2 Philippines.1 It might appear tragic that a country that, unlike the wealthiest and most powerful countries, is doing what it can to limit climate change should be the victim of increasingly ferocious cyclones (made more powerful by the rising temperature of the ocean) and other elements of so far uncontrolled climate change. But it is not a tragedy, because the worsening climate is not unavoidable, and it is not natural. Uncontrolled climate change is the result of human decisions, decisions to act and decisions not to act. The results of these decisions are moral wrongs, not natural tragedies. The agents who have made those decisions are morally responsible for the consequences in the lives of others affected and ought to be held accountable for the wrongs brought about by their choices. I have been asked to explain the basis of the moral responsibility of the forty-six firms named in the petition, to which I will refer as the “carbon majors”, for the suffering and damage caused to the people of the Philippines by the worsening climate driven by the carbon emissions from their fossil fuels. The causal responsibility of these (and other) carbon majors, which is the empirical basis for their moral responsibility, has been demonstrated by scientists.2 But not all causal responsibility brings moral responsibility. In order for an action or omission that causes damage to be morally wrong, that action or omission must avoidably violate a moral principle as it brings about its effects.3 Are the carbon majors avoidably violating any moral principles by continuing to rely on products and services the use of which forces the climate to change by injecting carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere? 2.2 No harm without necessity Yes, and the explanation of why the behaviour in which these firms persist is wrong is clear, simple, and relatively uncontroversial, because it relies only on one of the most fundamental and widely accepted moral principles. Every society in the world accepts the principle, “do no harm”. Within medical ethics, for example, it is known as the ancient Hippocratic Oath: “first, do no harm”. Obviously it is impossible in reality to do literally no harm. Reality is too complex for perfect compliance, and necessity can be a perfectly acceptable excuse for doing harm when, but only when, the harm is in fact unavoidable. Amputating a person’s limb harms the person, but if that is in fact the only way to save her life, the amputation can be justified as a matter of necessity. This is why the principle really means: do no avoidable harm, or do no harm without necessity.4 2.3 Violation of basic rights The carbon emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are inflicting increasingly monumental harm throughout the planet by undermining the stability of its climate. Climate stability is a pre-condition for the conduct of productive agriculture, the provision of safe housing, and the other minimal economic activities that underlie civilized society. Indeed, if one accepts that there are ———————————— 1Climate Action Tracker, “Countries”, September 2018. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/ 2 B. Ekwurzel, J. Boneham, M.W. Dalton, R. Heede, R.J. Mera, M.R. Allen, and P.C. Frumhoff, ‘The rise in global atmospheric CO2, surface temperature, and sea level from emissions traced to major carbon producers’, Climatic Change, 144 (2017), 179-190. doi:10.1007/s10584-0171978-0. 3Hereafter I will abbreviate ‘action or omission’ to ‘action’ in order to be less clumsy, but I will always include choices not to act, as well as choices to act, as actions. 4This principle is explained more fully, and given context, in H. Shue, ‘Responsible for What? Carbon producer CO2 contributions and the energy transition’, Climatic Change, 144 (2017), 591-596. doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2042-9. Copy attached to this statement.