We can imagine that you might have some questions about our climate lawsuit against ING. Here we answer some of the more important questions.
ING is the biggest bank in the Netherlands, with the most money and the highest emissions. ING also finances polluting companies with more money than any other Dutch bank. By doing so, ING has a significant impact on global warming.
We have tried in numerous ways to persuade ING to change its course, but we cannot wait any longer. With our climate case against ING, we are demanding that the bank takes its responsibility in minimising dangerous climate change.
We are demanding that ING cut its total emissions in half and stop working with polluting companies that continue to put our future are risk. These are big companies that do not have a good climate plan, and oil and gas companies that continue to expand their projects. Our full demands, as they are set out in the letter to ING, are:
No, although we are gathering statements of support from organisations. Organisations from all over the world can register as a supporters of the case. You can find more info here.
The court held us to be in the right in the climate case against Shell. Shell must stop causing dangerous climate change. We are fully confident that the judgment will be upheld in appeal.
Neither Shell nor ING need to wait for a judgment in the appeal. They can get to work now and stop putting human lives at risk.
We do not have a lot of time, the climate crisis is worsening and we must reduce our emissions fast. We therefore cannot wait for one lawsuit to end before we start the next.
ING’s total emissions are significant. In 2022, ING’s emissions were 61 megatons (megaton = one million tons) in greenhouse gases, which is about as much as a country like Sweden and more than the emissions of Switzerland. Those emissions only increased compared to the year before.
In addition, ING’s plans to reduce its emissions are not good enough at all to contribute to the goal of the Paris Climate Agreement (2015) and limit dangerous climate change. ING knows that we must phase out oil, coal and gas as quickly as possible, yet the bank continues to cooperate with oil, gas and coal companies that are expanding their projects.
Another problem with ING’s climate goals are the ‘intensity goals’ instead of absolute goals for reducing emissions. Intensity goals relate to the quantity of ING’s greenhouse gas emissions in the form of, e.g., energy generated (in Kilowatt hours, KW/h).
This allows the bank to achieve its climate target simply by such things as financing double the amount of renewable energy, while at the same time continuing to finance polluting companies with the same amount. This makes it look as if the emissions are being reduced. In reality, just as much greenhouse gas is being emitted into the atmosphere.
Money is a vital lifeline for polluting companies. Without money, these companies are very much limited in continuing their polluting activities. However, ING opts to still finance oil and gas companies that are putting our climate, and through that human lives worldwide, at risk.
By changing its choices and policy and opting for sustainability, ING will reduce its contribution in global warming. This can be achieved by ending collaborations with polluting companies, or by helping companies become more sustainable and incentivising them to provide a good climate plan.
A successful lawsuit against one financial institution creates a precedent for other financial institutions. This not only sends a signal to those institutions, but also to politicians, leading them to pass better legislation. Our goal is to bring the whole financial sector in line with the Paris Climate Agreement.
Banks will remain necessary, as will many services of ING. Experts and bankers are also necessary for financing sustainable projects and companies. We have always argued for a fair transition for employees, including those in the bank sector.
This case is being handled by the attorneys Roger Cox and Pim Heemskerk, they work closely with their fellow attorneys at the firm of Paulussen advocaten.
You may know Roger Cox from the Shell case where he is also assisting us. He was also in charge of the climate case of Stichting Urgenda against the State of the Netherlands and he was involved in the climate case against the Belgian government. He won all those cases. Pim Heemskerk is an expert in the area of financial institutions and has a lot of experience that is of great importance for a lawsuit against a bank.
It's the court's task to apply the law. Shell also used the argument that the solution does not lie with the company but with parliament and the cabinet. The court did not agree and ordered Shell to reduce its emissions.
This case and the Shell climate case are, at the end of the day, the result of failing political policy. The government must protect its citizens, and the court has made it clear in the Shell case that climate change is a threat to human rights and human lives.
Whether in The Hague or Brussels, the government has fallen short in protecting citizens against dangerous climate change caused by large polluting companies.
This new climate case is thus a strong signal to the government to improve and clarify these existing laws. We want a climate obligation for companies that obliges them to bring their emissions in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. As long as there is no such obligation, we cannot, unfortunately, do anything other than go to court.
The facts are quite clear, the climate crisis is already taking human lives. Scientists agree: we only have a chance to remain below 1.5°C warming if there is a drastic change in direction. This is only possible if funds are no longer invested in making the climate crisis worse, but rather in finding solutions for it.
Facts are what count in court. We would never start a lawsuit if we did not believe that we could win it.
ING announced that it wants to bring down its upstream oil and gas exposure by 2040, and that it will triple its financing for sustainable energy by 2025. This is a step in the right direction, but it’s not nearly enough to curb global warming.
ING, the biggest bank in the Netherlands, still intends to finance more oil, coal, and gas than renewables such as solar and wind energy. What’s more, despite the bank’s efforts to finance less exploration and production of fossil fuels, it will continue to finance its transport, trade, and development. On top of this, ING’s updated climate strategy only includes its lending to oil and gas companies and leaves out other forms of financial cooperation with the sector.
In short, ING’s plans are not enough. The bank should rule out financing companies that still expand their projects as well to limit global warming to 1,5°C.
Our website uses cookies to ensure the use and functionality of this website. Read more about our cookie policy
