THE HAGUE, Netherlands (CN) — A Dutch appeals court overturned a landmark climate change ruling in an early morning hearing Tuesday, concluding that forcing gas giant Shell to reduce emissions would not lead to a global reduction as other companies would move into the market.
The energy company was appealing a 2021 ruling that found its current reduction plans were insufficient, in a case launched by a group of environmental and human rights organizations and backed by some 17,000 individuals.
“It can be said that every reduction in greenhouse gas emissions has a positive effect on combating climate change. But that does not mean that a reduction obligation for Shell also has that effect, because such an obligation does not actually have to lead to a global reduction,” Judge Carla Joustra said in reading out the highly anticipated decision.
Tuesday’s civil ruling can be appealed to the Dutch Supreme Court.
The original lawsuit, spearheaded by the organization Milieudefensie, demanded that Shell reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030 and eliminate them entirely by 2050. But the company claims it is doing enough to meet the targets of the 2015 Paris Climate Accords. That United Nations agreement, signed by 195 countries, aims to keep the increase in global temperature to below 2 degrees C, or 3.6 degrees F, by dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In the ruling, available only in Dutch, the three-judge panel acknowledged that protecting people against climate change is a human right.
“The court is convinced that the climate problem is the biggest problem of our time. The danger posed by climate change is so great that it can be life threatening in various places on earth and will have a drastic and negative impact on the existence of humans and animals in many other places,” the judges said in the decision.
Milieudefensie was disappointed in the decision.
“This hurts. At the same time, we see that this case has ensured that major polluters are not immune and has further fueled the debate about their responsibility in combating dangerous climate change,” the group’s director, Donald Pols, said in a statement.
Pols said they would study the verdict before considering their next steps.
During hearings in April, Shell’s lawyers told the three-judge panel that a landmark climate case from the European Court of Human Rights brought by a group of senior Swiss women proves that climate change is an issue of state responsibility, not of private companies. In that case, Europe’s top rights court faulted Switzerland for not acting aggressively enough against climate change.
Shell was happy with the outcome. “We are pleased with the court’s decision, which we believe is the right one for the global energy transition, the Netherlands and our company,” CEO Wael Sawan said in a statement.
The case is the latest in a series of climate-related litigation. In 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court sided with another environmental action group, Urgenda, and ruled the Netherlands must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by the end of 2020. The court found that the country is obligated to protect its citizens from climate change under the Paris accords.
Courts in Belgium and Germany have now made similar rulings.
Later Tuesday, the lower court in The Hague will hear a case brought by environmental organization Greenpeace against the Dutch state. The group wants to force the government to transfer the country’s agricultural sector to more environmentally friendly farming methods.
The Hague-based court sided with Milieudefensie in another lawsuit in 2021 against Shell. That decision held Shell liable for oil leakages in the Niger Delta and obliged the company to compensate farmers whose livelihoods have been destroyed by pollution. Shell settled for 15 million euros ($15.9 million) in 2023.
In December, the top court of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, will hold two weeks of hearings on climate change. Last March, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the court to weigh in on what legal obligations countries have to reduce emissions and mitigate the impact.