In 2021 we beat Shell in court. The judge ruled that Shell has to curb its CO2 emissions by 45% in 2030, compared to 2019. Read on to find out everything about this landmark climate litigation.
In 2018, Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) announced legal steps against Shell. 17,379 co-plaintiffs and 6 organisations (ActionAid Both ENDS, Fossielvrij NL, Greenpeace Nederland, Milieudefensie Jong (formerly Jongeren Milieu Actief) and de Waddenvereniging joined our court case. Together, we sued Shell. Our common goal is to prevent dangerous climate change that is already threatening human lives worldwide by legally forcing Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions. As expected, Shell has decided to appeal the verdict. Will you help us beat Shell again in court?
For the first time ever, a multinational corporation is ordered to adjust its policy in order to curb CO2 emissions and prevent dangerous climate change. We demand that Shell complies with the Paris Climate Agreement. Previous legal proceedings only dealt with money. In this case however, we don’t ask for compensation for climate damages caused by Shell, but we demand a policy change in order to prevent future climate chaos and suffering.
Shell used to be a Dutch company, meaning we could sue Shell in Dutch court. Since we filed our court case, Shell has relocated its headquarters to England. This will not affect the verdict.
Shell is one of the top 10 most polluting companies in the world. Shell is responsible for 3% of global emissions and emits 9 times more CO2 than the whole of the Netherlands. This is an enormous amount of CO2. Especially considering these are the emissions of a single company.
Shell is one of the top 10 most polluting companies in the world, which is a major reason why we targeted Shell. But the problem is not just with Shell. In order to prevent dangerous climate change, all big companies need to curb their emissions.
In 2022, we sent a letter to 29 other Dutch polluters asking them about their plans to curb emissions. We’ve had the New Climate Institute evaluate their climate policies. This study showed that none of them were up to par. We are now considering targeting other companies that fail to implement adequate climate policies. Because there really is no time to lose.
Shell puts the onus to prevent climate change on the government and consumers. Of course, consumers can play their part by, for instance, switching to a (more) plant-based diet and taking their bike rather than their car to work.
However, consumers don’t have the influence nor the responsibility to make an impact on a global scale. Shell does enjoy that power and could truly make a difference. The fact is we need big polluters like Shell to radically curb their emissions in order to prevent further global warming.
Lawyer Roger Cox and Milieudefensie CEO Donald Pols pose in front of the court in the Hague. They have just won the climate case against Shell.
The climate case is founded on a specific Dutch Civil Code principle called “duty of care”. This standard refers to an act or omission in violation of what according to unwritten law has to be regarded as proper social conduct.
Even in the 1960s, Shell was aware of the dangerous impact of oil and gas use on our climate. The company knows what steps it must take to reduce its emissions. However, instead of mitigating the impacts of climate change, Shell continues to emit tons of CO2. This is a violation of the company’s duty of care.
The Dutch court ruled that the serious and irreversible consequences of dangerous climate change pose a threat to human rights and that Shell has the obligation to do everything in its power to prevent further global warming.
A few months after the verdict, Shell filed its appeal to the Court in the Hague. The company claims it’s already taking adequate measures to prevent global warming. In addition, Shell argues that imposing a reduction obligation will lead to unfair competition. Finally, Shell says it cannot directly influence the energy choices made by its consumers and therefore should not be responsible for these (Scope 3) emissions.
On the 22nd of March (2022) Shell filed its grounds for appeal. Seven months later, in October (2022), we handed in our statement of defence on appeal to the Court. We will face Shell in court for the hearing on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 12th of April (2024).
Two years after the verdict, it seems Shell is not taking serious measures to comply. We keep a close eye on Shell and its policies and publish the results of our research in our annual Shell Monitor.
In the event that Shell ignores the verdict, Milieudefensie will make it known to the Court.
Shell says it is up to governments to put in place the policies that bring about fundamental changes in the way society consumes energy. However, the Dutch government is rather slow in taking the necessary measures to prevent dangerous climate change. Meanwhile, people in Bangladesh have to flee from rising sea levels, people in South Africa are facing water shortages, and wildfires consume life-supporting forests around the globe.
Shell does not have to wait for the government to curb its emissions. Major oil companies such as Shell hold sway over world energy consumption. Their decisions have an immediate global impact, something that governments can only dream of. This is why we sued Shell.
The judge agrees that Shell has an obligation to reduce its emissions and should not wait for governments to take action. When governments falter and multinationals breach their duty of care, legal action is the only way to protect human lives from dangerous climate change.
We are currently preparing for the hearing in April 2024. We are confident we will beat Shell again in Court. Lawsuits against powerful oil companies, such as Shell, are expensive. Do you want to help us beat Shell a second time? Support us with a donation.
Photo above: Cheering cyclists in front of the Court after hearing the verdict in the climate case.
Our website uses cookies to ensure the use and functionality of this website. Read more about our cookie policy
