The British oil and natural gas company Shell does not have to drastically reduce its CO2 emissions. A civil court in The Hague overturned a corresponding climate ruling from the first instance and dismissed the lawsuit brought by environmental activists.
The verdict is seen as a victory for the energy company. In 2021, the civil judges in The Hague ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and obliged Shell to comprehensively reduce CO2 – a net 45 percent less than in 2019. And that also applied to the indirect emissions of Shell’s suppliers and customers. At the time of the lawsuit, Shell also had a registered office in The Hague. But now the judges declared that Shell had a duty to advocate for international climate protection. But the British company cannot be required to set a specific percentage for reducing CO2 emissions. A reduction in the production of natural gas, for example, could lead to a global increase in coal production, which would be significantly worse for the climate.
Revision conceivable
Shell had appealed the 2021 ruling. The court ruled in favor of the company and did not oblige it to reduce its direct emissions from the production and sale of energy. Shell is already well on the way and wants to achieve a reduction of 50 percent by 2030.
It is certain that the main plaintiff, the environmental organization Milieudefensie, will now appeal to the highest authority. For Milieudefensie, Shell is “one of the biggest climate polluters in the world.” The ruling may also have consequences for other similar proceedings.
ePaper
**Interview with Dr. Claire Edmunds, Environmental Policy Analyst**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Edmunds. Recent developments in the legal battle between Shell and environmental activists have made headlines. Can you give us a brief overview of the recent ruling by the Dutch court?
**Dr. Edmunds:** Of course. The Dutch court in The Hague has recently overturned a previous ruling that mandated Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions significantly. Originally, the court had ordered Shell to cut its emissions by 45 percent compared to 2019 levels, which included indirect emissions from its suppliers and customers. However, the latest ruling allows Shell to advocate for climate protection without specifying the reduction percentages, marking a notable victory for the company.
**Editor:** What are the implications of this ruling for Shell and the broader climate movement?
**Dr. Edmunds:** This ruling can be seen as a double-edged sword. For Shell, it alleviates immediate pressure to adhere to strict emission targets, giving them some breathing room in their operations. However, it could also undermine the momentum of the climate movement, as it sends a message that corporations might not be held as accountable as many activists believe they should be.
**Editor:** Milieudefensie, the environmental organization behind the lawsuit, has indicated plans to appeal to a higher authority. What do you think the chances are for a successful appeal, and what might be the outcomes?
**Dr. Edmunds:** The chances of a successful appeal depend on various factors, including the legal arguments they present and the stance of the higher court on corporate environmental responsibility. If Milieudefensie can showcase that Shell’s practices lead to significant environmental harm, they may have a strong case. The outcome could either reinforce corporate responsibility or further entrench the idea that voluntary commitments are sufficient for companies like Shell.
**Editor:** Shell has stated its intention to reduce emissions by 50 percent by 2030. Is this a meaningful commitment?
**Dr. Edmunds:** While a 50 percent reduction sounds ambitious, the effectiveness of such a commitment lies in the specifics of how they plan to achieve it. If Shell adopts sustainable practices and transitions to renewable energy sources, it could potentially make a significant impact. However, there is skepticism regarding whether these targets are genuinely enforceable or just corporate window dressing without substantial action behind them.
**Editor:** In a world grappling with climate change, what should be the role of legal systems in regulating the practices of major corporations?
**Dr. Edmunds:** Legal systems should play a critical role in holding corporations accountable for their environmental impact. Robust regulations and clear accountability can drive corporations toward greener practices. The law can serve as a framework that not only incentivizes sustainable behavior but also protects the rights of communities and ecosystems affected by corporate activities. Corporate social responsibility is essential, but it should be backed by enforceable legal obligations to ensure genuine change.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Edmunds, for your insights on this critical issue. It’s a topic that will undoubtedly continue to evolve.
**Dr. Edmunds:** Thank you for having me! It’s crucial we keep the conversation going.