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.85 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.86 5. Even if the Commission finds scientific uncertainties in establishing the Respondents’ responsibility for specific or future human rights harms, the precautionary principle applies. 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.87 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 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). 85 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/VerdictDistrictCourt-UrgendavStaat-24.06.2015.pdf [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 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.”). 86 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). 87 See Urgenda Verdict, supra note 85 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.”). ! ! ! ! ! 38 !