Oil giant Shell has won a landmark case in a Dutch court, overturning a previous ruling requiring it to reduce its carbon emissions by 45%.
The Hague Court of Appeal said that, despite agreeing that Shell had a duty to citizens to limit emissions, the company could not prove it had ‘social governance standards’ to reduce emissions by 45% or any other amount. .
Three years ago, a court in The Hague backed a lawsuit brought 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 came amid climate talks involving about 200 countries in Azerbaijan.
Shell said it was satisfied with the court’s decision, but Friends of the Earth Netherlands said the ruling was a setback that deeply affected them.
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 is not over yet,” said the group’s Donald Pols.
At the time, the 2021 ruling marked the first time a court had ordered a private company to align its operations with the Paris Climate Agreement. This means that it is not enough for companies to simply comply with the law; they must also comply with global regulations. Climate policy too.
Under the terms of the Paris Agreement on climate change, nearly 200 countries have agreed to keep global temperatures “below 2C” above pre-industrial levels.
The appeal court judge said companies like Shell have a duty to contribute to climate change based on the human right to protection from dangerous climate change.
But the court said Shell was already working to reduce its emissions and because there is currently no accepted consensus in climate science on how much would be needed, the court could not decide whether it should cut 45% or some other percentage.
Shell claimed it was already taking “serious steps to reduce emissions”. Shell complained that the original ruling was unfair because it singled out one company for a global problem, and said it was unrealistic to hold Shell accountable for its customers’ choices.
Shell said that if people think progress on reducing emissions is too slow, they should lobby governments, not Shell, to change policies and bring about a green transition.
The oil company said its goal is to reduce the carbon intensity of the products it sells by 15 to 20 percent by 2030 from a 2016 baseline. Shell also aims to become a “net zero” emissions company by 2050.
Part of the landmark legal case hinges on the interpretation of the “implied duty of care” that exists under Dutch law, which requires companies to avoid dangerous negligence.
Friends of the Earth Netherlands argued that there is international agreement that human rights provide protection against dangerous climate change and that companies must respect human rights.
Shell’s successful appeal could have far-reaching implications for corporate climate responsibility.
Numerous environmental groups around the world are now trying to force companies and governments to comply with the agreement through the courts.
