State to ensure that Dutch emissions in the year 2020 be at least 25% lower than those in 1990.127 The State has appealed the verdict.128 The issue in the case was whether the State committed the tort of negligence against its citizens by taking insufficient measures to prevent dangerous climate change.129 In order to determine the State’s duty of care towards its citizens, the Court analyzed the Constitution, the no harm principle, the UNFCCC, European Union law, and European human rights laws, and it also looked at case law involving hazardous negligence.130 Ultimately, the Court concluded that “[d]ue to the severity of the consequences of climate change and the great risk of hazardous climate change occurring, without mitigating measures, the State has a duty of care to take mitigation measures to protect its citizens.”131 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 may be 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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 127 Urgenda Verdict, supra note 85, at Inhoudsindicatie.. Government of the Netherlands, Cabinet Begins Implementation of Urgenda Ruling But Will File Appeal, Sept 1, 2016, https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2015/09/01/cabinet-begins-implementation-of-urgenda-ruling-butwill-file-appeal (last accessed on Apr. 19, 2016). 129 Roger Cox, A Climate Change Litigation Precedent: Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands, CIGI Paper No. 79, Nov. 2015, https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/cigi_paper_79.pdf (last accessed on Apr. 19, 2016). 130 Urgenda Verdict, supra note 85, at 4.36, 4.52, 4.53. 131 Id. at 4.83. 132 Id. at 4.90 133 Id. at 4.90 128 ! 40! ! ! ! ! !