28 o And major shifts in the distribution of species. • Recognized that these impacts could materialize during the lifetimes of people then living or their children or family members, with an array of negative social impacts, including: o Particularly harmful effects for the 30% of the world’s population living within 50 Km of a coastline or in other low-lying areas, who would face risks of inundation; o Loss of coastal and estuarine habitats that provide nurseries vital for food production, resulting in turn in losses of resources and income for people dependent on those nurseries; o Additional losses in income and resources from shifts in species population and from ocean acidification; o Changes to agriculture, with poorer countries being at greatest risk; o Changes in air temperature requiring investments in adaptation and potentially costly changes in the ways people live and work; o Changes in hydrological cycles and to water supply. The recognition of these impacts is legally significant in the context of this inquiry because it demonstrates that the climate harms now being inflicted upon a growing number of victims and potential plaintiffs were not only wholly foreseeable to the oil companies—they were, in fact, foreseen. In a final and equally significant development, The Greenhouse Effect not only acknowledged the scale of Shell’s own contributions to CO2 emissions, but calculated them. Moreover, it made this calculation based on the sales of the entire Shell Group of companies, rather than a single entity, and it took into account not only Shell’s own operations, but the greenhouse emissions resulting from use of the fuels it produced and marketed. (Fig. 12) Fig. 12