The Urgenda verdict may provide important insights for the instant Petition because of how the Court treated two issues – causation and damages - that commonly arise in climate claims. First, the Dutch Court found there to be a sufficient causal link between the country’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, global climate change, and the current and future effects on the “Dutch living climate.”132 Even though the country is not a major carbon polluter, the Court reasoned that the country’s emissions have and will continue to contribute to climate change.133 In this proceeding before the CHR, the Petitioners anticipate the Respondent Carbon Majors will argue that there are thousands of sources of GHG emissions; therefore individual carbon producers should not be held responsible. Similar to the finding against the Dutch State, the Respondents produce carbon, that when used, has and will continue to contribute to climate change, unless the companies put in place mitigation measures. As discussed above, the Carbon Majors publications are helpful in determining each company’s measureable contribution to climate change. Second, the Court’s handling of the issue of establishing climate damages is relevant to this Petition. The court stated: It is an established fact that climate change is occurring partly due to the Dutch greenhouse gas emissions. It is also an established fact that the negative consequences are currently being experienced in the Netherlands, such as heavy precipitation, and that adaptation measures are already being taken to make the Netherlands “climate-proof”. Moreover, it is established that if the global emissions, partly caused by the Netherlands, do not decrease substantially, hazardous climate change will probably occur. In the opinion of the court, the possibility of damages for those whose interests Urgenda represents, including current and future generations of Dutch !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 132 133 Id. at 4.90 Id. at 4.90 ! ! ! ! ! 51 !