Dutch court orders Shell to accelerate emissions reduction

Royal Dutch Shell lost a landmark legal case. The Dutch court ordered the oil company to increase emissions reductions in a ruling, which may set a global precedent for corporate polluters.

Judge Larissa Alvin of the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to ensure that its net carbon emissions in 2030 are 45% lower than in 2019. She said this ruling will have a “far-reaching impact” on the Anglo-Dutch company.

Alvin said that Shell’s current climate strategy is not specific enough, adding that the company has a human rights obligation to take further action.

The ruling follows a legal campaign led by Milieudefensie, the Dutch chapter of Friends of the Earth. Donald Boers, director of Friends of the Earth Netherlands, described the decision as “a huge victory.”

Shell said it will “appeal today’s disappointing court decision.”

The ruling may set a precedent for similar cases against the world’s largest polluting companies, which may now face similar litigation.

“In terms of law, economy and society, this ruling is significant,” said Thom Wetzer, head of the Sustainable Law Project at Oxford University. “All companies in the energy industry and all heavy emitters will receive attention, and their decarbonization plans must be accelerated.”

Shell announces production cut Carbon strength Compared with the 2016 level, the proportion of fossil fuels it produces and sells will range from 6% in 2023 to 20% in 2030 and 45% in 2035.

These goals are part of its ambition to become a net zero emission company by 2050. Carbon intensity is a measure of carbon emissions per megajoule of energy sold, not an absolute measure of carbon emissions.

Alvin stated that her decision will require the company to “change policy”, which may “contain the potential growth of Shell.”

“The benefits of reducing obligations outweigh the commercial benefits of the Shell Group,” she added.

In recent years, climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies have gained momentum. Until recently, cases tended to focus on liability litigation, requiring companies to pay compensation for past actions.

But the legal cases against Shell are one of a growing number of so-called human rights-based cases, which are designed to fundamentally change the company’s strategy and possibly undermine its business model.

Affected by this news, Shell’s share price remained stable.

However, Nick Stansbury of Legal and General Investment Management said, “Although the market does not appear to be responding, an effective question is whether this is the same as the first legal action by a large tobacco company to be a watershed.”

Although rival BP has set targets to reduce fossil fuel production, Shell refused to take similar measures, saying such measures are arbitrary and did not take into account the strong demand for hydrocarbons.

Although it said it would invest billions of dollars in low-carbon energy, including electric car charging, hydrogen energy, renewable energy and biofuels, it emphasized that it would only “synchronize with society.”

In response to this, the judge stated in her ruling that the energy group “must do more than just monitor social development and comply with the laws and regulations of the countries in which the Shell Group operates.”

Although she admitted that Shell “cannot solve this global problem on its own,” she said it does not “exempt” the company from its responsibility to control emissions that it can control and influence.

The judge added that Shell was “completely free to fulfill its obligations to reduce production as it deems appropriate.”

Follow @ftclimate on Instagram

Climate capital

Where climate change meets business, markets, and politics. Explore the Financial Times report here.

Are you curious about the environmental sustainability commitment of the Financial Times? Learn more about our science-based goals here