the Netherlands, do not decrease substantially, hazardous climate change will probably occur. In the opinion of the court, the possibility of damages for those whose interests Urgenda represents, including current and future generations of Dutch nationals, is so great and concrete that given its duty of care, the State must make an adequate contribution, greater than its current contribution, to prevent hazardous climate change.134 The Dutch Court relied on IPCC reports as fact because the IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental organisation and the Netherlands is a member.135 Climate science was not disputed in the case. The Court found that the possibility of damages to be great and concrete requiring the State to make an adequate contribution to prevent hazardous climate change.136 Similarly in these proceedings, IPCC reports should be recognized as being internationally established and acknowledged as scientific fact. Climate harm in the Philippines is great and concrete and requires the Respondent Carbon Majors to prevent business activities that contribute to hazardous climate change. b.1.2. Constitutional Rights and Public Trust Doctrine: Foster et. al v. Washington Department of Ecology On November 19, 2015, a County Superior Court Judge in the U.S. state of Washington weighed in on a case involving eight youth plaintiffs calling on the Washington Department of Ecology to write a carbon emissions rule that protects the atmosphere for their generation and those to come. The Judge denied the request for rulemaking, because (in part), the Washington’s Governor stepped in and ordered the Department of Ecology to initiate rulemaking. However, this decision itself is groundbreaking. The Judge recognized the youths’ right to a healthy atmosphere based on U.S. constitutional protections and the public trust doctrine. The Judge declared, “[the youths’] very survival depends upon the will of their elders to act now, decisively and unequivocally, to stem the tide of global warming…before doing so becomes first too costly and then too late.”137 The Judge found the “[t]he state has a constitutional obligation to protect the public’s interest in natural resources held in trust for the common benefit of the people.”138 The decision addressed both the threat of climate change and ocean acidification.139 The decision is important to the instant Petition because it demonstrates a growing recognition of the right to a healthy atmosphere. The Judge stated, “[i]f there ever were a time to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 134 Id. at 4.89. Id. at 2.8-2.9. 136 Id. 137 Foster et. al v. Washington Department of Ecology, Order Affirming the Department of Ecology’s Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, Nov. 19, 2015, at 5, http://ourchildrenstrust.org/sites/default/files/15.11.19.Order_FosterV.Ecology.pdf (last accessed on Apr. 19, 2016). 138 Id. at 8. 139 Id. 135 ! 41! ! ! ! ! !