Milieudefensie et al v Shell | |
---|---|
Court | District court of The Hague |
Decided | 26 May 2021 |
ECLI | ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5337 |
Transcript | ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339(English) |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Larisa Alwin, Irene Kroft and Michiel Harmsen |
Case opinions | |
The policy, policy intentions and ambitions of Royal Dutch Shell* (hereafter Shell) are incompatible with Shell's reduction obligation. The claimed order to comply with that obligation must be allowed. The order is declared provisionally enforceable. * After losing in the Hague District Court, Shell dropped "Royal Dutch" from its name, and moved its headquarters to London.[15] |
Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell (2021) is a human rights law and tort law case heard by the district court of The Hague in the Netherlands in 2021 related to efforts by several NGO's to curtail carbon dioxide emissions by multinational corporations. It was brought by the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth and a group of other NGO's against the oil corporation, Shell plc. In May 2021, the court ordered Shell to reduce its global carbon emissions from its 2019 levels by 45% by 2030, relating not only to the emissions from its operations, but also those from the products it sells. It is considered to be the first major climate change litigation ruling against a corporation.
On 12 November 2024, The Hague's appeals court dismissed the 2021 ruling that had required Shell to cut its emissions, determining that there was no "societal standard of care" to enforce specific emissions reductions on Shell. [1]
Following the global adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, which aimed to limit the rise in the global average temperature to under 1.5 °C through various milestones at 2050, large corporations operating in signatory countries began evaluating if they could alter operations to meet the targets of the Agreement. The British multinational Shell is one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world; its headquarters are in the United Kingdom since 2022. Shell is the ninth-largest corporate contributor to global pollution, producing about 2.5% of global emissions. [2] [3] As the Paris Agreement was being developed, Shell evaluated its businesses to determine what it could do to address emissions, but had stated in 2014 that it believed that the Paris targets were unattainable and did not plan to change its business model away from oil and gas. [2] Following the signing of the Agreement, Shell issued a statement that it would address its CO2 emissions, releasing a plan that called for reductions of its carbon dioxide emissions by 30% by 2035, compared to 2016 levels, and by 65% by 2050. [2] So far, in 2022 only 1,5 % of the investments of Shell are to be used for renewables (wind and solar power generation), and with current investment trends Shell's carbon emissions are expected to rise with 4% up to 2030 compared to 2019 levels
In order to safeguard the temperature limit set out in the Paris Agreement, global carbon emissions to decrease with 45% in 2030. Given the clear gap between Shell's plans and the targets of the Paris Agreement, seven environmental organisations foundations – Milieudefensie (the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth), Greenpeace, Fossielvrij, Waddenvereniging, Both ENDS, Jongeren Milieu Actief, and ActionAid – and 17,379 individual claimants in the Netherlands filed a class-action lawsuit against Shell in April 2019, arguing that Shell should change its business model to reach an emissions reduction target of 45% by 2030 in line with the Paris Agreement. [2] [4] By failing to change, the plaintiffs argued, Shell had failed to uphold the unwritten duty of care laid down in Book 6 Section 162 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek (Dutch Civil Code) as well as articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [2] [5] [6] Shell stated in response to the summons that it was doing its part to address climate change, and that "What will accelerate the energy transition is effective policy, investment in technology and changing customer behaviour. None of which will be achieved with this court action. Addressing a challenge this big requires a collaborative and global approach." [2]
Hearings at the district court at The Hague were held in December 2020. The plaintiffs were required under Dutch law to demonstrate that a viable alternative business model existed for Shell to achieve the suggested 45% reduction goal, and had used the recent transformation of Danish company Ørsted from fossil fuels to renewables as a viable example. [2] During the trial, Shell issued a pledge in February 2021 to be net-zero by 2050. [7] Plaintiffs considered Shell's pledge to be inadequate as the company would still fail to meet the Paris Agreement goals. [8]
The Hague District Court orderd that Shell's current sustainability policy was insufficiently "concrete", and that its emissions were greater than that of most countries. [8] Due to these factors, the court ordered that Shell must indeed reduce its global emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels; the reduction targets include emissions from its operations and products. [3] The court declared the order provisionally enforceable, meaning that the order has immediate effect, even if one of the parties appeals the ruling. [8] [9] [10]
The Court said the following:
... every emission of CO2 and other GHGs, anywhere in the world and caused in whatever manner, contributes to this [environmental] damage and its increase” (insertion added) and that “the (…) circumstance that RDS [Royal Dutch Shell, the respondent] is not the only partly responsible for tackling dangerous climate change (…) does not absolve RDS of its individual partial responsibility to contribute to the fight against dangerous climate change according to its ability.
The case was considered a landmark ruling in environmental law related to climate change: while previous lawsuits against governments have prevailed for enforcing a more effective climate policy, this was considered the first major lawsuit to hold a corporation to the tenets of the Paris Agreement. [8] As such, it contributes to the growing field of climate litigation. While the decision only has jurisdiction in the Netherlands, [11] although pertaining to Shell's global operations, it could set a precedent for other environmental lawsuits against other large companies with high emissions that have not taken sufficient steps to reduce their emissions. [12] [13] The impact of the court's decision was considered by legal experts to be strengthened due to its reliance on human rights standards and international measures on climate change. [3] [8] [14]
Shell appealled the ruling. The hearings of the appeal case took place in April 2024. The court scheduled the verdict for 12th of November 2024. [15]
After losing in the Hague District Court, Shell dropped "Royal Dutch" from its name, and moved its headquarters to London. [16] It said the choice was not due to losing the case.
On 12 November 2024, a Dutch appeals court dismissed a 2021 ruling that had required Shell to cut its absolute carbon emissions by 45% by 2030, relative to 2019 levels, including emissions resulting from the use of its products. The Hague's appeals court ruled that Shell, while obligated to limit emissions to protect citizens, was not bound by a specific reduction target. The court found no "social standard of care" requiring Shell to reduce emissions by an exact percentage, though it acknowledged Shell’s responsibility under human rights to help prevent dangerous climate change. Although the court in The Hague acknowledged Shell’s responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it found that imposing a broad reduction target was unwarranted. Shell argued that targeting a single company for a global issue was unrealistic, stressing that emissions policy should be directed at governments. [1] [17]
Business action on climate change is a topic which since 2000 includes a range of activities relating to climate change, and to influencing political decisions on climate change-related regulation, such as the Kyoto Protocol. Major multinationals have played and to some extent continue to play a significant role in the politics of climate change, especially in the United States, through lobbying of government and funding of climate change deniers. Business also plays a key role in the mitigation of climate change, through decisions to invest in researching and implementing new energy technologies and energy efficiency measures.
Milieudefensie is a Dutch environmental organisation, founded on 6 January 1971, by a group of scientists in response to a report by the Club of Rome. It is the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth. Milieudefensie is part of the 30 national organisations that Friends of the Earth Europe represents and unites at the European level.
Climate change is having major effects on the Chinese economy, society and the environment. China is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, through an energy infrastructure heavily focused on coal. China's per capita emissions are greater than the world and European Union averages but less than Australia, Canada, and the U.S. China recorded its hottest year on record in 2023, with an average temperature of 10.7 °C. On the basis of cumulative CO2 emissions measured from 1751 through to 2017, China is responsible for 13% of global and about half of the United States' cumulative emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia totalled 533 million tonnes CO2-equivalent based on greenhouse gas national inventory report data for 2019; representing per capita CO2e emissions of 21 tons, three times the global average. Coal was responsible for 30% of emissions. The national Greenhouse Gas Inventory estimates for the year to March 2021 were 494.2 million tonnes, which is 27.8 million tonnes, or 5.3%, lower than the previous year. It is 20.8% lower than in 2005. According to the government, the result reflects the decrease in transport emissions due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, reduced fugitive emissions, and reductions in emissions from electricity; however, there were increased greenhouse gas emissions from the land and agriculture sectors.
The Paris Agreement is an international treaty on climate change that was signed in 2016. The treaty covers climate change mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The Paris Agreement was negotiated by 196 parties at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference near Paris, France. As of February 2023, 195 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are parties to the agreement. Of the three UNFCCC member states which have not ratified the agreement, the only major emitter is Iran. The United States withdrew from the agreement in 2020, but rejoined in 2021.
Belgium has the 7th largest CO2 emission per capita in the EU. The CO2 emissions have dropped 19.0% since in comparison with 1990 levels. The average temperature has risen 1.9 degrees Celsius since measurements began in 1890, with an acceleration since 1954.
Climate change has resulted in an increase in temperature of 2.3 °C (4.14 °F) (2022) in Europe compared to pre-industrial levels. Europe is the fastest warming continent in the world. Europe's climate is getting warmer due to anthropogenic activity. According to international climate experts, global temperature rise should not exceed 2 °C to prevent the most dangerous consequences of climate change; without reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, this could happen before 2050. Climate change has implications for all regions of Europe, with the extent and nature of impacts varying across the continent.
The nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are commitments that countries make to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as part of climate change mitigation. These commitments include the necessary policies and measures for achieving the global targets set out in the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement has a long-term temperature goal which is to keep the rise in global surface temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels. The treaty also states that preferably the limit of the increase should only be 1.5 °C (2.7 °F). To achieve this temperature goal, greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced as soon as, and by as much as, possible. To stay below 1.5 °C of global warming, emissions need to be cut by roughly 50% by 2030. This figure takes into account each country's documented pledges or NDCs.
Climate change is leading to long-term impacts on agriculture in Germany, more intense heatwaves and coldwaves, flash and coastal flooding, and reduced water availability. Debates over how to address these long-term challenges caused by climate change have also sparked changes in the energy sector and in mitigation strategies. Germany's energiewende has been a significant political issue in German politics that has made coalition talks difficult for Angela Merkel's CDU.
Climate change litigation, also known as climate litigation, is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions, such as governments and companies. Finding that climate change politics provides insufficient climate change mitigation for their tastes, activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort. Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims: Constitutional law, administrative law, private law, fraud or consumer protection, or human rights.
The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15) was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on 8 October 2018. The report, approved in Incheon, South Korea, includes over 6,000 scientific references, and was prepared by 91 authors from 40 countries. In December 2015, the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference called for the report. The report was delivered at the United Nations' 48th session of the IPCC to "deliver the authoritative, scientific guide for governments" to deal with climate change. Its key finding is that meeting a 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) target is possible but would require "deep emissions reductions" and "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society". Furthermore, the report finds that "limiting global warming to 1.5 °C compared with 2 °C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being" and that a 2 °C temperature increase would exacerbate extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, coral bleaching, and loss of ecosystems, among other impacts.
India was ranked seventh among the list of countries most affected by climate change in 2019. India emits about 3 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2eq of greenhouse gases each year; about two and a half tons per person, which is less than the world average. The country emits 7% of global emissions, despite having 17% of the world population. The climate change performance index of India ranks eighth among 63 countries which account for 92% of all GHG emissions in the year 2021.
A climate target, climate goal or climate pledge is a measurable long-term commitment for climate policy and energy policy with the aim of limiting the climate change. Researchers within, among others, the UN climate panel have identified probable consequences of global warming for people and nature at different levels of warming. Based on this, politicians in a large number of countries have agreed on temperature targets for warming, which is the basis for scientifically calculated carbon budgets and ways to achieve these targets. This in turn forms the basis for politically decided global and national emission targets for greenhouse gases, targets for fossil-free energy production and efficient energy use, and for the extent of planned measures for climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Urgenda FoundationvState of the Netherlands (2019) is climate change litigation heard by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands related to government efforts to curtail carbon dioxide emissions. The case was brought against the Dutch government in 2013, arguing the government, by not meeting a minimum carbon dioxide emission-reduction goal established by scientists to avert harmful climate change, was endangering the human rights of Dutch citizens as set by national and European Union laws.
The Netherlands is already affected by climate change. The average temperature in the Netherlands rose by more than 2 °C from 1901 to 2020. Climate change has resulted in increased frequency of droughts and heatwaves. Because significant portions of the Netherlands have been reclaimed from the sea or otherwise are very near sea level, the Netherlands is very vulnerable to sea level rise.
This is an environmental history of the 2020s. Environmental history refers to events and trends related to the natural environment and human interactions with it. Examples of human-induced events include biodiversity loss, climate change and holocene extinction.
Neubauer v Germany 1 BvR 2656/18 is a landmark German constitutional law case, concerning the duty of the German federal government to take action to prevent climate damage.
Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2024] NZSC 5 is a landmark New Zealand tort law case, concerning liability of major fossil fuel polluters for climate damage. The NZ Supreme Court held that polluting companies could be liable in tort to pay damages from global warming and rising sea levels to people whose coastal property is damaged, overturning courts below.
Greenpeace v. Eni is a 2024 human rights law and tort law suit heard by the Civil Court of Rome, Italy related to efforts by several NGOs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by multinational corporations. The lawsuit was brought by the Italian branch of Greenpeace, the advocacy group ReCommon, and twelve civil plaintiffs. The suit was filed against energy company Eni and two of its co-owners, the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance and the investment bank Cassa Depositi e Prestiti.
Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland (2024) is a landmark European Court of Human Rights case in which the court ruled that Switzerland violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to adequately address climate change. It is the first climate change litigation in which an international court has ruled that state inaction violates human rights.