Donald Pols, director of the Milieudefensie movement, tried to console himself after the decision of the Court of Appeal of The Hague which, on Monday, November 12, had just annulled the sentence described as “historic” pronounced by a district court in the same city, in 2021: Oil and gas group Shell will finally not be forced to reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 45% in 2030, compared to its level of 2019. “It hurts, but this matter will at least have shown that the big polluters are not untouchable and that the debate about their responsibility in the fight against global warming has been stimulated”declared Pols, without hiding his bitterness.
The defeat of his organization and the other six that initiated the procedure against Shell, as well as the 17,000 citizens who joined their complaint, is scathing. They believed that, without measures imposed on oil tankers, it would be impossible to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and Dutch judge Larisa Alwin agreed with them in the first instance. It ruled that the Anglo-Dutch company and its 1,100 global subsidiaries contributed “The disastrous consequences of climate change” AND It had therefore decided that Shell should review its target of reducing its emissions by 20% by 2030, to increase it to 45%. A goal that the company said it wanted to achieve by 2035, in the best case scenario.
The decision of M.me Alwin had aroused euphoria among environmental defenders, certain that his sentence, described by them as“giant advance” It would have important consequences worldwide. Especially since in the United States, the head of Exxon was then facing a revolt from some of its shareholders, dissatisfied with postponing decisions to promote a “green” transition.
“A requirement for conscious management »
Shell, however, intended to continue its legal battle, arguing in particular that only political authorities could impose environmental targets on it. On Monday, Wael Sawan, the company’s CEO, stated that this is why he was ” happy “ of the appeal court’s decision. She is, according to him, “Good for the transition globally and for the Netherlands.” The group had said its very existence would be put in doubt if additional restrictions were imposed. And, before the appeal court, his lawyers insisted that it was “temporarily” It is impossible for the world to do without fossil fuels. The company states, on the other hand, that it maintains its goal of being neutral in terms of emissions by 2050.
You have 36.43% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
