San Diego, CA
Oil giant Shell wins appeal against landmark Dutch climate ruling to slash emissions
- A Dutch court on Tuesday dismissed a landmark climate ruling against Shell, after the oil giant was ordered to drastically reduce its global carbon emissions back in 2021.
- The outcome marks the latest twist in a precedent-setting case that could have far-reaching implications for the future of climate litigation.
- In May 2021, The Hague district court ruled that Shell must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 45% from 2019 levels by 2030.
Oil storage silos beyond waterlogged land at the Shell Plc Pernis refinery in Rotterdam, Netherlands, on Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024.
A Dutch court on Tuesday dismissed a landmark climate ruling against Shell, after the oil giant was ordered to drastically reduce its global carbon emissions back in 2021.
The outcome, which comes during the opening days of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan, marks the latest twist in a precedent-setting case that could have far-reaching implications for the future of climate litigation.
The appeals court in The Hague said that while Shell is required to reduce its carbon emissions, it could not determine the extent of these cuts. The case against Shell, therefore, was dismissed entirely.
In May 2021, The Hague district court ruled that Shell must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 45% from 2019 levels by 2030.
The verdict, which came when Shell had its headquarters in The Hague, also said the company was responsible for all emissions across its value chain, including those from the products they sell — known as Scope 3 emissions.
It was the first time in history that a company was found to have been legally obliged to align its policies with the Paris Agreement, a framework which seeks to avoid the worst of what the climate crisis has in store by limiting the average global temperature increase to between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius.
The ruling was regarded as a watershed moment in the climate battle and sparked a wave of lawsuits against other fossil fuel companies.
The case was brought against Shell in 2019 by Milieudefensie, an environmental campaign group and the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth, alongside six other bodies and more than 17,000 Dutch citizens.
An appeal against Tuesday’s outcome could still be brought before the Netherlands’ Supreme Court, although Milieudefensie has not said whether it plans to launch an appeal.
“The court of appeal denied the claims of Milieudefensie because the court was unable to establish that the social standard of care entails an obligation for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%, or some other percentage,” the court said in a statement.
What’s more, the court said it deemed an obligation for Shell to sharply reduce its Scope 3 emissions by a particular percentage as “ineffective” because other companies could step in to take over that trade and “this would consequently not result in a reduction in CO2 emissions.”
Shell welcomed the decision to overturn the 2021 verdict.
“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,” Shell CEO Wael Sawan said in a statement.
“Our target to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050 remains at the heart of Shell’s strategy and is transforming our business,” he added.
Shares of London-listed Shell were trading slightly lower on the news.
A setback for the climate movement
Shell appealed the 2021 decision and subsequently moved its headquarters to the U.K., a relocation that was criticized for being partly motivated by the courtroom defeat. The Hague district court ruling had only been legally binding in the Netherlands.
In appeal hearings held earlier this year, the British oil major argued that the case had no legal basis.
Shell’s lawyers said demands for companies to curb greenhouse gas emissions could not be made by courts, but only by governments, Reuters reported. The company also said the court ruling would force it to shrink its business without any benefit to the fight against climate change.
Director of Milieudefensie Donald Pols is seen before the start of the appeal trial of the climate case that the organization had filed against Shell, in The Hague on April 2, 2024.
The burning of coal, oil and gas is by far the largest contributor to the climate crisis, accounting for more than three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions.
“This ruling affects us deeply,” Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie, said in a statement.
“It is a setback for us, the climate movement and millions of people around the world who are worried. But anyone who knows us a little knows that we never give up,” Pols said.
“It is encouraging that the judge determines that Shell is responsible for reducing emissions and that companies must also respect human rights. It is a marathon and not a sprint and the race is not yet run,” he added.
Sherdog’s live
PFL San Diego coverage will begin Saturday at 7 p.m. ET.
Top notch
featherweights headline PFL San Diego: Tune in Saturday, June 27 at
7 p.m. ET on ESPN 2.
Round 1
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 2
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 3
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
The Official Result
Round 1
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 2
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 3
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
The Official Result
Round 1
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 2
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 3
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
The Official Result
Round 1
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 2
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 3
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
The Official Result
Round 1
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 2
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 3
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
The Official Result
Round 1
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 2
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 3
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
The Official Result
Round 1
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 2
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 3
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
The Official Result
Round 1
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 2
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 3
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
The Official Result
Round 1
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 2
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
Round 3
Sherdog Scores
Jay Pettry scores the round:
Tristen Critchfield scores the round:
Mike Pendleton scores the round:
The Official Result
County leaders are keeping their options open for a future county-backed tax hike as a citizens coalition pushes a November sales tax measure.
Officials in late April quietly extended a contract with consultants tasked with researching and poll-testing potential county revenue options for a Board of Supervisors subcommittee led by Chair Terra Lawson-Remer and Vice Chair Monica Montgomery Steppe. The extension is for up to two years and the price tag remains up to $320,000.
Other county supervisors’ offices told Voice of San Diego they weren’t notified of the change – and one is now working on a policy proposal to force public updates on subcommittee-directed contracts.
County spokesperson Tammy Glenn said staff directed the contract extension “in consultation with the subcommittee” and based on prior board approval last September to create the Sustainable Fiscal Planning Subcommittee. The item allowed the subcommittee to hire and pay consultants up to $500,000 to explore multiple options to increase county revenues and taxes.
An initial January 2026 contract called for Chula Vista-based Ironwood Public Affairs and four subcontractors including a prominent local Democratic campaign consultant to survey county residents, prepare revenue estimates for potential tax hike options, conduct focus groups and outreach and submit a report by May 1.
On April 30, county staff amended the contract with Ironwood to “deliver any requested ballot measure language, report, and presentations no later than June 30, 2028.”
Five days later, a coalition that includes labor groups and advocates submitted signatures to the county registrar’s office for a proposed countywide sales tax hike projected to raise $360 million annually to fund healthcare, child care, solutions to the Tijuana River sewage crisis and public safety. The registrar’s office has since confirmed the measure qualified for the November ballot.
Lawson-Remer has rallied behind the sales tax proposal and argued that a “local revenue measure” could shield the county from Trump administration-backed cuts. The county has projected that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act could cost the county $300 million annually.
In a statement, Lawson-Remer’s office noted that a board majority voted last September to create the subcommittee and hire a consultant.
“With the Trump Administration threatening healthcare, food assistance, behavioral health, and other core services — and federal decisions being announced, reversed, paused, challenged, and revived in real time — the county and Fiscal Subcommittee has a responsibility to plan for multiple scenarios, including federal cuts, state shortfalls, taxpayer savings, state advocacy, and whether any local funding option does or does not materialize,” Lawson-Remer’s office wrote.
In a separate statement, Montgomery Steppe also pointed to board approval of the subcommittee and its work “evaluating fiscal risks and options to help inform future Board decisions.”
A few months after the September vote to approve the subcommittee, the county hired Ironwood Public Affairs led by former county staffer Victor Aviña. Aviña’s company subcontracted with prominent Democratic campaign consultant Dan Rottenstreich’s company Amplify Campaigns, polling firm FM3 Research, Los Angeles revenue forecasting firm Economic & Planning Systems and Los Angeles-based law firm Kaufman Legal Group.
Glenn said the county has thus far paid Ironwood $96,000 for planning tasks that the initial contract said should be completed by early this year.
The county has yet to provide documents to Voice that the contractor submitted to the county about its work a month after a public-records request.
Spokespeople for the county’s three other elected supervisors said this week they weren’t notified about the changes to the contract.
Supervisors Joel Anderson and Jim Desmond, the two Republicans on the board, have criticized the lack of transparency surrounding the subcommittees and consultants at least two of them have hired.
At an April board meeting, Desmond argued that subcommittees shouldn’t be allowed to spend county money or secure contracts without a review by the full board.
And Anderson has pushed for reforms to increase transparency for subcommittees that have met behind closed doors. The board on Thursday unanimously approved changes to make more of those meetings more public.
Anderson’s office said he is now working on a board proposal that, among other changes, would also require updates to the full board on work that outside consultants are doing for subcommittees. He expects to bring the proposal to the board in August.
“There’s no possibility of secrecy when a vendor/contractor reports to the entire board,” Anderson wrote in a statement.
Related Posts
-
Austin, TX5 minutes agoCedar Park greenlights Texas Materials HQ move with $14M incentive deal
-
Alabama8 minutes agoThe legend of Alabama’s black panthers: Why the sightings never stop
-
Alaska13 minutes agoDelmonico’s Love Letter To America: A Red, White, And Blue Baked Alaska
-
Arizona20 minutes agoWith water cuts looming in Arizona in US, locals fight data centres
-
Arkansas23 minutes agoGubernatorial challengers talk ideas as Sanders skips debate – Arkansas Times
-
California23 minutes agoCalifornia GOP delegates on LGBT issues, LA decline, Medicaid fraud | Fox News Video
-
Colorado35 minutes agoWhat’s really killing a lot of cattle in Colorado? Hint: wolves aren’t the culprit (Opinion)
-
Connecticut38 minutes agoPerson reported missing found dead in Brookfield
