Amsterdam, Nov. 12, (dpa/GNA) – British oil and gas giant Shell does not have to drastically reduce its carbon dioxide emissions as previously ruled, an appeals court in The Hague announced on Tuesday, delivering a blow to environmental activists.
In 2021, Shell had been ordered to reduce its net carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, in what was seen as a landmark decision at the time. Back then, Shell had a headquarters in The Hague.
Shell appealed the ruling, arguing that the Paris Climate Agreement imposes no obligation on companies to reduce pollutants. The company asserts that it should be for governments, not courts, to mandate such actions.
The civil court judges ruled on Tuesday that Shell does have a duty to contribute to international climate protection. However, they said the company cannot be subjected to a specific CO2 reduction percentage.
A reduction in natural gas production could, for example, lead to a global increase in coal production, which would be significantly worse for the climate, they argued.
Shell welcomed Tuesday’s ruling, arguing that imposing mandatory emissions reductions on the company would not reduce customer demand.
“It would do little to reduce emissions, as customers would take their business elsewhere,” the company said in a statement, stressing the role of low-carbon technologies and “smart” government policies instead.
Plaintiffs ‘shocked’ by ruling
The court found that Shell was not required to reduce its direct emissions in the production and distribution of energy. Shell was already on the right path with its self-imposed aim of achieving a 50% reduction by 2030, it said.
The main plaintiff, the Milieudefensie environmental group, is expected to appeal before the highest Dutch court.
“We are shocked by today’s judgement,” Milieudefensie director Donald Pols said in a statement, calling it a “setback” for millions of people around the world.
“But if there’s one thing to know about us, it’s that we don’t give up. This setback will only help us grow stronger,” he added.
Milieudefensie considers Shell to be one of the world’s largest climate polluters.
The verdict may also have implications for other similar cases. There are already several similar cases worldwide brought by environmental activists.
The previous ruling marked the first time a company had been forced by a judge to undertake such drastic climate measures. The obligation had applied not only to the company’s own emissions but also to those of its suppliers and end users. Shell had argued that this went beyond its legal liability.
GNA