Shell wins bid in high-profile climate case, Milieudefensie bids rejected

The court in The Hague rejected Milieudefensie’s claims against Shell. According to the court, although the company has a ‘duty of care’ to combat dangerous climate change, Shell cannot be bound by concrete percentages with which it must reduce CO2 emissions. The decision of the court of first instance was therefore set aside.

‘Not supported’

Three years ago, the judge decided that Shell had to reduce its emissions by 45 percent in that year compared to 2019. But the court did not agree with that. According to the judge, all types of reports that were discussed during the trial provide ‘sufficient guidance’ to impose a certain percentage on Shell.

The court has also not confirmed that a reduction in duty for Shell would have a positive effect on combating climate change around the world. For example, if Shell resold less oil and gas extracted from the ground by other companies, other companies could fill the gap.

The judge’s decision is hurtful, says the director of Milieudefensie, Donald Pols, in this video.

In the introduction to the decision, the court highlighted the dangers of climate change and the responsibility of countries and large companies to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. reduce That is a human rights issue that companies like Shell are also responsible for, it was said. “Shell owes a duty of care to limit CO2 emissions and thus combat dangerous climate change,” the court said, but the exact method of doing this cannot be enforced in court.

Clear pronunciation

“This decision is very clear: the court saw no possibility of asking Shell to reduce its emissions by almost half,” says Heleen Ekker, climate expert at RTL News.

“The court says that Shell has a duty to combat ‘dangerous climate change’, and it also confirms that protection against climate change is a human right. But the court did not want to force Shell on that basis to reduce a percentage of emissions.

Filled with petrol

The most important point of contention in this climate case was that the court ordered Shell to do its best to reduce emissions among its customers. This accounts for more than 90 percent of Shell’s emissions.

“This case has been described as ‘unique worldwide’ by lawyers. It has rightly attracted a lot of attention,” said Ekker. “Especially the aspect that Shell would be responsible for what the customers do was unique and unique. This was very important to Milieudefensie, as most of Shell’s emissions occur at these customers. But the court decided that they will not participate in that reasoning.”

Shell previously said that it is not about whether or not people buy an electric car or continue to fill up with petrol. In fact, if Shell says goodbye to some of its customers, it can no longer help them become more stable, such as in an airplane.

But Milieudefensie pointed out that Shell has long been aware of the threat of climate change. And there are only four countries with higher emissions than Shell, the environmental group says: the US, China, Russia and India. Hardly any company in the world has more control over greenhouse gas emissions than Shell.

Big consequences

Shell previously said that it would have a big impact on the Netherlands if it lost this lawsuit. Other companies also felt the consequences, which would affect the investment situation in the Netherlands and therefore employment, Shell said.

During the trial, the oil giant said that it is a leader in clean energy. It invests more than other oil and gas companies. But Milieudefensie rejected this argument, because the company continues to invest billions of euros in fossil energy.

The parties were not against each other when it came to the seriousness of climate change. Both Milieudefensie and Shell say it is important to stop global warming. And so the world says goodbye to fossil fuels. But they have completely different ideas about how that happens.

More natural gas

As coal produces much more CO2 emissions than natural gas, it is important to replace coal with gas as much as possible, Shell believes. That is why Shell wants to produce more natural gas, while keeping oil production at the same level in the years to come.

But according to Milieudefensie, emissions from fossil fuels must be reduced as soon as possible. Gas cannot always replace coal, the environmental group says, because many poor countries rely on coal for their energy supply.