level beyond that which might be regarded as de minimis. Therefore, the Commission could look to Urgenda and other case law involving environmental harm and finding a causal link between the actions of defendants and the harm alleged. III. Polluter Pays (Plan B)348 The Commission should also take into account the widely recognized principle of “the polluter pays.”349 Legal responsibility for harm caused to others is one of the mainstays of public and commercial life. The potential for legal liability instills a measure of confidence that the medicines we take will not harm us and that the transport we use complies with appropriate safety procedures, etc. Making businesses accountable for the social costs of the products they profit from, steers the market towards socially beneficial activity. The “polluter pays” is therefore an economic principle as much as a legal one. Fossil fuels companies should not be exempt from this principle and should not be allowed to displace the social and environmental costs of their products onto the poor and the vulnerable. The international community has long recognized the importance of implementing the principle as critical to environmental protection. In 1972, the OECD asserted that “the polluter pays” was the principle for encouraging “rational use of scarce environmental resources.” 350 In the same year, Principle 22 of the Stockholm Declaration committed states to further developing international law “regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage.”351 Since then it has been widely referenced as a general principle of law that was reaffirmed when States adopted the Rio Declaration in 1992, which included Principle 16 stating that: “National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution.” 352 This does not mean that because everyone has a “carbon footprint,” everyone is a “polluter who should pay.” In order to function as an economic tool, polluters should be identified as the principal economic operators profiting from the polluting activities. Such an approach is supported by the OECD Recommendations of 1992, 1(2): On grounds of economic efficiency and administrative convenience, it is occasionally appropriate to identify the polluter as the economic agent playing a decisive role in the pollution, rather than the agent actually originating it. Hence a vehicle manufacturer could be deemed the polluter, although pollution results from the vehicle’s use by its owner. Similarly, a pesticide producer could be the polluter, even though the pollution is the outcome of proper or improper use of pesticides. 353 Our political and economic system is founded on obedience to the economic incentive. For as long as polluters can profit from polluting, while displacing the social and environmental 348 This section is drawn from the amicus curiae brief submitted by Plan B. See Plan B brief, at § 6.3; Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, supra note 243, at principle 16. 350 Plan B brief, at § 6.3. 351 Stockholm Declaration, supra note 289, at principle 22; see Plan B brief, at § 6.3. 352 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, supra note 243, at principle 16; see Plan B brief, at § 6.3. 353 Plan B brief, at § 6.3. 349 73