Dutch Court orders oil giant to slash emissions by 45 percent

May 27, 2021 News

---

By Kiana Wilburg

Kaieteur News – For decades, fossil fuel producers have been dodging accountability for the role they play in the climate crisis. But yesterday marked a turning point in history as a court in the Netherlands ordered Royal Dutch Shell—the world’s third largest oil giant—to reduce its carbon emissions by 45 percent compared to 2019 levels. It has up to 2030 to reduce emissions of its subsidiaries, suppliers and customers through group policy.
The District Court in The Hague did not say how the Anglo-Dutch energy giant should achieve the ordered cutback, saying that it “has complete freedom in how it meets its reduction obligation and in shaping the Shell group’s corporate policy.” But what the court made pellucid is that the oil king has a duty to reduce emissions and that its current reduction plans were not just not enough.
In a written response, Shell said it intends to appeal the “disappointing court decision” while adding that it is already “investing billions of dollars in low-carbon energy, including electric vehicle charging, hydrogen, renewables and biofuels…”
The case was first brought to the Dutch court by Friends of the Earth (FoE), an environmental group, alongside six other bodies and more than 17,000 Dutch citizens. They have since hailed the decision as “a victory for the planet.” In particular, Roger Cox, a lawyer for the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth said, “This ruling will change the world. Worldwide, people are in the starting blocks to take legal action against oil companies following our example.”
Sara Shaw from Friends of the Earth International was also ecstatic about the victory and even added that “this verdict will trigger a wave of climate litigation against big polluters to force them to stop extracting and burning fossil fuels.”
The verdict will also have a big impact on the way Shell does business, said Mike Coffin, Senior Analyst at Carbon Tracker, a London-based not-for-profit think tank that researches the impact of climate change on financial markets. To achieve the new court-mandated targets, Shell would “have to rapidly accelerate the pace of their renewable energy business rollout, to bring down the fraction of emissions per unit of energy, but they will likely also need to commit to oil and gas production reduction,” he said.
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339&showbutton=true
Commenting on the historic ruling as well was the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) which said in a statement that the Netherlands has sent a clear signal to the oil and gas industry: continuing business-as-usual production of fossil fuels amidst the climate emergency is fundamentally incompatible with corporate duties to respect human rights. The organisation said carbon majors like Royal Dutch Shell will be compelled to change course or face legal consequences.
Specifically commenting on this ruling was CIEL’s President, Carroll Muffett. He said, “The Shell decision is a watershed for the oil and gas industry. The court recognised the growing international consensus that the world must strive to keep warming below 1.5 Degrees Celsius. The court’s ruling…recognises that Shell not only has the capacity, but the responsibility to bring its operations into line with what the science shows is necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change. Such reductions are by no means sufficient — the world needs to phase out fossil fuel production entirely — but they are an essential step toward a fossil-free, safe climate future.”
Furthermore, Muffett highlighted the wider significance of the case for global oil and gas companies. For the industry, the CIEL President said the court explicitly extended this responsibility to include the operations of Shell’s subsidiaries around the world and to the full scope of Shell’s emissions. He added that the court has made clear that Shell and similarly situated actors must take responsibility for reducing not only the direct emissions that arise from its own operations, but the far greater emissions that result from the burning of its products. “And the court recognised that this has immediate and significant implications for where Shell’s future investments should be made. This echoes and reinforces the International Energy Agency’s warning last week that investments in new oil and gas developments must end immediately,” expressed Muffett.

GUYANA’S FIGHT
In Guyana, two citizens have also launched a challenge against another significant contributor of the climate crisis—ExxonMobil. The constitutional case argues that government approval for ExxonMobil’s development projects offshore is a direct violation of the right of future and current generations to a healthy environment. The first applicant in the case is Dr. Troy Thomas, a scientist and a University of Guyana lecturer. The second applicant, Quadad de Freitas, is a young man from the South Rupununi Region of Guyana, an area rich in biodiversity, now threatened by climate change. The legal team for the duo consists of Ms. Melinda Janki and Mr. Ronald Burch-Smith, with support from Richard Lord, QC at Brick Court and Joshua Jackson of Cloisters in the United Kingdom.
According to the court documents seen by Kaieteur News, the two applicants, through their lawyers, are asking that a declaration be made by the court to say that the State’s duties under Article 149J (1), require that it refrains from authorising activities that would contribute significantly to climate change, ocean acidification and/or sea level rise. The applicants are of the firm conviction that based on their research, which was attached to the claim, the court should provide a declaration that the direct emission of 22,030,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases from petroleum operations in the Liza Phase 1 Development Project, proposed direct emission of 34,545,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases from the Liza Phase 2 Development Project, and the proposed direct emission of 35,720,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases from petroleum operations in the Payara Development Project would make the environment more harmful to the health and wellbeing of citizens and future generations.
It was further noted that Article 149J(1) imposes upon the State, two primary obligations: (a) An obligation to respect the environment, which requires the State to refrain from interfering with or causing damage to the environment; and (b) An obligation to protect or guarantee the health of the environment.
Further to this, the applicants are asking the Constitutional Court to declare that the State’s duty under Article 149J(2) to take reasonable measures to protect the environment for present and future generations requires the State to carry out or obtain independent verification of the types and amounts of greenhouse gases actually emitted by the Liza Phase 1 Development Project, and the greenhouse gases actually emitted by future petroleum development in the Liza Phase Two Development Project, the Payara Development Project and other subsequent oil and gas projects.
Finally, the applicants are asking for a declaration that any bill or delegated legislation to amend or alter the Environmental Protection Act Cap 20:05 or subsidiary legislation made under such statute, with the aim or effect of allowing activities that make the environment more harmful to human health and wellbeing would be a violation of the State’s duty under Article 149J(1).

Sources documents
https://apnews.com/article/world-news-europe-business-environment-and-nature-15b28df622d1fe2d700047ebb06b31d9
https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-court-orders-shell-to-cut-emissions-45-percent-by-2030/
https://www.dw.com/en/shell-ordered-to-reduce-co2-emissions-in-watershedruling/a-57669931
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5337

Watershed Decision Orders Shell to Slash Emissions to Respect Human Rights

---

---