Our climate case against Shell

In 2018, we started a lawsuit against Shell. We argued that Shell should align its business plan to the goals of the Paris climate agreement. On May 26, 2021, we won this Climate Case. A historic victory, but the battle is not over yet.

Why Shell?

When we announced the case in 2018, the world thought we had lost our minds. How did we come to take on one of the most powerful companies in the world? The reasons were clear:

• Shell is one of the largest polluters in the world. Every year, the company emits 9 times more greenhouse gases than the entire Netherlands put together.
• Shell has known for over 30 years that climate change is a major threat to life on Earth. And yet, the company decided to mislead the public and actively oppose climate policies.
• If companies like Shell fail to act quickly enough, we will not accomplish the Paris climate goals and we will not be able to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The verdict

These are the most striking points from the judge’s verdict:

• Shell must reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030, compared to 2019 figures.
• Shell is responsible for both corporate and consumer CO₂ emissions.
• Shell must use its influence to present consumers with more sustainable choices. Shell can no longer simply be a follower; it must lead the way.
• Shell is mandated to respect human rights. Because Shell is a major cause of catastrophic climate change, it is putting people’s lives at risk. 
• The company Shell itself is responsible, not just the government.

> Read more about the verdict

This is what the media wrote about the Climate Case:

The New York Times: “Startling Defeats Push Oil Giants Towards a ‘Tipping Point’.”

The Dutch newspaper Volkskrant: “Is Shell ... the Kodak of our time? Or will Shell ... choose a different course thanks to people like Van Baal, Milieudefensie’s Donald Pols and the judge in The Hague?”

The Guardian: “Shell’s historic loss in The Hague is a turning point in the fight against big oil.”

What this verdict means

Since the verdict, similar cases against major polluters have been announced in other countries. Such as against Total in France, against ENI in Italy, and against the car industry in Germany.

To best support groups working on this case or those considering a similar lawsuit, we’ve created two manuals:

• How we defeated Shell
• Defending the Danger Line

In these two manuals, we describe exactly how we handled the lawsuit, from communications to fundraising, and we explain in detail our legal strategy.

The Appeal

For the first time in history, a judge has ordered a major polluter to align its plans with the Paris climate agreement. But Shell decided to appeal this decision, because:

• Shell believes that it is already doing enough to combat climate change.
• Shell claims that it has little influence over the fuel consumption of its consumers.
• Shell says it’s unfair that it is the only company that is ordered to reduce its emissions.

In the meantime, Shell must immediately start its greening efforts.

The hearings will take place on 2, 3, 4 and 13 April 2024 in The Hague, The Netherlands.

The science is clear: no new oil and gas wells

The science is very clear: to prevent global warming by more than 1.5 degrees Celcius, we must leave oil and gas in the ground. Shockingly, Shell continues to search for new oil and gas wells. This is not in line with the judge’s verdict. Shell is therefore knowingly continuing to endanger our planet and violate human rights.

Contact: press@foenl.org