A Dutch court on Tuesday dismissed a landmark climate ruling against Shell, after the oil giant was ordered to drastically reduce its global carbon emissions back in 2021. Shell Shell wins climate appeal, a landmark case in the Dutch courts, overturning an earlier ruling requiring it to cut its carbon emissions by 45%.
(Image Credit: shell)
The outcome, which comes during the opening days of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan, marks the latest twist in a precedent-setting case that could have far-reaching implications for the future of climate litigation.
Shell wins climate appeal
The appeals court in The Hague said that while Shell is required to reduce its carbon emissions, it could not determine the extent of these cuts. The case against Shell, therefore, was dismissed entirely.
In May 2021, The Hague district court ruled that Shell must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 45% from 2019 levels by 2030.
The verdict, which came when Shell said the company was responsible for all emissions across its value chain, including those from the products they sell, known as Scope 3 emissions.
Shell landmark case win
The Hague court of appeal said it could not establish that Shell had a “social standard of care” to reduce its emissions by 45% or any other amount, even though it agreed the company had an obligation to citizens to limit emissions.
Three years ago, a court in The Hague backed a case by Friends of the Earth and 17,000 Dutch citizens requiring Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions significantly, in line with the Paris climate accords.
Shell said it was pleased with the court’s decision.
The Friends of the Earth Netherlands said the ruling was a setback that affected them deeply.
The environmental group can now take its case against Shell to the Supreme Court – but a final verdict could be years away.
Donald Pols from the group said “it’s a marathon, not a sprint and the race isn’t yet over”.
Dutch court Shell climate decision
At the time, the 2021 ruling marked the first time a court had ordered a private company to align its workings with the Paris climate agreement. Under the terms of the Paris Agreement on climate change, nearly 200 nations agreed to keep global temperatures “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels.
The appeals court judge said that companies such as Shell were obliged to contribute to combating climate change based on the human right to protection against dangerous climate change.
However, the court said Shell was already working to reduce its emissions and the court could not establish whether it should make a 45% cut or another percentage, as there was no current accepted agreement in climate science on the required amount.
Shell on the environment case
Shell has argued that it is already taking “serious steps to reduce emissions”. It complained the original ruling was unfair as it singled out one company for a global issue, and said it was unrealistic to try to hold Shell accountable for its customers’ choices.
Shell said if people considered progress was too slow towards cutting emissions then they should lobby governments rather than Shell to change policies and bring about a green transition.
Shell to reduce carbon intensity
The oil firm says its aim is to reduce the carbon intensity of products it sells by 15-20% by 2030 from a 2016 baseline. Shell also aims to become a “net zero” emissions company by 2050.
Part of the historic legal case hinged on the interpretation of an “unwritten duty of care” that exists under Dutch law, which requires companies to prevent hazardous negligence.
Friends of the Earth Netherlands argued that there was an international consensus that human rights offered protection against dangerous climate change and that companies had to respect human rights.
Implications for corporate climate responsibility
Shell’s successful appeal could have far-reaching implications for corporate climate responsibility. The ruling was regarded as a watershed moment in the climate battle and sparked a wave of lawsuits against other fossil fuel companies.
A number of environmental groups around the world are now trying to force companies and governments to comply with the accords through the courts.
