A Dutch appeals court overturned a 2021 ruling that instructed Shell to speed up its efforts to reduce emissions, agreeing with the company that setting specific emission reduction targets is unfeasible for oil and gas firms. The court argued that certain sectors are more challenging to sustainability than others. In the original 2021 ruling, a lower court had ordered Shell to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030, compared to 2019 levels, citing climate change protection as a human right. This was the first time a company was legally required to align its policies with the Paris Agreement, holding it responsible for its direct emissions and the emissions tied to the fossil fuels it sells. The Dutch Court of Appeals’ decision is seen as a win for the oil and gas industry, as it may influence both current and future legal cases and climate-related obligations imposed on these companies.
In its written summary of the ruling, the Dutch Court of Appeals acknowledged Shell’s duty to limit its emissions but annulled the lower court’s directive, stating that there is insufficient scientific consensus on a specific percentage reduction that should apply to individual companies like Shell. “There is currently insufficient consensus in climate science on a specific reduction percentage to which an individual company like Shell should adhere,” claimed the court. In April, the Carbon Majors Database claimed that Shell had emitted 36,528 million tons of carbon dioxide since 1854 — 2.1% of global emissions.
The Dutch Appeals Court ruled that “for Shell to reduce CO2 emissions caused by buyers of Shell products … by a particular percentage would be ineffective in this case. Shell could meet that obligation by ceasing to trade in the fuels it purchases from third parties. Other companies would then take over that trade.” According to the presiding judge, Carla Joustra, Shell already has targets for carbon emission reductions that are in line with the demands of Friends of the Earth — both for what it directly produces and for emissions produced by energy that the company purchases from others. The Court of Appeals indicated that Shell did have “an obligation toward citizens to reduce CO2 emissions,” but that the responsibility lay more with government. “It is primarily up to the government to ensure the protection of human rights,” the court said in a news release.
This ruling can be appealed to the Dutch Supreme Court, though it remains uncertain whether Friends of the Earth Netherlands will pursue that option. However, the group has indicated that it will continue its legal battle against major carbon emitters.
This decision is a significant setback for climate advocates, who have scored several legal victories in recent years. In 2015, a Dutch court ordered the government to reduce emissions by at least 25% from 1990 levels by 2020, a ruling upheld by the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019. In April, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must take stronger action to protect their populations from the effects of climate change.
Earlier this year, a UN tribunal on maritime law ruled that countries are legally required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea decided that carbon emissions qualify as “marine pollution” and indicated that countries must take steps to mitigate and adapt to their adverse effects. That decision, however, is not legally binding. While there are 169 parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the treaty that underpins the court, which includes China, Russia, and India; the United States is not a member.
In December, the UN’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, will hold public hearings on climate change as the UN General Assembly has asked it to request a non-binding advisory opinion on “the obligations of States in respect of climate change.” The International Court of Justice is to lay out the legal framework of obligations countries have to protect communities from damages from climate change. Dozens of countries are to present arguments at two weeks of hearings.
Conclusion
A lower court in the Netherlands had ordered Shell to cut emissions by 45% by 2030, but that verdict was overturned by the Dutch Court of Appeals with Shell arguing that a single firm should not be required to meet arbitrary emission-reduction targets. The original ruling covered carbon dioxide emissions both from Shell’s operations and the fossil fuels it sold. The plaintiff, Friends of the Earth Netherlands, can decide the Dutch Court of Appeal to the Dutch Supreme Court, though it is not clear whether it intends to do so. This is a major decision in favor of the oil and gas industry and could impact other future and ongoing court cases and future attempts at placing arbitrary emissions reductions upon companies.
