Shell wins landmark court case against cutting carbon emissions

Oil giant Shell has achieved a significant legal victory in the Netherlands, overturning a previous ruling that mandated it to reduce its carbon emissions by 45%.

The Court of Appeal in The Hague determined that it could not conclusively prove that Shell had a "social standard of care" compelling it to cut emissions by 45% or any specific target, though it acknowledged that the company has a duty to minimize emissions for the public's benefit.

This ruling contrasts with a 2021 decision by a Hague court, which had sided with Friends of the Earth and over 17,000 Dutch citizens in demanding that Shell align its emissions reductions with the goals of the Paris Climate Accords.

The timing of the appeals court's decision coincided with international climate talks involving around 200 nations in Azerbaijan.

Shell expressed satisfaction with the outcome, while Friends of the Earth Netherlands called it a disappointing setback. The environmental group now has the option to appeal to the Supreme Court, but a final judgment could take years.

In 2021, the court’s decision was groundbreaking, marking the first instance where a company was legally required to align with the Paris Climate Agreement’s objectives, emphasizing that compliance with global climate standards was essential beyond mere legal adherence.

The Paris Agreement, which almost 200 nations have signed, aims to keep global temperatures "well below" 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

The appeals court highlighted that corporations like Shell bear responsibility in addressing climate change, tied to the human right to protection from dangerous climate impacts. However, it concluded that there was insufficient scientific consensus on the precise percentage Shell should cut emissions by, recognizing that Shell was already making reductions.

Shell has defended its actions, asserting that it is committed to lowering emissions. The company argued the original ruling was disproportionate, placing undue responsibility for a global problem on a single corporation, and noted that it cannot fully control the emissions resulting from consumer use of its products.

Shell contends that people who believe emission reductions are progressing too slowly should lobby governments for policy changes that could drive a green transition.

The company has set a target to cut the carbon intensity of its products by 15-20% by 2030 from 2016 levels, and it aims to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

A significant aspect of this case involved the Dutch concept of an "unwritten duty of care," which mandates companies to avoid harm due to negligence.

Friends of the Earth Netherlands argued that global consensus recognizes human rights protections against dangerous climate change and that companies have a responsibility to uphold these rights.

Shell’s successful appeal may influence how courts worldwide view corporate responsibility for climate action, as other environmental groups continue to pursue legal avenues to enforce climate commitments on companies and governments.