spheric pollution resulting from the production, manufacture, transportation, sale, and use of petroleum and its products.16 This express recognition that the use of its products constitutes a major part of the oil industry’s impact (and responsibility) is significant given the industry’s decades-long (and ongoing) campaigns to shift that responsibility away from oil companies and onto individual consumers. Despite the Smoke and Fumes Committee’s then active research into the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuels, Jones makes no reference to that research in his presentation. The only reference to CO2 emissions characterizes them as “harmless.”17 At a high level symposium on Energy and Man convened by API the following year, renowned physicist Edward Teller directly challenged that characterization. Calling attendees attention to the link between fossil fuels and rising atmospheric levels of CO2, as well as the resulting “greenhouse effect” from rising CO2, Teller warned that “a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 percent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered… this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.”18 At the time, API was chaired by Shell Oil President HMS Burns. By the end of the 1950s, therefore, Shell was demonstrably on notice that atmospheric contamination by CO2 from fossil fuels was an environmental issue of potentially significant concern to the industry and to the planet. In the decade that followed, warnings to Shell from both A Crack in the Shell | within and outside the company would become increasingly explicit, detailed, and urgent. In 1962, Marion King Hubbert, Chief Geology Consultant at Shell and former director of its research labs, produced a book- length report on the earth’s Energy Resources for a committee of the National Academy of Sciences.19 The report, which draws heavily upon a 1956 analysis Hubbert prepared for the American Petroleum Institute,20 demonstrates Shells’ profound understanding of the earth’s energy balance, including the differences in the reflection of long- and short-wave solar radiation back into space, the role of global atmospheric temperatures in driving global weather, and the intrinsic and delicate natural balance between the heat energy absorbed by plants through photosynthesis with the equivalent energy released by plant matter through natural decay.21 Hubbert produced detailed discussions of both past and predicted future growth in the production and use of the earth’s energy resources, with a heavy focus on the production and use of coal, oil, and natural gas, both through conventional development and through future extreme energy sources such as oil shale and tar sands.22 Hubbert then briefly reviewed progress and viability of other energy sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower. 23 In so doing, he explicitly acknowledged the potential risk that humanity’s growing use of fossil fuels could result in dramatic changes to the earth’s climate: There is evidence that the greatly increasing use of the fossil fuels, whose material contents after combustion are principally H2O and CO2, is seriously contaminating the earth’s atmosphere with CO2. Analyses indicate that the CO2 content of the atmosphere since EXHIBIT 2 Excerpt from Hubbert’s 1962 report Energy Resources M. King Hubbert, Energy Resources: A Report to the Committee on Natural Resources of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council 96 (1962). 5 | Center for International Environmental Law