Majors have been on notice of the significant climate risks associated with their products for many decades. Should the Commission so conclude, it may then reasonably consider whether the Carbon Majors acted appropriately in light of their state of knowledge:     What steps did the respondent companies take to make people aware of the dangers? What steps did they take and could they have taken to reduce the risks of their products? What steps did they take to advance or obstruct appropriate technical, process, or policy solutions? What steps have they taken to prevent violations of the rights of the people of the Philippines? Of particular relevance in this regard are those cases highlighting the importance of adequate information in allowing the public to identify, assess, and respond to risks. 336 In light of significant evidence in the Petition and amicus curiae briefs that some Carbon Majors have supported the deliberate dissemination of misinformation regarding the existence, causes, and severity of climate risks, legitimate and significant questions exist with respect to the respondent companies’ failure to warn the public of the risks inherent in the production, sale, and use of their fossil fuel products. By no later than the 1980s, at least two of the Carbon Majors - Exxon and Shell - were taking the risk of climate change so seriously that they were incorporating climate change into their business operations. In 1986, an Exxon subsidiary sent a team of researchers to “determine how global warming could affect Exxon’s Arctic operations and its bottom line.” 337 In 1991, the leader of that expedition reported that “[c]ertainly any major development with a life span of say 30-40 years will need to assess the impacts of potential global warming,” and that “[t]his is particularly true of Arctic and offshore projects in Canada, where warming will clearly affect sea ice, icebergs, permafrost, and sea levels.” 338 Similarly, in 1989, Shell Oil announced that it was redesigning a $3 billion natural gas platform, raising its height one to two meters to account for rising sea levels as a result of global warming. 339 As detailed in the Petition, and in the Annex to CIEL’s initial brief, however, the Carbon Majors companies failed for decades to adequately warn consumers, investors, and others 336 Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], App. no. 48939/99, Eur. Ct. H. R., at § 71 (2004) (stating in ¶¶ 90, 108 that “Among these preventive measures, particular emphasis should be placed on the public’s right to information, as established in the case-law of the Convention institutions … … The Court will next assess the weight to be attached to the issue of respect for the public’s right to information ... It observes in this connection that the Government have not shown that any measures were taken in the instant case to provide the inhabitants of the Ümraniye slums with information enabling them to assess the risks they might run as a result of the choices they had made. In any event, the Court considers that in the absence of more practical measures to avoid the risks to the lives of the inhabitants of the Ümraniye slums, even the fact of having respected the right to information would not have been sufficient to absolve the State of its responsibilities.”); see also Plan B brief, at § 6.1.2. 337 CIEL brief, Annex, at p. 12. 338 Id. 339 Id. 70