8 and the harm caused (2) the ability to foresee a harm based on knowledge or awareness of a harm or potential harm; and (3) an opportunity and ability to prevent that harm to determine corporate responsibility. Please also see the Joint Summary that provides greater detail about specific principles from the UNGP���s that can guide and inform the Commission in its deliberations about whether the conduct at issue is consistent with corporate responsibilities to respect human rights. Q18: Based on Part 2, could you please summarize the evidentiary basis for fold holding fossil fuel companies accountable? A18: In short, the evidence collected in Smoke & Fumes supports key elements of a corporate responsibility analysis. (1) The Carbon Majors, by benefit of atmospheric science research funded by oil companies since the 1950’s were aware and could foresee the harm, or the threat of harm, caused by the production, marketing and sale. Documented research into the atmospheric behavior of carbon dioxide by oil companies began no later than 1957 for Humble Oil (ExxonMobil) and 1958 by the American Petroleum Institute. API and its members were explicitly warned by no later than 1968 that CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources; that the combustion of fossil fuels was the most important source of these CO2 emissions; that rising levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases had the potential to alter the earth’s radiation balance on a planetary scale; and that this change to the global climate create the risk of widespread, severe and potential catastrophic impacts on the global environment. were likely to be severe. While acknowledging that some uncertainties remained, the industry’s own researchers emphasized that the highest priority for research was in technologies and other changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (2) The Carbon Majors, were aware and had the opportunity and ability to prevent the harm caused by the production, marketing, and sale of their products. By the 1970s, Exxon (now ExxonMobil) was explicitly warned by its own scientists of the consensus surrounding climate change; Shell was warned no later than 1986. By the late 1980s, at least two companies - Shell and Exxon - were incorporating likely climate changes into their operational planning. Despite this knowledge, fossil fuel companies engaged in both individual and coordinated campaigns to mislead the public about the existence, causes and severity of climate risks. These campaigns are well documented in the 1980s and 1990s, extended into the 2000s, 2010s, and likely continue to this day. Q19: Given said discussion, what are the report’s key findings and/or conclusions, if any?