35 While Shell claims that its Sky Scenario would hold warming to “around 1.75 degrees”, Shell’s approach is not in our view consistent with the Paris climate target. Parties agreed in Paris to keep warming well below 2 degrees Celsius and to limit the increase to no more than 1.5 degrees if possible. This is a critical difference. As the experience of the Philippines attests all too clearly, even at 1 degree of warming the world is witnessing severe impacts on communities, ecosystems and human rights. This is why many scientists and advocates argue that even 1.5℃ of warming is too much, and urgent efforts are needed to keep warming as low as possible. An analysis of the scenario prepared for Shell by MIT estimates that there would be a mere 13% chance of staying below 1.5℃ under the Sky Scenario. Even if one accepted that the higher 1.75℃ limit proposed by Shell was acceptable, MIT says there's only a 50% chance of keeping to that target. To get a two-thirds chance of success under Sky, one must accept a temperature target of approximately 1.9 degrees Celsius. This, in our view, cannot be considered “well below” 2 degrees. The Sky Scenario also implies wrongly and dangerously that the global community can continue its reliance on fossil fuels for several decades while somehow still meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. In order to achieve this, the Sky Scenario must assume the deployment of unproven and risky carbon capture and storage technologies at a massive scale, with potential severe impacts on communities and ecosystems. Even with these technologies, moreover, Shell assumes the world will overshoot the Paris target, then use additional CCS, together with Bioenegy with CCS (BECCS) to bring temperatures back down. Finally, and fundamentally, in the absence of clear plans to implement it, the Sky Scenario is meaningless unless Shell has concrete plans to pursue it. Legal disclaimers in the document make clear that it does not. Q30: In your professional opinion, do the Shell internal and public communications indicate that the company misled the public, the consumers, and its shareholders in ways that may have broken the law or be inconsistent with the company’s responsibilities to respect human rights? A30: In my opinion, and on the present evidence, I believe there is a significant dichotomy between the public image Shell seeks to convey on climate change, and the actual content of its operations. Q31: Do you know if Shell and other fossil fuel companies did anything to advance or derail efforts on renewable energy transition and other solutions to address climate change? A31: I have discussed relevant examples of this in Answer 21 above.