In a significant ruling, the Hague Appeals Court has overturned a previous decision that required oil giant, Shell, to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
The decision, handed down by Judge Carla Joustra, rejected the claims made by environmental groups, including Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), that Shell was failing to take adequate action against climate change.
The case has been closely watched as it challenges corporate responsibility in addressing climate goals and highlights the tensions between legal mandates and voluntary corporate climate actions.
The Appeals Court’s reversal of the 2021 lower court ruling, which mandated a 45% reduction in Shell’s emissions by 2030, was a shock to environmental activists.
This earlier decision had marked a historic win for climate advocates, compelling Shell to align its operations with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.
Environmental groups had argued that Shell’s activities contributed substantially to climate change and called for accelerated action in reducing emissions.
However, Judge Joustra stated that Shell was already making a “reasonable contribution” toward climate targets under current legislation, which does not impose specific reduction requirements for individual companies.
She explained that while Shell, as a major oil and gas producer, bears significant responsibility in reducing emissions, the court cannot apply a universal reduction standard without explicit legal grounds.
Shell’s response was positive, with CEO Wael Sawan calling the ruling a “step in the right direction” for the company, the Netherlands, and the broader energy transition.
Shell argued that litigation is not an effective means to address climate change, emphasizing instead its commitment to investing $10–15 billion in low-carbon energy initiatives between 2023 and 2025, which it said represented about 23% of its capital expenditure.
Environmental groups, however, voiced disappointment. Donald Pols, Milieudefensie’s director, expressed frustration, stating that “this hurts” and reaffirming the organization’s commitment to hold major polluters accountable.
The decision comes as global leaders meet at the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan to discuss international efforts to transition to clean energy sources, underscoring the global urgency of addressing climate change.
In a related environmental case unfolding in Scotland, activist groups Uplift and Greenpeace are challenging the UK government’s approval of two major North Sea fossil fuel projects, Rosebank and Jackdaw.
The groups argue that the government unlawfully granted these approvals by failing to account for emissions from burning the extracted oil and gas.
The case, which activists have described as a “David versus Goliath” battle, has the potential to shift the focus from extraction emissions alone to the overall impact of fossil fuel projects on the climate.
The Scottish lawsuit follows a recent UK Supreme Court ruling that the government must consider downstream emissions—a precedent that could have significant implications for future fossil fuel projects.
Scottish National Party (SNP) representative Tommy Sheppard, speaking in support of the activists, emphasized the broader implications of the case, which could require energy companies to adjust their environmental assessments and renew licensing applications for over 100 other fossil fuel projects.
As the global community pushes forward with ambitious climate targets, these rulings illustrate the legal and ethical complexities in balancing industrial interests with environmental commitments.
Governments and courts are grappling with how to hold corporations accountable for emissions while also securing energy supplies and supporting economic stability.
This legal landscape is further complicated by shifting political and public opinion on fossil fuels and the need for a just transition that mitigates economic impacts on workers in legacy energy sectors.
Both cases, one in the Netherlands and the other in Scotland, spotlight the evolving role of courts, governments, and activists in shaping climate policy—and underscore the contentious path toward a sustainable future.