Posted on 12/19/2004 4:00:21 PM PST by MissouriConservative
The plan by the Inuit people of the Arctic to seek a ruling from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the United States "for causing global warming and its devastating impacts" is just the tip of the iceberg of planned legal action by a host of different environmental organizations and state attorneys general.
A number of legal filings and complaints are being readied as green groups turn to the courts to seek redress against countries -- chiefly the U.S. -- and companies that environmental activists believe are causing catastrophic global warming.
Environmental groups ranging from Greenpeace to EarthJustice held seminars this week at the United Nations climate conference touting new legal strategies to go after the countries and companies they believe contribute to climate change.
A joint press release from Friends of the Earth International, Greenpeace and WWF on Thursday warned "there will be more [legal actions against countries and businesses] unless deep cuts are made in emissions and victims are compensated."
The California state attorney general, Ken Alex, made the trip to the Buenos Aires conference to promote his "first-ever climate change litigation against private companies."
Critics of the environmental movement see the shift in focus to the courts as evidence of the green groups' failure to convince the world of the righteousness of their cause.
"The Kyoto Protocol is dead for all intents and purposes, so environmentalists now go to Plan B: What they couldn't obtain through the open democratic process, they are now desperately trying to seek through the courts," said Chris Horner of the free market environmental group Competitive Enterprise Institute who attended the U.N. conference here. The CEI does not believe that science supports alarmist claims of human-caused climate change.
The greenhouse gas-limiting Kyoto Protocol is set to go into effect in February despite the fact that the U.S. will not participate. Horner believes that the agreement is meaningless because there are no enforcement mechanisms and the treaty exempts developing nations that will soon be the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Many environmental groups also concede that Kyoto is too weak to even begin to address their concerns about "global warming."
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chairwoman of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, a United Nations-recognized, quasi-governmental group that is seeking a human rights declaration against the U.S., defended her group's planned human rights complaint against the U.S. as its only option.
"Without a radical rethinking of priorities, ... my culture could very well be doomed in perhaps even my grandson's lifetime," Watt-Cloutier said during a panel discussion this week at the U.N.-sponsored climate conference.
"They (the scientists) tell us that well within 100 years, all of [our way of life] could well be destroyed, and we have contributed very little to the problems of climate change, but yet we bear the heaviest impacts," she explained.
"Imagine if 300 scientists agreed on a projection that the way of life of your entire people was condemned to disappear in the way that we know it -- a hunting culture -- less than 100 years from now because of the actions of others. What would you do?" she asked, explaining the rationale for filing the complaint.
But when CNSNews.com asked Watt-Cloutier and other Arctic resident panelists on Wednesday about the available contrary scientific evidence that does not support her claims that human-caused "global warming" is rapidly warming the Arctic, the moderator of the panel discussion called the question "silly" and shut down the questioning.
'Nations go to war over less'
Watt-Cloutier remains convinced that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are threatening her cultural heritage and said the U.S. is lucky that Inuits are not prone to violence.
"History -- and even recent history -- shows us that nations go to war over less. Now, fortunately, this is not how we are as Inuits; we are peaceful people," Watt-Cloutier said.
"We believe that the world does not want to see us disappear; we still have confidence that the world will do the right thing to address [climate change]," she added.
Robert Corell, chair of the international Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), the alarmist climate report on which the Inuit people are basing their challenge to the U.S., said that because of human-caused global warming, Arctic indigenous communities are facing major economic and cultural impacts.
"If you are indigenous and you have lived with your ancestors for upwards of seven to nine thousand years and you had a subsistence living which has been dependent upon the existence of ice, that is now a serious problem," Corell explained.
Corell included the use of modern snowmobiles as part of a "subsistence" lifestyle. Corell said that among the tragedies that are occurring are Inuit-operated snowmobiles crashing through the thinning Arctic ice.
"Snowmobiles do not detect thin ice. I think you will find indigenous partners in this room who will tell you some of their close relatives who have not made it through the ice pack because they expected it to be more firm than it actually was, and their snowmobiles went through," Corell said during a presentation at the U.N. climate conference on Monday.
'A conscious choice'
But Horner of the CEI ridiculed the notion that a "subsistence" lifestyle included modern equipment like snowmobiles and charged that the Inuits themselves are responsible for ending their traditional way of life.
"They have an airstrip, they ride ... motor boats, have indoor climate control, electric tools and snowmobiles," Horner said.
"The disappearance of their lifestyle was made by a conscious choice, and the Inuit people themselves -- more than anyone -- have the ready ability to return to that subsistence existence which they are now romanticizing for an ideological agenda and possible financial gain," Horner said.
Horner sees the Inuits' complaint as nothing more than meaningless symbolism.
"It's a complaint before a panel that does not even have jurisdiction over the United States," he said.
"The Inuits and the environmental groups behind them are filing the complaint to get a determination that anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change violates human rights, which the plaintiffs (Inuits) then hope will qualify them to sue for money -- possibly to buy a nice, warm house and non-subsistence lifestyle," Horner said.
A headline like that could create a backlash of Titanic proportions.
When I worked on my college newspaper, we took pride in alliterative headlines and obscure puns.
Well, you know we're missing the whole story. 90% of it is under the surface.
Yes, methinks his career is sunk.
Yeah, if there is enough global warming, they'll eventually have a bunch of undeveloped beach front property without all those annoying ice floes.
I know. Part of appreciating a good pun is groaning properly. :) See this thread for some real stinkers:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1299129/posts
Didn't you see "The Day After Tomorrow?" Global warming means everyone's gonna freeze to death! The whole Atlantic and Pacific Northwest are gonna be frozen. It'll be one BIG ice floe. And it's all Dick Cheney's fault.
Oh yeah--and monkeys are flying out of my butt. /sarcasm
If either of the Quaid brothers are involved in a film, it's a bad sign.
Time for the editors to put a freeze any more of his work.
They must in order to avoid a melt-down of their entire operation.
I won't give that last pun a passing grade.
It was under-C level. [rimshot]
Of course, we can't blubber on about Eskimos. Inuit was too good to last when we started. Punning is, of course, igloo that binds all these posts together...but at some point we're going to frost someone about being off topic.
At that point I think we should cool it. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.