The Precautionary Principle prescribed in the Philippine Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases is relevant in investigating the responsibility of the Carbon Majors for the human rights implications of climate change.86 Precaution espouses prudence where risk is uncertain, but plausible. It is an addition to two basic tenets of problem-solving: curing problems and preventing them. Under a curative approach, the harm has already been realized, and measures are created to reverse the harm, or require compensation for the costs associated with harm. Under the preventive approach, measures are taken to prevent known risks from materializing into actual harm. Precaution requires even greater diligence than prevention, by calling for measures to safeguard the environment even if the occurrence of harm is uncertain. The precautionary principle affirms the need for urgent measures given the unpredictable patterns of the environment, and the harm resulting from its abuse.87 The precautionary approach has been confirmed by a group of eminent experts in human rights, environmental, and international law. On March 1, 2015 the Oslo Principles on Global Obligations to Reduce Climate Change (Oslo Principles) were adopted. The experts found that states are “bound by existing international law to assess the environmental impact of their activities and to take measures to prevent the destructive effects of climate change.”88 According to the Oslo General Principles, “[t]here is clear and convincing evidence that the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by human activity are causing significant changes to the climate and that these changes pose grave risks of irreversible harm to humanity, including present and future generations, to the environment, including other living species and the entire natural habitat, and to the global economy.”89 According to the same Principle, the precautionary principle requires that: 1) GHG emissions be reduced to the extent, and at a pace, necessary to protect against the threats of climate change that can still be avoided; and 2) the level of reductions of GHG emissions required to achieve this, should be based on any credible and realistic worst-case                                                                                                                         86 See  Urgenda v. the State of the Netherlands, supra note 86 at ¶ 4.79 (“The fact that the amount of the Dutch emissions is small compared to other countries does not affect the obligation to take precautionary measures in view of the State’s obligation to exercise care. After all, it has been established that any anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission, no matter how minor, contributes to an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and therefore to hazardous climate change.”).   87 Sub-committee on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, April 29, 2010 at 82. 88 For a detailed discussion of the existing international law underpinning the Oslo Principles, see Oslo Principles Commentary, available at http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/globaljustice/Oslo%20Principles%20Commentary.pdf [emphasis added]; J. Powles & T. Kahn, Climate Change: At last a breakthrough to our catastrophic political impasse?, Mar. 31, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/30/climate-change-paris-talks-osloprinciples-legal-obligations (last visited Sept. 17, 2015). 89 Oslo Principles on Global Obligations to Reduce Climate Change, Mar. 1 2015, http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/globaljustice/Oslo%20Principles.pdf (last accessed June 16, 2015) at 3.             24