By AFP - Agence France Presse
Environmental groups lose appeal in Shell climate case in the Netherlands
Dutch judges ruled Tuesday against climate groups who said oil giant Shell was not doing enough to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, overturning a landmark judgment from three years ago.
The decision by the Court of Appeals, which shocked environmental groups, including Milieudefensie, which led the case, reverses a landmark ruling from three years ago.
At that time, a Dutch court of first instance ruled that Shell had to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 because it was contributing to the “dire” effects of climate change.
Both Shell and environmental groups appealed, with Shell itself appealing the decision and climate activists saying that the oil giant was not implementing the ruling.
But on Tuesday, appeals court judge Carla Joustra said: “The final judgment of the court is that Milieudefensie's claims cannot be granted. The Court of Appeals is therefore annulling the original judgment.”
The decision by the Court of Appeals in The Hague comes at a time when governments from around 200 countries are meeting at the COP29 negotiations in Azerbaijan to discuss climate action, including a transition to clean energy.
The 2021 ruling was seen as a historic victory for climate change campaigners, including Milieudefensie - the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth - and six other groups that brought the lawsuit.
It was also the first time that a company was forced to align its policy with the 2015 Paris climate change agreements.
The appeal judges, however, disagreed with the climate groups, saying that “Shell is already doing what is expected” of it.
“Shell must make an appropriate contribution to the climate objectives of the Paris Agreement,” said Joustra.
“However, existing climate legislation does not provide for a specific percentage reduction for individual companies,” the judge said.
She added that although Shell, “as a major oil and gas company,” must curb climate change “caused in large part by companies in industrialized countries... this does not mean that the court can apply the general standard of 45% to Shell”.
Milieudefensie reacted with disappointment. “This (the judgment) is painful,” said Milieudefensie director Donald Pols. “We will continue to take on the big polluters, like Shell,” said Pols.
Shell, which has called the litigation “ineffective” in dealing with climate change, welcomed the ruling.
“We do not believe that a court ruling against one company is the right solution for the energy transition,” the group said on its website.
“We are pleased with the court's decision, which we believe is the right one for the global energy transition, for the Netherlands and our company,” Shell chief executive Wael Sawan said in a separate statement.
Tuesday's decision follows four days of hearings in April, during which Shell and environmental groups presented their arguments to the judges.
“This judgment could be a turning point for the climate,” Milieudefensie said on its website ahead of the case.
“For years, we have put pressure on Shell and other large-scale polluters who are doing very little for the climate.”
“If they don't act, we won't be able to stop climate change,” Milieudefensie said.
Shell said it was investing around “10 to 15 billion dollars between 2023 and 2025 in low-carbon energy solutions”, which represents 23% of its total capital expenditure.
The 2015 Paris Agreement committed all nations to reducing carbon emissions to limit warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels and encouraged them to aim for 1.5 degrees.
jhe/gv
By Jan HENNOP
Comments