National Inquiry on
全國調查

THIS IS A REPORT BY THE
這是一份報告由

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (CHRP)
菲律賓人權委員會 (CHRP)

A copy of this report is available at https://chr.gov.ph/ First Printing, December 2022 by the CHRP
本報告的副本可在 https://chr.gov.ph/ 獲得。首次印刷，2022 年 12 月，由人權委員會出版。

All rights reserved.
版權所有。

Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines
菲律賓人權委員會

SAAC Building, UP Complex, Commonwealth Avenue
SAAC 大樓，UP 綜合大樓，聯邦大道

Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1101
迪利曼，奎松市，大馬尼拉，菲律賓 1101

chad.pasco.chr@gmail.com; chr.escrcenter@gmail.com

National Inquiry on Climate Change Report
國家氣候變遷調查報告

Contents
內容

Preface 1
前言 1

Mandate of the Commission 9
委員會的任務 9

Mafler Before the Commission 9
馬夫勒在委員會面前 9

CHRP Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the Petition 10
CHRP 管轄權及請願的可受理性 10

History of the Climate Inquiry and Conduct of the Public Hearings 12
氣候調查的歷史及公聽會的進行 12

Multi-disciplinary Consultative Process 13
多學科諮詢過程 13

Public Hearings 19
公聽會 19

Findings 24
調查結果 24

Climate Change is Real 24
氣候變遷是真實的 24

Atmospheric Warming 26
大氣變暖 26

Oceanic Indicators 26
海洋指標 26

Cryosphere Loss 27
冰凍圈損失 27

Extreme Weather and Climate Events 28
極端天氣與氣候事件 28

Anthropogenic Dimension of Climate Change 29
人為氣候變遷的維度 29

Climate Change: A Grave and Urgent Human Rights Concern 30
氣候變遷：一項嚴重且緊迫的人權關切 30

Adverse Impacts of Climate Change on Human Rights 30
氣候變遷對人權的負面影響 30

Adverse Impacts of Climate Change in the Philippines 32
氣候變遷對菲律賓的負面影響 32

Duty of States to Protect Human Rights 63
國家保護人權的義務 63

General Duty 63
一般責任 63

Special Duty of States to Protect Human Rights in the Context of Climate Change 70
國家在氣候變化背景下保護人權的特殊責任 70

Refusal of Governments to Engage in Meaningful Action to Mitigate Climate Change may be Categorized as a Human Rights Violation 78
政府拒絕採取有意義的行動以減緩氣候變化可能被歸類為人權侵犯 78

Responsibility of Business Enterprises to Respect Human Rights 79
企業尊重人權的責任 79

General Responsibility 79
一般責任 79

The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights Under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP-BHR)  80
企業在聯合國商業與人權指導原則（UNGP-BHR）下尊重人權的企業責任 80

The United Nations Global Compact 83
聯合國全球契約 83

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Corporations 84
經濟合作與發展組織多國公司指導方針 84

Responsibility in the Context of Climate Change 84
氣候變遷背景下的責任 84

Application of the UNGP-BHR 84
聯合國企業與人權指導原則的應用 84

Corporate Financial Disclosure Requirements  85
企業財務揭露要求 85

Principles on Climate Change Obligations of Enterprises 86
氣候變化原則企業義務 86

Responsibility of Financial Institutions 87
金融機構的責任 87

Compliance with State Regulations Regarding Climate Change      88
遵守國家氣候變遷相關法規 88

Carbon Majors in the Context of Climate Change 88
碳大戶在氣候變遷的背景下 88

Anthropogenic Contributions to Climate Change is Quantifiable and Substantial 88
人為對氣候變化的貢獻是可量化且相當可觀的 88

The Carbon Majors Had Early Awareness, Notice, or Knowledge of their Products’ Adverse Impacts on the Environment and Climate System 90
碳大企業對其產品對環境和氣候系統的負面影響有早期的認識、通知或知識 90

Willful Obfuscation of Climate Science and Obstruction of Global Initiatives Toward Decarbonization 94
故意混淆氣候科學及阻礙全球去碳化倡議 94

The Carbon Majors Have the Corporate Responsibility to Undertake Human Rights Due Diligence and Provide Remediation 99
碳大企業有企業責任進行人權盡職調查並提供救濟 99

Global Dependence on Fossil Fuels 102
全球對化石燃料的依賴 102

Recommendations 104
建議 104

General 104
一般 104

To Governments 105
致各國政府 105

To the Carbon Majors (and Other Carbon-Intensive Industries) 118
致碳大亨（及其他碳密集型產業）118

To Financial Institutions and Investors 121
致金融機構及投資者 121

To the United Nations 124
致聯合國 124

To National Human Rights Institutions 125
致國家人權機構 125

To Courts 128
向法院 128

To NGOs, CSOs, and the Legal Profession 131
致非政府組織、民間社會組織及法律專業 131

To the Global Citizenry 132
致全球公民 132

Additional / Particular Recommendations to the Philippine Government  134
對菲律賓政府的附加/特別建議 134

Recommendations Particular to the Executive Department 141
建議特別針對行政部門 141

Recommendations Particular to the Legislative Department 145
建議特別針對立法部門 145

Recommendations Particular to the Judiciary 147
建議特別針對司法機構 147

Resolution 149
決議第 149 號

National Inquiry on Climate Change Report
國家氣候變遷調查報告

The challenge to NHRIs is to test boundaries and create new paths;
對國家人權機構的挑戰是測試界限並創造新路徑；

to be bold and creative, instead of timid and docile;
要大膽且具創意，而非膽怯和順從；

to be more idealistic or less pragmatic; to promote soft laws into becoming hard laws;
更理想主義或較不務實；促進軟法轉變為硬法；

to see beyond technicalities and establish guiding principles that can later become binding treaties;
超越技術細節，建立可以後來成為具約束力條約的指導原則；

in sum, to set the bar of human rights protection
總之，設立人權保護的標準

to higher standards.
提高標準。

Preface
前言

The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP) is an independent body established under our Constitution, with the general mandate to investigate allegations of human rights violations against our people. It was created under the banner of “Never Again!” in the aftermath of a “peaceful revolution” waged by our people more than thirty years ago, which resulted in the dramatic ouster of Ferdinand Marcos, under whose rule thousands of Filipinos’ civil and political rights were trampled upon. Thus is the context behind the constitutional command for the CHRP to investigate violations involving civil and political rights, which, later on, was to give rise to the notion that the investigation mandate of this Commission is solely limited to issues concerning civil and political rights.
菲律賓人權委員會（CHRP）是根據我們的憲法成立的獨立機構，主要任務是調查對我們人民的人權侵犯指控。它是在我們人民三十多年前發起的“和平革命”之後，以“永不再來！”的口號成立的，該革命導致了費迪南德·馬科斯的戲劇性下台，在他的統治下，數千名菲律賓人的公民和政治權利遭到踐踏。因此，這就是憲法命令 CHRP 調查涉及公民和政治權利的侵犯的背景，這也隨之產生了這個委員會的調查任務僅限於涉及公民和政治權利問題的觀念。

In 2015, our Commission was petitioned to conduct an inquiry on the impact of climate change on the human rights of the Filipino people and the role therein of the so-called “Carbon Majors.”1 The claim was that climate change was adversely impacting human rights and the top oil producers of the world were contributing, and knowingly continue to contribute, to this phenomenon.
在 2015 年，我們的委員會接獲請願，要求對氣候變遷對菲律賓人民人權的影響及所謂的「碳大亨」在其中的角色進行調查。1 申訴稱，氣候變遷對人權造成不利影響，而全球最大的石油生產商正在貢獻，並明知繼續貢獻於此現象。

Previous to the filing of this Petition before our Commission, different climate-related cases had been brought, as still more are being brought, by various parties before regular courts in many jurisdictions around the world: private citizens are suing governments2 and carbon producers,3 governments are suing carbon producers,4 shareholders are suing their own carbon-producing corporations,5 and so on.
在我們的委員會提交此請願之前，來自世界各地的不同氣候相關案件已經被各方提起，並且仍然有更多案件正在提起：私人公民正在起訴政府 2 和碳生產者 3，政府正在起訴碳生產者 4，股東正在起訴他們自己的碳生產公司 5，等等。

Cases before courts have been filed under different legal theories of responsibility or liability, such as those involving tort–a civil wrong consisting of a breach of duty resulting to an injury.
法院前的案件是根據不同的法律責任或義務理論提起的，例如涉及侵權的案件——這是一種因違反義務而導致傷害的民事錯誤。

Many of these court cases are still undergoing trial or are on appeal. And all these efforts have so far failed to establish judicial consensus on the responsibility of parties in the context of climate change.
許多這些法院案件仍在審理中或正在上訴中。到目前為止，所有這些努力都未能在氣候變化的背景下建立對各方責任的司法共識。

Amidst all the climate-related suits, governments have also been seeking to come to an agreement to avert irreversible global warming, as exemplified by the Conference of Parties (CoP) held every year, which, as many of us know, has not been progressing as effectively as many have been hoping for.
在所有與氣候相關的訴訟中，各國政府也在尋求達成協議，以避免不可逆轉的全球暖化，這可以從每年舉行的締約方會議（CoP）中看出，正如我們許多人所知，這一進展並未如許多人所希望的那樣有效。

Thus, attempts have been made to explore non-judicial mechanisms for addressing this concern. One such effort is by framing climate change as a human rights issue and filing a case on that basis before a human rights institution.
因此，已經嘗試探索非司法機制以解決這一問題。其中一項努力是將氣候變化框架化為人權問題，並以此為基礎向人權機構提起訴訟。

The Inuit people of North America first attempted to establish the nexus between climate change and human rights in 2005, in an action before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,6 a mechanism under the Organization of American States. The Inter-American Human Rights Commission, however, refused to consider the case, holding that the information provided by the Inuit did not enable the Commission to determine whether the facts alleged characterized a violation of rights protected under the American Declaration.
北美的因紐特人於 2005 年首次嘗試在美洲人權委員會 6 的行動中建立氣候變遷與人權之間的聯繫，該委員會是美洲國家組織下的一個機制。然而，美洲人權委員會拒絕考慮此案，認為因紐特人提供的信息無法使委員會確定所指控的事實是否構成對《美洲宣言》所保護權利的侵犯。

This Petition filed before the CHRP was the second attempt to frame climate change as a human rights issue and the first to be accepted as such by a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) for investigation.
本請願書提交給人權委員會（CHRP）是第二次嘗試將氣候變化框架作為人權問題，並且是第一個被國家人權機構（NHRI）接受並進行調查的案例。

The choice of the Philippines as a venue for the filing of a climate petition was made significant by the fact that it was the immediate past Chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum at the time of filing.
選擇菲律賓作為氣候請願的提交地點具有重要意義，因為在提交時，菲律賓是氣候脆弱論壇的前任主席。

The Philippines is visited by around twenty typhoons every year. In 2013, it had the misfortune of being battered by one of the strongest typhoons in recorded history, Super Typhoon Haiyan (local: Yolanda), which caused the death of at least six thousand people within just a few hours from landfall.8 To date, we have yet to fully recover from its devastating impacts, even as we continue to suffer from the onslaught of other extreme weather events.
菲律賓每年約有二十個颱風造訪。2013 年，菲律賓不幸遭遇了有史以來最強的颱風之一，超級颱風海燕（當地名稱：尤蘭達），在登陸後僅幾小時內造成至少六千人喪生。至今，我們仍未完全從其毀滅性的影響中恢復，儘管我們持續遭受其他極端氣候事件的襲擊。

Aside from presenting climate change as a human rights case, the Petition highlighted a novel assertion, which was that private business enterprises, not just States, have the obligation to respect and uphold human rights, as advocated under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP-BHR). The Petition prayed that the “Carbon Majors” be held responsible for their contribution to climate change, which, as alleged, was negatively impacting the human rights of the Filipino people.
除了將氣候變化視為人權案件外，請願書還強調了一項新穎的主張，即私營企業不僅僅是國家，還有責任尊重和維護人權，這是根據聯合國商業與人權指導原則（UNGP-BHR）所倡導的。請願書祈求將“碳大亨”追究其對氣候變化的貢獻責任，據稱這對菲律賓人民的人權造成了負面影響。

When this Petition was filed before us, there was truly no established legal precedent–as there still is none to date–to help us navigate the case. Our Commission lacked, as well, the financial and human resources necessary to handle an undertaking of such magnitude. Indeed, following the refusal of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to hear the case of the Inuit ten years earlier, nobody would have questioned the CHRP had it refused to take cognizance of the case.
當本請願書提交給我們時，確實沒有任何既定的法律先例——至今仍然沒有——可以幫助我們處理此案。我們的委員會也缺乏處理如此重大事務所需的財務和人力資源。事實上，在十年前美洲人權委員會拒絕審理因紐特人的案件後，若人權委員會拒絕受理此案，沒有人會質疑其決定。

Some of those who were impleaded in the Petition–the big privately-owned oil companies or the so-called “Carbon Majors”–asked our Commission to dismiss the Petition, arguing that we were not a court of law, but just a human rights institution. They contended that we had no jurisdiction to conduct hearings involving allegations of liability. Or that, even if we had the jurisdiction to conduct such hearings, we had no jurisdiction to consider the subject matter of climate change, which they thought to be not within the realm of civil and political rights. They strongly argued that the Philippine Constitution only allowed our Commission to investigate cases involving civil and political rights.
一些在請願中被告的對象——大型私營石油公司或所謂的「碳巨頭」——要求我們的委員會駁回該請願，理由是我們不是法院，而只是一個人權機構。他們主張我們沒有管轄權進行涉及責任指控的聽證會。或者，即使我們有管轄權進行此類聽證會，我們也沒有管轄權考慮氣候變化的主題，他們認為這不在公民和政治權利的範疇內。他們強烈主張，菲律賓憲法僅允許我們的委員會調查涉及公民和政治權利的案件。

We explained that all human rights are interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible; that one cannot consider civil and political rights separately from economic, social and cultural rights. We pointed out that such was humanity’s evolving understanding of, and consciousness about, human rights.
我們解釋了所有人權是相互關聯、相互依賴和不可分割的；不能將公民和政治權利與經濟、社會和文化權利分開考慮。我們指出，這是人類對人權的逐步理解和意識的演變。

Many of the respondent oil companies also raised the issue of territoriality–they questioned the power of our Commission to inquire into their activities since they did not operate within the territory of the Philippines.
許多被告的石油公司也提出了領土性問題——他們質疑我們委員會調查他們活動的權力，因為他們並未在菲律賓的領土內運營。

Stripped of legal niceties, the contention was that our Commission, or, indeed, the Philippine State, in general, may only inquire into the conduct of corporate entities operating within Philippine territory, even if the corporations’ operations outside our territory were negatively impacting the rights and lives of our people.
剝去法律的繁瑣，爭論的核心在於我們的委員會，或更廣泛地說，菲律賓國家，僅能調查在菲律賓境內運營的企業行為，即使這些企業在我們境外的運作對我們人民的權利和生活造成了負面影響。

We cannot accept such a proposition.
我們無法接受這樣的提議。

The CHRP is mandated by the Philippine Constitution with the duty to investigate and inquire into allegations of human rights violations suffered by our people.9
根據菲律賓憲法，CHRP 被賦予調查和查詢我們人民所遭受的人權侵犯指控的職責。9

Our Commission decides on how it must perform its constitutional duty. And the performance of this duty is neither constrained by nor anchored on the principle of territoriality alone.
我們的委員會決定如何履行其憲法職責。而這項職責的履行既不受領土原則的限制，也不僅僅依賴於該原則。

The challenge to NHRIs is to test boundaries and create new paths; to be bold and creative, instead of timid and docile; to be more idealistic or less pragmatic; to promote soft laws into becoming hard laws; to see beyond technicalities and establish guiding principles that can later become binding treaties; in sum, to set the bar of human rights protection to higher standards.
對於國家人權機構的挑戰在於測試界限並創造新路徑；要大膽而富有創意，而不是膽怯和順從；要更理想主義或少些務實；促進軟法轉變為硬法；超越技術細節，建立可以後來成為有約束力條約的指導原則；總之，將人權保護的標準提高到更高的水平。

Even if our Commission were not invested with compulsory processes or powers of enforcement–especially so in regard to parties not doing business in the Philippines–we can proceed with any inquiry we deem appropriate in relation to our mandate, regardless of who the implicated parties might be or where they may be domiciled.
即使我們的委員會未被賦予強制程序或執行權力——特別是對於未在菲律賓經營業務的當事方——我們仍然可以根據我們的任務進行任何我們認為適當的調查，無論相關當事方是誰或他們的居住地在哪裡。

Thus, in 2015, during the 21st Climate Conference (CoP 21) in Paris in December, we announced that we were giving due course to the Petition
因此，在 2015 年 12 月於巴黎舉行的第 21 屆氣候大會（CoP 21）上，我們宣布我們將適當處理該請願書.

Having agreed to admit the Petition, we determined that our process would be dialogical, rather than adversarial. And, recognizing the transboundary character of climate change, we likewise decided that the dialogue we would be pursuing would be global.
經過同意接受請願，我們決定我們的程序將是對話式的，而非對抗式的。而且，鑑於氣候變化的跨界特性，我們同樣決定我們將進行的對話將是全球性的。

Proceeding from the global and dialogical process which we sought to promote, our Commission accepted amici briefs, research studies, and position papers from science and legal experts, professional organizations, the academe, advocates, and duty-bearers from around the globe on the various dimensions of the case.
基於我們所尋求促進的全球對話過程，我們的委員會接受了來自全球各地的科學和法律專家、專業組織、學術界、倡導者和義務承擔者的朋友意見書、研究報告和立場文件，涉及該案件的各個層面。

Keenly aware that our Commission, as stated earlier, had neither the power to compel any of the parties to submit before us, nor the power to impose any kind of punitive judgment against them, we conducted our Inquiry upon the principle of persuasion, not compulsion. Thus, we proceeded to issue invitations in lieu of summonses and subpoenas. We were also careful to clarify that we were not entertaining notions of imposing financial judgments against any party. We declared, however, that, despite our limitations, we were determined, indeed, to proceed with our Inquiry
深知我們的委員會，如前所述，既無權強迫任何一方在我們面前出庭，也無權對他們施加任何形式的懲罰性判決，我們在進行調查時遵循了說服而非強迫的原則。因此，我們發出了邀請函以取代傳票和傳喚。我們也特別澄清，我們並不考慮對任何一方施加財務判決。然而，我們宣告，儘管我們的限制，我們確實決心繼續進行我們的調查。.

We began the initial phases of our process by conducting interviews, roundtable discussions, expert consultations, and community dialogues. And then we proceeded to the conduct of public hearings.
我們開始了過程的初步階段，進行了訪談、圓桌討論、專家諮詢和社區對話。然後我們進入了舉行公聽會的階段。

Preparatory to the public hearings, we invited the parties to a pre-hearing conference, during International Human Rights Week, on 11 December 2017. We conducted our first public hearing in March and our last in December, all in 2018.
在公開聽證會之前，我們邀請各方於 2017 年 12 月 11 日的國際人權週舉行預備聽證會。我們於 2018 年 3 月進行了第一次公開聽證會，並於 12 月進行了最後一次。

In all, we held twelve public hearings from March to December of 2018: eight hearings were held in Manila, two hearings were held in New York, at the New York City Bar Association building, and two hearings were held in London, at the London School of Economics.
總的來說，我們在 2018 年 3 月至 12 月期間舉行了十二次公開聽證會：八次聽證會在馬尼拉舉行，兩次聽證會在紐約市律師協會大樓舉行，兩次聽證會在倫敦經濟學院舉行。

In the course of the public hearings, we heard 65 witnesses and received and marked 239 documents, both scientific and legal. These numbers do not include the resource persons invited by our Commission and the documentary evidence submitted by them.
在公開聽證會期間，我們聽取了 65 位證人，並接收和標記了 239 份文件，包括科學和法律文件。這些數字不包括我們委員會邀請的資源人員及其提交的文件證據。

In the conduct of our public hearings, we sought to maintain our focus on the substantive aspects of the case, while adhering to internationally-recognized norms of due process of law.
在我們的公開聽證會中，我們努力保持對案件實質方面的關注，同時遵循國際公認的法律正當程序規範。

Respondents were duly notified of the Petition filed concerning them and were strongly enjoined to participate in our hearings.
被告已正式收到有關他們的請願書通知，並被強烈要求參加我們的聽證會。

All the hearings were transparent and public, even cast live over the internet.
所有聽證會都是透明和公開的，甚至在互聯網上進行直播。

Teleconferencing facilities were set-up to enable parties and witnesses of all sides, even from other parts of the world, to participate in the Inquiry.
設置了視訊會議設施，以便各方當事人和證人，甚至來自世界其他地方的人，都能參加調查。

Testimonial and documentary evidence were received in a very organized manner, all of which were open to challenge by those who had interests in doing so.
證人證言和文件證據以非常有組織的方式被接納，所有這些都可以被有興趣的人挑戰。

Witnesses and resource persons were put under oath and, after giving their direct testimonies, were subjected to examination by the Inquiry Panel members, in the absence of Respondents, who, despite every opportunity to challenge the witnesses, chose not to exercise this right.
證人和資源人員宣誓作證，並在提供直接證詞後，接受了調查小組成員的質詢，受訪者缺席，儘管有機會質疑證人，但選擇不行使這一權利。

Documentary exhibits were properly identified and marked.
文件證據已正確識別並標記。

The public hearings we conducted in North America (in the United States) and Europe (in the United Kingdom) were not only a matter of underscoring the global nature of climate change and the global character of the dialogue we sought to pursue. It was a matter of “due process” as well–that is, if the Carbon Majors domiciled in other parts of the globe were not willing to come to our country, then we were willing to come to their regions to encourage them to participate in our processes.
我們在北美（美國）和歐洲（英國）舉行的公開聽證會，不僅強調了氣候變化的全球性及我們所追求對話的全球特性。這也是一個“正當程序”的問題——也就是說，如果居住在全球其他地區的碳大亨不願意來我們的國家，那麼我們願意前往他們的地區，鼓勵他們參與我們的程序。

We offered to engage with Respondents in special meetings, too, if that was what it would take to hear their position on the issues. For example, in our visit to the Netherlands to participate in a forum held at one of the top business universities in that region, we took the opportunity to especially invite one of them to a dialogue–closed door, if necessary.
我們也提議與被告進行特別會議，如果這是聽取他們對問題立場所需的話。例如，在我們訪問荷蘭參加該地區一所頂尖商業大學舉辦的論壇時，我們特別邀請其中一位進行對話——如有必要，則為閉門會議。

Considering all the foregoing, it would be an understatement to say that we have endeavored to reach out to the Respondents. We have, indeed, provided every opportunity within our resources to enable all the parties to dialogue with us.
考慮到上述所有情況，說我們已經努力聯繫被告方實在是輕描淡寫。事實上，我們確實在我們的資源範圍內提供了每一個機會，以使所有各方能夠與我們進行對話。

Beyond the public hearings, we participated in forums and held consultations in other parts of the globe, such as Oslo, Geneva, Bangkok, Sydney, Bonn and Berlin in Germany,
除了公開聽證會，我們還參加了論壇並在全球其他地區舉行了諮詢，例如奧斯陸、日內瓦、曼谷、悉尼、波恩和德國的柏林

New York and New Jersey in the US, Breukelen in the Netherlands, and London, Glasgow, and Stirling in the UK.
美國的紐約和新澤西、荷蘭的布魯克倫，以及英國的倫敦、格拉斯哥和斯特靈。

In myriad ways, we engaged international human rights bodies and organizations in our conversations, such as the South East Asia NHRI Forum (SEANF), the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF), the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights (UN WGBHR), the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Environment, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNOHCHR), and other institutional agencies.
在多種方式中，我們在對話中與國際人權機構和組織進行了交流，例如東南亞國家人權機構論壇（SEANF）、亞太國家人權機構論壇（APF）、全球國家人權機構聯盟（GANHRI）、聯合國商業與人權工作組（UN WGBHR）、聯合國環境特別報告員、聯合國人權高級專員辦公室（UNOHCHR）及其他機構。

Our findings and recommendations are informed by science and governance experts and may be considered by political and executive branches of government, as well as by courts, wherever they might be deemed relevant.
我們的發現和建議是基於科學和治理專家的意見，並可供政府的政治和行政部門以及法院考慮，無論在何處被認為是相關的。

With our Inquiry, we hope to have been able to help identify, or elaborate, on basic rights and duties relative to climate change, as well as amplify standards for corporate behavior.
透過我們的調查，我們希望能夠幫助識別或闡述與氣候變化相關的基本權利和義務，以及提升企業行為的標準。

We hope to have been able to demonstrate, as well, a model, albeit seminal, for the broadening of NHRI mechanisms and processes for providing access to justice, especially in regard to grave human rights challenges with transboundary character and extra-territorial obligations.
我們希望能夠展示一個模型，儘管是開創性的，旨在擴大國家人權機構的機制和程序，以提供司法獲取，特別是在面對具有跨境特徵和域外義務的重大人權挑戰時。

COMMISSIONER ROBERTO EUGENIO T. CADIZ
專員 羅伯托·尤金尼奧·T·卡迪茲

National Inquiry on Climate Change Chairperson Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines 3 May 2022
國家氣候變遷調查主席 菲律賓人權委員會 2022 年 5 月 3 日

一、 Mandate of the Commission
一、 委員會的任務

The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP) is an independent National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) created by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and organized under Executive Order No. 163, series of 1987. It is constitutionally mandated to:
菲律賓人權委員會（CHRP）是一個獨立的國家人權機構（NHRI），根據 1987 年菲律賓憲法成立，並依據 1987 年第 163 號行政命令組織。它在憲法上被賦予以下職責：

1.Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights;
1. 自行或根據任何一方的投訴調查所有涉及公民和政治權利的人權侵犯行為；

2.Recommend to Congress effective measures that promote human rights and provide for compensation to survivors of human rights violations, or their families;
2. 向國會建議有效措施，以促進人權並為人權侵犯的倖存者或其家屬提供賠償；

3.Monitor the Philippine government’s compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights;
3. 監測菲律賓政府對國際人權條約義務的遵守情況；

4.Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad; and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection; and
4. 提供適當的法律措施以保護在菲律賓境內所有人的人權，以及居住在國外的菲律賓人；並為人權受到侵犯或需要保護的弱勢群體提供預防措施和法律援助服務；並

5. Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure.
5. 採納其運作指導方針和程序規則。

二、Matter Before the Commission
二、委員會前的事項

Petitioners posit that, under both domestic and international law, private enterprises, not just States, have an obligation to respect and protect human rights. Underscoring the anthropogenic character of climate change and the latter’s adverse impacts on human rights, Petitioners pray this Commission declare Respondents–by extracting, producing, and selling fossil fuels–accountable for either impairing, infringing, abusing, or violating human rights.
請願人主張，根據國內法和國際法，私營企業不僅僅是國家，亦有責任尊重和保護人權。強調氣候變化的人為特徵及其對人權的負面影響，請願人祈求本委員會宣告被告因提取、生產和銷售化石燃料而對人權造成損害、侵害、濫用或違反負有責任。

三、 CHRP Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the Petition
三、 CHRP 的管轄權及請願的可受理性

Through the combination and interplay of the five Constitutional powers of this Commission, it exercises jurisdiction over cases. Jurisdiction should not be understood only in the context of the power to render a binding decision but also in the context of having the authority to perform other non-judicial constitutional mandates.
透過本委員會五項憲法權力的結合與互動，行使對案件的管轄權。管轄權不應僅理解為作出具約束力的決定的權力，還應理解為擁有執行其他非司法憲法任務的權限。

On the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, this Commission notes the acceptance under customary international law of the interrelatedness, interdependence, and indivisibility of human rights and, therefore, accepts the view that it may investigate the whole gamut of human rights allegedly impacted in the petition.
關於主題管轄權的問題，本委員會注意到根據習慣國際法對人權的相互關聯性、相互依賴性和不可分割性的接受，因此接受這一觀點，即它可以調查在請願中聲稱受到影響的整個人權範疇。

The United Nations General Assembly recognizes that “‘the enjoyment of civic and political freedoms and of economic, social and cultural rights are interconnected and interdependent’ and that ‘when deprived of economic, social and cultural rights, man does not represent the human person whom the Universal Declaration regards as the ideal of the free man.’” Thus, the violation of one right inevitably impacts other rights which may or may not be in the same category. In order to provide effective remedy to victims and restore their dignity, all of the rights violated must be equally addressed.
聯合國大會承認“‘公民和政治自由以及經濟、社會和文化權利的享有是相互聯繫和相互依賴的’，並且‘當經濟、社會和文化權利受到剝奪時，人不再代表《世界人權宣言》所認為的自由人的理想。’”因此，對一項權利的侵犯必然會影響其他權利，這些權利可能屬於同一類別，也可能不屬於同一類別。為了有效地為受害者提供救濟並恢復他們的尊嚴，所有被侵犯的權利必須平等地得到處理。

A complete consideration of all the dimensions of human rights issues is required for this Commission to effectively exercise its recommendatory, monitoring, advocacy, and other powers.
本委員會有效行使其建議、監察、倡導及其他權力，需全面考量人權議題的各個面向。

In any case, if there still be doubt of the Commission’s wisdom in accepting the Petition, we note the allegation that climate change adversely impacts the right to life, classified as a civil and political right under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Philippines is a party. The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), in General Comment No. 36 on the right to life, declares:
無論如何，如果對於委員會接受請願的智慧仍有疑慮，我們注意到有關氣候變遷對生命權的不利影響的指控，該權利根據《公民及政治權利國際公約》（ICCPR）被歸類為公民和政治權利，菲律賓是該公約的締約方。聯合國人權委員會（UNHRC）在關於生命權的第 36 號一般意見中宣告：

62. Environmental degradation, climate change and unsustainable development constitute some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generation to enjoy the right of life. Obligations of States parties under international environmental law should thus inform the contents of article 6 of the Covenant, and the obligation of States parties to respect and ensure the right to life, and in particular life with dignity, depends, inter alia, on measures taken by States parties to preserve the environment and protect it against harm, pollution and climate change caused by public and private actors. States parties should therefor ensure sustainable use of natural resource, develop and implement substantive environmental standards, conduct environmental impact assessments and consult with relevant States about activities likely to have a significant impact on the environment, provide notification to other States concerned about natural disaster and emergencies and cooperate with them, provide appropriate access to information on environmental hazards and pay due regard to the precautionary approach.20
62. 環境退化、氣候變化和不可持續發展構成了當前和未來世代享有生命權的最緊迫和嚴重的威脅之一。因此，締約國在國際環境法下的義務應該指導公約第 6 條的內容，而締約國尊重和確保生命權的義務，特別是有尊嚴的生活，則取決於締約國為保護環境及防止公共和私人行為者造成的損害、污染和氣候變化所採取的措施。因此，締約國應確保自然資源的可持續利用，制定和實施實質性的環境標準，進行環境影響評估，並就可能對環境產生重大影響的活動與相關國家進行諮詢，向其他有關國家通報自然災害和緊急情況，並與其合作，提供有關環境危害的適當信息，並充分考慮預防性原則。20

There is also no doubt that this Commission may inquire into allegations involving violations of the human rights of Filipino people, even when occurring outside Philippine territory. No international or domestic law, rule, or principle prohibits this Commission from informing itself of facts and events occurring outside of the Philippines, as long as it does so in a manner respecting domestic laws of foreign territories. This is in line with the United Nations Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions or the Paris Principles, which recognize that NHRIs have adequate powers to investigate and gather information in order to perform their mandate to protect human rights.
毫無疑問，本委員會可以調查涉及菲律賓人民人權侵犯的指控，即使這些事件發生在菲律賓領土之外。沒有任何國際或國內法律、規則或原則禁止本委員會了解發生在菲律賓以外的事實和事件，只要其方式尊重外國領土的國內法律。這與聯合國有關國家機構地位的原則或巴黎原則相符，該原則承認國家人權機構擁有足夠的權力進行調查和收集信息，以履行其保護人權的任務。

As it would be challenging for courts to exercise jurisdiction over respondents who are not domiciled within the Philippines, especially for acts also committed outside the Philippines, this Commission is compelled to inquire into the human rights abuses or violations alleged by Petitioners.
由於法院對於不在菲律賓居住的被告行使管轄權將面臨挑戰，特別是對於在菲律賓以外也發生的行為，因此本委員會被迫調查請願人所指控的人權濫用或違規行為。

In admitting the Petition, this Commission does not exercise adjudicative or enforcement jurisdiction, but merely fulfills its broad mandate to promote and protect human rights, which requires inquiring into the issues raised therein.
在接受請願時，本委員會並不行使裁決或執法管轄權，而僅僅履行其促進和保護人權的廣泛任務，這要求對其中提出的問題進行調查。

四、 History of the Climate Inquiry and Conduct of the Public Hearings
四、氣候調查的歷史及公聽會的進行

On 22 September 2015, Petitioners filed their Petition, urging this Commission to look into the responsibility of the world’s largest investor-owned fossil fuel and cement producers for human rights violations resulting from the impacts of climate change.
於 2015 年 9 月 22 日，請願人提交了請願書，敦促本委員會調查全球最大的投資者擁有的化石燃料和水泥生產商對氣候變化影響所造成的人權侵犯的責任。

On 10 December 2015, the Commission declared that it would conduct a national inquiry to look into the allegations in the Petition. For this purpose, the Commission constituted an Inquiry Panel composed of Commissioner Roberto Eugenio T. Cadiz, as Chair, former CHRP Chairperson Jose Luis Martin Gascon, Commissioner Karen S. Gomez-Dumpit, Commissioner Gwendolyn Ll. Pimentel- Gana, and now CHRP Chairperson Leah C. Tanodra-Armamento, as members. Dr. Peter William Walpole, S.J. joined the panel as its independent expert.
於 2015 年 12 月 10 日，委員會宣佈將進行全國性調查，以調查請願書中的指控。為此，委員會組成了一個調查小組，由委員羅伯托·尤金尼奧·T·卡迪茲擔任主席，前人權委員會主席何塞·路易斯·馬丁·加斯孔、委員卡倫·S·戈麥斯-鄧皮特、委員關德琳·Ll·皮門特爾-加納及現任人權委員會主席莉雅·C·塔諾德拉-阿爾曼托擔任成員。彼得·威廉·沃波爾博士，S.J.作為獨立專家加入該小組。

The Inquiry was conducted in two parts: the first part, consisting of a multi-disciplinary consultative process, and the second, consisting of public hearings. In addition to the amici briefs and expert testimonies proffered during the Inquiry, the Commission took administrative notice of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
調查分為兩個部分：第一部分是多學科的諮詢過程，第二部分是公開聽證會。除了在調查期間提供的朋友意見書和專家證詞外，委員會還對氣候變化政府間專門委員會（IPCC）、聯合國氣候變化框架公約（UNFCCC）和聯合國環境規劃署（UNEP）的報告進行了行政注意。

A. Multi-disciplinary Consultative Process
A. 多學科諮詢過程

In August 2017, the Inquiry Panel began conducting community dialogues, fact- finding missions, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and roundtable discussions (RTDs) on climate change and human rights, as follows:
在 2017 年 8 月，調查小組開始進行社區對話、事實調查任務、關鍵信息提供者訪談（KIIs）、焦點小組討論（FGDs）和圓桌討論（RTDs），主題為氣候變化與人權，如下所示：

1. Two FGDs and 20 KIIs in Libon and Legazpi City in the Province of Albay from 10 to 16 August 2017;
1. 於 2017 年 8 月 10 日至 16 日在阿爾拜省的利邦和萊加斯皮市進行了兩次焦點小組討論和 20 次關鍵資訊訪談；

2. Two FGDs and 6 KIIs in Tanauan and Tacloban City in the Province of Leyte from 11 to 15 September 2017, and a community dialogue and RTD from 6 to 8 December 2018 in Tacloban City;
2. 於 2017 年 9 月 11 日至 15 日在雷伊特省的塔瑪萬市和塔克洛班市進行了兩次焦點小組討論（FGDs）和六次關鍵資訊訪談（KIIs），以及於 2018 年 12 月 6 日至 8 日在塔克洛班市舉行的社區對話和回顧性技術研討會（RTD）；

3. Two FGDs and 7 KIIs from 13 to 14 February 2018 in the Province of Isabela
3. 於 2018 年 2 月 13 日至 14 日在伊莎貝拉省進行了兩場焦點小組討論及七次關鍵資訊訪談。;

4. Two FGDs and 4 KIIs in Alabat Island, Quezon Province, from 10 to 12 April 2018, and a community dialogue on 11 October 2018;
4. 於 2018 年 4 月 10 日至 12 日在奎松省阿拉巴特島進行了兩場焦點小組討論（FGDs）和四場關鍵資訊訪談（KIIs），以及於 2018 年 10 月 11 日舉行的社區對話；

5. A community dialogue with the provinces along the Verde Island Passage, convened in Batangas City on 7 June 2018; and
5. 於 2018 年 6 月 7 日在巴坦加斯市召開的與維爾德島通道沿岸省份的社區對話；

6. Four FGDs and one community dialogue in the Northern Mindanao Region with the Province of Bukidnon, the City of Iligan, and Cagayan de Oro City from 30 July to 1 August 2018.
6. 在 2018 年 7 月 30 日至 8 月 1 日期間，於北米沙鄢地區的布基農省、伊利甘市和卡加延德奧羅市進行了四次焦點小組討論和一次社區對話。

On 18 January 2019, the Inquiry Panel participated in a conference entitled “Climate Responsibilitiesof Business,”held atthe Nyenrode Business University in Breukelen, Netherlands. The conference, convened under Chatham House Rules, brought together key stakeholders, including leading scholars, lawyers, researchers, industry representatives, and NHRI experts. Further consultations with some of the authors of the amici curiae briefs were also conducted.
在 2019 年 1 月 18 日，調查小組參加了一個名為「企業的氣候責任」的會議，該會議在荷蘭布魯克倫的尼恩羅德商學院舉行。會議在查塔姆之家規則下召開，聚集了主要利益相關者，包括領先的學者、律師、研究人員、行業代表和國家人權機構專家。還與一些法庭之友意見書的作者進行了進一步的諮詢。

While in the Netherlands, the Inquiry Panel offered to meet separately with officers of Respondent Royal Dutch Shell and other representatives of oil industry associations. The invitation, however, was politely declined.
在荷蘭期間，調查小組提出與被告皇家荷蘭殼牌的官員及其他石油行業協會的代表單獨會面。然而，該邀請被禮貌地拒絕。

On 21 April 2016, Petitioners submitted their Amended Petition, after having been granted leave by the Inquiry Panel to amend their original Petition dated 22 September 2015.
於 2016 年 4 月 21 日，請願人提交了其修訂請願書，此前調查小組已批准其修訂 2015 年 9 月 22 日的原始請願書。

On 9 June 2016, the Inquiry Panel ordered the Petitioners “to observe the formatting requirements under Supreme Court A.M. No. 11-9-4-0SC, dated 13 November 2012, otherwise known as the ‘Efficient Use of Paper Rule,’ for pleadings, motions, and similar papers.”
於 2016 年 6 月 9 日，調查小組命令請願人“遵守 2012 年 11 月 13 日的最高法院 A.M.第 11-9-4-0SC 號令，即所謂的‘有效使用紙張規則’，適用於訴狀、動議及類似文件的格式要求。”

On 21 July 2016, Petitioners submitted their correctly-formatted Petition, dated 9 May 2016. On the same day, the Inquiry Panel sent copies of the Petition by registered mail to the 47 Respondents, enjoining them to submit their Answers to the Petition within forty- five days from receipt thereof.
於 2016 年 7 月 21 日，請願人提交了其格式正確的請願書，日期為 2016 年 5 月 9 日。同日，調查小組以掛號郵件向 47 名被告寄送請願書的副本，要求他們在收到後的四十五天內提交對請願書的答覆。

On various dates, the Inquiry Panel received a total of sixteen notices and responses to its communications, consisting of return to sender advisories, notices of non-participation, motions to dismiss, a letter acknowledging the issue of climate change with corresponding information on corporate social responsibility programs, and an “Opposition.”
在不同日期，調查小組共收到十六份通知和對其通訊的回應，包括退回發件人的通知、不參與的通知、駁回動議、一封承認氣候變化問題的信件及相關的企業社會責任計劃信息，以及一份“反對意見”。

Meanwhile, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), an independent and international non-profit organization which provides an online repository of comprehensive global business and human rights knowledge and tracking human rights policy and performance of over 6,000 companies in over 180 countries, was able to gather eleven responses, from the following parties:
同時，商業與人權資源中心（BHRRC）是一個獨立的國際非營利組織，提供一個全面的全球商業與人權知識的在線資料庫，並追蹤超過 180 個國家中超過 6,000 家公司的人人權政策和表現，能夠收集到來自以下各方的十一份回應：

1. Anglo American plc
1. 英美資源公司;

2. BHP Billiton;
2. BHP 比利通；

3. BP plc;

4. ConocoPhillips (Texas mailing address);
4. 康菲石油公司（德克薩斯州郵寄地址）；

5. Eni S.p.A.;
5. 埃尼股份公司；

6. Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (for Cyprus Amax Minerals Company);
6. 自由港-麥克莫蘭公司（代表賽普勒斯阿馬克斯礦業公司）；

7. Glencore plc (for Xstrata, Switzerland);
7. Glencore plc（代表 Xstrata，瑞士）；

8. PJSC LUKOIL;
8. PJSC 盧克石油；

9. Peabody Energy Corporation;
9. 皮博迪能源公司；

10. Repsol; and
10. 雷普索爾；和

11. Rio Tinto London Ltd.
11. 劍橋礦業倫敦有限公司

On 2 December 2016, Petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion to Submit a Consolidated Reply on or before 14 February 2017
於 2016 年 12 月 2 日，請願人提交了一份表明及動議，要求在 2017 年 2 月 14 日或之前提交合併回覆.

On 13 February 2017, the Inquiry Panel received Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply, dated 10 February 2017.
於 2017 年 2 月 13 日，調查小組收到請願者於 2017 年 2 月 10 日提交的綜合回覆。

On 16 March 2017, the Inquiry Panel issued a Notice, enjoining “parties who have not responded to the Petition, as well as those who have earlier filed their responses by way of letters, motions, manifestations, or other pleadings, to file, on or before 5 May 2017, their answers, rejoinders, or other submissions” to either the Petition or Consolidated Reply. The Inquiry Panel also encouraged interested stakeholders to submit Amicus Curiae briefs.
於 2017 年 3 月 16 日，調查小組發出通知，要求「尚未對請願書作出回應的各方，以及那些早前以信件、動議、聲明或其他訴狀提交回應的各方，於 2017 年 5 月 5 日或之前，提交其對請願書或合併回覆的答辯、反駁或其他提交文件」。調查小組亦鼓勵相關利益相關者提交友方意見書。

The Inquiry Panel received Amicus Curiae briefs from the following individuals and institutions:
調查小組收到了來自以下個人和機構的友方意見書：

1. Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF) and Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI);
亞太國家人權機構論壇 (APF) 與全球國家人權機構聯盟 (GANHRI)；

2. Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL);
國際環境法律中心 (CIEL);

3. ClientEarth
3. 客戶地球;

4. Environment Law Alliance (ELAW);
環境法律聯盟 (ELAW);

5. Dr. James Hansen, Director of Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Earth Institute, Columbia University;
5. 詹姆斯·漢森博士，哥倫比亞大學地球研究所氣候科學、意識與解決方案主任；

6. Maastricht Principles Drafting Group-Olivier De Shutter, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and professor at the University of Louvain, Belgium; Asbjørn Eide, former Director and presently Professor Emeritus at the Norwegian Center for Human Rights at the University of Oslo; Ashfaq Khalfan, Director of Law and Policy Programme Amnesty International - International Secretariat; Marcos A. Orellana, Director of the Center for International Environmental Law’s (CIEL) Human Rights and Environment Program; Ian Seiderman, Legal and Policy Director of the International Commission of Jurists; Rolf Künnemann, Human Rights Director, FIAN International Secretariat; Jernej Letnar Černič, Associate Professor of Human Rights Law, Graduate School of Government and European Studies, Slovenia; and Bret Thiele, Co-Executive Director, Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
6. 馬斯特里赫特原則起草小組 - 奧利維耶·德·舒特，前聯合國糧食權特別報告員及比利時魯汶大學教授；阿斯比約恩·艾德，前主任及現任奧斯陸大學挪威人權中心名譽教授；阿什法克·卡爾凡，國際特赦組織法律與政策項目主任；馬科斯·A·奧雷利亞納，國際環境法中心（CIEL）人權與環境項目主任；伊恩·西德曼，國際法學家委員會法律與政策主任；羅爾夫·庫內曼，人權主任，FIAN 國際秘書處；耶爾內·萊特納·切爾尼奇，人權法副教授，斯洛文尼亞政府與歐洲研究研究生院；以及布雷特·蒂爾，全球經濟、社會與文化權利倡議聯合執行主任；

7. Mary Robinson Foundation - Climate Justice;
7. 瑪麗·羅賓遜基金會 - 氣候正義;

8. Our Children’s Trust (OCT);
8. 我們的兒童信託（OCT）；

9. Timothy Crosland, Director of Plan B Earth;
9. 提摩太·克羅斯蘭，計劃 B 地球的主任；

10. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law - Columbia Law School;
10. 薩賓氣候變遷法中心 - 哥倫比亞法學院;

11. Sara Seck, Faculty of Law of Western University, Ontario, Canada;
11. 薩拉·塞克，加拿大安大略省西方大學法學院；

12. Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth, Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and
12. 凱文·E·特倫伯斯博士，國家大氣研究中心氣候分析部高級科學家；

13. United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) Philippines.
13. 聯合國兒童基金會（UNICEF）菲律賓。

In May 2017, Chevron Corporation; Chevron Philippines, Inc. and Chevron Holdings, Inc.; Chevron Geothermal Services Company; Chevron Kalinga Ltd. and Chevron Malampaya LLC; ConocoPhillips; Eni S.p.A; Repsol, S.A. and Repsol Oil and Gas Canada Inc; and The Shell Company of the Philippines Limited and Royal Dutch Shell filed their respective Rejoinders and/or letter response to the Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply
在 2017 年 5 月，雪佛龍公司；雪佛龍菲律賓公司及雪佛龍控股公司；雪佛龍地熱服務公司；雪佛龍卡林加有限公司及雪佛龍馬蘭帕亞有限責任公司；康菲石油公司；意大利國家石油公司；雷普索爾公司及雷普索爾油氣加拿大公司；以及菲律賓皇家荷蘭殼牌公司提交了各自的回覆及/或對請願人合併回覆的信函回應。.

On 7 December 2017, CEMEX S.A.B. de C.V. filed a Manifestation that it was no longer requesting for a formal resolution of its motion to dismiss, dated 14 September 2016.
於 2017 年 12 月 7 日，CEMEX S.A.B. de C.V. 提交了一份聲明，表示不再要求對其於 2016 年 9 月 14 日提出的駁回動議進行正式裁決。

On 11 December 2017, the Inquiry Panel held a pre-hearing conference with the parties to identify the issues, resource persons, and documents to be presented before the Inquiry.40 Despite notice, only counsels for the Petitioners and the counsel for Respondent Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. appeared, the latter on special appearance to manifest its non-participation in the proceedings.
於 2017 年 12 月 11 日，調查小組與各方舉行了預備聽證會，以確定問題、資源人員及將在調查中提交的文件。儘管已發出通知，只有請願人的律師和被告 Cemex S.A.B. de C.V.的律師出席，後者以特別出席的方式表明其不參與該程序。

The Chairman of the Inquiry Panel opened the conference, affirming the Commission’s decision to admit the Petition and the reasons therefor. The nature of the Inquiry, as well as other procedural matters concerning the public hearings, such as the presentation, examination, and marking of documentary evidence, were discussed.
調查小組主席開會，確認委員會接受請願的決定及其理由。會議討論了調查的性質以及其他與公開聽證會相關的程序事項，例如文件證據的呈現、審查和標記。

It was also announced during the conference that, as of 18 October 2017, notices had been personally served upon the Petitioners, while notices to the Respondents44 were sent via registered mail.
會議期間還宣布，自 2017 年 10 月 18 日起，已經親自送達通知給請願人，而對被告的通知則通過掛號郵件發送。

The Inquiry Panel noted that it had received various communications and responses from the following Respondents:
調查小組注意到，它已收到來自以下被告的各種通信和回應：

1. OMV Aktiengesellschaft
1. OMV 股份公司;

2. Chevron Geothermal Services Company, Chevron Kalinga Ltd., and Chevron Malampaya LLC;
2. 雪佛龍地熱服務公司、雪佛龍卡林加有限公司及雪佛龍馬蘭帕亞有限責任公司；

3. Chevron Philippines, Inc. and Chevron Holdings, Inc.;
3. 雪佛龍菲律賓公司及雪佛龍控股公司；

4. Eni S.p.A
4. 埃尼公司 (Eni S.p.A);

5. Murphy Oil Corporation;
5. 墨菲石油公司；

6. Encana Corporation;
6. 恩卡納公司;

7. Arch Coal;
7. 阿奇煤業；

8. Consol Energy Inc.;
8. 康索能源公司；

9. BG Group PLC;
9. BG 集團有限公司;

10. Hess Corporation;
10. 赫斯公司；

11. RWE Konzern; and
11. RWE 集團

12. Devon Energy.
12. 德文能源。

Registry return receipts were received by the Commission from the following:
登記回執已由委員會收到來自以下單位：

1. Apache Corporation;
1. 阿帕契公司;

2. Marathon Oil Corporation;
2. 馬拉鬆石油公司;

3. Conoco-Phillips Corporation; and
3. 康菲石油公司；及

4. Anglo-American Exploration.
4. 英美探索。

During the said conference, the Petitioners were asked to submit, by 11 January 2018, a list of their witnesses and electronic copies of all the documents which they intended to present for pre-marking.
在上述會議期間，請願人被要求於 2018 年 1 月 11 日前提交其證人名單及所有他們打算提交以供預先標記的文件的電子副本。

On 11 January 2018, the Petitioners filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Submit List of Witnesses and Other Documents, praying for an additional thirty days, or until 10 February 2018, to comply.
於 2018 年 1 月 11 日，請願人提交了延長提交證人名單及其他文件的動議，請求額外三十天，或至 2018 年 2 月 10 日，以便遵守。

On 19 March 2018, a Joint Summary of the Amicus Curiae Briefs was submitted by the briefers to the Inquiry Panel.
於 2018 年 3 月 19 日，友方意見摘要的聯合摘要由提交者提交給調查小組。

B. Public Hearings
B. 公開聽證會

The Inquiry Panel conducted the hearings in a dialogic, rather than adversarial manner. It operated on the principle of persuasion. While parties were given notices of the hearings, their participation was entirely voluntary. Indeed, as one of the Respondents subsequently manifested in the withdrawal of its Motion to Dismiss, it found no issue with the Commission proceeding with the Inquiry as a non-adversarial process.
調查小組以對話而非對抗的方式進行聽證會。它遵循說服的原則。雖然各方收到了聽證會的通知，但他們的參與完全是自願的。事實上，正如其中一位被告後來在撤回其駁回動議時所表現的那樣，它對委員會以非對抗性程序進行調查並無異議。

The Inquiry Panel focused its public hearings on the substantive aspects of the case, while adhering to general principles of due process, as guided under the provisions of its Omnibus Rules of Procedure
調查小組將其公開聽證會集中於案件的實質性方面，同時遵循正當程序的一般原則，並根據其綜合程序規則的規定進行指導.

The hearings were transparent and streamed live over the internet, allowing all parties and other stakeholders from around the world to participate. Witnesses were treated as resource speakers. They either appeared in person or gave their testimonies live via videoconferencing facilities. Everyone in attendance, including members of the general public, were given the opportunity to pose questions to the resource speakers.
聽證會是透明的，並透過互聯網進行直播，讓來自世界各地的所有當事方和其他利益相關者參與。證人被視為資源發言人。他們要麼親自出席，要麼通過視訊會議設施進行現場作證。所有與會者，包括公眾成員，都有機會向資源發言人提問。

On 27 and 28 March 2018, the Inquiry Panel held the first set of public hearings at the Session Hall of the CHRP in Metro Manila. Five resource persons, representing the indigenous youth; agriculture and fishery sector; and transport workers gave their testimonies. Eight resource persons provided their expert opinions on the impact of greenhouse gases (GHG) on the carbon cycle and the atmosphere; climate change and ocean acidification and the vulnerability of the Philippines to these; Carbon Majors as a source of carbon emissions; findings of the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) in relation to climate change; health impacts of climate change; and CIEL’s Smoke and Fumes report.
在 2018 年 3 月 27 日和 28 日，調查小組在馬尼拉大都會的 CHRP 會議廳舉行了第一場公開聽證會。五位資源人員代表原住民青年、農業和漁業部門以及交通工作者作證。八位資源人員提供了他們對溫室氣體（GHG）對碳循環和大氣的影響、氣候變化和海洋酸化以及菲律賓對這些影響的脆弱性、碳主要排放者作為碳排放來源、菲律賓大氣地球物理和天文服務管理局（PAGASA）與氣候變化相關的研究結果、氣候變化對健康的影響以及 CIEL 的煙霧和煙氣報告的專家意見。

On 23 and 24 May 2018, the second set of public hearings was held at the Session Hall of the CHRP in Metro Manila. Seven resource persons spoke about the concerns of fishermen, small business owners (fish consignment), and urban poor victims of Typhoon Ketsana (local: Ondoy) in Marikina and Rizal.
於 2018 年 5 月 23 日和 24 日，第二次公開聽證會在大馬尼拉的 CHRP 會議廳舉行。七位資源人員就馬里基納和黎剎受颱風凱薩娜（當地稱：翁多伊）影響的漁民、小型企業主（魚類寄售）及城市貧困受害者的關切發表了意見。

Six resource persons gave their expert opinions on the liability or accountability of Carbon Majors; the legal framework of human rights responsibility of transnational corporations; analysis of the Inter-American Human Rights Court’s opinion on the right to a healthy environment; and climate change impacts on the agriculture sector, fish and seaweed supplies, reef ecology, and food chain supply in relation to the Philippines’ food security.
六位資深專家就碳大企業的責任或問責、跨國公司的人體權責任法律框架、對於健康環境權的美洲人權法院意見的分析，以及氣候變化對農業部門、魚類和海藻供應、珊瑚礁生態和與菲律賓食品安全相關的食物鏈供應的影響，提供了他們的專業意見。

On 29 and 30 August 2018, the third set of public hearings was held at the Session Hall of the CHRP in Metro Manila, where six resource speakers shared their stories and concerns. A transgender woman who survived Super Typhoon Haiyan (local: Yolanda) shared how climate change compounded gender-based discrimination; fisherfolks and farmers from Capalonga, Camarines Norte narrated how their lives were impacted; and indigenous people from Ifugao Province articulated how climate change impacted their rice terraces in Banawe, which in turn adversely affected their cultural traditions. Eight expert resource persons tackled topics relating to recent climate scenarios; the vulnerabilities and specific impacts of climate change on children; the GHG contributions of the individual Carbon Majors; the documented corporate actions and communications on climate change of ExxonMobil and Shell; the vulnerability of the Philippines’ biodiversity to climate change; the health impacts of climate change and the pathophysiology of heat stress, air pollution, and the Zika virus; valuing climate change impacts, financial policies and climate change as risk multipliers for agricultural livelihoods; and extreme weather attribution science and climate litigation.
在 2018 年 8 月 29 日和 30 日，第三次公開聽證會在大馬尼拉的 CHRP 會議廳舉行，六位資源發言人分享了他們的故事和關切。一位倖存於超級颱風海燕（當地稱為：約蘭達）的跨性別女性分享了氣候變遷如何加劇性別歧視；來自卡馬里尼斯北部卡帕隆加的漁民和農民敘述了他們的生活受到的影響；來自伊富高省的原住民表達了氣候變遷如何影響他們在巴拿威的水稻梯田，進而對他們的文化傳統造成不利影響。 八位專家資源人員探討了與近期氣候情境相關的主題；氣候變化對兒童的脆弱性和具體影響；各個碳巨頭的溫室氣體貢獻；埃克森美孚和殼牌在氣候變化方面的企業行動和溝通紀錄；菲律賓生物多樣性對氣候變化的脆弱性；氣候變化對健康的影響以及熱應激、空氣污染和茲卡病毒的病理生理學；評估氣候變化影響、金融政策及氣候變化作為農業生計風險倍增器；以及極端天氣歸因科學和氣候訴訟。

On 27 and 28 September 2018, the fourth set of public hearings was conducted in New York City. The Petitioners presented three youth survivors of Super Typhoon Haiyan (local: Yolanda) and Hurricane Sandy, who spoke on how these extreme weather events impacted their lives and livelihood. Four resource persons discussed economic, social, and cultural rights in the context of climate change; how climate change acts as a threat multiplier; the fossil fuel industry and trade associations’ actions and response to climate change; the 1999 United States of America v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al. case in relation to corporate product liability; and attribution science identifying Carbon Majors as significant contributors to climate change.
在 2018 年 9 月 27 日和 28 日，第四次公開聽證會在紐約市舉行。請願者介紹了三位超級颱風海燕（當地稱為：Yolanda）和颶風桑迪的青年倖存者，他們講述了這些極端氣候事件如何影響他們的生活和生計。四位資源人員討論了氣候變化背景下的經濟、社會和文化權利；氣候變化如何作為威脅的倍增器；化石燃料行業及貿易協會對氣候變化的行動和反應；1999 年美國訴菲利普·莫里斯美國公司等案件與企業產品責任的關係；以及歸因科學識別碳排放大戶作為氣候變化的重要貢獻者。

The Inquiry Panel also heard six resource persons of its own invitation, namely: Professor David Estrin and Professor Cynthia Williams, who spoke on corporate accountability and disclosure principles; Dr. James Hansen, who briefly discussed the case of Juliana et al. v. United States of America; Professor Erin Daly, who spoke on dignity rights; Professor Radley Horton, who discussed the effect of climate change on weather patterns; and Daniel Zarrilli, who discussed how the government of New York City was addressing climate change.
調查小組還聽取了六位自邀的資源人員的意見，即：大衛·埃斯特林教授和辛西婭·威廉斯教授，他們談到了企業問責和披露原則；詹姆斯·漢森博士，他簡要討論了朱利安娜等人訴美國案件；艾琳·達利教授，她談到了尊嚴權利；拉德利·霍頓教授，他討論了氣候變化對天氣模式的影響；以及丹尼爾·扎里利，他討論了紐約市政府如何應對氣候變化。

On 6 and 7 November 2018, the fifth set of public hearings was conducted at the London School of Economics. The Petitioners presented two resource persons who shared their stories as typhoon survivors. One, as a survivor of Typhoon Ketsana (local: Ondoy) and a young survivor of Super Typhoon Haiyan (local: Yolanda). The Petitioners also presented seven expert resource persons: Mark Campanale, Andrew Grant, Prof. Henry Shue, Dr. RodaVerheyen, Dr. Dylan Tanner, Dr. Myles Allen, and Dr. Paul Ekins OBE. These experts spoke about topics on how much carbon dioxide (CO₂) was released in the atmosphere and whether supply options of Carbon Majors were aligned with demand levels consistent with various scenarios of carbon constraint; the ethical aspects of the Carbon Majors’ responsibility for climate change; climate litigation cases and their relevance to the Inquiry; European corporate influence on climate policy and action; attribution science of climate change (modelling) and assessing these changes with future climate simulations; and a model that contains estimates of the quantities, locations, and nature of the world’s oil, gas, and coal reserves and resources.
在 2018 年 11 月 6 日和 7 日，第五次公開聽證會在倫敦政治經濟學院舉行。請願者介紹了兩位資源人員，他們分享了作為颱風倖存者的故事。一位是颱風凱薩娜（當地稱：Ondoy）的倖存者，另一位是超級颱風海燕（當地稱：Yolanda）的年輕倖存者。請願者還介紹了七位專家資源人員：Mark Campanale、Andrew Grant、Henry Shue 教授、Roda Verheyen 博士、Dylan Tanner 博士、Myles Allen 博士和 Paul Ekins OBE 博士。這些專家討論了大氣中釋放了多少二氧化碳（CO2）以及碳主要供應選項是否與各種碳約束情境下的需求水平一致；碳主要責任對氣候變化的倫理方面；氣候訴訟案件及其與調查的相關性；歐洲企業對氣候政策和行動的影響；氣候變化的歸因科學（建模）及利用未來氣候模擬評估這些變化；以及一個包含全球石油、天然氣和煤炭儲量和資源的數量、位置和性質估算的模型。

The Inquiry Panel heard seven experts of its own invitation: Joni Pegram, who discussed children’s rights in relation to climate change; Adam Matthews, as co-chair of Transition Pathways Initiative, who discussed the Church of England’s responsible investment practice; Dr. Jaap Spier, who discussed the Oslo Principles on Global Climate Change Obligations; Lene Wendland, who discussed human rights responsibilities of business in the context of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; Ben Schachter, who discussed climate change and its impact on the effective enjoyment of human rights, and human rights obligations of States; Dr. Swenja Surminski, who discussed climate change and its impact on the human rights of the Filipino; and Linda Siegele, who discussed the provisions of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement as they relate to adaptation, loss, and damage.
調查小組聽取了七位專家的意見：喬尼·佩格拉姆（Joni Pegram），討論了氣候變化與兒童權利的關係；亞當·馬修斯（Adam Matthews），作為過渡路徑倡議的共同主席，討論了英國教會的負責任投資實踐；雅普·斯皮爾（Dr. Jaap Spier），討論了《奧斯陸原則》對全球氣候變化義務的看法；萊娜·溫德蘭（Lene Wendland），討論了在聯合國商業與人權指導原則背景下企業的人權責任；本·沙赫特（Ben Schachter），討論了氣候變化及其對人權有效享有的影響，以及國家的義務；斯文佳·蘇爾敏斯基（Dr. Swenja Surminski），討論了氣候變化及其對菲律賓人權的影響；以及琳達·西格爾（Linda Siegele），討論了《聯合國氣候變化框架公約》和《巴黎協定》中與適應、損失和損害相關的條款。

On 11 and 12 December 2018, the final set of public hearings was conducted at the Session Hall of the CHRP in Metro Manila. Three resource persons103 were presented to share their stories as typhoon survivors who lost loved ones to Typhoon Washi (local: Sendong), and a Disaster Risk Reduction officer, who shared how Camotes Island in Cebu survived Super Typhoon Haiyan (local: Yolanda) with zero casualties.
在 2018 年 12 月 11 日和 12 日，最後一場公開聽證會在大馬尼拉的 CHRP 會議廳舉行。三位資源人員 103 被邀請分享他們作為颱風倖存者的故事，他們在颱風華西（當地名稱：Sendong）中失去了摯愛之人，還有一位災害風險減少官員，分享了宿霧的卡莫特斯島如何在超級颱風海燕（當地名稱：Yolanda）中以零傷亡的方式生存下來。

Six expert witnesses discussed the following topics: human rights responsibilities in relation to climate change; the Commission’s role in this global issue; the concept of a “just transition” and the corporate requirements on Carbon Majors to ensure that they act responsibly in relation to climate change; the health impacts of climate change and the development of a health adaptation strategy by the State in relation to climate change; how the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights provide an analytical lens on what may constitute adequate human rights protection from climate harms in the Philippines, including the role of businesses in addressing these harms and the identification of policy gaps that should be addressed by the Philippine government; and the Climate Compensation Act and principles of liability for large-scale GHG emitters. Kumi Naidoo, Laura Gyte, Dr. Glenn Roy Paraso, former Commissioner of the Climate Change Commission Naderev Saño; former Chair of this Commission Loretta Ann Rosales, and Dr. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh testified as expert resource persons for the Petitioners.
六位專家證人討論了以下主題：與氣候變化相關的人權責任；委員會在這一全球問題中的角色；“公正轉型”的概念以及碳排放大戶在確保其對氣候變化負責任行為方面的企業要求；氣候變化對健康的影響以及國家在氣候變化方面制定健康適應策略的發展；聯合國商業與人權指導原則如何提供分析視角，以判斷在菲律賓什麼構成對氣候危害的充分人權保護，包括企業在應對這些危害中的角色以及應由菲律賓政府解決的政策空白的識別；以及氣候賠償法和對大型溫室氣體排放者的責任原則。Kumi Naidoo、Laura Gyte、Dr. Glenn Roy Paraso（前氣候變化委員會專員）、Naderev Saño（前委員會主席）、Loretta Ann Rosales 和 Dr. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh 作為請願人的專家資源人員作證。

On 26 June 2019, the Inquiry Panel asked Petitioners to submit their Formal Offer of Evidence on or before 5 July 2019, and their Memorandum, on or before 31 August 2019.
在 2019 年 6 月 26 日，調查小組要求請願人於 2019 年 7 月 5 日或之前提交正式證據提議，並於 2019 年 8 月 31 日或之前提交備忘錄。

On 4 July 2019, the Petitioners filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Extension, dated 3 July 2019, requesting for an extension of fifteen days each within which to file the two pleadings, specifically by 20 July 2019, for the Formal Offer of Evidence, and by 15 September 2019, for the Memorandum, which motion was granted on 5 July 2019.
於 2019 年 7 月 4 日，請願人提交了一份日期為 2019 年 7 月 3 日的單方延長動議，請求延長各十五天以提交兩份訴狀，具體為在 2019 年 7 月 20 日之前提交正式證據提議，以及在 2019 年 9 月 15 日之前提交備忘錄，該動議於 2019 年 7 月 5 日獲准。

On 19 July 2019, the Petitioners filed their Ex-Parte Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits and Manifestation.
於 2019 年 7 月 19 日，請願人提交了其單方面正式文件證據及聲明。

On 13 September 2019, Petitioners filed an Ex-Parte Manifestation and Additional Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibit requesting the admission of evidence omitted in their formal offer of 19 July 2019.
於 2019 年 9 月 13 日，請願人提交了一份緊急申請及補充正式文件展品的聲明，請求接受在其 2019 年 7 月 19 日的正式提案中遺漏的證據。

On 19 September 2019, the Petitioners submitted their Memorandum.
於 2019 年 9 月 19 日，請願人提交了其備忘錄。

V. Findings
V. 發現

A. Climate Change is Real
A. 氣候變遷是真實的

The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate change as the “change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.” Climate change may be “due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.” This definition was derived from the observations of the scientific community through their research.
政府間氣候變化專門委員會（IPCC）將氣候變化定義為“氣候狀態的變化，可以通過其特性均值和/或變異性的變化（例如，通過使用統計測試）來識別，並且持續一段較長的時間，通常是數十年或更長。”氣候變化可能是“由自然內部過程或外部強迫引起的，例如太陽週期的調節、火山爆發以及持續的人為改變大氣成分或土地使用。”這一定義是基於科學社群通過其研究的觀察得出的。

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which the Philippines signed on 12 June 1992 and ratified on 2 August 1994, has adopted a more nuanced definition, emphasizing the influence of human activities. It defines climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”105 Philippine statutes have adopted a definition that reflects the one provided by the IPCC. These statutes define climate change as “a change in climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period typically decades or longer, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.”
聯合國氣候變化框架公約（UNFCCC），菲律賓於 1992 年 6 月 12 日簽署，並於 1994 年 8 月 2 日批准，已採納更為細緻的定義，強調人類活動的影響。它將氣候變化定義為「直接或間接歸因於人類活動而改變全球大氣成分的氣候變化，並且這種變化是自然氣候變異的補充，該變異在可比的時間段內觀察到。」105 菲律賓的法規採納了與 IPCC 提供的定義相符的定義。這些法規將氣候變化定義為「可以通過其特性均值和/或變異性的變化來識別的氣候變化，並且持續的時間通常為數十年或更長，無論是由於自然變異還是人類活動的結果。」

The reports of the IPCC provide unequivocal evidence of global warming. The particular indicators are changes in the atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere, and frequency of extreme weather and climate events. Over the past several decades, these changes have been at levels unseen in centuries to millennia, and are changing at rates unprecedented in the last 2000 years.
IPCC 的報告提供了全球暖化的明確證據。特定指標包括大氣、海洋、冰凍圈的變化，以及極端天氣和氣候事件的頻率。在過去幾十年中，這些變化的程度在幾個世紀到幾千年中是前所未見的，且變化的速度在過去 2000 年中是前所未有的。

The indicators, meticulously monitored and studied by the scientific community, as evidence of the reality of climate change, are as follows:
指標由科學界仔細監測和研究，作為氣候變化現實的證據如下：

1. Atmospheric Warming
1. 大氣變暖

The temperature of the atmosphere increases due to excess heat being trapped by GHG instead of being released back into space. The IPCC reported that the mean global surface temperatures of each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850. From the years 2001 to 2020, the global surface temperature was 1.09°C higher than the 1850 to 1900 baseline conditions. This increase in temperature is being experienced in all regions of the world. Even accounting for natural climate variabilities, the rate of warming has been unlike anything in the past 800,000 years.
大氣的溫度因為溫室氣體（GHG）所捕獲的過剩熱量而增加，而不是釋放回太空。氣候變化專門委員會（IPCC）報告指出，自 1850 年以來，過去四十年的全球平均地表溫度每十年都比之前的任何十年更高。在 2001 年至 2020 年間，全球地表溫度比 1850 年至 1900 年的基準條件高出 1.09°C。這一溫度的上升在全球所有地區都有體驗。即使考慮到自然氣候變異，這一升溫的速度在過去 80 萬年中也無法與之相比。

2. Oceanic Indicators
2. 海洋指標

Ocean Warming
海洋變暖

Oceans, much like the atmosphere, absorb excess heat that fails to escape into space. The IPCC reports state that ocean surface temperature has been increasing over the past decades. The global ocean has warmed unabated, and its heat content has increased since 1970 and is projected to continue to increase over the 21st century. Furthermore, the rate of ocean warming has doubled since 1993. It has, on average, increased by 0.88°C from 1850-1900 to 2011-2020, with 0.60°C of this warming having occurred since 1980. Marine heatwaves have become more frequent over the 20th century, and since the 1980s, have approximately doubled in frequency and have become longer and more intense.
海洋，與大氣層類似，吸收未能逃逸到太空的多餘熱量。氣候變化專門委員會（IPCC）報告指出，海洋表面溫度在過去幾十年中持續上升。全球海洋持續變暖，自 1970 年以來其熱含量已增加，並預計在 21 世紀將繼續增加。此外，自 1993 年以來，海洋變暖的速度已加倍。從 1850-1900 年到 2011-2020 年，海洋平均溫度上升了 0.88°C，其中自 1980 年以來的變暖為 0.60°C。海洋熱浪在 20 世紀變得更加頻繁，自 1980 年代以來，其頻率大約增加了一倍，並且變得更長和更強烈。

Sea Level Rise
海平面上升

Sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion of water in the seas due to their warming, as well as the increase of the amount of water due to the melting of the cryosphere. From 2006-2015, the sum of ice sheets and glacier melt contributions has been the dominant source of sea level rise, exceeding that of thermal expansion. The findings of the IPCC provide that the rise of global mean sea level (GMSL) in the 20th century is at a rate faster than any preceding century in at least the last three millennia. Between 2006 and 2018, the average rate of sea level rise was 3.7 mm per year. Since 1901, GMSL has risen by 0.20 [0.15-0.25] m, and the rate is accelerating due to the combined increased ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
海平面上升是由於海洋水體的熱膨脹以及冰凍圈融化所增加的水量所造成的。從 2006 年至 2015 年，冰蓋和冰川融化的貢獻總和是海平面上升的主要來源，超過了熱膨脹的影響。IPCC 的研究結果顯示，20 世紀全球平均海平面（GMSL）的上升速度比過去三千年中的任何一個世紀都要快。在 2006 年至 2018 年間，海平面上升的平均速度為每年 3.7 毫米。自 1901 年以來，GMSL 上升了 0.20 [0.15-0.25] 米，且由於格陵蘭和南極冰蓋的冰損加速，這一速度正在加快。

Ocean Acidification
海洋酸化

Ocean acidification occurs when oceans absorb CO2. The IPCC reports provide that the ocean has been absorbing more CO₂ and has undergone increasing surface acidification. The ocean has taken up between 20 to 30 percent of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the 1980s. This has resulted in ocean surface pH declining globally over the past four decades and in all ocean basins in the ocean interior over the past two to three decades.
海洋酸化發生在海洋吸收二氧化碳（CO2）時。氣候變化專門委員會（IPCC）報告指出，海洋已吸收更多的二氧化碳，並且表面酸化程度不斷增加。自 1980 年代以來，海洋已吸收了 20%至 30%的總人為二氧化碳排放量。這導致過去四十年全球海洋表面 pH 值下降，並且在過去二到三十年內所有海洋盆地的海洋內部也出現了這一現象。

3. Cryosphere Loss
3. 冰凍圈損失

The cryosphere refers to the portions of the Earth System that is frozen such as glaciers, ice sheets, icebergs, sea ice, snow cover, and the like. It is inherently reactive to temperature changes and “provides some of the most visible signatures of climate change.” Over the last few decades, the cryosphere has seen widespread shrinking due to global warming. Ice sheets and glaciers worldwide have lost mass worldwide. The mass loss from the Antarctic ice sheet in 2007-2016 was triple that lost in 1997-2006. While the mass loss in Greenland was doubled over the same period. Snow cover and arctic sea ice extent and thickness have been reduced, and permafrost temperatures have increased.
冰凍圈是指地球系統中凍結的部分，如冰川、冰蓋、冰山、海冰、雪覆蓋等。它本質上對溫度變化具有反應性，並且“提供了一些氣候變化最明顯的標誌。”在過去幾十年中，由於全球變暖，冰凍圈已經普遍縮小。全球的冰蓋和冰川都失去了質量。2007 年至 2016 年間，南極冰蓋的質量損失是 1997 年至 2006 年間的三倍。而格林蘭在同一時期的質量損失則增加了一倍。雪覆蓋和北極海冰的範圍及厚度均有所減少，永久凍土的溫度也有所上升。