Dutch Court Rules that Shell Must Cut Direct and Indirect Emissions 45% by 2030
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 26, 2021
Washington, DC — Today’s historic ruling in the Netherlands sends a clear signal to the oil and gas industry: continuing business-as-usual production of fossil fuels amidst the climate emergency is fundamentally incompatible with corporate duties to respect human rights. Carbon Majors like Royal Dutch Shell (Shell) will be compelled to change course or face legal consequences.
“Despite knowing for decades that its products are driving climate change, with disastrous consequences for human rights and the environment, Shell has continued to expand production of oil and gas,” said Nikki Reisch, Climate and Energy Director at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “When those fuels are burned, as intended, they increase emissions, exacerbating climate change. Today’s ruling brings that reckless conduct closer to an end.”
“The Shell decision is a watershed for the oil and gas industry,” noted CIEL President Carroll Muffett. “The court recognized the growing international consensus that the world must strive to keep warming below 1.5C. The court’s ruling — that Shell must reduce its corporate emissions, those of its suppliers and customers 45% below 2019 levels by 2030 — recognizes that Shell not only has the capacity, but the responsibility to bring its operations into line with what the science shows is necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change. Such reductions are by no means sufficient — the world needs to phase out fossil fuel production entirely — but they are an essential step toward a fossil-free, safe climate future.”
Muffett highlighted the wider significance of the case for global oil and gas companies. “Significantly for the whole industry, the court explicitly extended this responsibility to include the operations of Shell’s subsidiaries around the world and to the full scope of Shell’s emissions. The court has made clear that Shell and similarly situated actors must take responsibility for reducing not only the direct emissions that arise from its own operations, but the far greater emissions that result from the burning of its products. And the court recognized that this has immediate and significant implications for where Shell’s future investments should be made. This echoes and reinforces the International Energy Agency’s warning last week that investments in new oil and gas developments must end immediately.”
Crucially, the Court recognized that the corporate responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of conduct with real consequences in the context of the climate crisis. That standard of conduct is not optional, but requires companies to take measures to prevent their operations from contributing to human rights violations. “In the case of oil companies like Shell,” Reisch stated, “that means cutting production of oil and gas to reduce the emissions caused by the use of those products.”
Finally, and significantly, the filing of a new constitutional case in Guyana last week, arguing that government approval of Exxon oil developments in that country is incompatible with human rights, demonstrates that Shell is not the only oil company that will be forced to confront these new realities.
Reisch concluded, “This momentous ruling marks what will hopefully be the beginning of a trend in courts across the globe to deliver climate justice by requiring the fossil fuel companies whose continued production of oil and gas is driving climate chaos to do their fair share and prevent future emissions.”
###