oil giant to cut emissions
REUTERSA court in the Netherlands has ruled in a landmark case that the oil giant Shell must reduce its emissions.
By 2030, Shell must cut its CO2 emissions by 45% compared to 2019 levels, the civil court ruled.
The Shell group is responsible for its own CO2 emissions and those of its suppliers, the verdict said.
It is the first time a company has been legally obliged to align its policies with the Paris climate accords, says Friends of the Earth (FoE).
The environmental group brought the case to court in 2019, alongside six other bodies and more than 17,000 Dutch citizens.
Though the decision only applies in the Netherlands, it could have wider effects elsewhere. BBC Netherlands correspondent Anna Holligan tweeted that it was a "precedent-setting judgement".
A Shell spokesperson said they "fully expect to appeal today's disappointing court decision" and added that they are stepping up efforts to cut emissions.
"Urgent action is needed on climate change, which is why we have accelerated our efforts to become a net-zero emissions energy company by 2050," the spokesperson said, adding that Shell was investing "billions of dollars in low-carbon energy, including electric vehicle charging, hydrogen, renewables and biofuels".
"This is really great news and a gigantic victory for the earth, our children and for all of us," FoE director Donald Pols said in a statement. "The judge leaves no doubt about it: Shell is causing dangerous climate change and must now stop it quickly."
Under the terms of the Paris Agreement on climate change, nearly 200 nations agreed to keep global temperatures "well below" 2C above pre-industrial levels.
The legally binding treaty came into force on 4 November 2016. The US withdrew under former President Donald Trump but has since rejoined under President Joe Biden.
A number of groups around the world are now trying to force companies and governments to comply with the accords through the courts.
Shell has previously said it wants net zero emissions for itself and from products used by its customers by 2050.
In December its defence lawyers told the Dutch court the company was already taking "serious steps" to move away from fossil fuels, and said there was no legal basis for the case.
Other major oil companies are also making changes amid a greater global focus on cutting emissions.
On Wednesday Chevron investors voted in favour of a proposal to cut its customer emissions, while shareholders at Exxon elected two climate activists to its board after months of wrangling over its business direction.
The Shell verdict is a massive win for environmental campaigners, and other industrial giants will be scrambling to figure out how it could affect them.
Because suddenly it's not good enough for firms to comply with the law on their emissions - in an extraordinary case like this, they have to comply with global climate policy too.
The company's defence is that if people feel progress towards cutting emissions is too slow, they should lobby governments - not Shell - to change policies and introduce financial incentives.
The judges have clearly decided that Shell should be taking responsibility itself for cutting emissions much faster.
The firm will surely appeal - and it might well win the case in a higher court.
But this verdict alone will be a warning to companies round the world that the battle against climate change may be spelling the end of anything resembling "business as usual".
Shell - full name Royal Dutch Shell - is a British-Dutch multinational. Because its headquarters are in The Hague, FoE was able to bring a case to a Dutch court.
Earlier this year another Dutch court ruled that Shell was responsible for damage caused by oil leaks in the Niger Delta, and ordered the company to pay compensation to farmers.
Shell, however, has said the leaks were the result of "sabotage".
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — A Dutch court on Wednesday ordered Royal Dutch Shell to cut its carbon emissions by net 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels in a landmark case brought by climate activism groups, which hailed the decision as a victory for the planet.
The Hague District Court ruled that the Anglo-Dutch energy giant has a duty of care to reduce emissions and that its current reduction plans were not concrete enough.
The decision could set a precedent for similar cases against polluting multinationals around the world. Activists gathered outside the courtroom erupted into cheers as the decision was read out loud.
“The climate won today,” said Roger Cox, a lawyer for the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth, which was one of the organizations behind the case.
“This ruling will change the world. Worldwide, people are in the starting blocks to take legal action against oil companies following our example,” Cox added.
The Hague court did not say how Royal Dutch Shell should achieve the ordered cutback, saying the energy giant's parent company “has complete freedom in how it meets its reduction obligation and in shaping the Shell group’s corporate policy.”
In a written reaction, Shell said it expects to appeal the "disappointing court decision.”
The company said it is already “investing billions of dollars in low-carbon energy, including electric vehicle charging, hydrogen, renewables and biofuels. We want to grow demand for these products and scale up our new energy businesses even more quickly.”
At a hearing in December, Shell lawyer Dennis Horeman said a ruling against the company could create a situation “in which countless parties can hold each other accountable for their role in that (energy) transition through the courts” and give judges “a central role in an active and delicate political process.”
Shell says it has set “an ambition to be a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050, or sooner.”
The court said in an English language summary of its ruling that Shell was not currently in breach of its obligation to reduce emissions, as the environmental groups had argued, because the parent company was tightening its emissions policy.
But it ruled that Shell's policy “is not concrete, has many caveats and is based on monitoring social developments rather than the company’s own responsibility for achieving a CO2 reduction.”
“Therefore, the court has ordered RDS to reduce the emissions of the Shell group, its suppliers and its customers by net 45%, as compared to 2019 levels, by the end of 2030, through the corporate policy of the Shell group.”
A group of seven environmental and human rights organizations and some 17,000 Dutch citizens filed the case in 2018, calling on the court to order Shell to cut emissions in line with the global goals set out in the Paris climate agreement. That equates to Shell cutting emissions 45% by 2030.
The court ruled on the claims by six of the groups.
The case in the Netherlands is the latest in a string of legal challenges filed around the world by climate activists seeking action to rein in emissions, but it is believed to be the first targeting a multinational company.
One of the first successful climate cases also was in the Netherlands, where the Supreme Court two years ago upheld a 2015 ruling requiring the government to cut emissions at least 25% by the end of 2020 from benchmark 1990 levels.
In February, a Paris court ruled that the French government had failed to take sufficient action to fight climate change in a case brought by four nongovernmental organizations. Last month, Germany’s top court said the federal government must set clear goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions after 2030.
Donald Pols, director of Friends of the Earth Netherlands, called the ruling in The Hague, “a monumental victory for our planet, for our children and a big leap towards a livable future for everyone."
___
Follow AP’s climate coverage at https://apnews.com/Climate
Mike Corder, The Associated Pre
