47 companies fail to respect human rights as set out in the Guiding Principles.”191 The instant Petition is case in point. 2.118. Fourth, respondent Carbon Majors are not fulfilling their responsibility to respect human rights through the extraction, production, and sale of products that, when used as directed, result in significant amounts of climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions. They are also failing to act with due diligence in light of the known risks posed by climate change.192 Also, some of the respondents may be acting in contravention to their responsibilities by having, either directly or indirectly, intentionally undermined climate science and national and international actions on climate change.193 Please see Annex “B” for an opinion by the Center for International Environmental Law (“CIEL”) explaining how newly acquired documents demonstrate that the oil industry was engaged in conduct contrary to international norms and standards the responsibility of business enterprises to respect and protect human rights. The national public inquiry presents an opportunity for the respondents to fulfill their responsibility to exercise due diligence and begin to assess the full extent of the human rights threats and harms being experienced by the petitioners. 2.119. By challenging the Honorable Commission’s authority to investigate or by not responding to the Commission’s Order, respondents are interfering with the petitioners’ legal right to access justice.194 The national public inquiry presents an opportunity for the respondents to fulfill their responsibility to exercise due diligence and begin to assess the full extent of the human rights harms being experienced by petitioners. E.1. The respondents have contributed to human rights impacts resulting from climate change. 191 supra., note 190. The amicus submission by Professor Seck discusses due diligence and human rights impacts assessments: “In light of existing knowledge about fossil fuels and climate change, a business as usual approach appears entirely inconsistent with the identification and prevention of human rights impacts following an effective due diligence process as contemplated by the UN Guiding Principles.” Seck, S., amicus submission, op cit., p. 6. The amicus submission by Plan B proposes that “the appropriate questions for determining the responsibility of the carbon majors (on the basis that the carbon majors have obligations to respect the right to life) are as follows: (a) Were the carbon majors aware of the risks to life (and other rights caused by their activities)?; (b) If so, did they take reasonable steps to prevent those risks occurring?; and (c) Have their acts and / or omissions materially contributed to violations of the right of the Petitioners?” Crosland, T., Plan B’s amicus curiae brief, p. 27, available at https://businesshumanrights.org/en/amicus-briefs, last accessed on 08 February 2017. 193 See Annex “E” to the Petition (Publications on Fossil Fuel Industry Involvement in Undermining Climate Science and Action), available at http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/press/releases/Worldslargest-carbon-producers-ordered-to-respond-to-allegations-of-human-rights--abuses-from-climatechange/The-Climate-Change-and-Human-Rights-Petition/, last accessed on 06 February 2017. 194 See Understanding Human Rights and Climate Change, Submission of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015), p. 3, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ClimateChange/COP21.pdf, last accessed on 06 February 2017. 192