Unique climate case against Shell: you must know this

Posted 3 years ago in topic Nature

Today are the first hearings in a case that is unique in the Netherlands: Milieudefensie and others are trying to enforce through the courts that Shell adopts a greener policy. A few years ago, no one thought it possible that such a case could be won, but since Urgenda successfully sued the State, this suddenly seems possible.

What is this case about?

Milieudefensie, six other environmental organizations including Greenpeace and 17,379 individual co-plaintiffs want Shell to drastically reduce its CO2 emissions. To be precise: with 45 percent in 2030. Milieudefensie focuses on Shell, because this company is one of the largest CO2 emitters in the world.

The British newspaper The Guardian revealed last year that twenty companies, including Shell, are responsible for a third of all CO2 emissions since 1965. Shell is in the top 10 of largest CO2 emitters in the Netherlands. Another factor is that Shell's head office is located in the Netherlands.

This case is not about compensation, but about a change of course. According to Milieudefensie, it is impossible to achieve the climate goals if multinationals such as Shell do not participate. And because the government does not take any measures, according to the environmental organizations, the judge is the only party that can force Shell to reduce its emissions.

Is this case comparable to the Urgenda case?

To refresh the memory: in 2013, action group Urgenda felt that the Dutch government should do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Urgenda filed a lawsuit to enforce this and won that case. The Netherlands appeared to be insufficiently complying with the Paris agreement. Another argument was the duty of care the State has for its citizens, in other words: it is a human right to live and climate change is a threat to it.

But can this also be taken to the case against Shell? A company naturally has different responsibilities than the government. According to professor of private law Elbert de Jong, who is following the case closely, this is still difficult to say. The judge will have to answer this question: to what extent can treaties on climate and human rights be applied to companies?

"That way, the case can be groundbreaking in the legal field," he says. In any case, it is clear that the legal arguments will not be quite the same as in the Urgenda case, but more on that in the next question.

How much chance of success does this case have?

According to De Jong, two questions are crucial. Firstly, the question from the paragraph above: to what extent do treaties on climate and human rights apply in this case? And second, can the comparison be drawn with previous cases about harmful substances such as asbestos? Judges decided that more should be done about asbestos because of the risk to public health. Even though asbestos was not yet banned at the time.

"If you can answer those two questions with 'yes', you have come a long way," says De Jong. The judge will therefore have to determine this. For the Urgenda case, it seemed impossible to win such a lawsuit, but that's different now. "Urgenda's climate case has changed the mindset of lawyers."

Ultimately, this climate case even came before the Supreme Court, the highest judicial body in the Netherlands, and has stood there. "That has meant something for how judges view the climate problem. And how willing they are to hold the state and actors responsible for it."

How does Shell defend itself?

"We agree with Milieudefensie that action is now needed against climate change," said Shell in a response. "What will accelerate the energy transition is effective government policy, investing in technology and other consumer behavior. This lawsuit does not contribute to this." In other words: not Shell, but the government and the woman at the pump are responsible.

In addition, Shell points out that despite the energy transition, there will still be a lot of demand for fossil fuels in the future. Wind and solar energy are not enough to meet that demand. Shell also states that if they don't do it, other companies will take over. Moreover, the company is already taking measures to increase sustainability.

Shell is indeed an oil and gas company that belongs to the group of front runners in terms of sustainability. The company invests billions in oil and gas and a small part in renewable energy every year. But that share grows a little every year. For example, it invests in solar energy, electric charging points and wind farms. A group of 'green' shareholders is also trying to make the company more sustainable. But until then, Shell will remain one of 100 oil, gas and coal companies responsible for 71 percent of global greenhouse gases.

What if Milieudefensie wins?

First of all, even if the judge in this case rules that Shell must reduce its CO2 emissions, the battle is not over yet. The company can then still appeal and in cassation up to the Supreme Court. But suppose that Shell also loses those things, then the company has to change its production process. "We do not want to take the place of the CEO of Shell," says Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie. "But to think along, they could, for example, increase the share of renewable energy and reduce the shares of oil and gas."

It is the first time that a company has been asked to change its future behavior to combat climate change. "In that respect this case is revolutionary", says Pols. The environmental organizations hope that this case can also be used abroad to force polluting companies in court to reduce emissions. This is already happening in France. There is a case against oil company Total.

Source: RTL Nieuw - https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/5199745/klimaatzaak-shell-milieudefensie-rechtszaak-duurzaamheid