Human rights are immutable. They don't change depending on whether it's raining or not, or whether your clan has enough arable land this year. Saying that climate change is responsible for 200,000 deaths in Sudan is a perverse way to frame the issue and implicitly absolves the murderers of their actions, or at least that's how I understood it. I agree that climate change may produce tension and conflict that may lead to the dereliction of human rights, but that does not make climate change a human rights issue per se. I think to resolve this argument we would have to dig deeper into the idea of what a human right actually is and who is the guarantor of that right if there can even be a guarantor. Can there even be human rights without a guarantor? People often confuse "human rights" with "things they just really would like to happen to everyone."