11 aspirational objective that oil, gas, and coal companies take seriously their obligation to align future production and investments with science-based targets to not exceed warming of 2ºC. I also cover industry actions and reactions to the prospect that climate change may affect their business plans, that their projections of global fossil fuel emissions far exceed the remaining carbon budget (and therefore a costly transgression of the 2ºC target), their history of denials to shareholders and the public that climate science is too unsettled for any policy action,14 and the sobering effects of the proliferating lawsuits and investigations of the major carbon companies. Q25: How were you able to arrive at these findings, or what methods were used? A25: I analyze and cogitate on the work of several dozen colleagues and thinkers in order to discern the emerging imperative that major carbon producers have unique responsibilities for creating and perpetuating the climate crisis, and therefore bear commensurate responsibilities to help solve the crisis that ignoring the impacts of their products will not absolve them of. I conclude the survey paper by quoting Henry Shue from his insightful Commentary15 to our paper (Ekwurzel et al. 2017) that: “Investor-owned companies have long understood the harm of their products, yet carried out a decades long campaign to sow doubts about those harms in order to ensure fossil fuels would remain central to global energy production. Companies knowingly violated the most basic moral principle of ‘do no harm,’ and now they must remedy the harm they caused.” Q26: In light of your years of research and expertise on the subject matter, are investor-owned carbon producers aligning production and investment with science-based targets that will ensure the global temperature rise is limited to safe levels? Please explain. A26: No. The only carbon producers that are arguably “aligning” their production with science-based targets are those companies that are in or emerging from bankruptcy (Arch Coal), forced to divest producing assets (BP), reservoir depletion (Pemex), or war (Syrian Petroleum). All major carbon producers are, as far as I can tell, aiming to expand investment in and production of future supplies to assure steady or growing production. That said, some oil and gas companies are more responsive to the emerging imperative for carbon producers to align with the Paris Accord, lead by European companies, particularly Equinor/Statoil, Royal Dutch Shell, and Total SA. American, African, Arabian Gulf, and Asian companies are generally lagging in this regard.16 Note that many companies have committed to reduce direct operational emissions (Scope 1) through efficiency, methane leakage prevention, and flaring reduction, but the crucial question is whether any company has committed to reduce carbon production in line with the Paris Accord. The answer is “no,” although Royal Dutch Shell made an important (if incomplete) step in that direction by committing to monitor and 14 Center for International Environmental Law (2017) Smoke and Fumes: The Legal and Evidentiary Basis for Holding Big Oil Accountable for the Climate Crisis, by Carroll Muffett & Steven Feit, CIEL, Nov, 42 pp. https://www.ciel.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/Smoke-Fumes-FINAL.pdf 15 Shue, Henry (2017) Responsible for What? Carbon Producer CO2 Contributions and the Energy Transition, Commentary on Ekwurzel et al., Climatic Change, vol. 144:591-96. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-2042-9. Prof Shue: University of Oxford, Dept. of Politics and International Relations. 16 Mulvey, Kathy, Jayne Piepenburg, Gretchen Goldman, & Peter C. Frumhoff (2016) The Climate Accountability Scorecard: Ranking Major Fossil Fuel Companies on Climate Deception, Disclosure, and Action, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge MA, 40 pp. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/climate-accountability-scorecard-full-report.pdf