We can imagine that you might have some questions about our climate lawsuit against Shell. Here we answer some of the more important questions.
We started this lawsuit to protect the climate. Shell is causing serious harm to the climate. As one of the biggest polluters on earth, Shell has its responsibility not to cause harm to society and the climate. Because Shell will not take responsibility, we went to court together with co-claimants.
Our aim is for Shell to stop causing serious harm to the climate. We are asking the court to order Shell to stop causing dangerous climate change. Our climate lawsuit is unique because we are not seeking damages from Shell, but a change in direction. We want Shell to emit 45% less CO2 in 2030, compared to 2019.
Shell is the biggest polluter in the Netherlands and emits 9 times more CO2 than all of the Netherlands combined. If Shell stops polluting, there will be a real impact!
To prevent dangerous climate change, it is necessary to quickly stop the production and use of oil and gas and switch to sustainable energy. It is vital to ensure Earth remains habitable, which is why we cannot have any CO2 emissions in 2050. We can do this!
Denmark wants to be entirely without oil, gas, and coal in 2050. Costa Rica, Belize, and France have enacted laws to restrict oil and gas extraction. There are a growing number of countries that are moving fast on the road to 100% renewable electricity. A rapid, sustainable switchover is possible and necessary.
People are switching to green energy, eating less meat, or driving EVs. As long as Shell continues pumping up and offering oil and gas, it is more difficult for consumers to make sustainable choices. Shell has a lot of influence on our energy system. For example, their lobby power influences decisions on new infrastructure, such as pipelines, meaning that we will remain dependent on gas and oil for many more years.
A powerful company like Shell has an important role in determining the supply, and consequently also affects the possibility of consumers to make sustainable choices. If Shell opts for renewables, this will make a big difference.
Shell’s investments and investment plans show that the company still is not taking climate change seriously. Shell is continuing to focus on oil and gas in the coming years, but to prevent dangerous climate change, the bulk of the known reserves must remain in the ground. Shell is still investing some 95% of its funds in oil and gas - in the problem - and less than 5% in solutions.
Shell says that in 2050 it wants to reduce the CO2 footprint of its products by 65%. This is not sufficient to achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, even though Shell would like us to believe otherwise. In addition, these plans are still not hard goals, but ambitions.
Experts and critics point out that Shell’s plans bring dangerous climate change one step closer every day. Shell is thus not helping to prevent the climate crisis but is, in fact, increasing it.
Shell is one of the 10 biggest climate polluters in the world. Worldwide, Shell is responsible for 2% of the historical emissions of CO2 and methane between 1854 and 2018. The past cannot be changed, nor is that the point of our lawsuit. We can make sure that Shell adjusts its plans and stops causing dangerous climate change. Shell’s current plans are not helping to stop serious climate change.
Shell has known for over 30 years that pumping up oil and gas causes dangerous climate change. Indeed, this appears from internal documents of Shell that have been leaked. If Shell wants to survive, it will quickly have to switch to renewables like wind and solar energy. If Shell does so too slowly, the company will not survive the energy transition.
This lawsuit is not only about the Netherlands and Shell, it also has consequences beyond our national borders. By holding Shell responsible for the dangerous climate change it is causing, we are seeing to it that Shell modifies its policy and that this will be seen by other environmental organisations, governments, and oil companies. And in this manner, our lawsuit can bring about a new reality.
A judgment in this case also has consequences for other oil and gas companies. By bringing this suit we are also increasing pressure on other oil and gas companies. They will realise that climate cases pose a risk to them as well. This case will help them understand that just like Shell, they are responsible for the dangerous harm to the climate they are causing. If they do not take any action, they may find that they are the ones in court next time. In addition, the pressure on companies to go green has been increased in a great number of countries and a variety of ways, including by governments.
The government bears responsibility for preventing companies from causing harm, including serious harm to the climate. Urgenda previously sued the State of the Netherlands because it was not doing enough to prevent serious climate change. Urgenda won this case.
Large multinationals have a great deal of power and operate in several countries at the same time, making it difficult for a government to tackle them. We took Shell to court to ensure that Shell would play its part in going green.
Yes, together with 4 Nigerian farmers we were involved for 15 years in a lawsuit against Shell because of the oil pollution in Nigeria. One of the biggest oil disasters in the world is occurring in the Niger Delta. The Nigeria case is a completely different case than the Climate case, but it is also about the damage that Shell causes and about human rights breaches. The judgment in that case was passed on 29 January 2021. If you want to know more about the Nigeria case click here.
By dangerous climate change, we mean a global warming of the earth of more than 1.5 degrees Celcius.
This is the first time that a court has ordered a company to reduce its CO2 emissions. This is great news for people and the planet. The court held that Shell must stop causing dangerous climate change and reduce CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 (compared to 2019).
This case can create a precedent that can apply to many more companies and lead to a wave of climate cases against large polluters all over the world, to force them to stop extracting and burning fossil fuels. Shell will radically have to change its course because of this judgment. Shell has to start implementing the judgment immediately, even though it is going to appeal.
The court has said that individuals can only be deemed to have standing if their interests are not being protected. As the interests of the individual claimants are already represented by the 6 organisations that have been stated to have standing, the court decided that it is not necessary to declare the individual claimants to have standing.
For us, this naturally does not mean that the co-claimants are no longer important. We are fighting this case together.
The judgment applies to all Shell emissions worldwide. This means that the impact of this case goes far beyond the borders of the Netherlands. Shell’s head office in The Hague will have to convert the judgment into a new climate policy for Shell all over the world.
Shell must implement the judgment of the District Court, which means that the company has to stop causing dangerous climate change and reduce its CO2 emissions quickly. How Shell wants to achieve this, is up to them. The longer Shell waits, the more difficult it will be.
Fortunately, the court emphasised that urgent action has to be taken and Shell must start immediately, even though they have appealed the judgment. The court understands that Shell will have to make sacrifices, but this must be weighed against the importance of combating dangerous climate change and the serious consequences this entails.
The case will remain with the Dutch court. All polluting companies all over the world are obliged to respect human rights and prevent dangerous climate change. Shell cannot escape its obligations by relocating elsewhere.
This judgment means that Shell has to leave a large part of the oil and gas resources in the ground. This can have consequences for Shell employees. We believe it is very important that employees are not left to their fate and that they are also included in the energy transition.
Numerous studies show that the energy transition will provide more jobs than are lost. It is now up to Shell’s management to implement the judgment and see in what manner they deal with their employees. Recent research of the International Energy Agency shows that due to the energy transition some 5 million jobs will disappear from the fossil fuel industry worldwide in the coming years. This is offset by some 30 million green jobs.
The court understands that Shell cannot solve climate change on its own, but this does not mean that Shell is not responsible for reducing the emissions over which it has influence. All countries have signed the Paris Agreement, so they will have to tackle climate issues. The court established that every company will have to work toward net zero emissions in 2050 and must respect human rights. Every reduction in emissions has a positive effect on combating dangerous climate change.
The court is holding Shell to rules made by governments (including that of the Netherlands). One of the court’s tasks is precisely to correct the legislative and executive branches if people are put at risk. Because the State of the Netherlands was not doing what the State of the Netherlands itself believed was necessary to protect citizens, the court could intervene. Due to its considerable emissions (some 3% of global emissions) and its influence, Shell has a responsibility to prevent dangerous climate change.
This judgment has opened the floodgates and will undoubtedly lead to a tidal wave of similar cases around the world. As a large, influential company you may no longer follow policies that are contrary to the climate goals. You are no longer allowed to be on a collision course with the climate. This has accelerated the need to tackle the climate crisis.
But it is not our task to tackle all companies via the court. Let this judgment be a signal to the large polluters and political decision-makers that there is work to do.
Shell announced it was appealing on 20 July 2021. Shell’s reason was that it would not be effective to order 1 company to go green. Together with our attorney Roger Cox we are now preparing for the appeal. In the meantime, Shell has to continue implementing the judgment. This appeal too will cost a great deal of money.
Our letter to Shell’s board members is a warning for the people in charge: you can change Shell’s policy. If Shell will not act in accordance with the law, if it breaches human rights and puts human lives at risk, you are responsible.
The letter is a warning to the board of directors. If the board of directors fails to take any action, we will be looking to hold them personally liable. It is not a minor oversight if a board of directors consciously lets the company break the law. Obviously, we would prefer that the board members themselves see that they have to take responsibility for solving the climate crisis. If they do not do so, then we will certainly take action.
Our website uses cookies to ensure the use and functionality of this website. Read more about our cookie policy
