Shell loses climate suit, must cut emissions by 45% in decade

AMSTERDAM: Oil and gas company Shell has lost a historic climate lawsuit brought by environmental organisations and has been ordered to significantly reduce its carbon dioxide emissions.

Shell must cut CO2 emissions by a net 45 per cent by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, the court said in The Hague on Wednesday.

After the ruling was read out, dozens of demonstrators cheered outside the court, so loudly that it could be heard in the courtroom.

It is a judgement with potentially far-reaching consequences. Never before has a corporation been forced by a judge to take drastic climate protection measures.

The court was unambiguous: the British-Dutch company "must make its contribution to the fight against dangerous climate change," and this applies to its own companies as well as to suppliers and end users.

It was a "globally important signal," said Donald Pols, director of the environmental organisation Milieudefensie, one of the plaintiffs. For the first time in history, a court would force a polluter to stop.

Olaf Bandt, chairman of the German Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation (BUND), already sees the turning point: "The fossil age is coming to an end."

Shell said it was disappointed and wanted to appeal. The company is already doing so much and investing billions, a spokesperson said. The company had set itself the goal of "zero CO2 emissions by 2050."

But the court said that the company's adopted measures were "not very concrete and full of exceptions."

Shell had argued that it would have to reduce fossil fuel sales quickly if the court found against it, meaning other suppliers would fill the gap. The court did not accept this argument. One could not shift responsibility onto others, and other companies would also have the same obligations, it said.

This is precisely where a possible consequence of the ruling lies: Lawsuits against other companies.

Several environmental organisations and more than 17,000 citizens had sued the company. The plaintiffs argued that Shell was violating global climate goals and was continuing to invest heavily in the production of oil and natural gas.

Shell is responsible for the emission of 1.6 billion tons of CO2 annually.

Climate activist Greta Thunberg tweeted that the ruling is a "very interesting start that could have a big snowball effect," although the amount is still insufficient for the oil company.

The company now fears economic losses. But it has to put up with that, the court finds: "This weighs less heavily than the possible greater damage to the climate."

However, the court made an important distinction: Shell is directly responsible for the CO2 emissions of its own companies. But when it comes to the pollutant emissions of suppliers or end users, the corporation only has a "best-effort obligation," which means it only has to do its best, for example by offering customers a wider range of alternative energy sources.

Shell says it will appeal against the ruling - but that will hardly buy the company any time because the court made it clear: the ruling applies from now on, and the company must get serious about climate protection immediately.