to levels that will lead to dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system resulting in human rights impacts.”25 The petitioners again, appropriately, rely on the UN Guiding Principles to support the claim that “responsibility is not contingent on a company being the sole cause of a human rights impact;” thus, when combined with the Carbon Majors study, they conclude that it is now feasible to assign responsibility both collectively and individually to Carbon Majors.26 Conclusion In conclusion, in my opinion, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commission over this Petition would be in keeping with the duty of the Philippines to protect the human rights of its peoples from climate harms, by investigating whether the investor-owned Carbon Majors have breached their own independent responsibility to respect human rights. Moreover, the remedies sought by the petitioners are entirely appropriate, including the request that the investor-owned Carbon Majors submit plans indicating how these violations or threat of violations will be “eliminated and remedied and prevented in the future.” The request that other States, including the States of incorporation of the investor-owned Carbon Majors, be called upon to “take steps to prevent, remedy, or eliminate human rights violations or threats of violations resulting from the impact of climate change” is also entirely reasonable. Indeed, it is in keeping with the duty of international cooperation that is essential to solving the climate crisis. Sincerely, Sara L Seck Contact: sseck@uwo.ca London, Ontario, Canada 25 26 Petition at 22. Petition at 23. 7