Shell has won its appeal against a landmark climate ruling in the Netherlands, which in 2021 ordered the oil and gas company to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Shell had appealed against a lower court ruling in 2021 that it must cut its global carbon emissions by 45% by the end of 2030 compared with 2019 levels.
The company was told it must reduce emissions within its own operations, as well as those of its suppliers and buyers, in line with the Paris climate agreement. The court also said that companies had obligations to respect human rights.
The case was brought by Milieudefensie – the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth – and more than 17,000 co-plaintiffs.
Shell lodged an appeal, arguing in court that this was a matter for politicians, not the judiciary, and that any fossil fuels it chose not to extract would simply be exploited by another company.
There have been major changes at Shell in the years since the original ruling. Milieudefensie accused Shell of not complying with the initial court ruling, which explicitly stated that the company should begin to act on the judgment immediately regardless of any appeal.
The NGO gave evidence to the court that, despite increasing its volume of renewables, Shell is also planning to develop hundreds of new oil and gas fields despite the International Energy Agency warning against investments in any new fossil fuel extraction.
Shell also installed a new chief executive, Wael Sawan, in January 2023. Under his leadership, the company planned to cut jobs in the low-carbon division, and watered down a target to reduce the carbon emissions intensity of the energy it sells.
The judgment can still be appealed against and taken to the supreme court. However, this would focus on interpretation of the law and not the key facts of the case.
While the appeal was taking place, other domestic courts issued important rulings on assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel projects. In January 2024, Norway blocked the development of three North Sea oil and gas fields on the grounds that the state did not properly assess the impact of future use on climate change. The UK’s supreme court issued a similar ruling several months later.
More details soon …