THE HAGUE, Netherlands - Today, the Court of Appeal in The Hague delivered its judgment in Milieudefensie v. Shell. It established that the oil and gas giant has a legal responsibility to reduce its emissions, but it rules that it cannot derive a specific emission reduction obligation for Shell. In 2021, the District Court ordered Shell to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 45% from 2019 levels by 2030, effective immediately, citing its responsibility for climate change. This was the first time worldwide that a court established that a corporation had a legal obligation to reduce its emissions in line with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, including the 1.5ºC global temperature rise limit. Shell appealed, with hearings held earlier this year.

In a surprise pivot, the court noted that all of Shell’s new investments in oil and gas fields are incompatible with the internationally agreed global temperature rise limit. The court went even further to say that Shell is aware that these oil and gas investments “lock in” climate pollution, and yet it continues to massively invest in oil and gas. The court noted that climate goals can only be met if production of oil and gas is curtailed. This creates an important opening for future climate litigation targeting fossil fuel companies based on their investments.

“Our data shows Shell has over 800 new oil and gas projects in the pipeline that are all incompatible with the 1.5°C global temperature rise limit, and other Big Oil companies are on a similar course to destruction. That’s why the Shell case is part of a wave of recent climate cases to hold oil and gas companies – the climate arsonists fueling climate chaos – accountable for their role in driving the crisis. At least 86 lawsuits have been filed against fossil fuel producers, with the vast majority filed since the 2015 Paris agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

“Rich fossil fuel producing countries gathering in Baku this week should take notice. Unless they stop propping up fossil fuels with billions of dollars in subsidies and instead take responsibility for paying the climate finance they owe to the Global South they too will be held responsible in court. We’re just getting started.”