We firmly reject the premise of this report. We believe InfluenceMap has taken an overly simplistic view of climate policy, the value of engagement, and the complexity of the required transition to a lower carbon energy system. We also don't agree with the Report's implication that Shell's spending on (direct and/or indirect) climate related engagement and corporate messaging is 'in conflict with the goals of the Paris climate accord'... We recognize the need for greater transparency as raised by the InfluenceMap report... Shell recently published an Industry Associations Climate Review, which assesses Shell's alignment with 19 key industry associations on climate-related policy... We have been clear about our support for the Paris Agreement and the need for society to transition to a lower-carbon future, but the InfluenceMap report appears to suggest that any extended role of fossil fuels in the energy system is incompatible with the goals of Paris... IEA data suggest that natural gas will have a role to play... Shell recognizes that the future energy system must be made of products which, on average, have a lower carbon intensity... Society must also contend with the carbon dioxide emissions that cannot be avoided. We are strong proponents of government led carbon pricing, carbon capture and storage, and nature-based solutions as means of addressing emissions... Shell is taking concrete steps to address our own carbon footprint and we intend to cut the carbon intensity of the energy products we sell in step with society as it moves towards the goal of the Paris Agreement.