Lee Jordan/Flickr climate change was a global risk and the combustion of fossil fuels was its primary driver. Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, scientific and public evidence mounted. By 1988, Shell’s own scientists were confirming that the fundamental science of climate change was sound, even if uncertainties remained, and they acknowledged that by the time those uncertainties were resolved, it might be too late. The following year, Shell took the first steps to protect its own offshore oil platforms from the risks of rising seas. That same year, Shell joined the Global Climate Coalition, where it would remain an active partner in climate denial efforts until 1998. In 1998, Shell withdrew from GCC, but not from API, which launched its own new denial efforts that same year. API’s active program of pro- A Crack in the Shell | moting climate denial continued through at least 2012, and potentially beyond. In the meantime, Shell maintained its memberships in ALEC and WSPA, even as they launched active and ongoing campaigns to obstruct climate action through at least 2015. For periods that are not yet fully documented, Shell fostered or funded climate denial operations within Europe as well. Throughout much of this period, Shell publicly acknowledged that climate change was a severe threat to people and the planet, and that coordinated public action would be needed to combat that threat. Despite this, Shell coordinated with opaque industry and front groups to sow doubt and confusion about the issue and slow progress on climate solutions. 14 | More fundamentally, and throughout the six decades since CA Jones first acknowledged the industry’s awareness of climate risks, Shell has continually expanded its global production and sale of fossil fuels. Indeed, as the Arctic melted due to climate change, Shell actively sought to exploit these climate impacts to open a major new oil frontier. As this report goes to press, and amidst rising climate litigation against the company in countries around the world, Shell has yet again declared a positive, progressive vision for meeting the challenge of climate change. It does so even as it acknowledges that it has no intent to pursue that vision, because it continues banking on a fossil fuel future the world can no longer afford or accept. Center for International Environmental Law