENVIRONMENT1. “[E]NSURING THE FULL AND EFFECTIVE ENJOYMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS BYINDIGENOUS PEOPLES REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF THEIR PARTICULAR HISTORICAL,CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION AND EXPERIENCE”421In applying the rights contained in the American Declaration to indigenous peoples, boththe Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on HumanRights 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 interpretedthe American Convention’s protection of “property” to mean protection of property rights asunderstood by the indigenous community involved.422 In its judgment on reparations in theAloeboetoe et al. case, the Court disregarded the State’s domestic family law for purposes ofdetermining which persons were the next-of-kin of the victims, and awarded reparations basedon the matrilineal and polygamist customs of the Saramaka people to which the victimsbelonged.423 In addition, although rejecting the Saramaka’s contention that, according to theircustoms, the entire community was injured as the “family” of the deceased, the Court implicitlyaccepted that the entire community had suffered damages when it ordered reparations that wouldbenefit the community as a whole.424“[T]he Commission has since its establishment in 1959 recognized and promoted respectfor the rights of indigenous peoples of this Hemisphere.”425 Since 1972, it has been theCommission’s position that “because of moral and humanitarian principles … protection forindigenous 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 customaryinternational law. “In acknowledging and giving effect to particular protections in the context ofhuman rights of indigenous populations, the Commission has proceeded in tandem withdevelopments in international human rights law more broadly.”427* “Both the Inter-American Court and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights haveheld that, although originally adopted as a declaration and not as a legally binding treaty, theAmerican 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 Declarationof the Rights and Duties of Man Within the Framework of Article 64 of the AmericanConvention on Human Rights, July 14, 1989, Ser. A. No. 10, at ¶¶ 35, 45 (1989).PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200571In the Mary and Carrie Dann (“Dann”) case, the Commission considered rights set forthin the Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“ProposedDeclaration”) in interpreting and applying the provisions of the American Declaration.428 TheCommission noted that, although the Proposed Declaration has not been adopted, “the basicprinciples reflected in many of the provisions of the Declaration … reflect general internationallegal principles developing out of and applicable inside … the inter-American system … in thecontext of indigenous peoples.”429 The Commission further acknowledged that much of theProposed Declaration reflects established international norms:430 “[A] review of pertinenttreaties, legislation and jurisprudence reveals the development over more than 80 years ofparticular human rights norms and principles applicable to the circumstances and treatment ofindigenous peoples.”431 The Commission concluded that “by interpreting the AmericanDeclaration so as to safeguard the integrity, livelihood and culture of indigenous peoples throughthe effective protection of their individual and collective human rights, the Commission isrespecting 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 everymeans within his power.’”432The Commission reaffirmed this view in its recent decision in the Maya IndigenousCommunities 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 collectiveinterests of indigenous peoples.”433 Quoting from its 1997 Report on the Human RightsSituation in Ecuador, the Commission noted that distinct “protections for indigenous peoplesmay be required for them to exercise their rights fully and equally with the rest of thepopulation.”434* In finding that the human rights of the Maya people had been violated, theCommission “afford[ed] due consideration to the particular norms and principles of internationalhuman rights law governing the individual and collective interests of indigenous peoples,including consideration of any special measures that may be appropriate and necessary in givingproper effect to these rights and interests.”435In the Yanomami case, the Commission determined that “international law in its presentstate … recognizes the right of ethnic groups to special protection … for all those characteristicsnecessary for the preservation of their cultural identity.”436 In concluding that the rights of theYanomami people had been violated, the Commission considered that “the Organization ofAmerican States has established, as an action of priority for the member states, the preservationand 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, specialprotections for indigenous peoples may be required for them to exercise theirrights fully and equally with the rest of the population. Additionally, specialprotections for indigenous peoples may be required to ensure their physical andcultural survival – a right protected in a range of international instruments andconventions.OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Ch. 10.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200572discrimination that invalidates their members’ potential as human beings through the destructionof their cultural identity and individuality as indigenous peoples.”437As the Commission has affirmed, international law recognizes that the human rights ofindigenous peoples must be protected in the context of indigenous culture and history. Forexample, the U.N. Human Rights Committee has stated that the rights under Article 27 of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) “depend on the ability of theminority group to maintain its culture, language or religion. Accordingly, positive measures byStates may also be necessary to protect the identity of a minority and the rights of its members toenjoy and develop their culture and language and to [practice] their religion, in community withother members of the group.”438 In addition, the International Labour Organisation’sConvention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (ILOConvention 169) states that “[t]he rights of the peoples concerned to the natural resourcespertaining to their lands shall be specially safeguarded.”439As described in Section II-A above, the Inuit are an indigenous people who haveoccupied the arctic and sub-arctic regions of the United States, Russia, Greenland, and Canadafor many millennia. As such, “they are entitled to special protection … for all thosecharacteristics necessary for the preservation of their cultural identity” and for the protection oftheir human rights.2. BECAUSE OF THEIR CLOSE TIES TO THE LAND AND THE ENVIRONMENT,PROTECTION OF THE INUIT’S HUMAN RIGHTS NECESSARILY REQUIRES PROTECTION

OF THE ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTThe lives and culture of the Inuit demonstrate that indigenous peoples’ human rights areinseparable from their environment. As a Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on HumanRights has noted, violations of indigenous peoples’ human rights “almost always arise as aconsequence of land rights violations and environmental degradation and indeed are inseparablefrom these factors.”440 Therefore, preservation of the arctic environment is one of the distinctprotections 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 thatthreatens indigenous peoples’ culture, health, life, property, or ecological security.Within the Inter-American system, and in the international community generally, indigenouspeoples’ 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 environmentaldamage to indigenous lands “causes catastrophic damage” to indigenous peoples because “thepossibility of maintaining social unity, of cultural preservation and reproduction, and of survivingphysically and culturally, depends on the collective, communitarian existence and maintenance ofthe land.”441 Similarly, in its Belize Maya decision, this Commission found that “the State’s failureto respect [the Maya people’s human rights had] been exacerbated by environmental damage” toMayan lands.442 The “logging concessions granted by the State … caused environmental damage,PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200573and … this damage impacted negatively upon some lands wholly or partly within the limits of theterritory in which the Maya people have a communal property right.”443In its 1997 report on Ecuador, the Commission found that “indigenous peoples maintainspecial ties with their traditional lands, and a close dependence upon the natural resources providedtherein – respect for which is essential to their physical and cultural survival.”444 As the reportfurther acknowledges, “damage to these lands ‘invariably leads to serious loss of life and health anddamage to the cultural integrity of indigenous peoples.’”445 In discussing the connection betweenthe physical environment andthe rights to health and life, thereport concluded thatenvironmental degradation can“give rise to an obligation on thepart of a state to take reasonablemeasures to prevent” the risks tohealth and life associated withenvironmental degradation.446The Commission further notedthat human rights law “ispremised on the principle thatrights inhere in the individualsimply by virtue of beinghuman,” and that environmentaldegradation, “which may causeserious physical illness, impairment and suffering on the part of the local populace, [is] inconsistentwith the right to be respected as a human being.”447

International law protects the special ties that many indigenous people have to theirenvironment. 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 TheConvention further requires that indigenous peoples’ rights “to the natural resources pertaining totheir lands shall be specially safeguarded. These rights include the right of these peoples toparticipate in the use, management and conservation of these resources.” 449 In addition, ArticleXIII of the Proposed American Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples explicitlyguarantees indigenous peoples the right to environmental protection: “Indigenous peoples shallhave the right to conserve, restore and protect their environment, and the productive capacity oftheir lands, territories and resources.”450 Similarly, Article 28 of the U.N. Draft Declaration on theRights of Indigenous People guarantees “the right to the conservation, restoration and protection ofthe total environment and the productive capacity of their lands, territories and resources.”451 TheDraft Declaration also includes the “total environment” in the concept of the property to whichindigenous peoples have a right.452PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200574The right to a healthy environment is also a right of customary international law outsidethe context of indigenous peoples. In the words of Judge Weeramantry of the International Courtof Justice,The protection of the environment is likewise a vital part of contemporary human rightsdoctrine, for it is a sine qua non for numerous human rights such as the right to healthand the right to life itself. It is scarcely necessary to elaborate on this as damage to theenvironment can impair and undermine all the human rights spoken of in the UniversalDeclaration and other human rights instruments.453Echoing numerous international instruments,454 the Inter-American Commission has recognizedthat “[t]he realization of the right to life, and to physical security and integrity is necessarilyrelated to and in some ways dependent upon one's physical environment.”455Like other indigenous peoples, the Inuit rely on the natural environment for their culturaland physical survival. The Inuit and their culture have developed over thousands of years inrelationship with, and in response to, the physical environment of the Arctic.456 The Inuit havedeveloped an intimate relationship with their surroundings, using their understanding of thearctic environment to develop tools, techniques and knowledge that have enabled them to subsiston 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 isessential to the continued existence of the Inuit as a people.459 As one observer noted, “If youtell the Eskimo he can’t hunt the whale, you might as well tell him he can’t be Eskimo.”460 Thejudicious use of plants and game, for everything from food to clothing to lighting, has allowedthe Inuit to thrive in the arctic climate, while developing a complex social structure based uponthe harvest.461 Destruction of the delicate arctic ecosystem is therefore “inconsistent with [theInuit’s] right to be respected as … human being[s],”462 and violates many rights guaranteed inthe American Declaration.B. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE INUIT HUMAN RIGHTS1. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHT TO ENJOY THEBENEFITS OF THEIR CULTUREa. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuit’s right to the benefits of

culture.The American Declaration guarantees the Inuit’s right to the benefits of culture.463 TheCharter of the Organization of American States places cultural development and respect forculture in a position of supreme importance.464 The American Convention also recognizes theimportance of cultural freedom to human dignity in its protection of freedom of association465and progressive development.466 Cultural rights are also protected in other major human rightsinstruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights467 the ICCPR,468 and theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).469PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200575The Court and the Commission have long recognized that environmental degradationcaused by a State’s 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-AmericanCourt, in discussing the right to property, acknowledged the link between cultural integrity andindigenous communities’ lands: “[T]he close ties of indigenous people with the land must berecognized and understood as the fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, theirintegrity, and their economic survival.”471In the Belize Maya case, the Commission acknowledged that interference with indigenouslands necessarily implicates the right to culture.472 The Commission acknowledged thatinternational human rights law recognized that “the use and enjoyment of the land and itsresources are integral components of the physical and cultural survival of the indigenouscommunities.” In its Yanomami decision, the Commission noted that the State had an obligationunder 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 onindigenous land – “with all the negative consequences for their culture” – violated theYanomami’s rights.473 The Commission also recognized that protection of ancestral lands is anessential component of indigenous peoples’ right to culture in its Report on the Situation ofHuman Rights of a Segment of the Nicaraguan Population of Miskito Origin.*In its country reports, the Commission has further recognized the close connectionbetween the environment and the right to culture. As stated in the Commission’s 1997 Report onthe Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador, “[c]ertain indigenous peoples maintain special tieswith their traditional lands, and a close dependence upon the natural resources provided therein –respect for which is essential to their physical and cultural survival.”474The U.N. Human Rights Committee’s jurisprudence further supports the importance ofnatural resources to the right to the benefits of culture. The Committee has recognized thatdegradation of natural resources may violate the ICCPR’s right to enjoy culture:[C]ulture manifests itself in many forms, including a particular way of lifeassociated with the use of land resources, especially in the case of indigenouspeoples. That right may include such traditional activities as fishing or huntingand the right to live in reserves protected by law. The enjoyment of those rightsmay 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 theirreligion, and in general, all those aspects related to the preservation of their cultural identity. Tothis should be added the aspects linked to productive organization, which includes, among otherthings, 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 ofMiskito 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200576effective participation of members of minority communities in decisions whichaffect them…. The protection of these rights is directed towards ensuring thesurvival and continued development of the cultural, religious and social identityof the minorities concerned, thus enriching the fabric of society as a whole.475In Bernard Ominayak and the Lubicon Band v. Canada (“Lubicon”), which theCommission cited with approval in the Belize Maya decision,476 the petitioners alleged that thegovernment of the province of Alberta had deprived the Band of their means of subsistence andtheir 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 cultureunder Article 27 of the ICCPR. It found that oil and gas exploitation, in conjunction withhistoric inequities, threatened the way of life and culture of the Band and that Canada had thusviolated Article 27.478The U.N. Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People specifically assures thecultural rights of indigenous groups and links them to the natural environment. The Declarationasserts that “[i]ndigenous peoples have the collective and individual right to … prevention of andredress for … [a]ny action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity asdistinct societies, or of their cultural or ethnic characteristics or identities; … [and] [a]ny actionwhich has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources.”479 Aspart 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, oraltraditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their ownnames for communities, places and persons.”480The Inuit’s human right to enjoy the benefits of their unique culture is thus guaranteedunder the American Declaration and affirmed by other sources of international law. In the globaland Inter-American human rights systems, indigenous peoples’ right to culture is inseparablefrom the condition of the lands they have traditionally occupied. The United States thus has aclear duty not to degrade the arctic environment to an extent that infringes upon the Inuit’shuman right to enjoy the benefits of their culture.b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to enjoy the benefits oftheir cultureThrough its failure to take effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, theUnited States is violating the Inuit’s right to the benefits of culture. The subsistence way of lifecentral to Inuit cultural identity has been damaged by, and may cease to exist because of, climatechange. Traditional Inuit knowledge, passed from the Inuit elders in their role as keepers of theInuit culture, is becoming less useful because of the rapidly changing environment. Given thewidely acknowledged and extensive connection between the natural environment and Inuitculture, the changes in arctic ice, snow, weather patterns and land caused by climate change isresulting in the destruction of Inuit culture.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING

CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200577The United Statesgovernment itself has recognizedthe importance of the subsistenceway of life to the continuedsurvival of the Inuit culture. Ingranting preference tosubsistence uses of fish andwildlife in Alaska, the UnitedStates Congress noted that “thecontinuation of the opportunityfor subsistence uses … isessential to Native physical,economic, traditional, andcultural existence.”481As previously explained, climate change hinders the Inuit’s ability to continue to practicethe traditional subsistence harvest because it changes the characteristics of the ice, snow, landand weather of the Arctic. Travel over ice and snow, an essential component of the traditionalInuit harvest, has necessarily declined because of the relative scarcity of these infrastructureresources. Winter ice hunting has diminished because the later freeze and earlier, more suddenthaw allow less time each year for ice hunting, increase the risk of breaking ice, and affect thebehavior and health of game. Increasingly, changes in the location, characteristics, and health ofharvested species require hunters to travel farther for a successful harvest, aggravating the impactof travel difficulties. Current projections of continued accelerated change in the characteristicsof the ice, snow, land and weather of the Arctic mean that these difficulties will only worsen inthe future.482The shortage of deep, dense, granular snow required for building igloos has diminishedthe Inuit’s ability to travel and hunt safely and conveniently. Building igloos for travel shelter, aunique and important practice that is part of Inuit culture, has been replaced by the use ofuninsulated, more cumbersome tents and fixed-location cabins. The dearth of useful snow hasnearly eradicated some Inuit’s 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 theend of the 21st century,” which will continue to diminish the Inuit’s ability to build and useigloos.483The change in the orientation of snowdrifts has already severely hampered the traditionalmethod of using the snowdrifts to navigate, contributing to the decline in travel and harvestactivities. The repercussions of this change can be likened to the impact on ancient mariners hadthe stars suddenly changed their positions in the sky. In a land lacking consistent landmarks, theloss 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. Predictingthe weather, a crucial part of planning safe and convenient travel and harvest, as well as anPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200578

important role for the Inuit elders, has become much more difficult because of changes inweather patterns. As a result, the elders can no longer fulfill one of their important roles, nor canthey pass the science of weather forecasting to the next generation.As a result of these changes, the Inuit’s ability to continue to practice the subsistence wayof life central to their culture is diminishing rapidly. The shorter, fewer, less fruitful and moredangerous hunting trips not only mean less food harvested, but less time spent engaging inimportant cultural practices and teaching younger generations the intricacies of those practices.The ongoing and accelerating impacts of climate change will continue to erode Inuit culturalpractices in the future.Other aspects of Inuit culture are also jeopardized by the changing climate. Landslumping, erosion and landslides threaten cultural and historic sites, as well as traditional huntinggrounds. Traditional methods of food storage and hide preparation are changing because of themelting permafrost and changing weather patterns. The early spring thaw has forced a change inthe traditional timing of festivities.The elders’ roles as educatorshave been compromised because thechanging conditions have renderedinaccurate much of their traditionalknowledge about weather, ice, snow,navigation and land conditions. TheInuit educational system, passing onand building upon knowledge fromone generation to the next, is criticalto Inuit cultural survival. The Inuithave spent millennia developingknowledge about their physicalsurroundings.484 The unprecedentedrapid climate change has made muchof this traditional knowledge inaccurate, and therefore less valuable to the Inuit. As climatechange continues, these impacts will only get worse. The loss of this traditional knowledge maypermanently erase aspects of the Inuit history and culture. One Inuit resident of Pangnirtungexpressed the fear that, “in the future…[the Inuit way of life] will seem as if it were nothing but afairytale.”485The cumulative effects of these injuries are permanently undermining the Inuit’s abilityto engage in their unique culture. Arctic climate change, caused by the United States’ regulatoryaction and inaction, is depriving the Inuit of their cultural identity and their continued existenceas a distinct people, violating their human right to enjoy the benefits of their culture.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005792. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHT TO USE ANDENJOY THE LANDS THEY HAVE TRADITIONALLY USED AND OCCUPIEDa. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuit’s right to use and enjoythe lands they have traditionally occupiedThe American Declaration includes the human right to “own such private property asmeets 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 itstated, “[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.”487Similarly, the American Convention declares that “[e]veryone has the right to the use andenjoyment of his property…. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment ofjust compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and accordingto the forms established by law.”488 The Universal Declaration of Human rights includes theright to property as well.489 Other international instruments, including the European Conventionon Human Rights490 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights491 also secure theright to property.The Inter-American Court and this Commission have long recognized that indigenouspeoples have a fundamental international human right to use and enjoy the lands they havetraditionally 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 actingwith the acquiescence or tolerance of the State, affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment ofthat property.”492The 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 Courtheld that the government of Nicaragua had violated the Awas Tingni’s rights to property andjudicial protection when it granted concessions to a foreign company to log on their traditionallands 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 andunderstood as a foundation for their cultures, spiritual life, cultural integrity, and economicsurvival.”494 The court further noted that, “[b]y the fact of their very existence, indigenouscommunities have the right to live freely on their own territories.”495In its recent Belize Maya decision, the Commission found that Belize violated the Mayapeople’s right to use and enjoy their property by granting concessions to third parties to exploitresources that degraded the environment within lands traditionally used and occupied by theMaya people.496 Indigenous people’s international human right to property, the Commissionnoted, is based in international law, and does not depend on domestic recognition of propertyinterests.497 The Commission noted that indigenous property rights are broad, and are not limited“exclusively by entitlements within a state’s formal legal regime, but also include thatindigenous communal property that arises from and is grounded in indigenous custom andPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200580tradition.”498 In fact, the failure of the State to recognize indigenous property rights was itselfone basis for the Commission’s finding of a violation of the Maya people’s right to property.499The Commission recognized in the Dann case that general international law supportsindigenous peoples’ property rights in their ancestral lands.500 In that case, the indigenouspetitioners challenged the purported extinguishment of their aboriginal title to lands they hadtraditionally used and enjoyed within the state of Nevada.* In ruling that the extinguishment ofaboriginal rights to ancestral land violated their right to property, the Commission noted that theProposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples reflected general principlesof international human rights law.† The Commission noted that this was particularly true of theProposed Declaration’s 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 andresources they have historically occupied, as well as to the use of those to which they havehistorically had access for their traditional activities and livelihood.”501Other human rights institutions also recognize the independent international human rightof indigenous people to use and occupy their ancestral lands. For example, the InternationalLabour Organisation’s Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples inIndependent Countries declares, “[t]he rights of ownership and possession of [indigenouspeoples] over the lands which they traditionally occupy shall be recognised.”502 The UnitedNations’ Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples specifically includes “the right toown, develop, control and use the lands and territories, including the total environment of thelands, air, waters, coastal seas, sea-ice, flora and fauna and other resources which they havetraditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used.”503Deprivation of the use and enjoyment of land through environmental degradation causedby a State’s 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 theDanns, as the United States has purported to extinguish their aboriginal title against their willthrough 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 thedrafting 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 andrights to land, territories and resources. While this provision, like the remainder of the DraftDeclaration, has not yet been approved by the OAS General Assembly and therefore does not initself have the effect of a final Declaration, the Commission considers that the basic principlesreflected in many of the provisions of the Declaration, including aspects of Article XVIII, reflectgeneral international legal principles developing out of and applicable inside and outside of theinter-American system and to this extent are properly considered in interpreting and applying theprovisions of the American Declaration in the context of indigenous peoples.” Case of Mary andCarrie Dann (“Dann”), Report Nº 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200581impeded when the State itself, or third parties acting with the acquiescence or tolerance of theState, affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of that property.”504 The environmentaldegradation caused by development can “affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of” 505land, especially that of land belonging to indigenous people using it for subsistence. TheCommission also noted that while states may encourage development as a means of securingeconomic and social rights, they nevertheless have an obligation to take positive measures toensure that third parties do not infringe upon property rights, especially those of indigenouspeople.506 Environmental degradation caused by a State’s action or inaction thus compromisesthe human right to property that is protected by the American Declaration.The Inuit’s human right to protection of their land is thus guaranteed by the AmericanDeclaration and general international law. The United States government has an obligation notto interfere with the Inuit’s use and enjoyment of their land through its acts and omissionsregarding climate change.

b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to use and enjoy thelands they have traditionally occupiedFor millennia, the Inuit have occupied and used land in the arctic and sub-arcticareas of the United States, Canada, Russia, and Greenland. Included in the “land” that the Inuithave traditionally occupied and used are the landfast winter sea ice,* pack ice,† and multi-yearice.‡ The Inuit have traditionally spent much of the winter traveling, camping and hunting on thelandfast ice.507 They have used the summer pack ice and multi-year ice to hunt seals, one of theirprimary sources of protein. Because the international human right to property is interpreted inthe context of indigenous culture and history, the Inuit have a human right to use and enjoymentof land and ice that they have traditionally used and occupied in the arctic and sub-arctic regionsof the United States, Canada, Russia, and Greenland. Inuit have also secured domestic propertyrights through the conclusion of four agreements with the Government of Canada508 and inAlaska 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 orgrounded 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 inthat ANCSA is a unilateral settlement imposed upon the Alaskan Inuit by the United Stateswithout the Inuit’s consent. See 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. While the Act purports to extinguishaboriginal collective title in favor of individual alienable shares in a corporation, theCommission’s Dann case makes clear that extinguishment of aboriginal title without informedconsent of the peoples involved is ineffective from the perspective of international human rights.Dann at ¶ 130.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200582For instance the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) provides the Inuit of Nunavuttitle 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 culturalimportance.510 These collective property rights are being devalued by the impacts of climatechange and will continue to be severely devalued as the impacts of climate change continue.Global warming violates the Inuit’s 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 Inuit’s traditionallands less accessible, more dangerous, unfamiliar, and less valuable to the Inuit. Thedisappearance 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, withmore dramatic losses more recently, and further acceleration of the trend expected in thefuture.512 Summer sea ice has decreased fifteen to twenty percent, and is projected to disappearcompletely by the end of this century.513 The ice that remains is less valuable to the Inuitbecause the later freezes, earlier, more sudden thaws, and striking loss of thickness have madeuse of the ice more dangerous and less productive. Sea ice, a large and critical part of coastalInuit’s property, is literally melting away.The loss of sea ice has

another effect on the Inuit’s useand enjoyment of their property.This loss of ice has contributedto alarming coastal erosionbecause sea storms and wavemovement are so much greaterwithout the breakwater effect ofthe ice.514 The erosion threatensthe Inuit’s homes and villages,forcing them to move theirhomes, which is expensive,arduous, and inconvenient, orlose them. Coastal campsites, atraditional use of land whiletraveling and harvesting, have been washed away. The erosion in turn exposes coastalpermafrost to the warmer air and water, causing it to melt as well.515 As the ice continues todisappear, the impact on Inuit coastal homes and communities will increase.The melting permafrost has altered the characteristics of Inuit land, diminishing its valueto the Inuit, and affecting their ability to use and enjoy their property. Slumping has damagedhomes, villages and infrastructure. Water resources and wetlands are drying because thepermafrost no longer inhibits drainage, which changes the look of the land, alters landmarks, andtransforms critical habitat. The use of permafrost for food storage is no longer practical in someareas, eliminating a traditional use of the land, and diminishing its value to the Inuit. The extentPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200583of permafrost is expected to retreat northward by hundreds of miles this century, furtherdiminishing the value of Inuit land.516The 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 isfundamentally changing as a result of climate change, making it less valuable and useful to theInuit. The United States’ acts and omissions regarding climate change have violated their rightto use and enjoy their ancestral lands and their rights of property in those lands.3. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHT TO USE ANDENJOY THEIR PERSONAL, INTANGIBLE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYa. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuit’s right to use and enjoytheir personal, intangible and intellectual propertyThe Inuit’s human right to property extends to their right to use and enjoy their personaland intellectual property without undue interference. In the Awas Tingni case, the Courtexpansively defined property to include those material goods capable of being acquired, as wellas 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 aperson’s patrimony; that concept includes all movables and immovables, corporeal andincorporeal elements and any other intangible object capable of having value.”518 Personalproperty, 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 todevelop, use, share, market and bequeath that heritage to future generations.”519 The ProposedDeclaration also protects indigenous peoples’ property interests in “the use of [lands] to whichthey 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 havetraditionally used for subsistence.521 The broad scope of the Inuit’s human right to use and enjoyof their property thus extends to their tangible and intangible personal property.Deprivation of the use and enjoyment of personal property through environmentaldegradation caused by a State’s actions or inactions can constitute a violation of the human rightto property. In the Belize Maya case, the Commission noted that “the right to use and enjoyproperty may be impeded when the State itself, or third parties acting with the acquiescence ortolerance of the State, affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of that property.”522Environmental degradation caused by development can “affect the existence, value, use orenjoyment of” personal property.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200584The Inuit’s human right to protection of their personal and intellectual property isguaranteed by international law. The United States government therefore has an obligation notto interfere with the Inuit’s use and enjoyment of their property through its failure to takeeffective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to use and enjoytheir personal, intangible and intellectual propertyThe Inuit, both individually and collectively possess property rights in “movables” aswell as “intangible object[s] capable of having a value.”523 Their personal possessions, such asequipment, clothing, and hides, clearly fall within the protected property. The Inuit’s intellectualproperty, in the form of their traditional knowledge, is an “intangible object capable of having avalue.” In addition, the Inuit possess intangible property rights of access to the harvest ofresources.Climate change diminishes the value of the Inuit’s 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 theanimals’ 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 recentyears, however, the ice often has not formed properly or has broken up early with ensuing lossesof vital equipment.524 Climate change is thus diminishing the use and value of the Inuit’spersonal property.In addition, the Inuit possess intangible property in the form of traditional knowledge.The Inuit’s traditional knowledge is a valuable intangible possession protected under thedefinition of protected property described in the Awas Tingni decision.525 The Inuit educationalsystem of passing on and building upon knowledge from one generation to the next hastremendous value to the Inuit’s survival and culture. The Inuit have spent millennia developingknowledge 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 ofthis traditional knowledge inaccurate, affecting the Inuit’s ability to “use, share, market andbequeath that [knowledge] to future generations.”527 Climate change has therefore made theInuit’s traditional knowledge less valuable.The right to access lands for subsistence purposes is also an intangible property right, thevalue of which is diminished by the effects of global warming. The Nunavut Land ClaimsAgreement provides that Inuit have free and unrestricted access to all lands and waters withinNunavut, Canada, subject to conservation requirements, to their full level of economic, socialand cultural need.528 In Alaska, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act ensuresrural residents reasonable access to all public lands, including the Alaska National WildlifeRefuge, for subsistence uses.529 The Inuit’s property interest in access to lands to which “theyPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200585have historically had access for their traditional activities and livelihood”530 is now less valuablebecause 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 hasmade access for the Inuit more difficult and less valuable. “Having spent considerable time andpolitical energy negotiating comprehensive land claim agreements which guarantee their right toharvest wildlife, Inuit leaders are warranted in questioning the value of the agreements if, as aresult of climate change, key species can no longer withstand hunting or are no longer to befound.”531In these ways, global warming is reducing the “existence, value, use, [and] enjoyment”532of the Inuit’s property. As the warming continues to accelerate, this damage will continue toreduce the value of Inuit property. U.S. acts and omissions regarding climate change are thusviolating the Inuit’s fundamental human right to use and enjoy their property.4. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHT TO THEPRESERVATION OF HEALTHa. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuit the right to the preservationof healthThe American Declaration provides that “[e]very person has the right to the preservationof his health through sanitary and social measures relating to food, clothing, housing and medicalcare, to the extent permitted by public and community resources.”533 This guarantee isinterpreted in the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Areaof Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“Protocol of San Salvador”) as ensuring “theenjoyment of the highest level of physical, mental and social well-being.”534 Other majorinternational human rights instruments also safeguard the right to health, including the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights,535 the International Convention on Economic, Social, and CulturalRights (ICESCR),536 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.537 The universaland fundamental nature of this right is further supported by the fact that at least seventy nationalconstitutions recognize the state’s obligation to promote health, many of them directlyproclaiming a right to health.538This Commission has acknowledged the close relationship between environmentaldegradation and the right to health, especially in the context of indigenous peoples. In theYanomami 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 thatcase, the Brazilian government’s failure to prevent environmental degradation stemming fromroad construction and subsequent development of Yanomami indigenous lands caused an influxof pollutants and resulted in widespread disease and death. The Inter-American Commissionfound that “by reason of the failure of the Government of Brazil to take timely and effectivemeasures [on] behalf of the Yanomami Indians, a situation has been produced that has resulted inthe violation, injury to them, of the … right to the preservation of health and to well-being.”540Additionally, in the Belize Maya case, the Commission noted that the right to health and wellPETITIONTO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200586being in the context of indigenous people’s rights was so dependent on the integrity andcondition of indigenous land that “broad violations” of indigenous property rights necessarilyimpacted the health and well-being of the Maya.541International health and environmental law also lend support and meaning to theAmerican Declaration’s right to health. The preamble of the Constitution of the World HealthOrganization (WHO) recognizes that “[t]he enjoyment of the highest attainable standard ofhealth is one of the fundamental rights of every human being.”542 The Stockholm Convention onPersistent Organic Pollutants, signed by the United States, seeks “to protect human health andthe environment from persistent organic pollutants.”543 The WHO Protocol on Water and Healthto the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses andInternational Lakes aims “to promote at all appropriate levels, nationally as well as intransboundary and international contexts, the protection of human health and well-being, bothindividual and collective.”544 Finally, principle 14 of the Rio Declaration recognizes theimportance of controlling “any activities and substances that … are found to be harmful tohuman health.”545The close relationship between environmental protection and health has been also beenrecognized by various international human rights bodies and experts. Special RapporteurRodolfo Stavenhagen of the UN Commission on Human Rights recently concluded that “theeffects of global warming and environmental pollution are particularly pertinent to the lifechances of Aboriginal people in Canada’s North, a human rights issue that requires urgentattention at the national and international levels, as indicated in the recent Arctic Climate ImpactAssessment.”546 Special Rapporteur Fatma Zohra Ksentini of the U.N. Sub-Commission onPrevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (now the Sub-Commission onPromotion and Protection of Human Rights) identified the right to health as a fundamental rightand analyzed the effects of the environment on that right.547 Drawing from various internationalhuman rights documents and national constitutions, she found that, under customaryinternational law, “everyone has a right to the highest attainable standard of health.”548 Shefurther found that, “[i]n the environmental context, the right to health essentially implies feasibleprotection from natural hazards and freedom from pollution.”549 The United Nations’ SpecialRapporteur on the right to health, Paul Hunt, also noted that the right to health gives rise to anobligation on the part of a State to ensure that environmental degradation does not endangerhuman health.550 The recognition of the connection between health and the environment isfurther underscored by the definition of pollution in international environmental law as “theintroduction by man of substances or energy into the environment resulting in such deleteriouseffects 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 “thehighest attainable standard of physical and mental health” in Article 12.1 of the InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rightsis not confined to the right to health care. On the contrary, the drafting historyand the express wording of article 12.2 acknowledge that the right to healthPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200587embraces a wide range of socio-economic factors … and extends to theunderlying determinants of health, such as food and nutrition, housing, access tosafe and potable water and adequate sanitation, safe and healthy workingconditions, and a healthy environment.”552The Committee further states that victims of a violation of the right to health should have accessto remedies at the both national and international levels and should be entitled to adequatereparation.553The World Health Organization (“WHO”) has also recognized on numerous occasionsthe right to health in connection with environmental harms. In 1976, the WHO Executive Boardrecommended that the World Health Assembly adopt a resolution urging governments “to makeenvironmental health programmes an integral part of their national health and developmentefforts, particular attention being given to the most needy sectors of the population.”554 Theresolution, 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 tooslow” and emphasized that “the improvement of environmental conditions should be seen as partof the total health and development effort.”555 In 1989, the WHO Executive Board becameconcerned that environmental degradation resulting from indiscriminate use of technology poseda threat to human health. It recommended that the World Health Assembly adopt a resolutionurging WHO Member States “to establish and evaluate policies and strategies for preventingadverse effects of development to the environment and on health” and calling on theinternational community “to increase their support for activities to promote a healthyenvironment and to control adverse effects of development on the environment and health.”556The right to preservation of health recognized in the American Declaration necessarilyincludes a prohibition on degradation of the environment to the point that human health andwell-being are threatened. The United States has an international obligation not to infringe uponthe Inuit’s human right to health and well-being through degradation of their physicalenvironment.b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to the preservation ofhealthClimate change caused by the U.S. government’s regulatory actions and inactions isharmful to the Inuit’s health and well-being. Continued accelerating climate change willcontinue to add to these and other health risks in the future. Disappearing sea-ice and changingenvironmental conditions have diminished populations, accessibility, and quality of fish andgame upon which the Inuit rely for nutrition. The Inuit’s health is also adversely affected bychanges in insect and pest populations and the movement of new diseases northward. Thequality and quantity of natural sources of drinking water has decreased, exacerbating the alreadydamaging effects on Inuit health. In addition to physical health issues, the Inuit’s mental healthhas been damaged by the transformation of the once familiar landscape, and the resultant cultural

PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200588destruction. These increases in health risks, caused by the United States’ acts and omissions,violate the Inuit’s right to the preservation of health.Like the Mayan people in the Belize Maya case, the Inuit rely so heavily on the conditionof the land for their health and well-being that the damage to their environment caused byclimate change violates their human right to health and well-being. Climate change hassubjected the Inuit to a higher risk of diet-related diseases. The Inuit’s diet is rapidly changingbecause of the scarcity, inaccessibility, and decrease in quality of traditional food sources due toclimate change. Loss of game habitat and food sources, and the inaccessibility of game due totravel difficulties hinder the Inuit’s ability to rely on the subsistence harvest for sustenance. Theless healthy and more expensive store-bought food the Inuit must use to supplement thesubsistence harvest increases dietary health risks such as “cancer, obesity, diabetes, andcardiovascular diseases.”557 In addition, the deteriorating health of harvested game negativelyaffects the nutritional value of subsistence game to the Inuit.The rapidly disappearing sea ice, whichis habitat and hunting grounds for polar bears,has forced the bears to into a smaller, lessproductive living space. Consequently, thebears must search for food on land, where morefrequent and dangerous encounters betweenInuit and bears results. In addition, the bearshave begun raiding garbage dumps in Inuitsettlements, further endangering the health ofInuit. Grizzly and black bears have also becomea problem for the Inuit. Grizzly bears haveextended their range further north because of climate change, and have been spotted hunting sealand raiding caribou caches. Black bears have also been seen more frequently further north. Theextra competition for food and loss of harvested food from previously unknown species threatenthe health of the Inuit.Shifts in species distribution due to climate change also subject the Inuit to a greater riskof topical infections, allergies, and animal-borne diseases. For example, the increase in flies andmosquitoes brings an increased risk of infection from insect bites, as well as of fly- andmosquito-borne illnesses.558 These risks are echoed in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment’sprojection that “animal diseases that can be transmitted to humans, such as West Nile virus, arelikely to pose increasing health risks.”559 Increased populations of pests such as fox and micehave also raised the risk of rabies. Residents of Sachs Harbor have begun to suffer from allergiesto white pine pollen, which has moved northward, as well as from skin rashes and other skinproblems due to increased sun and wind arising from climate change.560Climate change is also profoundly affecting the Inuit’s mental health. Transformation ofthe once familiar landscape causes psychological stress, anxiety, and uncertainty.561 The loss ofimportant cultural activities such as subsistence harvesting, passing on traditional knowledge toPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 7, 200589younger generations, weather forecasting, and igloo building can induce psychologicalproblems.562 Because of the increased danger and insecurity of travel, the practice of traditionalcultural activities induces more stress than in the past, adding emotional barriers to the physicalbarriers to the practice of those cultural activities.563 In addition, the damage to homes,infrastructure and communities from increased coastal erosion, land slumping, and floodingresult in displacement, dislocation, and associated psychological impacts.564The United States’ acts and omissions with respect to climate change have degraded thearctic environment to the point that those acts and omissions violate the Inuit’s fundamentalhuman right to the preservation of their health.5. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHT TO LIFE,PHYSICAL INTEGRITY AND SECURITYa. The American Declaration protects the Inuit’s right to life, physicalprotection and securityUnder the American Declaration, “[e]very human being has the right to life, liberty andthe security of his person.”565 The right to life is the most fundamental of rights, and is containedin all major international human rights conventions.566 The United States has repeatedly bounditself to protect this fundamental right by ratifying the OAS Charter and the ICCPR,567 adoptingthe American Declaration, and signing the American Convention on Human Rights.568 The rightto life is also a general principle of law that is contained in the constitutions of many nations,including that of the United States.569This Commission has made clear that environmental degradation can violate the right tolife. In the Yanomami case, the Commission established a link between environmental qualityand the right to life.570 In that case, the Brazilian government had constructed a highway throughYanomami territory and authorized the exploitation of the territory’s resources. These actionsled to the influx of non-indigenous people who brought contagious diseases that spread to theYanomami, resulting in disease and death. The Commission found that, among other things, thegovernment’s failure to protect the integrity of Yanomami lands had violated the Yanomami’sPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200590rights to life, liberty and personal security guaranteed by Article 1 of the AmericanDeclaration.571In its Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador, the Commission stated that“[t]he right to have one’s life respected is not … limited to protection against arbitrarykilling.”572The realization of the right to life, and to physical security and integrity isnecessarily related to and in some ways dependent upon one’s physicalenvironment. Accordingly, where environmental contamination anddegradation pose a persistent threat to human life and health, the foregoingrights are implicated.573In discussing the connection between the physical environment and the right to life, thereport concluded that environmental degradation can “give rise to an obligation on the part of astate to take reasonable measures to prevent” the risk to life associated with environmentaldegradation.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 environmentaldegradation, “which may cause serious physical illness, impairment and suffering on the part ofthe local populace, [is] inconsistent with the right to be respected as a human being.”575This application of the American Declaration is also consistent with the interpretation ofthe 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 theirhomes threatened the right to life of present and future generations. The U.N. Human RightsCommittee found that the case raised “serious issues with regard to the obligation of Statesparties to protect human life,” but declared the case inadmissible due to failure to exhaustdomestic remedies.576 The Committee has also stated that the right to life “has been too oftennarrowly interpreted…. [It] cannot properly be understood in a restrictive manner, and theprotection of this right requires that states adopt positive measures.”577The United States has an obligation to protect the Inuit’s human rights to life andpersonal security. This obligation includes the duty not to degrade the arctic environment tosuch an extent that the degradation threatens the life and personal security of Inuit people.b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to life, physicalprotection and securityThe United States’ acts and omissions regarding global climate change violate the Inuit’sright to life, physical security and integrity. Changes in ice and snow jeopardize individual Inuitlives, critical food sources are threatened, and unpredictable weather makes travel moredangerous at all times of the year. The impacts the Inuit are already suffering will continue toworsen as climate change accelerates.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200591Individual 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 earlierand more suddenly, and is thinner because of climate change.578 In the spring, the thaw happensmuch more rapidly, causing the ice to change from safe to perilous in a matter of hours ratherthan weeks. The thinner ice and new, unpredictable areas of open water cause hunters and othertravelers to fall through the ice and be injured or drowned.Not only are harvested species becoming scarcer as the climate changes, the Inuit’saccess to these foods is diminishing due to difficulties in travel and changes in game location.579The U.S. Congress has acknowledged that, for many Inuit, “no practical alternative means areavailable to replace the food supplies and other items gathered from fish and wildlife whichsupply rural residents dependent on subsistence uses.”580 Damage to the Inuit’s subsistenceharvest violates their right to life.Sudden, unpredictable storms due to climate change also threaten the Inuit’s lives andphysical security. The inability of elders to predict the weather accurately increases the risk thathunters and travelers will be caught unprepared, with life-threatening consequences in the harsharctic climate. Stranded travelers can no longer rely on the abundance of snow from which toconstruct emergency shelters.This lack of shelter hascontributed to deaths andinjuries among huntersstranded by sudden storms.581

In addition, the decrease insummer ice has caused rougherseas and more dangerousstorms, increasing hazards toboaters.582 Formerly familiarand common activities are nowladen with unavoidable andunpredictable threats to humanlife because of theunpredictable weather.Climate change has damaged the arctic environment to such an extent that the damagethreatens human life. The United States has breached its duty under the American Declaration toprotect the Inuit’s right to life and personal security.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005926. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHT TO THEIR OWNMEANS OF SUBSISTENCEa. The American Declaration protects the Inuit’s right to their own means ofsubsistenceA people’s right to their own means of subsistence is inherent in and a necessarycomponent of the American Declaration’s rights to property, health, life, and culture in thecontext of indigenous peoples. The ICESCR and ICCPR both provide that all peoples “mayfreely dispose of their natural wealth and resources,” but that “[i]n no case may a people bedeprived of its own means of subsistence.”583 The U.N. Draft Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous People provides the same assurance to indigenous peoples.584 In the context ofindigenous peoples, the rights to self-determination and one’s own means of subsistence havebecome recognized principles of international human rights law.Included within a people’s right to their own means of subsistence is the right to controlover natural resources and the physical environment.585 As described in more detail above, thisCommission has noted that the basic principles reflected in many of the provisions of theProposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “including aspects ofArticle XVIII, reflect general international legal principles developing out of and applicableinside and outside of the inter-American system and to this extent are properly considered ininterpreting and applying the provisions of the American Declaration in the context ofindigenous peoples.”586 Article XVIII of the Proposed Declaration states that indigenous peopleshave the “right to an effective legal framework for the protection of their rights … with respectto traditional uses of their lands, interests in lands, and resources, such as subsistence.”587 TheProposed Declaration also states that “[i]ndigenous peoples have the right to … autonomy orself-government with regard to … land and resource management, [and] the environment.”588Deprivation of control over natural resources and the environment necessarily deprivesindigenous peoples of their own means of subsistence.Other human rights bodies have acknowledged the right of a people to control over theirown means of subsistence. In its 2002 Concluding Observations to Sweden, the U.N. HumanRights Committee recommended that Sweden take steps to involve the indigenous Sami peoplein decision-making processes that affect their traditional lands and economic activities,

particularly “by giving them greater influence in decision-making affecting their naturalenvironment and their means of subsistence.”589 Similarly, in response to Canada’s failure toimplement recommendations for aboriginal land and resource allocation, the Human RightsCommittee emphasized Canada’s obligations under Article 1 of the ICCPR and the ICESCR,stating, “peoples … may not be deprived of their own means of subsistence.”590The Human Rights Committee has also recognized that the right to culture requiresprotecting a people’s means of subsistence. In the Lubicon Lake case, the Lubicon Lake Band ofindigenous peoples asserted that the State’s failure to protect their culture from the impacts ofPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200593development activities violated their right to self-determination.591 Although the Human RightsCommittee determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider a violation of a collective rightin a procedure designed to protect individual rights,592 the Committee stated that the State’s actionsviolated the right to culture in the ICCPR because they “threaten[ed] the [subsistence] way of lifeof the Lubicon Lake Band.”593Other international instruments also protect the right to subsistence. For example, Article21 of the Draft U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples includes the right tosubsistence, stating that indigenous peoples have the right “to be secure in the enjoyment of theirown means of subsistence and development.”594 ILO Convention 169 also protects the right of apeople 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 andtraditional activities … such as hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering, shall be recognised asimportant factors in the maintenance of their cultures and in their economic self-reliance anddevelopment.”596The Inuit’s right to their own means of subsistence is protected underinternational law and is in intrinsic part of the rights established in the AmericanDeclaration. The United States has an international obligation not to deprive the Inuit oftheir own means of subsistence.b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to their own means ofsubsistenceArctic climate change is making the Inuit’s subsistence harvest more dangerous, moredifficult and less reliable. In fact, climate change is gradually and steadily destroying the Inuit’smeans of subsistence.597 Changes in ice, snow, weather,seasons and land have combined to deprive the Inuit oftheir ability to rely exclusively on the subsistence harvest,violating their right to their own means of subsistence.Continuing changes in the arctic climate will furtherinterfere with the Inuit’s right to their own means ofsubsistence.Because travel is an essential component of theInuit subsistence harvest, the deprivation of safe andreliable means of travel deprives the Inuit of their means ofsubsistence. Travel over ice has become more dangerousand more difficult because of more sudden thaws, thinner

ice, and new areas of open water that persist throughout thewinter. The later freezes and earlier thaws havedramatically shortened the winter ice travel season. Theloss of summer sea ice has also made boat travel morePETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200594dangerous because of the loss of the multi-year ice’s wave-suppressing effect. Travel over snow,an important surface for travel using sleds or snowmobiles, has been diminished by the latersnowfall, lack of snow cover, earlier, more sudden thaw, and loss of multi-year snow cover. Thechange 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 tothe decline in their ability to subsist on harvested foods. The Inuit can no longer plan safe travelbecause the unpredictable weather has deprived them of the ability to forecast the weather. Theresulting trip cancellations, stranded travelers and the need for more cumbersome equipmentfurther deprive the Inuit of their ability to subsist. The catastrophic effects that climate changehas 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 hascrippled the subsistence harvest through its effect on harvested foods. Land animals’ winter foodsources are now trapped below a hard, impenetrable layer of ice caused by the new autumnfreeze-thaw-freeze pattern, resulting in fewer, less healthy, and less accessible land animals forharvest. 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 innumbers and decline in overall health that is expected to accelerate in the coming years.598 Theremaining animals are changing location and habits, making them less accessible, harder to findand, because of impacts on the ability to travel, sometimes impossible to hunt.As a result of the problems with travel andfood sources due to climate change, the Inuit are nolonger able to rely exclusively on the subsistenceharvest for their survival. Climate change hastherefore deprived the Inuit of their means ofsubsistence. The United States’ acts and omissionswith regard to climate change, done withoutconsultation or consent of the Inuit, violate theInuit’s human rights to self-determination and totheir own means of subsistence.7. THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING VIOLATE THE INUIT’S RIGHTS TO RESIDENCEAND MOVEMENT AND INVIOLABILITY OF THE HOMEa. The American Declaration guarantees the Inuit’s right to residence andmovement and inviolability of the homeThe American Declaration guarantees every person “the right to fix his residence withinthe territory of the state of which he is a national, to move about freely within such territory, andnot to leave it except by his own will.”599 The American Declaration also guarantees everyperson “the right to the inviolability of his home.”600 Like the right to life, the rights to residenceand movement and inviolability of the home are established in all major human rightsinstruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,601 the ICCPR,602 the

PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200595American Convention on Human Rights,603 the European Convention on Human Rights604 andthe African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.605 Many constitutions also guarantee theright to movement and residence.606In the Yanomami case, this Commission found a violation of the right to residence andmovement where some Yanomami people had to leave their traditional lands because of a seriesof adverse changes caused by government development projects.607 The Commission noted thatthe construction of a highway through the territory of the Yanomami Indians, “compelled themto abandon their habitat and seek refuge in other places.”608 The right to residence andmovement was violated where parts of the Yanomami lands became uninhabitable because ofchanges to the land and the environment caused by government-sponsored developmentprojects.609Other human rights tribunals have recognized the significant link between environmentalquality and the right to the inviolability of the home. In Lopez Ostra v. Spain, the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights held that Spain’s failure to prevent a waste treatment plant frompolluting nearby homes violated this right.610 Similarly, in Guerra and Others v. Italy, the Courtheld that severe environmental pollution may affect individuals’ well-being and adversely affectprivate and family life, and as a result held Italy liable for its failure to secure these rights.611The European Court recently reaffirmed this concept in Fadeyeva v. Russia, in which the failureof the State to relocate the applicant away from a highly toxic area constituted violation of theright to respect for the home and private life.612 The European Court noted that forcing a fewpeople to bear the environmental costs of economic benefits to the entire community did notstrike 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 Inuit’s rights toresidence and movement and inviolability of the home through destruction of the land uponwhich the Inuit have built their homes.b. The effects of global warming violate the Inuit’s right to residence andmovement, and inviolability of the homeThe United States’ acts and omissions that contribute to global warming violate theInuit’s right to residence and movement because climate change threatens the Inuit’s ability tomaintain residence in their communities. Furthermore, the Inuit’s right to inviolability of thehome 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 homesand entire villages. Coastal erosion caused by increasingly severe storms threatens entire coastalcommunities. Melting permafrost causes building foundations to shift, damaging Inuit homesand community structures. The destruction is forcing the coastal Inuit to relocate theircommunities and homes farther inland, at great expense and distress.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200596This 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 toclimate change “compel[s the Inuit] to abandon their habitat and seek refuge in other places,”613affecting 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 regardto climate change therefore violate the Inuit’s fundamental human rights to residence andmovement and inviolability of the home.C. THE AMERICAN DECLARATION SHOULD BE APPLIED IN THE CONTEXT OF RELEVANTINTERNATIONAL NORMS AND PRINCIPLESIn their interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, boththe Court and Commission have consistently recognized the relevance of broader developmentsin the field of international law to their analysis of rights, duties, and violations.1. THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS BEARS ON INTERPRETATION OFTHE AMERICAN DECLARATIONThe Commission has acknowledged that the American Convention on Human Rights“may be considered to represent an authoritative expression” of the rights contained in theAmerican Declaration, and is therefore properly considered in interpreting the Declaration’sprovisions.614 The jurisprudence of the Commission and the Court in interpreting theConvention’s provisions is thus also relevant in interpreting the Declaration. At the same time,the Convention should not restrict the Court’s reading of the American Declaration or othersources of human rights. Specifically, Article 29 of the Convention states that the Conventionmust not be interpreted as “restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedomrecognized 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 fromrepresentative democracy as a form of government; or excluding or limiting the effect that theAmerican Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the samenature may have.”6152. DEVELOPMENTS IN OTHER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEMS SHOULD BETAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE AMERICANDECLARATIONThe Commission similarly has recognized that “the provisions of … the AmericanDeclaration, should be interpreted and applied in context of developments in the field ofinternational human rights law.”616 It has noted in particular the appropriateness of consideringother international and regional human rights documents in the interpretation and application ofthe rights contained in the American Declaration.617 The Commission has used this approachoften in interpreting the scope and meaning of the rights contained in the American Declarationand Charter of the Organization of American States (“OAS Charter”).618 Other human rightsinstruments that are relevant to the understanding of the rights at issue in this case include, asPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200597demonstrated above, the American Convention, the ICCPR, the ICESCR, other regional humanrights conventions, the ILO Convention 169, and the official interpretations of these instrumentsby human rights bodies.3. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL NORMS AND PRINCIPLES ARE RELEVANT TO THEINTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE AMERICAN DECLARATIONIn 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 advisoryopinion regarding The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of theGuarantees of the Due Process of Law, the Court considered the questions before it “in thecontext of the evolution of the fundamental rights of the human person in contemporaryinternational law.”620The American Declaration should thus be applied “with due regard to other relevant rulesof international law applicable to member states against which complaints of human rightsviolations are properly lodged.”621 As the Court has noted, “a treaty can concern the protectionof human rights, regardless of what the principal purpose of the treaty might be.”622 TheCommission has similarly stated that “it would be inconsistent with general principles of law forthe Commission to construe and exercise its Charter-based mandate without taking into accountother international obligations of member states which may be relevant.”623 Finally, ininterpreting the term “other treaties” in Article 64 of the American Convention, the Courtaffirmed its competence to interpret the provisions of the American Declaration usinginternational developments as well as the provisions of the American Convention.624In 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 AmericanDeclaration 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 andcustomary international law. The United States’ breach of these obligations reinforces theconclusion that the United States is violating rights protected by the American Declaration.a. The United States is violating its obligations under the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto ProtocolThe 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 objectiveof the Framework Convention is to “achieve ... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations inthe atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with theclimate system.”626 To further this objective, Article 4.1(b) of the Convention requires Parties toformulate and implement national programs for mitigating anthropogenic greenhouse gasemissions.627PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200598Article 4.2(b) is more specific: each Annex I (developed country) Party mustcommunicate information on its polices and measures to limit emissions and enhance removalsof greenhouse gases, and on the resulting projected emissions and removals through 2000, “withthe aim of returning individually or jointly to [its] 1990 levels these anthropogenic emissions of[GHGs].”628Although the year 2000 has passed, this obligation is not moot.* The terms of Article4.2(b), given their “ordinary meaning … in their context and in light of the object andpurpose,”629 remain operative as long as the Framework Convention remains in force. In light ofthe Framework Convention’s objective of avoiding dangerous atmospheric concentrations ofgreenhouse gases, mooting the obligation would make no sense. Indeed, were Article 4.2(b) tobe read as applying only during the period before 2000, the objective would be have beenunachievable 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, whichforecasts U.S. GHG emissions increasing markedly for the foreseeable future,630 as well asstatements by President Bush and numerous other government officials,† the United States hasabandoned the aim of returning its emissions to 1990 levels, in violation of its obligation toimplement the Framework Convention in good faith and in light of the Convention’s objective.Although the U.S. government has acknowledged its obligation to reduce emissions, it has nottaken steps to remedy the defects identified by the secretariat in its first review of U.S. climatepolicy, in 1999.631Explaining his position on global warming, President Bush stated, “Our country, theUnited States is the world’s largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account foralmost 20 percent of the world’s man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for aboutone-quarter of the world’s economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce ouremissions.”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 Article4.2(b), whereas the reference to returning “by the end of the present decade to earlier levels” is inArticle 4.2(a). While the reporting requirements of Article 4.2(b) are limited to the “the periodreferred to in subparagraph (a),” the aim to return emissions to 1990 levels is not. Parties havedisregarded the limitation on reporting requirements.† For example, President Bush announced, “My administration is committed to cutting ournation's greenhouse gas intensity – how much we emit per unit of economic activity – by 18percent over the next 10 years.” “President Announces Clear Skies & Global Climate ChangeInitiatives,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, Feb.14, 2002 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020214-5.html. According toanalysis by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the Administration's 18% intensity targetwill allow actual emissions to increase 12% over the same period. Emissions will continue togrow at nearly the same rate as at present. Pew Center on Global, athttp://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/response_bushpolicy.cfm.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200599increase 42.7% by 2020, from 1562 MMTC in 2000 to 2088 MMTC in 2020.633 As if to confirmits complete rejection of Article 4.2, the United States’ latest report to the secretariat makes nomention 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 reducegreenhouse gas intensity by 18% in ten years exceeds by only 4% the 14% reduction ingreenhouse gas intensity expected in the absence of the President’s additional proposed policiesand measures.635* This goal, which is to be met in 2012, will allow actual emissions to increaseby 12% over the same period, a rate of growth that is nearly the same as at present.636b. The United States is violating its obligation to avoid transboundary harmand to respect the principle of sustainable developmentCustomary international law requires the United States to prevent its territory from beingused in a manner that causes harm outside of its jurisdiction. This obligation to avoidtransboundary environmental harm is one of the most fundamental and widely recognizedcustomary international law norms. It originates from the common law principle of sic utere tuout alienum non laedus (do not use your property in a manner that will harm others).637For 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 Arbitrationbetween the United States and Canada, the U.S.–Canada International Joint Commission heldthat “under principles of international law, as well as the law of the United States, no State hasthe right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes inor to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein, when the case is of seriousconsequence and the injury is established by clear and convincing evidence.”638 In the CorfuChannel Case, the International Court of Justice recognized the principle even more broadly as“every State’s obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to therights of other States.”639 More recently, in its 1996 advisory opinion on the Legality of theThreat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice noted that “[t]he existenceof the general obligation of States to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and controlrespect the environment of other States or of areas beyond national control is now part of thecorpus of international law relating to the environment.”640The prohibition on transboundary harm has also been included in numerous widelyaccepted treaties and declarations over the past several decades. For example, in adopting the1972 Declaration of the United Nations Convention on the Human Environment (StockholmDeclaration) and the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the United Statesand 179 other nations agreed that sovereignty over natural resources is conditioned on theresponsibility of States “to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not causedamage 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005100jurisdiction.”641 The United States agreed to that formulation in several international treaties,including the 1993 North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation642 and the 1972Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.643In a statement that the United States has recognized as expressing customary international law,644the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea echoes these texts, stating that “States shall take allmeasures necessary to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control are so conducted asto not cause damage by pollution to other States and their environment, and that pollution arisingfrom incidents or activities under their jurisdiction or control does not spread beyond the areaswhere they exercise sovereign rights in accordance with this Convention.”645 The FrameworkConvention itself acknowledges state responsibility for the prevention of transboundary harm,adopting the same language as the Stockholm and Rio Declarations.646International law recognizes that the obligation to avoid transboundary harm limitsStates’ right to economic development. For example, both the Stockholm Declaration and theRio Declaration condition the right of States “to exploit their own resources pursuant to theirown environmental and development policies” on the responsibility to avoid transboundaryenvironmental harm.* The International Court of Justice has explained that “[t]his need toreconcile economic development with protection of the environment is aptly expressed in theconcept of sustainable development.”647 Eminent scholars, including at least one judge of theInternational Court of Justice, consider sustainable development to be “a principle withnormative 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 itsnatural resources, … the Commission considers that the absence of regulation, inappropriateregulation, or a lack of supervision in the application of extant norms may create seriousproblems with respect to the environment which translate into violations of human rights.”649Climate change has already produced numerous transboundary environmental impacts asit alters the arctic environment. These impacts include melting ice and decreasing snow, erraticweather and alterations in land and water conditions. Through action and inaction with respectto climate change that have made a major and disproportionate contribution to thesetransboundary environmental impacts, the United States has violated its internationalresponsibility for preventing activities within its jurisdiction from damaging the environmentoutside its borders. The United States’ failure to take effective action to minimize these impactsalso violates the principle of sustainable development. These violations in turn have contributedto the human rights violations at issue in this petition.* Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration, supra note 454, and principle 21 of the StockholmDeclaration, supra note 641, each provide thatStates have … the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their ownenvironmental [Rio adds: “and developmental”] policies, and the responsibility to ensurethat activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environmentof other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005101c. The United States is violating its obligation to act with precautionThe obligation of States to act cautiously in the face of scientific uncertainty is a wellestablishedprinciple of international law. The Rio Declaration provides the most widelyaccepted articulation of this norm: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionaryapproach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. When there are threatsof serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason forpostponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”650 The United Stateshas stated its support for this part of the Rio Declaration.651 The Malmö Ministerial Declaration,which came out of the United Nations Environment Programme’s First Global MinisterialEnvironment Forum in 2000, reaffirmed the dedication of the United States and numerous othernations to “the observation of the precautionary approach as contained in the Rio Principles.”652The precautionary principle has been included in many of the major internationalenvironmental treaties, including agreements to address climate change, ozone, biodiversity,biosafety, and persistent organic pollutants.653 The United States has accepted treaties endorsinga precautionary approach, such as the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-RangeTransboundary Air Pollution on Heavy Metals and the Agreement for the Implementation of theProvisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly MigratoryFish Stocks.654 Moreover, recent environmental agreements demonstrate an emerginginternational trend of strengthening the precautionary principle to embrace an active obligation tomake decisions in a precautionary manner.655Most 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 minimizethe 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 usedas a reason for postponing [cost-effective] measures” in the face of “threats of serious orirreversible damage.”657U.S. action and inaction in response to its acknowledged contributions to global climatechange demonstrate a failure to take precautionary measures. The U.S. government hasrepeatedly alleged uncertainty in climate science, and continues to do so, to justify its refusal totake effective steps toward reducing carbon emissions.658 The precautionary principle articulatedin the Framework Convention and other international instruments would require the UnitedStates to take precautionary measures to reduce emissions even if the uncertainty alleged by theUnited States actually existed. At this point, however, there is no longer scientific uncertaintyover the threat that climate change poses or the contribution of greenhouse gases to it. Asdetailed 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 principalcause of global warming. Moreover, the United States has acknowledged that it contributesalmost 20% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions,659 and that it plans to increase its netcontributions of greenhouse gases each year.660PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005102The 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 theenvironment. Similarly, the loss of the Inuit’s communities and traditional way of life cannot beeasily corrected at a later date.Although there remains some scientific uncertainty with respect to the nature and timingof sub-regional impacts, there is virtually no scientific uncertainty with respect to the issuesrelevant to this petition – the rapid and persistent warming of the Arctic as a result of the buildupof anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the highly adverse effect of thiswarming on the lives and culture of the Inuit. Were there some uncertainty concerning theseissues, 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 INTERNATIONALOBLIGATIONSStates’ responsibility to prevent breaches of international law and remedy them whenthey occur is a foundational principle of international law. The Permanent Court of InternationalJustice 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 decisionConcerning the Factory at Chorzów, the Permanent Court of International Justice held that “[i]tis a principle of international law, and even a general conception of law, that any breach of anengagement involves an obligation to make reparation.”661 The International Court of Justicefound state responsibility for international law violations and required reparations in both theCorfu Channel Case and the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project.662 The opinion in Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project explained that “[r]eparation must, ‘as far as possible,’ wipe out all theconsequences of the illegal act.”663The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States similarlyacknowledges that States must act to prevent violations of environmental obligations and areresponsible for such breaches and their consequences.664 The principle of State responsibility isalso 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 fromactivities on their territory or under their control.665The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has recognized that these principles equallyin the case of human rights obligations. In the Velásquez Rodríguez case, the Court orderedcompensation for human rights violations, stating that “the obligation to indemnify is not derivedfrom internal law [of the violating nation], but from violation of the American Convention. It isthe result of an international obligation.”666Similarly, the principle that the polluter should pay the costs of pollution, as articulated inthe Rio Declaration, presumes responsibility on the part of those who pollute.667 The MalmöPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005103Ministerial Declaration recently reiterated the necessity of applying the polluter pays principle,668as did the Plan of Implementation resulting from the 2002 World Summit on SustainableDevelopment.669 By failing to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the United States hasallowed domestic emitters to impose the environmental costs of their pollution on those outsideU.S. borders, with the Inuit suffering especially from this lapse.The United States has failed thus far to take responsibility for the breaches ofinternational law and their consequences that stem from its acts and omissions with respect toclimate change. The United States has acknowledged its duty to reduce its greenhouse gasemissions,670 but its current policies result in continued emissions increases.671 The evergrowingU.S. contribution to global climate change serves to accelerate the pace of theenvironmental impacts in the Arctic and the resultant violations of the Inuit’s human rights.The United States is obligated under international law to take responsibility for itscontributions to global climate change both by limiting emissions and by paying reparations tothose that it has harmed and continues to harm. The United States therefore has a duty toprovide appropriate remedy and redress to the Inuit.D. BY ITS ACTS AND OMISSIONS, THE UNITED STATES VIOLATES THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THEINUIT1. THE UNITED STATES IS THE WORLD’S LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBALWARMING AND ITS DAMAGING EFFECTS ON THE INUITAs established above, the United States is, by any measure, the world’s largestcontributor to global warming and its damaging effect on the Inuit. As the world’s largestconsumer of energy, both historically and at present, it emits the most fossil fuels and isresponsible for the largest amount of cumulative emissions of any nation on Earth. It followsthat the United States has contributed more than any other nation to the rise in globaltemperature. U.S. emissions of energy-related CO2 are also vastly out of proportion to itspopulation size. On a per-person basis, U.S. emissions in 2000 were more than five times theglobal average,672 nearly two-and-a-half times the per capita emissions in Europe,673 and ninetimes those in Asia and South America.674 Among the countries with significant emissions, theUnited States had the highest level of per capita emissions.6752. U.S. CLIMATE POLICY DOES NOT REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSa. U.S. climate policyIn February 2002, the administration of U.S. president George W. Bush formulated aGlobal 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 ratioof greenhouse gases emitted per unit of economic output.676 The major elements of this initiativeare a pair of programs, Climate Leaders and the “Climate VISION” Partnership, which are aimedPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005104to persuade and provide limited assistance industry to voluntarily reduce its greenhouse gasemissions.677Climate Leaders is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),which describes it as an “industry-government partnership that works with companies to developlong-term comprehensive climate change strategies.”678 Member businesses adopt voluntaryreduction targets, based either on emissions intensity or absolute emissions, and agree toinventory their greenhouse gas production to track progress toward these goals. Climate Leadersalso requires companies to report their emissions and summarize their goals and achievements toEPA.The “Climate VISION” Partnership is a similar public-private partnership schemelaunched by the Department of Energy (DOE) in February 2003.* Similar to the Climate Leadersinitiative, its mission is to induce business and trade associations to set and achieve voluntaryemissions reduction goals within their sector.679 Targeted sectors include oil and gas, railroads,auto manufacturers, and chemical manufacturing.680 Additionally, the Federal governmentprovides funding through the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) forfarmers to engage in carbon sequestration projects.681 It also revamped its Voluntary Reportingof Greenhouse Gases Program in order to allow companies to report any decreases in theiremissions and, if emissions decreases are mandated in the future, secure credit for reporteddecreases.682The President’s 2006 budget request to Congress includes $524 million in tax incentivesto reduce greenhouse gases.683 These incentives include tax credits for the purchase of hybridand fuel-cell vehicles, residential solar heating systems, energy produced from landfill gas,electricity produced from alternative energy sources, and combined heat and power systems.684In 2001, the United States established the multi-agency Climate Change Science Program(CCSP) to oversee and coordinate government research on areas of uncertainty in climatescience. The President’s 2006 budget request for CCSP is nearly $2 billion.685 The ClimateChange Technology Program (CCTP), also established in 2001, is a multi-agency program toaccelerate research and development of technologies that can achieve greenhouse gas emissionreductions.686 With a projected budget of nearly $3 billion in 2006, CCTP focuses on advancedtechnologies, such as hydrogen energy, zero-emissions coal-fired power plants, and nuclearfusion.687 The program also funds research and development of renewable energy, nuclearpower, and energy efficiency.688The Federal initiative also includes $200 million for international assistance andcooperation. International programs include the International Partnership for a HydrogenEconomy,689 the Methane-to-Markets Partnership,690 the Carbon Sequestration Leadership* Other agencies participating in Climate VISION include the EPA, Department ofTransportation (DOT), Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of the Interior(DOI).PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING

CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005105Forum,691 the Generation IV International Forum (for nuclear energy research),692 and severalbilateral partnerships.693b. U.S. climate policy is not effectiveThe President’s goal of reducing emissions intensity by 18% and the initiatives adoptedto implement that goal have had no discernible effect on U.S. emissions, which have increasedby 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.695There 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 mainlyof misleading and ineffective targets, voluntary initiatives, and speculative research.i. Misleading and ineffective targetsThe U.S. goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18% is unlikely to lead to anysignificant decrease in actual emissions. Greenhouse gas intensity tends to fall naturally, asenergy efficiency improves and the U.S. economy shifts away from heavy industry. TheGovernment Accountability Office accordingly predicts that without any government action,U.S. greenhouse gas intensity will decline 14% by 2012.696 Thus, by the government’s ownfigures, achieving the 18% target will produce only a 4% decrease in emissions.697 In absoluteterms, 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 theUnited States suffers low economic growth).698The two programs intended to assist industry to achieve this small improvement inemissions intensity are not on track to succeed. Climate VISION has garnered only a fewreluctant pledges to make minor cuts in emissions intensity, in most cases without any quantifiedreduction targets.699 In fact, the target set by the electricity industry for 2000 to 2010 exceedsEIA projections of “business-as-usual” emissions during that period.700 Furthermore, becauseClimate 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 nodata are yet available to gauge the progress of Climate VISION, initial results are notencouraging.*The Climate Leaders program suffers from a similar problem. Of the seventy or so listedpartners, 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 toincrease.703 Despite being promoted as a major element of the government’s 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 beavailable. See, e.g., Climate VISION, Automobile Manufacturers: Results, available athttp://www.climatevision.gov/sectors/automobile/results.html (last visited Jul. 8, 2005).PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005106ii. No mandatory controlsU.S. climate policy does not include any mandatory controls on greenhouse gasemissions. The United States signaled a willingness to adopt mandatory domestic emissions

reductions in 1995, when it announced its intention to negotiate legally binding internationalemissions targets.705 It subsequently reversed course, however, and rejected both internationaland domestic mandatory targets.President Bush opposes the Kyoto Protocol because, in his view, its binding targetswould wreck the U.S. economy and be unfair and ineffective, as the Protocol does not similarlyobligate major developing countries such as China and India.706 He also opposes mandatorydomestic controls. In a letter to several U.S. Senators, he declared his opposition to caps on CO2emissions from power plants, a reversal of his own earlier views.707 In 2003, the general counselfor the EPA repudiated the position of his two predecessors708 and the EPA adopted the positionthat it did not have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.709 Thisview was subsequently upheld by a U.S. Federal court.710iii. U.S. research cannot ensure adequate reductionsU.S. climate policy relies heavily on future scientific and technological developments toachieve reductions. Technological development by its very nature is speculative, however, andthe United States cannot be certain that it will have a dependable method for achieving adequateemissions reductions anytime in the near future. This over-reliance by the U.S. on technologicalinnovation was criticized in the 2004 Report on the in-depth review of the third nationalcommunication of the United States of America, issued by the secretariat of the FrameworkConvention. The report criticized “the lack of concrete estimates for emission reductions to bedelivered by new technologies.”711Moreover, current investment decisions by U.S. companies could impede or precludewide-scale adoption of new technologies identified or promoted by U.S. programs. This seemsto be the case with integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC). This technology, which isbeing actively promoted by the U.S. government, would allow CO2 to be separated out of coalfiredpower plant emissions for sequestration. Of the 114 new plants currently in the planningstages nationwide, only 15 are designed to incorporate IGCC.712 The U.S. government has donelittle to encourage investment in IGCC. Government funding for FutureGen, the program underwhich IGCC was developed, has been sporadic.713 With no prospect of mandatory greenhousegas emissions cuts anywhere on the horizon, power companies see little to be gained frominvesting their money in technology to reduce emissions.714Nevertheless, the United States persists in relying heavily on future development ofground-breaking technologies.715 The United States has reduced expenditures on energyefficiency—a tried-and-true approach—in favor of less tested methods such as carbonsequestration and production of hydrogen. While such approaches hold promise, they mayPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005107become commercially viable only decades in the future.* Spending on renewable energy hasalso fallen somewhat in recent years compared to investments in less immediately workabletechnologies.716 The government’s proposed 2006 budget would cut funding for research anddevelopment of new energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies even further.717†c. Indirect regulationThe 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, andboth are subject to extensive government regulation. Yet the United States has repeatedlydeclined to extend such regulation to include greenhouse gases.

i. Power plantsPower plants produce 36% of man-made CO2 in the United States.718 The governmenthas made clear, however, that it will not mandate any cuts in those emissions.719 The UnitedStates affirmed this statement by leaving greenhouse gases uncovered by the Clear Skies Act, themost recent major legislation to deal with power plant emissions. EPA even withheld a reportthat an alternative air pollution bill regulating CO2 as well as other pollutants would result incleaner air than the Clear Skies proposal at an only marginally greater cost.720 Therefore, thegovernment has not controlled the greatest source of greenhouse gases in the United States anddoes not plan to do so in the near future.ii. VehiclesAutomobiles (including cars, sport utility vehicles, and light duty trucks) produce 20% ofU.S. greenhouse gas emissions.721 Emissions from transportation activities have risensubstantially, from 395 MMTC in 1990 to 483 MMTC in 2003.722 Although the United Statescould reduce emissions from the transportation sector by increasing fuel economy standards,relevant standards have remained almost constant since 1985.723 In fact, fuel efficiency hasactually declined during this period, due to a loophole in the law that subjects vans, SUVs, andlight duty trucks to less stringent standards.724 Furthermore, because there are more cars on theroad 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 untilsufficient hydrogen production and distribution facilities have been built, in addition to the fuelcell technology itself being developed. National Academy of Engineering, “The HydrogenEconomy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs,” at 2, 2004, available athttp://www.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html.† The proposed DOE budget for 2006 would alter enacted 2005 expenditures by reducing fundingfor energy conservation by $21 million and renewable energy by $27 million, while adding $22million 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005108maintained the fuel efficiency performance of past years, U.S. emissions would have increasedand will continue to substantially increase.*d. State and local measures are not enoughA number of U.S. state and local governments have attempted to partially fill theregulatory void created by the federal government. As demonstrated by ever-increasing nationalemissions and uninterrupted global warming trends, however, regulation in these fora cannoteffectively mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. There is a strong structural disincentive againststate governments enacting mandatory greenhouse gas cuts because many emitters could easilymove to locales that do not regulate their production of greenhouse gases.725 Six states havealready passed laws banning mandatory emissions reductions, setting themselves up as safehavens for companies fleeing from more proactive states.726Those state and local measures which have been implemented tend to be voluntary andtherefore difficult to enforce. This is the case with the U.S. Mayors Climate Protectionagreement727 and the tax credits for energy efficiency and renewable energy, which statescommonly use.728 Renewable energy mandates, which require electric utilities to generate acertain 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 anescape hatch by allowing electricity providers to purchase renewable energy credits rather thanactually using renewable power and reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions.729 TheRegional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a Northeastern greenhouse gas cap-and-trade agreement thatis one of the major pieces of non-federal greenhouse gas regulation, has already missed animportant deadline of designing a program by April 2005.730Even in the aggregate, such state and local efforts can be duplicative and lack coherentdirection, which makes them inherently less effective than a centralized federal effort. Withoutfederal mandates, standards, or even guidance, there is no yardstick by which states andmunicipalities can measure success and determine the usefulness of various initiatives.Furthermore, programs need funding to achieve anything substantial, and there already arereports of states failing to provide adequate financing.731 No matter how enthusiastic state andlocal governments may be, they are not making, and probably cannot make, emissions reductionssubstantial enough to make a noticeable difference to curb the negative effects of climatechange.732* The Department of Transportation’s National Household Travel Survey noted a rise in noncommercialperson-miles of travel from approximately 1.8 trillion in 1977 to approximately 3.9trillion in 2001. The number of vehicles in the United States nearly doubled in the same timeperiod. DOT, National Household Travel Survey 9, 10, 2001, available athttp://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf. Similarly, truck mileage increased from 34.6 billionmiles in 1975 to 72.4 billion in 2001. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, NationalTransportation Statistics 2005, Table 1-32: U.S. Vehicle Miles, available athttp://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/html/table_01_32.html.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 20051093. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS OBSCURED CLIMATE SCIENCE,MISLEADING BOTH THEPUBLIC AND INDUSTRY AS TO THE SCALE AND URGENCY OF THE PROBLEM OF GLOBALWARMINGThe United States has consistently denied, distorted, and suppressed scientific evidenceof the causes, rate, and magnitude of global warming. Despite substantial evidence of humaninducedclimate change, including several assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) and recent reports by its own agencies confirming and expanding on thefindings of the IPCC,733 the U.S. government continues to insist that the science does not yetjustify a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.734 It stresses and frequently exaggerates theuncertainties in climate science as an excuse for inaction.735 A second opinion requested by theWhite House on the findings of the IPCC,736 and the U.S. government’s own subsequent ClimateAction Report (its third annual report to the UNFCCC),737 affirmed the mainstream scientificconsensus that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. All of theseassessments 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 itsown 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 toadd a section stressing the remaining uncertainties in the science.739The U.S. has also attempted to hide information about the certainty and urgency of globalwarming. For example, it cut the discussion of climate change out of EPA’s 2002 annual report

for the first time in six years.740 A similar incident occurred in 2003 when the White Houseinsisted on such extensive alteration to the discussion of climate change in an EPA report, evenattempting to insert findings from a study partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute,741that its authors left out that section almost entirely rather than misrepresent the scienceinvolved.742 Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environmentand 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 theUnion of Concerned Scientists to issue a statement, initially signed by a group of 60 leadingscientists that included 19 Nobel laureates,* admonishing the administration for“misrepresent[ing] scientific knowledge and misle[ading] the public about the implications of itspolicies” on climate change and other issues,744 and reproaching the U.S. government for relyingon “disreputable and fringe science.”745This trend has not abated. In December 2004, the United States issued new guidelinesgiving federal officials (for the most part, political appointees of the White House) the final signoffon a series of climate change reports.746 A number of the scientific experts involved objectedto this undermining of their autonomy, and one lead author even resigned.747 Reports alsosurfaced 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 Russiain November 2005.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005110Quality, who had previously held a position lobbying against limits on greenhouse gas emissionsfor the petroleum industry and had no scientific training, repeatedly edited government reportson climate change science to downplay the link between global warming and greenhousegases.748 He has since been hired by the fuel company ExxonMobil.749 This distortion anddenial of climate science continues in the face of such recent developments as a 2005 jointstatement by the U.S. National Academies of Science and ten more of the world’s foremostnational scientific academies, including those of Germany, China, India, and Russia, that urgesnations to take prompt action to reduce emissions in the face of strong evidence that globalwarming is occurring and is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.750* Even as thecase for human-caused climate change and the need to do something about it has convinced themajority 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 EFFORTSTO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSAs the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States is in a uniqueposition to lead the global effort to avert global warming. Instead of cooperating withinternational efforts, however, the U.S. government has employed the same tactics of renouncingclimate science and delaying action that characterize its domestic approach. Beginning with itsrejection of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001,752 the United States has hindered attempts by othernations even to agree on the need for coordinated action to deal with global warming. Withoutthe United States, entry into force of the Protocol depended on ratification by Russia, the onlyremaining country with sufficient emissions to meet the threshold requirement. Russia vacillatedfor more than a year, due in no small part to a significant drop in the potential value of itsemissions allowances when the world’s largest buyer, the United States, left the market.

The United States also has obstructed the formulation of additional internationalmeasures. At the 10th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, in Buenos Aires, the UnitedStates delegation blocked discussion of any steps beyond the expiration in 2012 of Kyoto’s firstcommitment period, preventing anything beyond a weak promise of limited, informal, futuretalks.753 Other than modest funding of research through the UNFCCC and IPCC, the onlyinternational commitments of the United States are limited regional and bilateral partnershipsthat do not address reduction in greenhouse emissions. Those agreements are confined toresearch initiatives that will have speculative, long-term effects at best, with no immediateresults.754 They receive relatively small amounts of funding averaging around $200 to $300million for the last few years.755 In addition, they are not intended to expand scientific andtechnological knowledge, but merely to share and centralize independently-reached findings.756Like other bilateral and regional agreements, the latest U.S. agreement, the Asia-PacificPartnership on Clean Development, concentrates on long-term and uncertain technological* The signatories are the national scientific academies of Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, andthe United Kingdom.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005111advances.757 Furthermore, the pact’s emphasis on clean development means that its aim is toaffect the emissions of U.S. partner countries, like China and India, rather than U.S. emissions.758It is unlikely that this partnership will result in actual emissions reductions; like President Bush’sdomestic initiative, the vision statement for the partnership states a goal of reducing carbonintensities, rather than achieving cuts in absolute emissions.759In addition to impeding policy negotiations, the U.S. government has continued to quarrelabout the relevance of basic climate science. As the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment nearedcompletion in 2004, the United States worked to prevent the Arctic Council from issuing apreviously 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 suchproposals.760The 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 emissionsreductions in the G8 joint communiqué and plan of action on climate change,761 and pressurednegotiators to delete sections that outlined problems associated with climate change.762 Itinsisted upon removal of the simple statement “our world is warming.” It rejected sectionsdescribing adverse warming effects already occurring in the Arctic and urging “ambitious”emissions reductions.763By the time the official versions of the summit documents were issued, the scientific andpolicy details had been cut down to a third of their original length.764 The mere acknowledgmentby the United States that action must be taken to address global warming was considered a stepforward by world leaders.765Although the United States concedes the fact that climate change is occurring and iscaused in large part by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, it refuses to take meaningful action totackle 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 REMEDIESArticle 31.1 of the Commission’s rules of procedure specifies: “In order to decide on the

admissibility of a matter, the Commission shall verify whether the remedies of the domestic legalsystem have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with the generally recognized principlesof international law.”766 These general principles of international law are further elaborated inarticle 31.2(a), which establishes that the exhaustion requirement “shall not apply when … thedomestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for protection ofthe right or rights that have allegedly been violated.”767PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005112Because there are no remedies “suitable to address [the] infringement” of the rightsPetitioner alleges to have been violated in this case,* the requirement that domestic remedies beexhausted does not apply in this case. Thus, the petition is admissible under the rules ofprocedure of the Commission.A. U.S. LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE OR EFFECTIVE PROTECTION AGAINST THEHUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS SUFFERED BY THE INUITThe Commission has held that “[i]f a remedy is not adequate in a specific case, itobviously need not be exhausted.”768 No U.S. law provides a remedy adequate to protect therights alleged to have been violated in this petition.1. THE RIGHT TO LIFEThe Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution safeguards citizens’ right to life byprohibiting the States from depriving any person of life without due process of law. The FifthAmendment places similar limitations on the federal government. However, neither theFourteenth nor the Fifth Amendment is effective at remedying violations of the right to life thatresult 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 aslimitations on governmental power to act but not a guarantee of any minimum level of safety andsecurity:[O]ur cases have recognized that the Due Process Clauses generally confer noaffirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary tosecure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may notdeprive the individual.769In the present case, a substantial portion of the human rights violations arise out ofomissions of the U.S. government, in particular the government’s ongoing failure to takemeaningful 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.” Velásquez 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 obviouslyneed not be exhausted”) (citing Velásquez Rodriquez Case at ¶ 63 (“[The exhaustionrequirement] speaks of ‘generally recognized principles of international law.’ Those principlesrefer not only to the formal existence of such remedies, but also to their adequacy andeffectiveness, 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 beinvoked: they have to be effective.”).

PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005113clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment thus offer no adequate or effective remedy tovindicate the Inuit’s right to life.2. THE RIGHT TO RESIDENCE AND MOVEMENTNeither the U.S. Constitution nor U.S. law provides a right to residence or movementsimilar to that guaranteed by Article VIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Dutiesof 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 theright to interstate travel.While not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the right to interstate travel hasbeen derived from various constitutional provisions.771 These provisions include the Privilegesand Immunities Clause of Article IV;772 the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14thAmendment;773 the Commerce Clause;774 and the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14thAmendment.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 theAmerican Declaration’s right of movement, which is one of the rights that is violated as a resultof climate change. The right of movement recognized under international human rights lawsincludes the right not to leave one’s residence except by one’s own will, and the right to “moveabout freely.”776 The U.S. Constitution’s right to interstate travel, by contrast, does not protectthe right to stay in one’s home, but rather seeks to prevent governmental impediments to theright to move from one state to another.777The residence-related claim in this petition is not that U.S. inaction on climate changeimpedes the Inuit’s right to leave their place of residence to move elsewhere, which mightimplicate the Constitutional right to interstate travel. Rather, the claim is that such inactionimpedes the Inuit’s right not to leave and their right to move about freely within their traditionalhomelands, which are rights arising under the American Declaration with no analogue in U.S.law. The U.S. Constitution’s right to travel therefore furnishes no avenues for an adequate oreffective remedy to the Inuit.3. THE RIGHT TO PROPERTYThe Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects private property. It states, inrelevant part, “No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process oflaw; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Asinterpreted by U.S. courts, the amendment entitles property owners to compensation when title totheir property transfers to the government as a result of either (i) physical invasion of theproperty by government order, either permanently or temporarily;778 or (ii) regulation for otherthan health or safety reasons which takes all or nearly all of the value of the property.779Similarly, in certain instances, the amendment restricts the government’s ability to attachconditions on a proposed use that are not roughly proportionate to such use.780PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005114

This constitutional provision, however, provides no effective remedy to the Inuit fordamages to their property resulting from climate change. Under U.S. law, the government’sfailure to take an action to prevent harm to property cannot form the basis of a claim under theFifth Amendment.781 Only affirmative government action to transfer private property to a publicuse in the limited situations described in the preceding paragraph can trigger the TakingsClause.782 As such, U.S. law does not provide an adequate or effective remedy for the Inuit’sloss of property resulting from U.S. government action and inaction on climate change.4. THE RIGHT TO INVIOLABILITY OF THE HOMEThe closest analogy in U.S. law to the right to inviolability of the home is the right toprivacy, which the U.S. Supreme Court has found to exist in the “penumbras” of the amendmentsto the Constitution.783 However, the right to privacy in the United States is generally limited tosuch personal rights as family planning, child-rearing, and abortion.784 The environmentaldegradation that violates the Inuit’s rights to inviolability of the home is thus beyond the scope ofthe U.S. Constitution’s right to privacy. For these reason, the constitutional right to privacy doesnot provide an adequate or effective remedy for violations to Inuit’s right to the inviolability oftheir homes.5. THE RIGHTS TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF CULTURE, TO HEALTH AND TO MEANS OFSUBSISTENCENeither the U.S. Constitution nor U.S. statutes provide due process of law to protect therights to the enjoyment of the benefits of culture, to health or to means of subsistence. For thatreason, 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 HARMSTHAT HAVE CAUSED THE VIOLATIONS SUFFERED BY THE INUIT1. U.S. TORT LAWSMany of the injuries suffered by the Inuit as a result of climate change may becharacterized 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 fromsuit.785 Pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), the U.S. government has waived itssovereign immunity only for certain tort claims: those committed “under circumstances wherethe United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the lawof the place where the act or omission occurred.” 786 The waiver does not apply, however, to actsand omissions “based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform adiscretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government,whether or not the discretion involved be abused.”787With respect to the situation of the Inuit, there are no tort remedies available against theU.S. government because the U.S. government’s acts and omissions that have led to climatePETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005115change result primarily from acts considered discretionary under U.S. law. For example, asdescribed below, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has recently held that the statutemost 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 thecourt’s decision, therefore, U.S. courts have no power to hear Inuit claims based on thegovernment’s 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 emissionsproducing factory – the non-discretionary act or omission is still immune to suit under the FTCAbecause it is not an action in which a private citizen can engage.789 Because private citizenscannot 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 LAWSThis petition demonstrates that the Inuit have suffered human rights violations as a resultof the United States’ failure to take action to prevent harm caused by its greenhouse gasemissions. Although this is predominantly an environmental issue, the U.S. government itselfhas interpreted the leading U.S. air quality statute as providing no remedy for the violationsalleged 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 protectionexists under the U.S. Constitution.790 Further, although several U.S. statutes address theprotection of natural resources, environmental quality, public health, and cultural heritage, noneof these laws protects the rights at issue in this petition or prevents the harms that are the basisfor the violations of the Inuit’s 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 ProtectionAgency 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, andaccordingly that CO2 and other [greenhouse gases] cannot be considered ‘air pollutants’ subjectto the CAA’s regulatory provisions for any contribution they may make to global climatechange.”791 The government has also determined that, even if it had the authority to regulategreenhouse gases, such authority would be discretionary and the government would not exercisesuch discretion.792 Finally, the government has formally taken the position that individuals likePetitioner or the individuals whose rights have been violated in this case cannot use U.S. courtsto challenge its failure to regulate greenhouse gases.793In light of the U.S. government’s statements on the availability of environmentalregulation and the absence of judicial remedies for the government’s failure to regulategreenhouse gas emissions, the international legal principle of non concedit venire contra factumproprium – no one may set himself in opposition to his own previous conduct – prohibits theUnited States from arguing before this Commission that the petition is inadmissible because theClean Air Act provides a remedy for the violations at issue. As the Inter-American Court hasheld, “when a party in a case adopts a position that is either beneficial to it or detrimental to thePETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005116other party, the principle of estoppel prevents it from subsequently assuming the contraryposition.”794Even if the United States were not bound by its prior statements, however, Petitioner andthe 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 courtthat may hear a challenge to the government’s decision not to regulate greenhouse gases –upheld the government’s decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean AirAct.795Nor 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 thefederal government to assess the environmental impact of many of its actions and establishesprocesses for such assessments, but it does not require the government to achieve any minimumlevel of environmental protection or provide any other substantive rights or protections forculture or health.796In sum, as demonstrated above, the U.S. legal system does not provide an effectiveremedy for the human rights violations suffered by the Inuit as a result of U.S. actions andomissions relating to climate change. The lack of an effective remedy constitutes an exception tothe exhaustion of remedies rule, according to general principles of international law and article31.2(a) of the Commission’s rules of procedure. The petition is therefore admissible.VII. TIMELINESSUnder article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, a petition to the Commissionshould be lodged within six months of notification of the final ruling that comprises theexhaustion of domestic remedies. However, article 32.2 provides that in cases such as thepresent in which the requirement of exhaustion does not apply, “the petition shall be presentedwithin a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. For this purpose, theCommission shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred, and thecircumstances of each case.”Under the circumstances of this case, this petition is being presented within a reasonableperiod of time. The acts and omissions and resulting harm that form the basis of the petition areongoing. Emissions from the United States of greenhouse gases that cause global warming areincreasing. The United States has failed to take serious and effective measures to minimize itsemissions and has given no indication that it will do so in the foreseeable future. The harm to theInuit caused by U.S. acts and omissions has not diminished but has worsened and will continueto worsen in the coming decades unless the United States changes its behavior. In the absence ofadequate or effective domestic remedies, the Inuit Circumpolar Conferences (ICC) has attemptedto use other international mechanisms to obtain US protection of the rights of Inuit harmed byclimate change.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005117The Inuit Circumpolar Conference is an observer organization to the UN FrameworkConvention 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 requestthat Parties to the Convention take serious actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The ICCis also a Permanent Participant at the Arctic Council where it has pressed for action from alleight Arctic nations, particularly the United States. The ICC has also provided testimony to theU.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Because it is becomingincreasingly clear that these efforts have not been and will not be effective, Petitioner is nowbringing the matter to the Commission.VIII. ABSENCE OF PARALLEL INTERNATIONAL PROCEEDINGSThe subject of this petition is not pending in any other international proceeding forsettlement, nor does it duplicate any petition pending before or already examined by theCommission or any other international governmental organization.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMING

CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005118IX. REQUEST FOR RELIEFFor the reasons stated above, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Commission:1. Make an onsite visit to investigate and confirm the harms suffered by the namedindividuals 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 theUnited States of America is internationally responsible for violations of rightsaffirmed in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and in otherinstruments of international law, and recommending that the United States:a. Adopt mandatory measures to limit its emissions of greenhouse gases andcooperate in efforts of the community of nations – as expressed, for example,in activities relating to the United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange – to limit such emissions at the global level;b. Take into account the impacts of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions on the Arcticand affected Inuit in evaluating and before approving all major governmentactions;c. Establish and implement, in coordination with Petitioner and the affectedInuit, a plan to protect Inuit culture and resources, including, inter alia, theland, water, snow, ice, and plant and animal species used or occupied by thenamed individuals whose rights have been violated and other affected Inuit;and mitigate any harm to these resources caused by US greenhouse gasemissions;d. Establish and implement, in coordination with Petitioner and the affected Inuitcommunities, a plan to provide assistance necessary for Inuit to adapt to theimpacts 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005119X. VERIFICATION, SIGNATURE AND DESIGNATION OF ATTORNEYSSheila Watt-Cloutier, with the support of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, presents thispetition on behalf of the named individuals whose rights have been violated and other affectedInuit. (See Section IV.B.) By her signature below, Ms. Watt-Cloutier attests to the truthfulnessof the facts set forth in this petition.Ms. Watt-Cloutier wants her name used by the Commission in its communications withthe 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 andcommunications to the petitioner in relation to this case should be sent to Mr. Crowley, counselof record, at the address below.Sheila Watt-CloutierAddress:P.O. Box 2099Iqaluit, Nunavut

CanadaX0A 0H0Telephone: (867) 979-4661Attorney for Petitioner:Paul CrowleyP.O. Box 1630Iqaluit, Nunavut X0A 0H0Canada(867) 979-3396pcrowley@nv.sympatico.caPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005120ANNEX IPitseolak Alainga, P.O. Box 595, Iqaluit, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone: (867) 979-0285. Born 1967. Mr. Alainga works for the city of Iqaluit as a heavy equipment operator. Hehas a wife and three sons whom he enjoys taking out hunting. He and other hunters have haddifficulties bringing food back for the community. This has affected their traditionalcommunity-based food practices. Mr. Alainga has also noticed a decrease in the quality of sealfur; 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 YouthDivision. She has four children and one grandchild. She reports that the ice and snow conditionshave changed. Her husband and son once fell through the ice because it has become harder tojudge 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 herlife. She is the mother of 6 adopted children. Ms. Anilniliak reports that the ice freezes muchlater in the winter, resulting in a shorter hunting season. She and other community members arenow 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) 898-9094. Born 1936. Mr. Autut has lived in Chesterfield Inlet all his life, where he has hunted onthe land and water since 1940. Changes in the quality of the snow have decreased his ability tobuild igloos. Mr. Autut also reports that the caribou are thinner and less healthy. Changes inriver 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 in1978. She now has 8 children, 13 grandchildren, and 9 great-grandchildren. Ms. Baikie reportsthat there is less sea ice in the wintertime, which leads to dangerous travel conditions. She alsosees 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 intown.Eugene Brower, PO Box 69, Barrow, AK, 99723, USA. Born 1946. Mr. Brower was born andraised in Barrow and has lived there since returning from his education in the south. He servesas Director of North Slope Borough Fire Department, President of Barrow Whaling CaptainsAssociation, 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 forscarcer animal resources. Changes in the thickness and longevity of sea ice and the warming inhis ice cellars is causing him concern. These changes increase Mr. Brower’s risks duringharvesting, as well as causing uncertainty and anxiety related to travel.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005121Ronald Brower, PO Box 75, Barrow, AK 99723, USA. Telephone: (907) 852-4510. Born1948. Mr. Brower was born and spent his early years in a traditional community outside ofBarrow, and moved into the village at age 6. He spent several years in the south and abroad forhis education, but then returned to Barrow and now teaches Inupiat language and cultural historyat Barrow Middle School. A whaling captain and heavily dependent on subsistence hunting, hehas noticed new problems related to whaling from the thinner sea ice, changing land vegetationand its negative impacts on caribou, and food-stresses on the community from the scarcity of seamammals.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 withhis 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) 929-3642. Born August 10, 1956. Mr. Fleming has lived in Kuujjuarapik for his entire life. He hasfour sons, two daughters and one adopted child. Mr. Fleming is concerned about the effect that ashorter season of sea ice is having on the community’s ability to hunt seal. He reports that thereis less snow in the wintertime and that the sun feels hotter. Mr. Fleming is worried about thedifficulty of passing on traditional knowledge to his sons now that there are fewer opportunitiesfor them to hunt together.Lizzie Gordon, Kuujjuaq, Quebec, JOM 1C0, Canada. Telephone: (819) 964-1144. BornMarch 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 hercamp 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 therapidly changing weather patterns.Sandy Gordon, Kuujjuaq, Quebec, JOM 1C0, Canada. Telephone: (819) 964-1144. BornSeptember 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 inthe past. He also remembers an incident in which several travelers were stuck outside of towndue to rapid snow melt and had to be rescued by helicopter.David Haogak, PO Box 29, Sachs Harbour, NT X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867) 690-3029. Born 1974. Mr. Haogak was born and raised in Sachs Harbour. He went south for highschool and college but returned to Banks Island to take a position as the Iluvak National ParkSite Manager. The President of the Sachs Harbour Hunters and Trappers Committee and a lifelonghunter, he has witnessed a massive starvation of musk-oxen from increased winter groundice and now experiences difficulties in traveling from increased fog. Mr. Haogak is concernedabout 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 subsistencePETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005122life for years, traveling between Banks and Victoria Island and staying on the ice the wholewinter, hunting seal and polar bear. She has lived in Sachs Harbour all her life, and reports thatweather changes more rapidly than in the past and that the quality of caribou meat hasdiminished.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 morequickly 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 isnow 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 atleast 15 years. In that time, he has noticed that the fishing season has become shorter and thatthe fish leave the rivers much earlier in the year. Mr. Ittulak also reports that there are morepolar bears in town, attributing their presence to the fact that there is less sea ice. He has alsonoticed 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 atleast 15 years. She has noticed that the quality of sealskins has decreased, and that the cariboumeat is not the same as it used to be. The sun also feels hotter to Mrs. Ittulak, which effects hertraditional fish-drying practices.Mina Jooktoo, PO Box 345, Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, JOM IGO, Canada. Telephone: (819) 929-3870. Born 1938. Mrs. Jooktoo was born near Sunykyluk, and now lives with her husband inKuujjuarapik. She reports that seal fur is of a different quality than it used to be, and that theseals’ molting season has changed. She has also noticed that berries do not ripen as much asthey used to.Willie Jooktoo, PO Box 345, Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, JOM IGO, Canada. Telephone: (819) 929-3870. Born 1933. Mr. Jooktoo was born near Kuujjuarapik and has lived in the area his wholelife. He reports that the quality of water in the rivers and streams has decreased to the point thatit is no longer drinkable. He has also seen the water level in lakes go down due to heat andevaporation. Mr. Jooktoo has begun to experience health problems due to an increased relianceon store-bought food.Irving Kava, PO Box 102, Savoonga, AK 99769, USA. No telephone. Born 1953. Mr. Kavawas born and grew up on the south side of St. Lawrence Island, hunting with his family from ayoung age. Mr. Kava reports that the winters have become warmer, with less land snow and lesssea ice. He has also noticed increased erosion on the beach, which has made it more difficult toland boats.John Keogak, General Delivery, Sachs Harbour, NT, X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: 867-690-PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 20051234003. Born 1958. Mr. Keogak was born in Aklavik, and raised in the McKenzie Delta. He hasrelied 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 muddyfrom 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) 964-1407. Born 1942. Mr. Koneak was born on a small island accessible by foot at low tide, not farfrom Hotek. He married at age 19 and has nine children. He and his family moved to Kuujjuaqin 1957. He has been a subsistence hunter all his life, and has recently noticed that the weatherhas 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) 964-8844. Born 1931. Mr. Koneak is married with five sons and five daughters He reports changesin the behavior and health of the animals, including displacement of the polar bear, walrus andosprey and incidents of caribou starving to death due to poor vegetation growth. These changeshave 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 ofBaffin Fisheries and has been in the field of wildlife management for over 30 years. During thattime, he has noticed negative changes to caribou and seal health, as well as warmer temperaturesin 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 othercommunities in the North before moving to Banks Island. He has hunted and trapped on the landhis entire life. Mr. Kudlak reports that the summer weather has become much less desirable thanin the past, that there are far fewer caribou, and that ice is not staying in the harbor for nearly aslong 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 andpreparation, along with subsistence gathering of vegetation and fishing. She reports that manybuildings along the shoreline are in precarious situations, and that beach clams, which used to bepart of the subsistence diet, are no longer available.John Lucas, PO Box 67, Sachs Harbour, NT X0E 0Z0, Canada. Telephone: (867) 690-4009.Mr. Lucas was born on Banks Island and has been hunting and trapping there all his life. He comanagesa tour service that takes clients sport-hunting for musk oxen and polar bear, and is anactive subsistence hunter on land, sea and ice. He reports seeing massive erosion along the coastand along river and lake banks across Banks Island. Thinner sea ice has increased Mr. Lucas’sPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005124risk 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, shehas been active in hunting, trapping and traveling, and co-manages a sport-hunting touroperation. In addition, she collects monthly data on game caught for the Inuvialuit FisheriesJoint Management Committee. She has found that more polar bears are being stranded on theisland 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 Islandhas decreased the quality of foods imported and available to Mrs. Lucas and others in thecommunity.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 trappingall his life. He now works actively as a polar bear and musk-ox hunting guide. He has beenstranded on the far side of unusually high rivers recently, and has noticed thinner, less healthymusk-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) 979-3691. Born 1947. Mr. Lucassie was born outside of Iqaluit and has lived in the area his entirelife. 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 thesedays, due to poor travel conditions and the need to find alternate routes. It has also becomeharder for him to find snow for igloo building. Mr. Lucassie also reports a decrease in the sealpopulation, 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 outpostcamp and moved to Pangnirtung in 1966 at the age of 10. He is now mayor of Pangnirtung. Hehas five siblings and three children. Mr. Maniapik reports that the ice freezes later in the winternow, which shortens the fishing season. Mr. Maniapik and other community members have alsoseen more polar bears in and around the town.Tony Mannernaluk, PO Box 267, Rankin Inlet, NU, X0C 0G0, Canada. Telephone: (867) 645-3184. 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, apost 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 waterlevels. He has also noticed that more people are being stranded out on the land due to rapidlychanging weather and a decrease in the winter ground snow that makes travel much moredifficult.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. ShePETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005125routinely gathers greens, berries, and roots and has worked with skins and furs for sewing andhandicrafts. She reports that food spoils and becomes insect-infested more quickly when it is leftout to dry than it used to; that there has been a decrease in the quality and quantity of greens thatshe can harvest in season; and that drier soil has resulted in a decrease in the quality of edibleroots.Warren Matumeak, PO Box 405, Barrow, AK 99723, USA. Telephone: (907) 852-5218.Born 1927. Mr. Matumeak grew up in the old community of sod houses that was located onPoint Barrow before the erosion began in earnest. His father and grandfather trained him to hunton 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 increasedpermafrost melting has caused rippling, damaged air-strips, and damage to and shifting of hishome. 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 wasestablished in Pangnirtung. He lived in outpost camps as a child and moved to Pangnirtung inthe 1950’s. Mr. Mike has 12 children and approximately 50 grandchildren. He reports that thesea ice is forming thinner and melting faster than in the past, making it more difficult for thefishermen who spend part of the year living on the ice, and for the hunters who catch game onthe 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 winddirection; increased rainfall; and changes to the caribou and seal populations. Ms. Mike’sbusiness 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 thesouth, has lived there since. A highly active subsistence hunter and whaling captain, he alsoserves as a member of the Native Village council. Mr. Nageak has noticed a steady decrease inthe size of whales that he can harvest, due to reduced thickness of sea ice. He also reports thatthere are seasons in which large groups of hunters miss sea mammals entirely because the icenow travels by early and rapidly. He also feels that there is less time available for young huntersto experience the skills necessary for their work.Annie Napayok, PO Box 103, Whale Cove, NU, X0C 0J0, Canada. Telephone: (867) 896-9025. Born March 18, 1937. Mrs. Napayok was born and raised in Coral Harbour and lived inseveral other communities in the North including Iqaluit and Arviat. She has worked as a cook'said and a janitor and has always been involved in teaching younger people how to prepare andwork with skins and nutritious foods. She reports that meat now sometimes spoils before hunterseven have a chance to get it back into the community. She has also seen a decrease in the qualityof drinking water from lakes because of lower water levels, and a decrease in the quantity of fishPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005126in streams and rivers.Enosilk Nashalik, Pangnirtung, Nunavut, XOA ORO, Canada. Born 1919. Mr. Nashalik wasborn in an old whaling station and is the oldest person in Pangnirtung. He has been an avidhunter 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 analtered habitat for seals and a decline in their fur quality. He and others have also experiencedhealth problems related to an increased reliance on store-bought food. Changes in the weatherhave 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) 979-6015. Born 1945. As a child, Mr. Nattaq spent long periods of time on the land outside thesettlement. He reports a decrease in the quality of water and meats, and changes that have madeit more difficult for him to predict the weather. Mr. Nattaq now feels more in danger of fallingthrough the ice because it is often thinner than it used to be. He is also experiencing newdifficulties in passing on traditional knowledge of weather prediction and igloo building.Herbert Nayokpuk, PO Box 30, Shishmaref, AK 99772, USA. Telephone: (907) 649-3301.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 hasnoticed less rain in August and more dry lakes; unseasonably warm temperatures; and a massiveloss of land from erosion each time the water is high.George Noongwook, PO Box 81, Savoonga, AK 99769, USA. Telephone: work: (907) 984-6414; home: (907) 984-6231. Born before 1955. Mr. Noongwook was born in Savoonga. Whenhe was a child, his uncle taught him to hunt. He now spends much of his time on the sea ice andtundra, and in the country pursuing living a subsistence life. He is also Savoonga’scommissioner to the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission. Mr. Noongwook reports that thereis increased stress and anxiety among hunters because of greater uncertainty about hunting andtraveling; that hunters must travel greater distances to reach hunting territory as the ice edgerecedes; and that more hunters are falling through the thinner ice.Peter Paneak, PO Box 56, Clyde River, Nunavut, XOA OHO, Canada. Telephone: (867) 924-6135. Born March 13, 1934. Mr. Paneak was born and raised in the Samford Fjord area on asmall island. He has noticed that the weather has become less predictable, making traditionalknowledge less useful, and that meat caching is no longer effective for food storage because theincrease in polar bear activity around town leaves cached meat vulnerable to the polar bears. Hehas seen changes in species: seals are being found with no fur, less caribou are around and thereare more mosquitoes.Uqallak Panikpak, Clyde River, Nunavut, Canada. Born 1939. Ms. Panikpak was born nearClyde River and has lived in the area her whole life. She has 7 children, one adopted child and14 grandchildren. Ms. Panikpak practices traditional meat drying and makes traditional clothingfrom animal skins. She also gathers berries for food in the summertime. Ms. Panikpak reportsPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005127that polar bears are becoming too thin to eat, and that the ice is melting much earlier in the springthan 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 huntersand fishermen to be out on the land. He also has seen changes in wildlife, including the qualityof seal fur, and has seen the negative health effects that an increased reliance on store-boughtfood 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 communityrelocated to the settlement. He has 10 children and many grandchildren. Changes in weatherhave caused Mr. Qaqqasiq to travel less. He is less able to rely on traditional weather predictingskills, because the weather has become unpredictable and the prevailing wind direction hasshifted. 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) 924-6288. Born 1951. Mr. Qillaq is the director of HTO (a hunter’s association). He has spentmuch of his life in outpost camps and as a hunter. He reports that the glaciers surrounding ClydeRiver have disappeared; that some rivers that historically froze over in the winter are no longerdoing 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. Born1940. 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 andwhaling 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 byerosion, 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 noticedthat the ice forms much later in the season and melts much earlier. This has shortened thehunting 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 haslived in the area her whole life. She has 7 children, 21 grandchildren and one great-grandchild.Ms. Sanguya has spent time on the land all her life, both as a child and as a mother. She used togo fishing and seal and caribou hunting by dogsled. She and her husband used to rely on a dietof only country food but now she must rely on store-bought food. Ms. Sanguya reports changesin the quality of animal skins; that the sea ice is melting faster and earlier; and that the weatherhas become harder to predict.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005128John 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 ofthe community and a subsistence hunter. He reports that the ice that used to buffer their beachfrom winter storms no longer forms, resulting in massive erosion that jeopardizes thecommunity’s 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 canremember he has been tied to the land and the environment. He was trained in traditionalforecasting and reports that those methods are now virtually useless because of the rapid changesin weather. Harder snow now makes it more difficult for him and others to build igloos and thecaribou herds are now generally thinner than in the past.Stanley Tocktoo, PO Box 128, Shishmaref, AK 99772, USA. Telephone: (907) 649-8594. Mr.Tocktoo is the mayor of Shishmaref and a carving, sewing and language instructor at ShishmarefSchool. He is active in Shishmaref Emergency Services search and rescue and is a lifelongresident and subsistence hunter. He reports that erosion has destroyed the community’straditional drying rack area, and that changes in the ice have trapped people in town until it is toolate to get to fish in the inland rivers. Mr. Tocktoo has also noticed that the community isbeginning 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 ofUmiujaq for nine years. Prior to that he was the major of Umkuijuapiq for six and a half yearsand has worked for the Municipal Corporation since 1978. He reports that the winter comes laterin the season and that the spring thaw is much more rapid. He has also noticed an increase invegetation. He has difficulty traveling because the weather is less predictable and because of theduration of storms.

Kenneth Toovak, PO Box 381, Barrow, AK 99723, USA. Telephone: (907) 852-6335. Born1923. Mr. Toovak was born and raised in Barrow and has lived there all his life. He served foryears as an assistant to the scientists at the Naval Arctic Research Labs and was granted anHonorary Doctorate from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks for that work. He has noticedthat the sun feels hotter than in the past; that snow now melts far more rapidly in the spring; andthat Barrow is now more in danger from flooding because of the decrease in the shore-fast icewhich 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 SakkugLandholding Corporation. He was born south of Kuujjuarapik in 1938. He began hunting at anearly age, because his father died when he was 12 years old. Mr. Tuckatuck has three daughtersand 12 grandchildren. He reports that the denning period for seals has become shorter becausePETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005129of the reduction in sea ice. He is forced to buy more store-bought food these days because he isno longer able to catch enough country food to feed his whole family.Clara Tumic, PO Box 58, Umiujaq, Quebec, JOM IYO, Canada. Telephone: (819) 331-7095.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 orhave dried up completely and she has experienced rashes and sunburn that she had notexperienced before.Isaac Tumic, PO Box 58, Umiujaq, Quebec, JOM IYO, Canada. Telephone: (819) 331-7095.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 andseals, 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 Inuitorganization 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 raisedtraditionally in her early years before attending school in southern Canada. She is a mother oftwo and a grandmother of one. Ms. Watt-Cloutier is an avid berry picker and eats a diet ofcountry food whenever possible. She is particularly concerned that her grandson will not be ableto live the Inuit hunting and food-sharing culture that has sustained Inuit physically andspiritually 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. Hemoved to Kuujjuarapik in 1960 to attend school. He has three adopted children and has been asubsistence hunter all his life. Mr. Weetaltuk reports that the winter sea ice comes much laterand thaws much earlier in the season, resulting in a shorter hunting period and dangerous springconditions. He has also noticed a change in bear habitat and an increase in the strength of thewinds.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 inhis 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. BornNovember 28, 1933. Mr. Wolki was born on Big Bluff, about 20 miles north of Lenny Harbouron Banks Island. He has lived and hunted on Banks Island most of his life. He reports thatstronger winds now blow more dust and mud onto the snow and ice and accelerate its melting.The quality of the land in Mr. Wolki’s community has changed because of permafrost melting,and the ground is now wetter, with many puddles.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005130Lena 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. Herfather 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 hercommunity.Jerry Wongitillin, PO Box 20, Savoonga, AK, 99769, USA. Telephone: (907) 984-6676. Mr.Wongitillin was raised in Savoonga and served as mayor for 40 years. Throughout his youth, hespent as much as six months each year camping on the land. He reports that the ice goes outearlier and comes in later every year. Polar bears in Mr. Wongitillin’s community are nowsometimes left on the island in large numbers by rapidly receding ice and have to be shot lestthey endanger the town.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005131ENDNOTES1 Remarks by Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Chair of Inuit Circumpolar Conference, to the United NationsEnvironment 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 CONSEQUENCESOF CLIMATE CHANGE ON LIFE IN THE BERING AND CHUKCHI SEAS at 5 (Arctic Network & GreenpeaceUSA, June 1998) available at http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic/reports/testimonies.pdf (lastvisited 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 BankEnvironmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Week, Washington, DC (March 30, 2005),availableat http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?ID=290&Lang=En.13 NUNAVUT SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (“NSDC”), ON OUR OWN TERMS: THE STATE OF INUITCULTURE AND SOCIETY, (2000), at 75-76.14 Remarks by Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, The World BankEnvironmentally 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 (“ACIAOverview”) 668 (Cambridge University Press 2004), available at http://www.amap.no/acia/ (last visitedFebruary 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 BankEnvironmentally 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/tek-understanding.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 SharingNetworks and Community Integration in the Central Canadian Arctic, in ARCTIC December 1998.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200513229 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 Iñupiaq Supercomputer: What The Whale Hunters Know & Some ScientistsWant To Discover, ANCHORAGE PRESS, Vol. 10, Ed. 45 (Nov. 8 – Nov. 14, 2001), available athttp://www.anchoragepress.com/archives/document097a.html.32 Terry Fenge, The Inuit and Climate Change, ISUMA at 81 (Winter 2001); see also NSDC, supra note13, 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, andtheir 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 ScientificBasis 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: AnAnalysis of Some Key Questions 3 (National Academy Press 2001).40 See, e.g., United States Environmental Protection Agency, Global Warming, available athttp://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 since1861. 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 ChangingPlanet (2004), available at http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/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; theClimatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom; the National Climatic Data Centerand 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 theInternational Research Institute for Climate Prediction in New York, the IGAD Climate Prediction andApplications Centre in Nairobi, and the AGRHYMET Centre in Niamey) (2005), available athttp://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 FloodReport”), 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 Vulnerability641 (James J. McCarty et al., eds., Cambridge University Press 2001).53 Id.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200513354 Id.55 Oleg Anisimov et al., supra note 46.56 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenland’s 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, athttp://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 AcrossNatural Systems, 421 Nature 37, 38 (2003).64 Id.65 Id.66 US Global Change Research Program, US National Assessment of the Potential Consequences ofClimate 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 fromtheir 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 andAtmospheric 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, athttp://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html.73 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Emissions Inventory 2005, available athttp://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsGHGEmissionsUSEmissionsInventory2005.html.74 TAR, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers (2001), at 4 (“there is new and stronger evidencethat most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”). Addressingcriticism that not enough is known about the climate system to unequivocally establish a causal linkagebetween the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and observed climate changes during the 20thcentury, the IPCC explains that obtaining the desired degree of certainty would require, in effect, turningthe planet into a massive scientific laboratory.75 Id. at 697. These consistencies include, among other things, global warming and diminished Arcticsea-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 athttp://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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 200513482 See, e.g., National Geographic Society, Strange Days on Planet Earth, television documentaryavailable 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 athttp://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 PotentialConsequences 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 NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (U.S. Department of State, May 2002) (“U.S. Climate ActionReport - 2002”), available athttp://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSClimateActionReport.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 YorkTimes, May 28, 2003 (reporting that “the company [Exxon Mobil], the world's largest oil and gasconcern, has increased donations to Washington-based policy groups that, like Exxon itself, question thehuman role in global warming and argue that proposed government policies to limit carbon dioxideemissions 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 theUnited States (1989), at 25 (noting that polar surface air may warm by as much as three times the globalaverage).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 anannual average rate of 0.3°C per decade over sea ice (those portions of the Arctic Ocean where 80% ofocean surface is covered by ice), 0.5°C per decade over the high latitude (poleward of 60 degrees North)PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 7, 2005135region of Eurasia, and 1.0°C over the high latitude region of North America), available athttp://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, & PAULCROWLEY, RESPONDING TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE INUIT CIRCUMPOLARCONFERENCE ON THE ARCTIC CLIMATE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, (“Watt-Cloutier, et al.”), available athttp://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 toInuit observations of climate change); ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 3 at 64; Wohlforth, supra note31; 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,” anddescribing 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, INUITKNOWLEDGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, SOUTH BAFFIN: A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF RECENTCLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES IN PANGNIRTUNG AND IQALUIT NUNAVUT 5-7, 10-13, 20-23(April 2003) (“SOUTH BAFFIN”); NIKITTUITTUQ LTD., INUIT QAUJIMAJANGIT, INUIT KNOWLEDGE OFCLIMATE CHANGE, NORTH BAFFIN: A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF RECENT CLIMATE ANDENVIRONMENTAL 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 OFKITIKMEOT REGION, NUNAVUT 9-10, 11 (March 31, 2003) (“KITIKMEOT REGION”); INUIT TAPIRIITKANATAMI 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 TAPIRIITKANATAMI ET AL., ARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE INUVIALUIT SETTLEMENTREGION, AKLAVIK WORKSHOP 17-18 (January 30-31, 2002) (“AKLAVIK WORKSHOP”); DEPARTMENT OFSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT, INUIT QAUJIMAJANGIT HILAPALUNGUMINGANUT, INUIT KNOWLEDGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE: A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OFCLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, BAKER LAKE AND ARVIAT, NUNAVUT 26-27 (September 2001) (“ASAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT”); INUIT TAPIRIIT KANATAMI ET AL.,ARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE INUVIALUIT SETTLEMENT REGION: PAULATUKWORKSHOP 24 (September, 2003) (“PAULATUK WORKSHOP”).117ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 75; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 18, 23-24, 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 OFCLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note116, at 26-27; GRAHAM ASHFORD & JENNIFER CASTLEDEN,INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, INUIT OBSERVATIONS ON CLIMATECHANGE, FINAL REPORT § 4.3 (June 2001) (“ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN”).118ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 75; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at 10-11; 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, AppendixPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005136E at 7, 14, 22; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 115, at26-27; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 31, 43; PAULATUK WORKSHOP, supra note116, at 24.119ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 25; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 55, Appendix Cat 27, 43-43, 58, 62; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 10, 24, 45, Appendix E at 14, 22; ASAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 26-27; PAULATUKWORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 24; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at 12-13; KANGIQSUJUAQWORKSHOP, Executive Summary (“KANGIQSUJUAQ WORKSHOP”) 3; INUIT TAPIRIIT KANATAMI ET AL.,INUIT OBSERVATIONS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: PERSPECTIVES FROMKANGIQSUJUAQ 15 (January 15-16, 2003); (“PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ”); INUIT TAPIRIITKANATAMI ET AL., ARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE INUVIALUIT SETTLEMENTREGION, INUVIK WORKSHOP 10 (“INUVIK WORKSHOP”); LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note115, 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, AppendixB 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 note116, at 17-18, 28.122 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 45, 55, 56, Appendix C at 5, 45, 58, 62; NORTHBAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 10, 18, Appendix D at 3-4, 13, Appendix E at 14; KITIKMEOTREGION, 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 ANDENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, NUNAVUT 3, 11, 18 ( 2004)(“PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY”); INUIT TAPIRIIT KANATAMI ET AL, INUIT OBSERVATIONS ONCLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK 3, 10, 15 (November 5-6,2002) (“PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK”); A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE INNUNAVUT, 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 INUVIALUITSETTLEMENT 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; LABRADORIMIUTOBSERVATIONS, 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 EXPERIENCESOF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 23; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supranote 119, at 16.

127 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 35; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE INNUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 16, 25; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 16; SOUTHBAFFIN, 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 46-47, 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005137130ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 8, 11, 12, 14; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 17; INUVIKWORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13; ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at §§ 4.1, 4.2; ; NORTHBAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 3-4, Appendix C at 40, Appendix D at 8, 21, Appendix E at 10; ASAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 33; SOUTHBAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 21, 45; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at15; INUIT TAPIRIIT KANATAMI ET AL, INUIT OBSERVATIONS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTALCHANGE: PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ 12 (2002) (“PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ”); INUITTAPIRIIT KANATAMI ET AL., ARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE INUVIALUITSETTLEMENT REGION, TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP 10 (2002) (“ TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP”).131 Increased erosion is also caused by the decreased sea ice, leaving more open water susceptible to thewind. 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 3-4, 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 theUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks, Research Highlight (Mar. 31, 2005), athttp://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/coastal_climate/index.php (last visited Apr. 14, 2005) (describing anOctober 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 OFCLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 13; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at12, 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; NORTHBAFFIN, 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; INUVIKWORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 17; PAULATUK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 25; A SAMPLE OF INUITEXPERIENCES 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 note115, 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 FROMKANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 16; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at 11;LABRADORIMIUTOBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 23.143 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 96; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 11, 18; PERSPECTIVESFROM 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, at19, 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 CLIMATEPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005138CHANGE 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 note116, 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; SOUTHBAFFIN, 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; PAULATUKWORKSHOP, 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 note116, at 32-33; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 17, 37, 48, 58, 77-78, 85, Appendix C at20, 33-34, 48, 63, 65; PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, supra note 124, at 13, 16; PERSPECTIVES FROMKANGIQSUJUAQ, 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, at12.149 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; NORTHBAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 5, 48, Appendix C at 45, Appendix E at 26; A SAMPLE OF INUITEXPERIENCES 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, 11-12, 17; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note 116, at 12; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at30, 31, 40, 42; PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 3; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP, supranote 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, supranote 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, AppendixB 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, at16, Appendix B at 52, 55, 56, Appendix C at 30; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at10; 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 UniversityPress, 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 INUITEXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 26-28; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supraPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005139note 116, at 17; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 45, Appendix D at 3; KITIKMEOTREGION, 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 CLIMATECHANGE 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 note116, at 18, 35, 42.161 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, Appendix C at2.162 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; AKLAVIKWORKSHOP, 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; SOUTHBAFFIN, 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 withpetitioner.167 ACIA Overview supra note 16, at 95-96; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE INNUNAVUT, 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 withpetitioner.169 Interview with Ronald Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.170 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.171 Interview with Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 15, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.172 Interview with Lucas Ittulak of Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, Sept. 26, 2005, video-tapedrecording on file with petitioner.173 A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, Appendix C at30.174 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 96; HOLMAN ISLAND WORKSHOP, supra note 126, at 13; SOUTHBAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 16, 23, 66, 84, Appendix C at 17, 46, 66; NORTH BAFFIN, supranote 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 OFCLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 16, at 23; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note119, at 16.175 Interview with Lucas Ittulak of Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, Sept. 26, 2005, video-tapedrecording on file with petitioners.176 SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 66.177 Id.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005140178 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 96; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 23, Appendix Cat 17; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 43, Appendix C at 34, 39; LABRADORIMIUTOBSERVATIONS, 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-tapedrecording 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 note124, at 10, 15.182 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 97; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE INNUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 26, 28; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 18, 23-24, Appendix B at 16, 51-52, 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, at17-18; 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, AppendixC 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, at18; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 43.187 PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 18; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OFCLIMATE 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, at3, 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 withpetitioner.191 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.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, video-taped recording on filewith petitioner.194 Interview with Heather Angnatok of Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, Sept. 28, 2005, video-tapedrecording 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005141199 PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 3, 15; PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, supra note124, at 3, 18; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 21, Appendix B at 10, Appendix C at 45, Appendix D at18; 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 at43, 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 ice…resulted in years with virtually no surviving seal pups, when in otheryears, 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, video-taped recording on filewith 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, video-taped recording on filewith petitioner.221 ALASKA REGIONAL ASSESSMENT GROUP, PREPARING FOR A CHANGING CLIMATE: THE POTENTIALCONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE (“ARAG”) (1999) at 19, available athttp://www.besis.uaf.edu/regional-report/regional-report.html (last visited Mar. 29, 2005). See alsoACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 68-70; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE INNUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 16, 34; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 17-18; NORTHBAFFIN, 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 INUITEXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 16, 34; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note115, 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 filewith petitioner.226 ARAG, supra note 221, at 19.227 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 70; COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF ENDANGERED WILDLIFE INCANADA (COSEWIC) (2004), COSEWIC ASSESSMENT AND UPDATE STATUS REPORT ON THE PEARYCARIBOU AND THE BARREN-GROUND CARIBOU (DOLPHIN AND UNION POPULATION) IN CANADA, at iiiPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005142and viii, available athttp://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; PAULATUKWORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 24.230 ACIA Overview supra note 16 at 68-70231 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 NOTE117, at § 4.2; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at26-27; 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 withpetitioner.238 ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at § 4.2.239 Id.240 Id.241 Interview with Jerry Wongitillin of Savoonga, Alaska, Sept. 17, 2005, video-taped recording on filewith petitioner.242 LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 17, 32; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OFCLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, Appendix D at 7.243 Interview with Heather Angnatok of Nain, Newfoundland and Labrador, September 28, 2005, videotapedrecording 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; INUVIKWORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13; ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, supra note 117, at §§ 4.1, 4.2; NORTHBAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 3-4, Appendix C at 40, Appendix D at 8, Appendix E at 10; ASAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 33; SOUTHBAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 21, 45; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at15; PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ, supra note 130, at 12; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP, supra note130, 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 ExecutiveSummary.250 ASHFORD & CASTLEDEN, SUPRA NOTE 117 at Executive Summary.251 Interview with David Haogak of Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories, Sept. 3, 2005, video-tapedrecording 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005143256 Interview with Apak Qaqqasiq of Clyde River, Nunavut, Aug. 27, 2005, video-taped recording on filewith 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; Watt-Cloutier et al. supranote 110.260 ARAG, supra note 221, at 20.261 Interview with Eugene Barrow of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioners.262 INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 20.263 Interview with Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 15, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioners.264 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 6 at 219.265 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, ch. 6 at 215266 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, ResearchHighlight (Mar. 31, 2005), at http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/coastal_climate/index.php (last visitedNov. 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; INUVIKWORKSHOP, 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 withpetitioner.273 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.274 GAO Flood Report, supra note 49, at 27.275 Interview with Nora Kuzuguk of Shishmaref, Alaska, Sept.21, 2005, video-taped recording on filewith petitioner.276 Interview with John Sinnok of Shishmaref, Alaska, Sept. 20, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.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, ResearchHighlight (Mar. 31, 2005), at http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/coastal_climate/index.php (last visitedApr. 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005

144PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, supra note 124, at 13; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supranote 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; PERSPECTIVESFROM 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 withpetitioner.288 PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 15.289 Interview with Rosemund Martin of Savoonga, Alaska, Sept. 17, 2005, video-taped recording on filewith petitioner.290 ARAG, supra note 221, at 19.291 Interview with Pitseolak Alainga of Iqaluit, Nunavut, Aug. 24, 2005, video-taped recording on filewith petitioner.292 Interview with Evie Anilniliak of Pangnirtung, Nunavut, Sept. 7, 2005, video-taped recording on filewith petitioner.293 Interview with Stanley Tocktoo of Shishmaref, Alaska, Sept. 20, 2005, video-taped recording on filewith petitioner.294 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 16, 28; INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13; NORTHBAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 5, Appendix E at 27; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, AppendixC at 20, 48; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 18; KITIKMEOT REGION, supra note16, at 12; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 11; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP, supranote 130, at 12.295 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 58; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 5; A SAMPLE OFINUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 34; TUKTOYAKTUKWORKSHOP, supra note 130, at 12.296 Interview with Tony Mannernaluk of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Aug. 29, 2005, video-taped recording onfile with petitioner.297 Interview with Ben Kovic of Iqaluit, Nunavut, Aug. 24, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.298 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 94; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 28; AKLAVIKWORKSHOP, 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; INUVIKWORKSHOP, 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 note119, 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005145308 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 96; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE INNUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 13, 19; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 26, Appendix D at 4, AppendixE at 1; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 19.309 Interview with Jerome Tattuinee of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Aug. 30, 2005, video-taped recording onfile with petitioner.310 Id. Appendix C at 36.311 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 10, 12, 29; PERSPECTIVES FROM KANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note119, 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 FROMKANGIQSUJUAQ, supra note 119, at 16; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE INNUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 13.312 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 26, Appendix D at 1, 7; PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, supranote 124, at 17; LABRADORIMIUT OBSERVATIONS, supra note 116, at 41; PERSPECTIVES FROMPUVIRNITUQ, supra note 130, at 3.313 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.314 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.315 Interview with Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 15, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.316 PERSPECTIVES FROM IVUJIVIK, supra note 124, at 3, 15; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix Eat 17; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 17; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATECHANGE 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 Eat 17; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix C at 17; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATECHANGE 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 at34.320 AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 11, 18; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATECHANGE 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, at15; 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; LABRADORIMIUTOBSERVATIONS, 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005146329 Interview with Sappa Fleming of Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, Sept. 17, 2005, video-taped recording on filewith 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; INUVIKWORKSHOP, 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-tapedrecording 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 at2-3.338 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, video-taped recording on filewith 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; LABRADORIMIUTOBSERVATIONS, 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 OFCLIMATE CHANGE IN NUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 27, 37; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix Bat 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, supranote 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 note130, at 12.344 Interview with John Sinnok of Shishmaref, Alaska, Sept. 20, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.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 filewith petitioner.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005147348 Interview with Willie Jooktoo of Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, Sept. 17, 2005, video-taped recording on filewith 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 CHANGEIN 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 at9.353 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, supranote 115, Appendix B at 69.354 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10, 16, 17, 58, 94, 96, 110, 119, 121; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note115, Appendix B at 69.355 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 10, 16, 17, 58, 94, 96, 110, 119, 121; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note115, Appendix B at 69.356ACIA OVERVIEW, SUPRA NOTE 16, at 110; INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 20; TUKTOYAKTUKWORKSHOP, 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, supranote 124, at 3; PERSPECTIVES FROM PUVIRNITUQ, supra note 130, at 14.357 Interview with Alec Tuckatuck of Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, Sept. 18, 2005, video-taped recording on filewith petitioner.358 Interview with Sappa Fleming of Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, Sept. 17, 2005, video-taped recording on filewith 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, video-taped recording on filewith 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; SOUTHBAFFIN, 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 note116, at 34; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix D at 15; PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, supranote 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; PAULATUKWORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 12; A SAMPLE OF INUIT EXPERIENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE INNUNAVUT, supra note 116, at 34; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix B at 57; PERSPECTIVESFROM 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, at12, 17, 31, 39.367 NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, Appendix E at 9, 12, 23; PERSPECTIVES FROM ARCTIC BAY, supranote 124, at 3, 13, 19, 22, 26.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005148368 INUVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 16; TUKTOYAKTUK WORKSHOP supra note 130, at 12; SOUTHBAFFIN, 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, at16;370ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 58; HOLMAN ISLAND WORKSHOP, supra note 126, at 13; SOUTHBAFFIN, 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 at23.373 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; INUVIKWORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13, 16, 18-19; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115, at 30, 33, Appendix B at20, 34, 47, Appendix C at 45, Appendix B at 9, Appendix E at 1, 3, 19, 26; SOUTH BAFFIN, supra note115, 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; INUVIKWORKSHOP, 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 withpetitioner.381 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.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 Bat 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 withpetitioner.386 ACIA OVERVIEW, SUPRA NOTE 16, at 90; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 27; INUVIKWORKSHOP, supra note 119, at 13; NORTH BAFFIN, supra note 115,, Appendix B at 44; A SAMPLE OFINUIT 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 withpetitioner.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005149388ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 90; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 18; A SAMPLE OFINUIT 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 onfile with petitioner.390 Interview with Roy Nageak of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 15, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.391 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 94.392 ACIA OVERVIEW, SUPRA NOTE 16, at 94; AKLAVIK WORKSHOP, supra note 116, at 28; PAULATUKWORKSHOP, 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 withpetitioner.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 filewith 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 CLIMATECHANGE 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 INNUNAVUT, 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 PUVIRNITUQsupra 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 FROMPUVIRNITUQ supra note 130, at 16.400 Interview with Jerome Tattuinee of Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Aug. 30, 2005, video-taped recording onfile with petitioner.401 Interview with Eugene Brower of Barrow, Alaska, Sept. 14, 2005, video-taped recording on file withpetitioner.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 UnitedNations, the World Bank, and the International Energy Agency in a database allowing comparison andanalysis 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 Centerfor Global Climate Change 2004), available at http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-indepth/all_reports/climate_data/index.cfm. Another study shows that, because CO2 persists in theatmosphere for long periods of time, about 31% of today’s global-mean surface temperature increase canbe attributed to U.S. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Elzen and Schaeffer, “Responsibility for Past andFuture Global Warming: Uncertainties in Attributing Anthropogenic Climate Change,” 54 ClimaticChange 29, 68 (2002) (data as of 1990).PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005150410 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 States2003, 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 Nº 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 communitieslacking real title to property of the land to obtain official recognition of that property.” Caso de laComunidad 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 visitedNov. 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 itordered the government of Suriname to reopen a school and medical dispensary in the Saramaka villageas reparation for having murdered several of the tribe’s 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 IndigenousPeople in the Americas, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.108, Doc. 62 (2000) at 1, n.1, available athttp://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, inparticular, 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 MiskitoOrigin, 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 UnitedStates’ purported extinguishment of the aboriginal title to their lands, which resulted in trespass actionsagainst the sisters. The Commission found that the extinguishment of title, done without the informedconsent 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), Case12.053, 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 inPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005151Basic 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 at6, (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 athttp://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 (lastvisited Nov. 11, 2005).440 Ksentini, Fatma Zorah, Review Of Further Developments In Fields With Which The Sub-CommissionHas 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 citinggenerally 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 athttp://cidh.org/Indigenas/Indigenas.en.01/index.htm.451U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Sub-Comm. on Prevention of Discrimination & Prot. of Minorities, DraftUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, art. 28, in Report of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities on its Forty-Sixth Session 105et 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 onthe 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 ofEconomic 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, OAUDoc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force Oct. 21, 1986, art. 23 (“[a]ll peoplesPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 7, 2005152shall have the right to a generally satisfactory environment favorable to their development.”); AfricanCharter 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 DraftCharter 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 theenvironment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with theprinciple 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 EnvironmentalCooperation, Sept. 14, 1993, Preamble cl. 8 32 I.L.M. 1482 (1993); Rio Declaration on Environment andDevelopment, U.N. ESCOR, at princ. 1, 14, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) (1992) [hereinafter RioDeclaration] (“[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 severeenvironmental degradation.”); G.A. Res. 45/94, U.N. GAOR, 45th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/45/749 (1990) (“allindividuals are entitled to live in an environment adequate for their health and well-being.”); G.A. Res.55/107, U.N. GAOR, 55th Sess., at 3(k), U.N. Doc. A/Res/55/107 (2000) (“affirming that a democraticand equitable international order requires, inter alia, the realization of . . . the entitlement of every personand 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, interalia, 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, NATIONALSUBSISTENCE TECHNICAL - PLANNING MEETING FOR THE PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL & TRIBAL LIFEWAYS15 (April 2003) ; ALASKA REGIONAL ASSESSMENT GROUP, THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OFCLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE: ALASKA 5 (1999 Center for Global Change and Arctic SystemResearch), 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 toparticipate 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 DocumentsPertaining 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 BasicDocuments Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OAS/Ser.L/V/I.4 Rev. 9, (January2003), available at http://cidh.org/basic.eng.htm (“Everyone has the right to associate freely forideological, 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 achievingprogressively… the full realization of the rights implicit in the economic, social, educational, scientific,PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005153and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States as amended by theProtocol 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 thecultural 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 bedenied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to professand 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, 6I.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 thepresent Covenant recognize the right of everyone [t]o take part in cultural life”).470 “It has been the Commission’s longstanding view that the protection of the culture of indigenouspeoples 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 NicaraguanPopulation 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. 14481 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, 213U.N.T.S. 221 (“European Convention”), Protocol 1, art. 1 (“Every natural or legal person is entitled to thepeaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the publicinterest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principle of internationallaw.”).PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005154491 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, supra note 454, at art. 14, (“The right to propertyshall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the generalinterest 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 Nº 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 athttp://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.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/agr/inu/wesar_e.pdf (last visitedNov. 28, 2005); Agreement Between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty theQueen in Right of Canada, (“NLCA”) available at http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/agr/pdf/nunav_e.pdf(last visited Nov. 28, 2005); Land Claims Agreement Between the Inuit of Labrador and Her Majesty theQueen 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 12517 ACIA Overview, supra note 16, at 94.518 Awas Tingni, supra note 422, at ¶ 144;The European Court of Human Rights has also expansivelydefined property “to cover both movable and immovable property, immaterial rights, economic interests,goodwill (for example, one’s good reputation) and pension.” Human Rights Internet, The Human RightsDatabank: The Right to Property, at http://www.hri.ca/doccentre/docs/handbook97/property.shtml (lastvisited Nov. 16, 2005).519 Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra note 450, art. 20; see alsoDraft 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 theirPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005155cultural and intellectual property … and the right to special measures to control, develop and protect theirsciences, 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 visualand 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… touse lands not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for theirsubsistence 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 NUNATSIAQNEWS, 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 “astandard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including ... medicalcare 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 ofthe 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 realizationof this right shall include those necessary for: (b) the improvement of all aspects of environmentaland industrial hygiene; (c) the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic … and otherdiseases.537 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, supra note 454, at art. 16 (“Every individual shallhave 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 Rightin 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 athttp://untreaty.un.org/English/notpubl/27-15E.doc.544 Protocol on Water and Health to the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of TransboundaryWatercourses and International Lakes, art. 1, U. N. Doc MP.WAT/AC.1/1999/1 (1999), available athttp://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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005156546 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 ofIndigenous 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 ¶ 176549 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 onEconomic, 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, WHO’s human health and environment programme, 57th Sess., at ¶ 3, Res.EB57.R28 (1976).555 Id. at preamble.556 WHO Executive Board, WHO’s 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 shallbe protected by law”); Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 467, (“Everyone has the rightto life.”); American Convention, supra note 465, at art. 4.1(“Every person has the right to have his liferespected. This right shall be protected by law….”); European Convention, supra note 490, at art. 2.1, 5.1(“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.”; “Everyone has the right to liberty and security ofperson.”).567 Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Status of Ratifications of the PrincipalInternational Human Rights Treaties (June 9, 2004) at 11, at http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf (lastvisited Mar. 18, 2005).568 Inter-Am. C.H.R., Signatures and Current Status of Ratifications: American Convention on HumanRights, 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 Organización de Estados Americanos, Base de Datos Políticos de las Américas: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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005157572 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 athttp://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/84ab9690ccd81fc7c12563ed0046fae3?Opendocument (lastvisited 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 frequentand 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 athttp://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/5d974f7dcf82864dc1256b960038d029?Opendocument (last visitedNov. 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 theICCPR, but the right to self-determination, including a people’s 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 acommunication 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005158603 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 Organización de Estados Americanos, Libertad de Circulación 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 fairbalance between the interest of the town’s economic well-being … and the applicant’s effectiveenjoyment 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 athttp://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 ofAsylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 40rev. ¶ 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 Nº52/01, 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 ofArticle 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 inthe Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, Ser. A Nº 16 ¶ 115 (1999); Case of RamónMartinez Villareal (United States) (“Villareal”), Report Nº 52/02, Case Nº 11.753, Annual Report of theIACHR 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., Reportof 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 Nº 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 Conditionand Human Rights of the Child, Inter-Am. Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, (2002) (interpretingrights 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 OpinionOC-18 (2003).621 Belize Maya, supra note 431, at ¶ 86 (citing Inter-Am. Court H.R., Interpretation of the AmericanDeclaration, 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005159622 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), AdvisoryOpinion 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”), 1771U.N.T.S. 107, reprinted at 31 I.L.M. 849 (1992), available athttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (last visited May 12, 2005). The status of U.S.ratification and entry into force is available athttp://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 bysources 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 inanthropogenic emissions consistent with the objective of the Convention, recognizing that the return bythe end of the present decade to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal protocol would contribute to such a modification”), art4.2(b) (reporting requirements specifically referencing “the aim of returning individually or jointly totheir 1990 levels these anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases notcontrolled by the Montreal Protocol”). See also Climate Change Secretariat, The Kyoto Protocol to theConvention 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 UnitedStates signed the Vienna Convention, and, although it did not subsequently ratify the Convention, theU.S. Department of State recognizes its provisions as “the authoritative guide to current treaty law andpractice.” 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 areprojected to increase by 43 percent between 2000 and 2020. This increased growth in absolute emissionswill 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, andaccompanying text.632 President George W. Bush, Speech Discussing Global Climate Change, June 11, 2001, available athttp://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 at420 (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 MetalsPETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005160Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, which the United States hasaccepted, echoes the Rio Declaration’s agreement that states must prevent transboundary harm. Protocolto the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Heavy Metals, preamble, June24, 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 toexploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and development policies and theirresponsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to theenvironment 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 reflectsinternational 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 athttp://usinfo.org/usia/usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/environ/latest/00120407.htm.652 UNEP Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF), Malmö Ministerial Declaration ¶3 (2000).653 Hunter, Salzman & Zaelke, supra note 637, at 410; The Stockholm Convention, ratified by 71countries including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Mexico, Spain, the United Kingdom, andsigned 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); StockholmConvention 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 10December 1982, Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and HighlyMigratory Fish Stocks, art. 6, UN Doc. A/CONF.164/37, 34 ILM 1542, at 1563 (1995), available athttp://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_stocks.htm (stating that“States shall apply the precautionary approach widely” and that the “absence of adequate scientificinformation 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 thatParties “shall decide, in a precautionary manner,” whether to list chemicals as persistent organicpollutants. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS), art.8.9 (2001) (emphasisadded). The Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of TransboundaryMovement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa (Bamako Convention) defines theprecautionary approach as, inter alia, “preventing the release into the environment of substances whichmay 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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005161Convention declares that “[i]n implementing this protocol, Contracting Parties shall apply a precautionaryapproach to environmental protection . . . when there is reason to believe that wastes or other matterintroduced in the marine environment are likely to cause harm even when there is no conclusive evidenceto 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.3659 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 Chorzów (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 note453.663 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; seealso Hunter, Salzman & Zaelke, supra note 637, at 425.666 Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Compensatory Damages (Art. 63(1) American Convention on HumanRights), 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 (“Nationalauthorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use ofeconomic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the costof pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade andinvestment.”). This principle originated in a 1972 set of recommendations by the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development Council, which stated that “the cost of [ensuring adequateenvironmental protection] should be reflected in the cost of goods and services which cause pollution inproduction and/or consumption.” OECD Council, Recommendation of the Council on Guiding PrinciplesConcerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies, C(72)128 (1972).668 UNEP Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF), Malmö Ministerial Declaration ¶11 (2000).

669 World Summit on Sustainable Development, Plan of Implementation, par. 14(b), 2002, available athttp://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/2309_planfinal.htm.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 athttp://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/46741.htm. See also U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO),Preliminary Observations on the Administration’s February 2002 Climate Initiative, Oct. 1, 2003,http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04131t.pdf, at 1.677 Preliminary Observations on the Administration’s 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 September27, 2005).PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005162680 Id.681 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Press Release, USDA Targeted Incentives forGreenhouse Gas Sequestration, Jun. 6, 2003, available athttp://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2004/39485.htm.682 EIA, Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program Brochure, available athttp://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 toCongress 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 theAdministration’s February 2002 Climate Initiative, supra note 676, at 5.685 Climate Change Science Program, Strategic Plan: Executive Summary, Jul. 2003, available athttp://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/final/ccspstratplan2003-execsum.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-FriendlyTechnologies—A U.S. Priority at 10, Dec. 15, 2004, available athttp://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2004/marlay-part1-paris-dec2004s.pdf (percentage of CCTPspending on various technologies).689 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), International Activities: International Partnership for the HydrogenEconomy, 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 (lastvisited Jul. 8, 2005).

691 DOE, Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, available athttp://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 athttp://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR5CZKVE/$File/ghgbrochure.pdf at 7.695 EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2003 ES-14, Figure ES-2, 2005,available athttp://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR69V4ZS/$File/05_complete_report.pdf.696 Preliminary Observations on the Administration’s February 2002 Climate Initiative, supra note 676, at4-5.697 Id.698 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2005, Figure Data, Figure 111, Carbon dioxide emissions in threeeconomic growth cases, 1990-2025, available athttp://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/figure111_data.xls.699 “Bush: Global Warming Is Just Hot Air,” Salon.com, Sept. 10, 2004, available athttp://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/09/10/bush/index2.html; U.S. Climate Action Network, FakingAction: The Truth Behind U.S. Global Warming Policy 8, Dec. 2003, available athttp://www.climatenetwork.org/uscanweb/fakingaction.htm. See generally Climate VISION, PrivateSector Initiatives, at http://www.climatevision.gov/initiatives.html (last visited Jul. 8, 2005).PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005163700 Compare, Edison Electric Institute (2002), EEI, Industry Allies Launch Power Partners to SupportPresident Bush’s Climate Initiative, http://www.eei.org/issues/news/releases/030212.htm, with EnergyInformation Administration (2003), Annual Energy Outlook 2003, Reference Case Forecast, Table 19.701 Guy Gugliotta & Eric Pianin, “Bush Plans on Global Warming Alter Little: Voluntary ProgramsAttract Few Firms,” Wash. Post, Jan. 1, 2004.702 EPA, Climate Leaders: Partners, at http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/partners/index.html (last visitedJul. 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 theSecond 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 athttp://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). (“Aserious effort to limit climate change will require pursuing multiple technological paths.”).716 National Resources Defense Council, “Untangling the Accounting Gimmicks in the White HouseGlobal 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 athttp://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/factsheets/dangerous_experiment.pdf.719 U.S. Department of State, Bush Will Not Require Power Plants to Reduce Carbon Emissions, athttp://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 ThanBush 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 andGreenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Around the World (“Fuel Economy”), Dec. 6, 2004, available athttp://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/fuel_economy/index.cfm.724 Id., at 6.PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005164725 Robert B. McKinstry, Jr., Introduction: Local Solutions for Global Problems: The Debate Over theCauses and Effects of Climate Change and Emerging Mitigation Strategies for States, Localities andPrivate 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, athttp://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, athttp://www.climatechange.ca.gov/policies/national_summary.html; Environmental Defense, States andClimate Change, Jun. 13, 2005, at http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=2863.729 Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Renewable Energy Mandates, athttp://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 athttp://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 ofGlobal 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 Beforethe Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 2-3, Jul. 11, 2002, available athttp://www.state.gov/documents/organization/13774.pdf; U.S. Climate Action Report - 2002, supra note91.736 “Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions,” 1, available athttp://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 athttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1642.741 Elizabeth Kolbert, The Climate of Man—III, New Yorker, May 9, 2005, available athttp://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050509fa_fact3.742 Id.743 Michael Mann et. al., Senator Inhofe on Climate Change, RealClimate, Jan. 10, 2005, athttp://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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005165747 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 ClimateChange, 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, athttp://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2004/39438.htm: Australia/New Zealand (Pacific Ocean climatemonitoring system); China (environmental and economic modeling); India (helping evaluate clean energyoptions); 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 anddevelopment of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies); Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum(development of technology for carbon dioxide capture and long-term storage); Generation IVInternational Forum (nuclear energy research and development); Renewable Energy and EnergyEfficiency Partnership (expand market for renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies); GlobalEnvironmental Facility (financial mechanism of the UNFCCC—$25 million in FY 2006 for technologytransfer to, capacity building in developing countries); Tropical Forest Conservation Act (relievedeveloping country debt to U.S. and generate money for conservation of tropical forests that storecarbon—projected to generate $95 million over life of agreements); President’s Initiative Against IllegalLogging (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, athttp://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, athttp://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/2002/10283.htm; 2004: U.S. Department of State, United States GlobalClimate 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, athttp://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2003/18055.htm (recording $62 million for the Carbon SequestrationLeadership Forum as coming out of the Department of Energy budget) with Climate ChangeExpenditures, supra note 683, (not differentiating between sequestration research spending forinternational 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, athttp://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/50335.htm.760 Juliet Eilperin, “U.S. Wants No Warming Proposal: Administration Aims to Prevent Arctic CouncilSuggestions,” Wash. Post, Nov. 4, 2004.761 “Britain’s Blair caught in G8 climate dilemma,” Reuters, Jun. 16, 2005, athttp://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 RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005166763 “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 ReachCompromise, Wash. Post, Jul. 6, 2005.765 G8 Gleneagles Summit, Climate Change, Clean Energy, and Sustainable Development, 2005,available athttp://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1119518704554; “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-11/90of August 10, 1990, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. A) No. 11 (1990) (domestic remedies need not be exhaustedin “situations in which the domestic laws of a State Party do not provide appropriate remedies to protectrights 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 Velásquez Rodriquez Case, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R.,Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C. No. 4, ¶ 63 (“[The exhaustion requirement] speaks of ‘generallyrecognized principles of international law.’ Those principles refer not only to the formal existence ofsuch 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 Amendment’s Due Process Clause establishes no obligationto fund abortions or other medical services); Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 74 (1972) (FourteenthAmendment’s 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 providesubstantive 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 anational, 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 andImmunities 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 ofthe 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 foreignNations, 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, theright of free interstate migration.” “A state law implicates the right to travel when it actually deters suchtravel....”).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 byregulation”).782 Id.

PETITION TO THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSVIOLATIONS RESULTING FROM GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY THE UNITED STATESDECEMBER 7, 2005167783 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 thosepersonal rights “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” such as family planning, child-rearing, andabortion); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712-13 (1976) (finding that a specific constitutional guaranteemust 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); FederalHousing 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 besued in tort unless the claim alleges, “inter alia, that the United States would be liable to the claimant as aprivate person in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” (Quotationsomitted.)).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 cannotbe sued in tort unless the claim alleges, “inter alia, that the United States would be liable to the claimantas 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 beenheld that there is no constitutional right to ... [environmental] ... protection.”); Tanner v. Armco Steel, 340F. Supp. 532 (S.D. Tex. 1972) (“[N]o legally enforceable right to a healthful environment . . . isguaranteed 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 willencourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote effortswhich will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health andwelfare 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.”).