The trial was first announced in 2018 by Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie). The group was joined by six other organisations and 17,000 Dutch citizens in the case. The plaintiffs successfully argued that Shell must comply with the Paris Agreement, an international agreement to limit emissions to “well below” two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, BBC News reported. The decision sends a message to companies that they may have to comply not only with national laws, but also with international politics. The Paris Agreement is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that addresses greenhouse gas emissions, mitigation, adaptation and financing from 2020 onwards. The long-term objective of the Paris Agreement is to keep the global average temperature rise well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels; and limit the increase to 1.5°C. Other major oil companies are also making changes by focusing more on reducing emissions. For more than two decades, shell`s scenario thinking has included the topic of climate change. The Sky scenario joins two previous Shell scenarios, Mountains and Oceans, which experienced rapid decarbonisation but failed to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Embedded video on NoordzeeWind, a Shell joint venture. This decision builds on the landmark 2019 Urgenda decision, which concluded that the Dutch government`s inadequate action against climate change violated a duty of care to its citizens under Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code. In the lawsuit against RDS, the plaintiffs managed to broaden the open standard of care, which was further colored and specified by the PA`s climate goals, the scientific evidence on the dangers of climate change, and the human rights principles of the Un Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (“UNGPs”) and the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The court in The Hague in the Netherlands ruled on Thursday that fossil fuel giant Royal Dutch Shell must reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030. Two people on a Shell forecourt next to their vehicle at an electric vehicle charging station. “We hope this decision will trigger a wave of climate lawsuits against major polluters to force them to stop extracting and burning fossil fuels,” Sara Shaw of Friends of the Earth International said in the press release. “This result is a victory for communities in the Global South, which are now facing devastating climate impacts.” A link to additional information shows how Shell adopts and promotes a strategy of avoidance, reduction and compensation to move forward. This is technically possible, but success is not guaranteed.

This will require innovative new products, strong political will, bold investments and the best ideas. Shell`s decision is a massive victory for environmental activists, and other industry giants will struggle to understand how it might affect them. How can we advance our corporate strategy in the context of climate-related risks and opportunities? Link to information on how Shell is working to meet the needs of electric vehicle drivers at home, at work or on the go. twitter.com/foeeurope/statuses/1397551496586268672 The Shell Group is responsible for its own CO2 emissions and those of its suppliers, according to the decision. Link to information about Shell`s new energies and the creation of a low-carbon electricity company. Shell – full name Royal Dutch Shell – is an Anglo-Dutch multinational. As the headquarters are located in The Hague, FoE was able to bring a case before a Dutch court. Link to information on how Shell Nederland is working with its partners to create a green hydrogen hub in the Port of Rotterdam to produce green hydrogen from wind energy. Link to information on how Shell is investing in lower-carbon technologies. This is the first time that a court order has been issued against a private company requiring it to reduce its aggregate and absolute CO2 emissions by a fixed percentage within a defined time frame.

According to the court, the purely RDS-based CO2 emissions reduction target is unlikely to meet the climate targets of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (“PA”). The Court adds that the imminent breach by RDS of its reduction obligation does not in itself mean that RDS`s current CO2 emissions are illegal. The judgment is provisionally enforceable and takes effect directly even if RDS appeals the decision. Link to the shell energy page to have access to 100% certified electricity from renewable energy. In this content, we may also refer to Shell`s “net carbon footprint”, which includes Shell`s carbon emissions from the manufacture of our energy products, our suppliers` carbon emissions in the energy supply for that production and our customers` carbon emissions in relation to the use of the energy products we sell. Shell only controls its own emissions. Shell`s use of the term “net carbon footprint” is for convenience only and is not intended to suggest that these emissions are those of Shell or its subsidiaries. Shell`s operating plan, outlook and budgets are planned for a period of ten years and updated annually. They reflect the current economic environment and what we can reasonably expect over the next ten years. As a result, Shell`s operating plans, outlook, budgets and pricing assumptions do not reflect our goal of net-zero emissions. Going forward, as the company moves closer to net-zero emissions, we expect Shell`s operating plans, outlook, budgets and pricing assumptions to reflect this movement.

The transition to green energy “could cost $13 trillion” A link to Shell`s press release on new furnaces to be installed to reduce emissions from the plant. In a first such decision, a court blamed a private company for its contributions to the climate crisis. This section provides information on how Shell offers low-carbon solutions and aims to reduce the carbon intensity of the energy products it sells. It contains links to more information on the short-term targets, as well as Shell`s net carbon footprint and methodology. Link to external information on how Shell is working with others to enable the use of hydrogen for heavy trucks in Los Angeles, USA. On Wednesday, Chevron investors voted in favor of a proposal to cut customers` emissions, while Exxon shareholders elected two climate activists to the board after months of wrangling over the direction of business. A link to information about Shell`s drone programme to detect methane emissions and improve energy efficiency. Although the court acknowledged Shell`s climate commitments, it argued that they were not “concrete” and therefore ordered the Dutch-Anglo-American company to reduce its emissions to 45% of 2019 levels by 2030. He also said the company needed to do this immediately and was responsible for the emissions of its customers and suppliers, as highlighted by Friends of the Earth. Shell works with its customers, businesses and governments to tackle emissions in a variety of sectors. From west to east, climate change is increasingly understood as an issue that involves the responsibility of all organs of society, including business, and human rights are one of the tools used to hold companies accountable for their contribution to climate change.

While it will take some time for the Supreme Court of the Netherlands to make a final decision on the issue, this decision sends a strong signal to companies to reconsider their climate change policies, align their CO2 emission reduction targets and trajectories with the PA and IPCC, manage greenwashing risks and select the most appropriate technologies to reduce CO2 emissions. the Hague Court having expressed reservations about negative emission strategies based on carbon capture and storage technologies. Shell was named the ninth largest polluter in the world by the Carbon Majors database between 1988 and 2015. It is currently responsible for about one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The lawyers also presented court documents showing that the company had been aware of climate change since the 1950s and the severity of its consequences since 1986. A roof covered with solar panels at a Shell lubricants factory in Singapore. The judges made it clear that Shell itself should take responsibility for reducing emissions much faster. Explanation that Shell cares about its own energy efficiency and helps its customers reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Aerial view of an urban landscape with trees and a street that leads through high-rise buildings.

Link to information on nature-based solutions and what Shell is doing to support them. “This is truly great news and a huge victory for Earth, our children and all of us,” FoE DIRECTOR Donald Pols said in a statement. “The judge leaves no doubt about it: Shell is causing dangerous climate change and must now stop it quickly.” We hope this series of content will spark discussion and encourage you to share your thoughts. Tell us what you think is possible. Mark @Shell and use #ShellScenarios in your social media posts and comments. While this decision is of primary concern to all companies registered in the Netherlands, the applicability of the PA climate objectives and the human rights principles of the Guiding Principles and the European Court of Human Rights against RDS is likely to have far-reaching implications beyond the Netherlands and RDS. .