Shell wins appeal in landmark emissions case, Exxon urges Paris stay
Make us a preferred source
Make us a preferred source on Google
The news: Europe’s largest energy company, Shell, won its appeal against a 2021 ruling by The Hague District Court, which required the company to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 from 2019 levels.
The context: The Dutch Court of Appeal annulled the decision, stating there was "insufficient consensus in climate science" to impose a specific reduction target on a single company.
While the court said Shell has an obligation to reduce emissions, it emphasised governments bear primary responsibility for ensuring human rights protection.
The ruling coincided with the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan, where discussions have been dominated by Donald Trump’s re-election victory, after he campaigned with the slogan “drill baby drill”.
At the summit, Exxon Mobil's CEO, Darren Woods, urged Trump not to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, citing business uncertainty.
What they said: In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Woods said: “I don’t think the stops and starts are the right thing for businesses. It is extremely inefficient. It creates a lot of uncertainty.”
Speaking at the climate summit he added, “we need a global system for managing global emissions. Trump and his administrations have talked about coming back into government and bringing common sense back into government. I think he could take the same approach in this space.”
In a statement, the Hague Court of Appel said “the court was unable to establish that social due diligence requires Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% (or another percentage). There is currently insufficient consensus in climate science on a specific reduction percentage that an individual company such as Shell should adhere to.
“In addition, Shell is already working on reducing its own emissions (scope 1 and 2). Finally, the court is of the opinion that an obligation for Shell to reduce the CO2 emissions caused by buyers of Shell products (scope 3) by a certain percentage is also not effective in this case. Shell could meet this obligation by ceasing to trade in fuels that it has purchased from third parties. Other companies would then take over this trade. On balance, no reduction in CO2 emissions would be achieved.”
Friends of the Earth Netherlands, which brought the case against Shell, described the ruling as a setback but stressed continued pressure on major polluters.
“This hurts… At the same time, this case has shown that large polluters are not above the law,” said Donald Pols, a Friends of the Earth Netherlands director. “Large polluters are powerful. But united, we as people have the power to change them. This judgment will change nothing about our eagerness to keep fighting.”
Shell’s CEO Wael Sawan called the ruling "the right one for the global energy transition."
The sources: Court of Apeal release , Reuters , The Financial Times , The New York Times , The Wall Street Journal
