In comparing Laudato Si’ and the oil industry websites for class today, I was struck by the differing ways both documents address the issue of responsibility. In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis calls for differing levels of responsibility. He writes, regarding the rise in migrants fueled by climate change as well as how climate change has already affected the poor, “Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded” (part 25). Here, he calls for a sense of shared humanity and, with it, shared responsibility as the foundation of “civil society”. He also describes the government as having an “inalienable responsibility (part 38) to care for each country’s natural environment, for Christians to recognize their responsibility to the environment as part of their faith (part 64), and calls the natural environment “the responsibility of everyone” (part 95). In contrast to this ethic of universal responsibility, the Shell website demonstrates, albeit through subtle means, a desire to shift responsibility from the oil industry onto other forces to combat climate change. When I visited the front page of the website, the first thing I saw was an article called “Nature’s role in the fight against climate change”. Under the heading, it reads “The world must find many ways to reduce carbon emissions while addressing growing energy demand. One approach is to protect and restore ecosystems that absorb carbon dioxide, such as forests, grasslands and wetlands.” By focusing on how restoring ecosystems that absorb carbon can help mitigate climate change, as opposed to how the oil industry financially benefits directly from carbon emissions, Shell shifts the responsibility of environmental care onto environmental scientists and other entities to alleviate the problem they, in great part, helped cause. This obscuring of responsibility and accountability can also be seen in their company statement on “sustainability”. There are comforting images of the ocean and solar panels, with no actual images of the daily operations of oil extraction. At the very bottom of the page, they state their support for the UN Paris agreement, yet fail to adequately demonstrate how their sustainability efforts might plausibly and realistically make a difference in achieving the agreement’s goals. Under their section on Climate Change, they state that “Shell is still primarily an oil and gas company, but we have a long tradition of innovation”, implying that they will innovate to other forms of energy production without any statement of responsibility or culpability on their part. Again, this obscures the reality of Shell’s daily extractive processes by framing it as a temporary state of affairs until “innovation” provides some sort of solution.