As announced this morning, Shell officially appeal registered against the decision of the Hague court in the case brought by Milieudefensie. In May last year, the environmental organization was proved right by a judge: Shell must bring the emission of all its greenhouse gases in line with the agreements from the Paris Climate Agreement.
In concrete terms, according to the judge, this means that the oil group must reduce its global emissions by 45 percent by 2030 (compared to 2019). This involves an obligation for all of Shell’s activities necessary to extract oil and gas, and a ‘best efforts obligation’ for the emissions that customers cause when they use Shell products – the ‘scope 3 emissions’.
The latter is especially true for Shell’s board of directors. In an article on the social network LinkedIn, director Marjan van Loon explains why the company has decided to appeal. “In particular, we wonder how we can be held responsible for reducing these emissions, while our customers themselves have no legal obligation to reduce their emissions,” writes Van Loon.
Shell, for example, has no influence on customers’ decisions to purchase an electric car. “We develop and supply these clean alternatives, we see that as our job, but we leave the choice to the customer,” she writes.
Also read: Milieudefensie wins groundbreaking lawsuit from Shell about CO2-emissions
In addition, Van Loon does not think it right to tackle Shell alone. “And if we decided to stop selling petrol, that wouldn’t mean people would buy less petrol. They’re just going to fill up somewhere else.”
‘Much stricter’
In a press statement, Shell points out that the obligation imposed by the Hague court is ‘much stricter’ [is] than the most progressive policies and energy scenarios in the world”. Nevertheless, the company says it has now started to implement the judgment – which is necessary, because the judge has ruled that an appeal does not have suspensive effect. For example, Shell’s strategy to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 is being accelerated, “in consultation with society and our customers”, and an “absolute climate target” has been set: halving the emissions of all Shell operations by 2030 by 2030. compared to 2016. In addition, investments are made in sustainable energy.
VNO-NCW supports Shell’s decision to appeal. According to the employers’ association, it is important “that there is complete legal clarity about the judge’s earlier ruling”. In an opinion piece in The Financial Times Last month, chairman Ingrid Thijssen opposed a situation “in which not our government and the elected representatives of the people are at the wheel of the largest reform of our society since the Second World War, but the judge”. In fact, Thijssen said he feared that anyone who threatens a lawsuit could now “take over the steering wheel in the Netherlands’ climate approach”.
Dangerous Climate Change
When Shell announced in July last year that it wanted to appeal, Milieudefensie called it “disappointing”. Director Donald Pols said: “We would rather see Shell now put all its time and energy into achieving the target instead of going to appeal.” Milieudefensie points out that the UN climate panel IPCC and the International Energy Agency, among others, point to the need to quickly prevent dangerous climate change. According to Milieudefensie, they are calling for a radical reduction in global emissions by 2030. “Despite these appeals and the judge’s ruling, Shell has […] No significant steps have been taken or have presented a plan to do so,” Milieudefensie writes in a response. “In fact, Shell’s plans leave room for growth in emissions.”
Campaign leader Nine de Pater of Milieudefensie: “The judge has ordered Shell to drastically reduce all its emissions, including those of its customers. If not, Shell will continue to cause climate change and thereby endanger human lives. We call on Shell to stop ignoring the judge’s verdict and look forward to the appeal with all confidence.”
The fact that Shell’s head office has now moved to the United Kingdom and that the company is officially no longer called Royal Dutch Shell does not matter for the appeal in this case. The company is now awaiting a new lawsuit in the United Kingdom. The British environmental organization ClientEarth has held the board members of the company jointly and severally liable for Shell’s “opaque” and “inappropriate” climate policy.