53 2.137. In suggesting that the Honorable Commission takes administrative or official notice of policy and scientific developments related to climate change, petitioners were merely proposing a practical approach of fact-finding, and not a rule of evidence in adjudicating the legal rights of parties in a judicial proceeding. 2.138. For example, the petitioners are saying that the Honorable Commission should treat the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific body and intergovernmental organization set up by the United National Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization, as fact. The state of climate science as reported by the IPCC “is now sufficiently certain and reliable to demonstrate the world is endangered by carbon emissions.”214 As noted by experts, the Honorable Commission can accept that climate change is having, and will continue to have, significant impacts on the human rights of the people of the Philippines, based on the overwhelming scientific evidence as reported by the IPCC.215 III. REFUTATIONS TO RESPONDENTS’ RESPECTIVE RESPONSES TO THE PETITION (Responses received by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre) A. Overview of responses received by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC). 3.1. The independent non-profit Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), a well-established and respected clearinghouse for information on business and human rights that is respected by companies, governments, civil society, media and investors,216 invited fortyfive (45) respondents to share responses submitted to the Honorable Commission in accordance with the 21 July 2016 Order. Eleven (11) companies volunteered their positions, one (1) company (Husky Energy) 214 Estrin, D. Limiting Dangerous Climate Change the Critical Role of Citizen Suits and Domestic Courts – Despite the Paris Agreement, p. 7, available at https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/paper_no.101.pdf, last accessed on 03 February 2017. See Urgenda Foundation v. the State of the Netherlands, C/09/456689 / HA ZA 13-1396 (English translation), 24 June 2015, para 4.90, available at http://www.urgenda.nl/documents/VerdictDistrictCourtUrgendavStaat-24.06.2015.pdf , last accessed on 06 February 2017. [Hereinafter, Urgenda Verdict: “[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 emissions 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.”] 215 ClientEarth’s amicus submission, p. 39. 216 For more information about the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, please see: https://businesshumanrights.org/en/business-human-rights-resource-centre-a-brief-description.