In a verdict this morning, a Dutch appeals court annulled a 2021 permit. decision ordering oil and gas giant Shell to reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.

The court agreed with the original ruling that “protection from dangerous climate change is a human right.” However, it ruled that while the oil and gas giant has a responsibility to reduce its emissions, Shell has the right to decide how it will make those reductions.

Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie), which initially led the case against Shell in 2019, saw some positives, even though its legal victory in 2021 was overturned.

“It hurts,” said Donald Pols, director of Friends of the Earth Netherlands. “At the same time, we see that this case has helped ensure that big polluters are not inviolable and has fueled the debate about their responsibility in the fight against dangerous climate change. That is why we continue to crack down on big polluters like Shell.”

THE first historic judgment of May 2021Subsequently, Shell – one of the world’s largest fossil fuel emitting companies – expanded its emissions to both the company’s own emissions and those produced by people burning its products, such as gasoline. their cars.

In its initial ruling, the court said the oil and gas major should follow the “global agreement” that a 45% net reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 is needed to meet the Paris target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit). to avoid dangerous climate change.

“This applies to the whole world, therefore also to Shell,” the judge said at the time, adding that Shell’s commitments to reduce its emissions by 20% were insufficient.

Although Shell successfully appealed the verdict, the Dutch court today upheld the initial ruling that new oil and gas fields contradict the Paris climate agreement.

Shelll’s appeal argues that effective policy, not litigation, will contribute more to climate action.

During court hearings in April 2024 in The Hague, Shell lawyer Daan Lunsingh Scheurleer said the case had “no legal basis” and “impedes the role that Shell can and wants to play in the transition energy”.

Friends of the Earth Netherlands and six other organizations filed a lawsuit against Shell in 2019 on the grounds that the company’s emissions violated the human rights of 17,000 Dutch citizens by fueling climate change.

The 2021 trial ruling was considered “a turning point in history” because it was the first time a judge “ordered a large polluting company to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement” , said Roger Cox, lawyer for Friends of the Earth Netherlands within the association. time.

Shell accused of not respecting the verdict

The 2021 decision took effect immediately, meaning Shell should not continue to expand oil and gas extraction pending its appeal, Friends of the Earth said.

But a report released by Friends of the Earth Netherlands and climate think tank Oil Change International in March 2024 claimed the company had approved at least 20 “new oil and gas extraction assets” since the decision.

“Shell continues to plan for levels of oil and gas production and investment that undermine the world’s chances of limiting climate catastrophe and are inconsistent with keeping global temperature rise to 1.5°C,” they said. declared the organizations.

A report by environmental campaigner Global Witness claimed that a “significant portion” of spending on “renewable and energy solutions” in 2021 was instead going towards “investments in climate-destroying gas”.

About 1.5% of Shell’s total spending in 2021 was invested in renewable wind and solar power projects, according to the U.K.-based climate group.

“It is clear that Shell is currently increasing its emissions,” Nine of Pater, can ambassador from Friends of the Earth Netherlands told DW: also referring to “gas growth”. Shell’s emissions reduction commitments have been “watered down” in recent years, she added.

But Shell boss Wael Sawan previously refuted claims that the fossil fuel company’s accounting for renewable energy solutions was misleading due to the large gas component. This statement follows a request from Global Witness for the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate Shell’s renewable energy segment.

Sawan said on a call with reporters in 2023 that there had been “a real pivot toward investments in the energy transition.”

In its appeal of the Hague verdict, Shell also said it was unfairly targeted given that climate change is a global problem. He argued he was taking steps to reduce emissions and denied ignoring the ruling.

Shell said in statements that it had “invested $5.6 billion (€5.27 billion) in low-carbon solutions, representing more than 23% of our total capital expenditure” in 2023.

Worsening climate impacts increase urgency to reduce emissions

Donald Pols said in a statement just before the verdict was announced that the climate impacts were too great to ignore.

“(T)he climate crisis has intensified. Floods, wildfires, record heat and other climate disasters dominate the news. One thing is certain: this decade is crucial to combating dangerous climate change” , Pols said.

According to the latest State of the Climate report, released on the first day of the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, 2024 is on track to become the hottest year on record. The report also shows that the period 2015-2024 is the warmest decade since records began.

At the same time, around 96% of oil and gas companies are exploring and developing new reserves in 129 countries, according to data published by German environmental and human rights NGO Urgewald.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) says no new oil, gas or coal mines should be developed if the world is to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and slow global warming.

Climate disputes “fuel” debate and more lawsuits

But activists remain hopeful. Even if “itour yard cases take a long time, so we don’t see an impact immediately”, climate litigation is an “important part of the fight against climate change”, Nine de Pater told DW.

This is because they “contribute to fueling the debate on the responsibility of polluting companies”, declared de Pater, adding that Sinceand the Shell decision 2021,ereabeen a wavand of otherser climatee dispute casees, including in Belgium against Total Energies.

“We clearly saw that some of the arguments we used in the case against Shell were very useful in these cases,” de Pater said.

Edited by Jennifer Collins and Tamsin Walker