Shell Overturns Historic Climate Ruling Mandating Carbon Emission Cuts

Shell successfully overturned a landmark 2021 ruling by a Dutch court that had mandated the fossil fuel giant to drastically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal ruled that while Shell bears a “special responsibility” as a major oil company to lower emissions, setting a legally binding emissions target was not an appropriate approach.

The overturned decision originally required Shell to reduce its global carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 from 2019 levels, marking a global precedent in climate litigation against a corporation. Shell’s CEO, Wael Sawan, welcomed the ruling, calling it “the right decision for the global energy transition, the Netherlands, and our company.”

The lawsuit, spearheaded by Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) and backed by over 17,000 co-plaintiffs, challenged Shell’s emission practices under the Paris climate agreement. Although disappointed, Milieudefensie’s director, Donald Pols, emphasized that the case highlighted accountability for major polluters, pledging continued efforts to hold them responsible for combating climate change.

The court acknowledged Milieudefensie’s right to pursue such claims, while stating that climate action involves political decisions rather than judicial mandates on specific companies. Shell’s argument—that corporate emissions should be managed by policymakers, not the courts—was accepted. The ruling noted that emission reductions might not be effective if applied only to Shell, as other companies would likely extract any unexploited fossil fuels.

Despite the appeal, the court upheld that corporations like Shell have a duty to respect human rights in their environmental impact. Milieudefensie is considering a further appeal to the supreme court, which would focus on legal interpretation rather than factual issues.

This ruling comes as other European courts scrutinize fossil fuel projects. In early 2024, Norway halted the development of North Sea oil and gas fields, citing insufficient climate impact assessments. The UK’s supreme court issued a similar ruling later in the year, underscoring judicial oversight in climate accountability.