EXHIBIT 5 Excerpt from The Greenhouse Effect report, 1988 Shell Internationale Petroleum Maatschappij, The Greenhouse Effect 29, 57 (1988), available at http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/. climate science and to thwart regulation at the sub-national, national, and international levels. In 1991, Shell released a 28-minute film entitled Climate of Concern. The film acknowledged the consensus surrounding climate change, the role of fossil fuels in driving the warming, and the scale and scope of the potential devastation.46 It also noted that the rate of temperature change is greater than anything seen since the end of the last ice age, and that the climate might “change too fast, perhaps, for life to adapt without severe dislocation.”47 The film discussed the scale and scope of risks, including changes to weather patterns and “the increasing frequency of abnormal weather;”48 saltwater intrusion; sea level rise; increasingly destructive storm surges, noting “warmer seas could make such destructive surges more frequent and even more ferocious;” pollution of groundwater; impacts on agriculture; and the displacement of people living on low-lying islands. It warned of “greenhouse refugees” displaced by shifting climates,49 noting “if the weather machine were to be wound up to such new levels of energy, no country would remain unaffected.”50 A Crack in the Shell | Climate of Concern demonstrates that Shell was aware not only of the risks of climate change, but also of the robustness and growing specificity of the scientific case for climate change. It noted that evidence for warming had already been observed, acknowledging observed warming in the Arctic as far back as the 1930s, and stating that “[r]egion by region analysis of world temperature records shows a small but significant warming trend over the century, with a marked increase in the 1980s.”51 It concluded that, while not all is certain, many think waiting for ironclad proof would be irresponsible and action now (in 1991) is the only safe insurance.52 “What is now considered abnormal weather could become a new norm. We have seen the consequences in our own time.”53 Importantly, this film did not simply address the risks posed by climate change, but also examined solutions. Notably, the film acknowledged that, while technology, including renewable energies and energy efficiency technologies, was a part of the solution, combating global warming would require more than 9 | technological fixes. That is to say, in 1991 Shell explicitly acknowledged that coordinated, regulatory action would need to be taken to solve the climate crisis. Despite its recognition of these realities, Shell’s messaging on climate change – both internally and publicly – shows a marked shift in the ensuing years, just as the public and policy debates over climate action were accelerating. In 1994, Shell commissioned an update to The Greenhouse Effect, called The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. This report restated the consensus of climate scientists and included updates. In a significant departure from previous analyses, however, nearly half of the report was dedicated to “Areas of Controversy and Alternative Scientific Views.”54 Even as it acknowledged compelling new climate science, the 1994 report placed a heavy emphasis on discrediting and downplaying that science. Three years after Shell declared in Climate of Concern “waiting for ironclad proof would be irresponsible and that action now is the only safe insurance,” Shell seemed more interested in demanding proof than in taking action. Center for International Environmental Law