Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) is launching the second Climate Case against Shell by filing the summons today. The climate organisation is demanding that the company stops drilling for new oil and gas fields. "By doing so, Shell is keeping us dependent on polluting fossil fuels and exacerbating the climate crisis. The high prices at the pump once again highlight just how vulnerable and unsustainable the fossil fuel system is. Ordinary people are paying the price, while major polluters are lining their pockets,” says Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie.
To reinforce its demands, Milieudefensie presents a huge world map which depicts the 700 undeveloped oil and gas fields in which Shell has a stake. One of these gas fields is located beneath Egmond-Binnen, a town in the west of the Netherlands where the press conference is held. Pols: "The science has been crystal clear for years: if we want to prevent dangerous climate change, every new oil or gas field is one too many." Studies, including those by the UN climate panel IPCC, indicate that if only the oil and gas from existing fields is used, the average global warming will exceed 1.5 degrees. Moreover, there is enough oil and gas in existing fields to meet demand for the coming decades, according to the International Energy Agency. This is based on the assumption of decreasing demand for oil and gas as a result of the current energy transition, which needs to be accelerated. Pols: “Shell’s call for more oil and gas shows just how desperate major polluters are to find new oil and gas fields to keep society addicted to fossil fuels.”
Milieudefensie emphasises that it is crucial for Europe to invest in clean and affordable solar and wind energy now, as this will make us independent, keep us safe and ensure our energy supply.
Pols: "The sun is not blocked by a war and the wind keeps blowing, regardless of who holds political power."
According to Milieudefensie, this fossil fuel crisis shows once again that we should have invested in renewable energy decades ago. Then we would not be facing this dire climate and oil crisis.
The reason for Milieudefensie’s second climate case against Shell was the statement Shell made to its investors in March 2025. The oil giant said it would continue on the old path of fossil fuels and even ramp up the production of liquefied natural gas (LNG) beyond 2030. The second trigger was the ruling in the appeal of the first Climate Case. In that ruling, the judge held that Shell has an obligation to reduce its emissions and that new oil and gas projects may be at odds with international climate agreements. Furthermore, the judge ruled that polluting companies have a responsibility of their own in combating dangerous climate change.
“In the appeal ruling, the judge emphasised that Shell has a duty to protect human rights and to make an appropriate contribution to achieving the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement,” says Roger Cox of Paulussen Advocaten, which is representing Milieudefensie. Pols: "Shell has a major responsibility as one of the world’s biggest polluters and contributes enormously to causing dangerous climate change. If Shell were a country, there would be only four countries that emit more."
This current Climate Case against Shell builds on the first case for which the Surpreme Court hearing takes place on May 22nd. In this second Climate Case, Milieudefensie is also demanding that Shell sets specific interim targets to reduce its emissions step by step between 2030 and 2050.
Pols: “At present, Shell does not have such interim targets. The company has not even drawn up a concrete plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Shell’s so-called ‘target’ for 2050 is more of a marketing slogan. This is confirmed by the fact that Shell is actually going to invest more in polluting gas and less in clean solar and wind energy.”
Winnie Oussoren, chair of Milieudefensie Jong: "The global impact of the oil and gas crisis shows that it is dangerous to continue on the same fossil fuel path and keep the world dependent on this broken system in which we are literally burning investments. Every euro spent on fossil fuels makes us less safe, less healthy and more dependent. Every euro spent on solar and wind energy makes us stronger, safer and healthier. That is why this second Climate Case against Shell is more urgent than ever."
British intelligence agencies have warned that climate change affects national security. The fact that a turnaround is entirely possible is demonstrated not only by the many studies on this subject, but also by a country like Spain. They ramped up their investments in renewable energy years ago. As a result, the influence of expensive fossil fuels on the price of electricity has been reduced by 75 per cent. Oussoren: "Energy saving, discounts on public transport and home insulation: help people with these measures."
Read the summary of the summons
Our website uses cookies to ensure the use and functionality of this website. Read more about our cookie policy
