“The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an arm of the Organization of American States, has declined to rule on a complaint by native Arctic peoples that global warming caused by gases from the United States violates their right to sustain their traditional ways. The agency told the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which represents 150,000 people in northern Alaska, Canada, Russia and Greenland, that there was insufficient evidence of harm. Inuit leaders said they would seek a hearing to present more evidence.” Andrew Revkin, NY Times
I wonder what “insufficient evidence of harm” means? Not enough evidence of harmful warming of the Arctic, or not enough evidence that “their right to sustain their traditional ways” has been impaired? I assume the latter, but I would really love to see the two questions considered separately. If this commission were to accept that there was harmful warming, and that US emissions were the cause, that in itself would be huge legal precedent.