important route by which those barriers can and will be overcome by plaintiffs in future litigation.82 The Carbon Majors collectively contribute to global climate change, in that the emissions by one company are not distinguishable in their effects from emissions by other companies. The research therefore provides the best surrogate or proxy measure of responsibility that has been devised to date. The Carbon Majors data identifies the Carbon Majors’ responsibility, jointly and severally, for contributing predominately to climate change and its resulting impacts that are interfering with the enjoyment of human rights. Therefore, while it is not possible to attribute a specific harm, or threat thereof, to the carbon produced by a single Carbon Major, there is a substantial probability that the climate impacts experienced by Filipinos are made significantly worse as a result of the Carbon Majors’ past and current activities. Each company should be held accountable for making some of that contribution.83 As the Guiding Principles explain, responsibility is not contingent on a company being the sole cause of a human rights impact. A company is responsible if it has contributed to or is involved in the impacts, even if it is one among many responsible parties.84 It is only fair and just that the companies that have extracted and profited the most from fossil fuels account for the resulting harm and take the necessary measures to prevent more harm in order to protect the rights of the people.85 5. Even if the Commission finds scientific uncertainties in establishing the Respondents’ responsibility for specific or future human rights harms, the precautionary principle applies.                                                                                                                         82 Id. In the landmark US Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court held: “The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. The Government’s own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens, inter alia, a precipitate rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snowpack with direct and important economic consequences, and increases in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events. That these changes are widely shared does not minimize Massachusetts’ interest in the outcome of this litigation…. Given EPA’s failure to dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, its refusal to regulate such emissions, at a minimum, “contributes” to Massachusetts’ injuries.” Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438, 1446 (2007). 84 A recent groundbeaking climate decision in the Netherlands contains useful guidance on establishing the causal link in climate cases. See Urgenda Foundation v. the State of the Netherlands, C/09/456689 / HA ZA 13-1396 (English translation), June 24, 2015, ¶ 4.90. Available at http://www.urgenda.nl/documents/VerdictDistrictCourtUrgendavStaat-24.06.2015.pdf [hereinafter Urgenda v. Netherlands](“[S]ufficient causal link can be assumed to exist between the Dutch greenhouse gas emissions, global climate change and the effects (now and in the future) on the Dutch living climate. The fact that the current Dutch greenhouse gas emissions are limited on a global scale does not alter the fact that these emission contribute to climate change. The court has taken into consideration in this respect as well that the Dutch greenhouse emissions have contributed to climate change and by their nature will also continue to contribute to climate change.”).   85 For more information on early reductions to limit warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100, see J. Rogelj & G. Luderer & R.C. Pietzcker E. Kriegler & M. Schaeffer & V. Krey & K. Riahi (2015): Energy System Transformations for Limiting End-of-Century Warming to Below 1.5°C, 5 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE, 519 (2015).   83             23