Memorandum for the Petitioners | 52 5.76. Mr. Muffett explained that Shell’s calculation of its corporate CO2 contributions “demonstrated the ability of fossil fuel producers to measure their own impact, it provided implicit support for similar approaches applied in the Carbon Majors analysis nearly 3 decades later.»203 5.77. For a brief moment in history, it appears that respondent Shell decided to inform the public about the deadly and devastating consequences of climate change by distributing a 1991 video entitled,“ Climate of Concern. The video explained, “[i]t is thought that wanner seas could make destructive [storm] surges more frequent and even more ferocious,” 204 a particularly relevant admission in the context of this National Inquiry concerning impacts in the Philippines. Reportedly, the video was given to schools and universities.205 The video is no longer available on Shell’s website today. 3. r r In the late 1980s, fossil fuel companies used science to make internal business decisions 5.78. Fossil fuel companies, such as respondents ExxonMobil and Shell, used climate science to make internal business decisions on infrastructure. The Los Angeles Times reported that Ken Croasdale, senior ice researcher for Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary (Imperial ), was leading a team trying to determine how global wanning could affect Exxon ’s Arctic operations and its “bottom line” and was reporting “ its findings to Exxon headquarters in Houston and New Jersey” between 1986 to 1992. 206 Ironically, it appears that climate science was used to ensure continued and increased extraction of fossil fuels, rather than as an impetus for companies to transition to renewable sources of energy. 5.79. During this same period, respondent Shell also recognized the operational implications of climate change. According to Mr. Muffett, Shell’s internal 1988 Greenhouse Effect Report highlighted that “ rising sea levels would have ‘direct operational consequences’ for the company’s offshore and coastal facilities, and (implicitly) for others who might be responsible for infrastructure in the same areas.”207 The report also discussed the possibility that industry might be compensated for “extra costs incurred” due to operational consequences of sea level rise.208 It was reported that Shell Muffett, C., supra note 141, p. 29. Mommers, J . and Carrington, D. (28 February 2017), If Shell Knew Climate Change was Dire 25 Years Ago, Why Still Business as Usual Today? De Correspondent, available at https://thecorrespondent.com/6286/if -shell-knew-climate-change-was-dire-25-years-ago-why-stillbusiness-as-usual -today/692773774-4d!5 b476 (last accessed 12 September 2019). 203 204 Id. Jerving, S., et al. (09 October 2015), What Exxon Knew About Earth's Melting Arctic, Los Angeles Times, available at http://graphics.Iatimes.com /exxon-arctic/ ( last accessed on 12 September 2019). 207 Muffett, C., supra note 141, p. 27, citing Shell Greenhouse Effect Report, supra note 201, p. 27. 208 Shell Greenhouse Effect Report, supra 201, p. 27. 205 206