Shell wins historic climate case against green groups in Dutch appeal

Oil giant Shell has won a landmark case in the Dutch court, overturning an earlier ruling that required it to cut its carbon emissions by 45%.

The Hague Court of Appeal said it could not find that Shell applied 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 reduce emissions to limit.

Three years ago, a court in The Hague supported a case by Milieudefensie and 17,000 Dutch citizens requiring Shell to significantly reduce its CO2 emissions, in line with the Paris climate agreements.

The ruling came as climate talks involving some 200 countries got underway in Azerbaijan.

Shell said it was satisfied with the court’s ruling, but Milieudefensie called the ruling a setback that affected them deeply.

The environmental group can now take its case against Shell to the Supreme Court, but a final ruling could take years.

Donald Pols of the group said: “It’s a marathon, not a sprint and the race isn’t over yet”.

At the time, the 2021 ruling marked the first time a court had ordered a private company to bring its operations into compliance with the Paris Climate Agreement, meaning it was not enough for a company to simply comply with the law; it had to comply with global climate policies as well.

Under the terms of the Paris Climate Agreement, nearly 200 countries agreed to keep global temperatures “well below” 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The appeal judge said that companies such as Shell were obliged to contribute to the fight against climate change based on the human right to protection against dangerous climate change.

However, the court states that Shell is already working to reduce its emissions and that the court cannot determine whether it should make a 45% reduction or some other percentage because there is currently no accepted agreement in climate science on the amount required.

Shell has argued that it is already “taking serious steps to reduce emissions”. It complained that the original ruling was unfair because it singled out one company for a global issue, and said it was unrealistic to try to hold Shell responsible for its customers’ choices.

Shell said that if people believe progress is too slow towards reducing emissions, they should lobby governments instead of Shell to change policy and bring about a green transition.

The oil company says its goal is to reduce the carbon intensity of the products it sells by 15 to 20% by 2030 compared to 2016 levels. Shell also aims to become a ‘net zero’ emissions company by 2050 are.

Part of the landmark case revolved around the interpretation of an ‘unwritten duty of care’ that exists under Dutch law, which obliges companies to avoid dangerous negligence.

Milieudefensie Nederland argued that there was international consensus that human rights provided protection against dangerous climate change and that companies should respect human rights.

Shell’s successful appeal could have far-reaching consequences for companies’ climate responsibility.

A number of environmental groups around the world are now trying to force companies and governments to comply with the agreements through the courts.