Tuesday, 10 December 2024
Home Topics Business Shell wins appeal against landmark Dutch climate ruling
BusinessCoalEmissionsLegislationNatural GasNewsOilPolitics

Shell wins appeal against landmark Dutch climate ruling

31
Officials seated at a semi-circular desk in a courtroom, engaged in discussion, with documents and microphones on the desk.
Shell wins appeal against 2021 court order to cut carbon emissions. General view of the courtroom as a Dutch court rules in Shell's appeal over a 2021 court order to drastically deepen planned greenhouse gas emission cuts, in The Hague, Netherlands November 12, 2024. REUTERS/Yves Herman

By Stephanie van den Berg, Bart H. Meijer and Ron Bousso

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – Oil and gas major Shell on Tuesday won an appeal against a landmark ruling that required it to accelerate carbon reduction efforts, dealing a blow to campaigners who have turned to legal channels to pursue climate action.

The appeals court in The Hague said Shell had a responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect people from global warming.

But it dismissed the 2021 ruling that ordered Shell to cut its absolute carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, including those caused by the use of its products. 

Since then, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 that led to a spike in oil and gas prices has sharpened governments’ and shareholders’ focus on costs and in many cases, weakened climate ambitions. 

Tuesday’s ruling coincides with the COP29 U.N. climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, where opening procedures were delayed on Monday by a dispute over how prominent the future of fossil fuels should be on the agenda.

Friends of the Earth Netherlands, which brought the Dutch case in 2019, said it would continue its fight against large polluters, but did not say whether it would launch a further appeal at the Netherlands’ Supreme Court.

“This hurts,” director Donald Pols said. “At the same time, this case has shown that large polluters are not above the law.”

Shell CEO Wael Sawan said Shell believed the decision was “the right one for the global energy transition, the Netherlands and our company”.

Also on Tuesday, Shell and Norway’s Equinor urged a Scottish court to uphold Britain’s approval for the development of two North Sea oil and gas fields, as environmental campaigners attempted to block the projects.

CLIMATE MITIGATION

The case in The Hague, where Shell was headquartered until it completed its move to London in 2022, was viewed as pivotal and helped to inspire other lawsuits.

In appeal hearings earlier this year, Shell said demands for companies to reduce emissions could not be made by courts, but only by states.

The court agreed with Shell that an absolute order to reduce emissions from its products could have an adverse effect worldwide, as it could lead customers to switch from using Shell’s gas to more polluting coal.

“In general, any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is positive to mitigate climate change,” Presiding Judge Carla Joustra said. 

“But that does not mean that a reduction order for Shell has that same effect.”

Shell said it was well on track to meet the court order for its own production, where emissions were 30% below 2016 levels last year.

In common with some of its peers, Shell scaled back its renewable operations, which can take longer to generate profits compared with oil and gas.

However, it plans to invest $10-15 billion between 2023 and 2025 in low-carbon energy.

In March, it weakened targets for the products it sells, to a 15-20% reduction in net carbon intensity by 2030 relative to 2016, while it retired a previous target to reduce its carbon intensity by 45% by 2035.

Citi analysts said Tuesday’s ruling was the best case outcome for Shell.

“While success with the appeals court may not be the end of the legal process, by signalling that company strategy is now more firmly in the hands of shareholders, we believe it has a positive impact,” Citi said.

Shell shares traded down 0.7% by 1345 GMT, broadly in line with the wider sector, as analysts said the court decision had already been factored in.

(Reporting by Bart Meijer and Stephanie van den Berg; additional reporting by Ron Bousso in London and Michal Aleksandrowicz in Gdansk; Editing by Jan Harvey and Barbara Lewis)

Related Articles

A view of new cars parked in the port of Zeebrugge, Belgium, October 24, 2024. REUTERS/Bart Biesemans/ File Photo
AutomotiveBiofuelsElectric Vehicles (EVs)EmissionsPolitics

EU’s largest political group pushes to weaken combustion engine ban

The European People's Party is campaigning to weaken the EU's key policies...

An image of the Shell logo on a signpost.
EnvironmentLegislationNatural GasOil

Shell and Greenpeace settle legal action over ship protest

Shell and Greenpeace settle a High Court case after activists boarded a...

The Supreme Court is pictured, in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 21, 2024. REUTERS/Kevin Mohatt/File Photo
EnvironmentInfrastructureLegislationOilRail

US Supreme Court examines Utah railway in environmental review fight

The project involves an 88-mile railway in northeastern Utah for transporting waxy...

A nighttime traffic jam with rows of cars emitting red brake lights, and traffic lights glowing in the distance.
ElectricityEmissionsEnvironmentTransport

Fine particle pollution blamed for nearly 240,000 EU deaths in 2022

A report links 48,000 premature deaths to nitrogen dioxide from vehicles and...

Login into your Account

Please login to like, dislike or bookmark this article.