Oil giant Shell has won a landmark case in a Dutch court, overturning an earlier ruling that called for a 45% reduction in carbon emissions.
The Hague Court of Appeal finds that Shell had ‘social considerations’ to reduce emissions by 45% or any other amount, even if it agrees that it has a duty to the public to limit emissions He said he could not.
Three years ago, a court in The Hague upheld a lawsuit by Friends of the Earth and 17,000 Dutch citizens demanding that Shell significantly reduce its CO2 emissions in line with the Paris Climate Agreement.
The ruling comes as climate change talks involving around 200 countries have begun in Azerbaijan.
Shell said it was satisfied with the court’s decision, but Friends of the Earth Netherlands said the ruling was a deeply affecting setback.
Environmental groups can now take their case against Shell to the Supreme Court, but a final ruling could take years.
“This is a marathon, not a sprint, and the race isn’t over yet,” said the group’s Donald Pauls.
At the time, the 2021 ruling was the first time a court had ordered a private company to align its operations with the Paris climate agreement. This meant that it was not enough for companies to simply comply with the law; they also needed to comply with global regulations. Also climate policy.
Under the terms of the Paris Climate Agreement, around 200 countries have agreed to keep global temperatures “well below” 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
The Court of Appeal judges said companies like Shell had a duty to contribute to the fight against climate change based on their human right to be protected from dangerous climate change.
But the court ruled that since Shell is already working to reduce its emissions and there is no currently accepted consensus in climate science about how much is needed, the court should ask whether it should cut by 45% or some other percentage. He said he could not judge.
Shell claimed it was already taking “serious steps to reduce emissions”. They argued that the original ruling unfairly singled out one company for a global problem and that it was unrealistic to try to hold Shell accountable for the choices of its customers.
Shell said if people think progress towards reducing emissions is too slow, they should lobby governments, not Shell, to change policy and deliver a green transition.
Oil companies said they aim to reduce the carbon intensity of the products they sell by 15-20% by 2030 from 2016 baselines. Shell also aims to become a “net zero” emissions company by 2050.
Part of this historic case hinged on the interpretation of an “unwritten duty of care” under Dutch law that requires companies to prevent dangerous negligence.
Friends of the Earth Netherlands argued that human rights provide protection from dangerous climate change and that there is international agreement that businesses must respect human rights.
If Shell’s case is successful, it could have far-reaching implications for corporate climate change responsibilities.
Many environmental groups around the world are currently trying to force companies and governments to comply with the agreement through the courts.
