In 2021, the court ruled that Shell had to speed up in reducing its CO2 emissions. This was in a case brought by no less than 17,000 people, Milieudefensie, Fossielvrij NL and five other organisations that were co-plaintiffs. Not happy with this result, Shell decided to appeal. The court now says Shell does have an obligation to reduce emissions, but cannot determine to what extent. Therefore, the earlier ruling has been dismissed. We take a closer look at the ruling, and discuss the options.
Verdict means delay
The ruling is a setback. Shell and other fossil fuel companies will use this ruling as a licence to continue harmful extraction of oil and gas. However, we don’t have time for this delay. This means more floods, famines and deaths from air pollution.
The court sees insufficient substantiation
A particularly painful point was that the court did not find the required speed and method of phasing out oil and gas clear enough. This is a result of decades of lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, which deliberately cast doubt on phase-out routes. The court also found gas to be a better alternative than coal. Shell successfully promoted a story about liquefied natural gas (LNG) being a so-called ‘transition fuel’. However, new research shows that liquefied gas is even more harmful than coal. This verdict demonstrates the massive influence of the fossil fuel lobby and shows just how important it is to curb this power.
The verdict offers room for climate action too
The verdict does offer a new starting point for climate action by underlining the fact that citizens are entitled to protection from the climate-destructive damage caused by fossil fuel companies. The court clearly stated that large polluting companies should not just passively follow the laws, but rather have an active responsibility to limit their emissions. It is the moral and social duty of polluting companies to counteract the climate damage they have helped cause. This means that those polluting companies that now want to sit back and do nothing will be disappointed.
The court recognises that new fossil fuel projects are at odds with climate goals
While the court did not grant our demand to reduce Shell’s emissions by a specific percentage, it did stress that starting new fossil fuel projects is at odds with climate goals. Shell’s investments in new oil and gas fields create a ‘lock-in’ effect: in order to recoup its investments, the company must continue fossil fuel projects for longer. Although this particular lawsuit did not focus on this, the message is clear: companies starting new fossil fuel projects can expect new lawsuits. This offers us opportunities for the future.
What’s our next move?
As a climate movement, we should not focus all our efforts on lawsuits alone. Let’s continue to build a movement strong enough to break the power of the fossil fuel industry: in the streets, at work, in politics, in court, everywhere.