IMAGE by OVOODOCORVO
Shell says it ‘lobbies for energy transition’
during climate ruling appeal
Company is fighting Dutch court ruling that says it
must emit 45% less CO2 by 2030 than in 2019
Ajit
Niranjan
Fri 12 Apr
2024 21.42 BST
Shell has
argued that it “lobbies for, not against, the energy transition” on the final
day of its appeal against an important climate ruling.
The fossil
fuel company is fighting the decision of a Dutch court in 2021 that forces it
to pump 45% less planet-heating CO2 into the atmosphere by 2030 than it did in
2019. In court on Friday, Shell argued the ruling is ineffective, onerous and
does not fit into the existing legal system.
Lawyers for
Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), which brought the case
against Shell, repeated their calls for the company to act in line with climate
science and international agreements to stop extreme weather from growing more
violent. They said the outcome of the case will determine how much the climate
changes.
“It’s not
just about Shell,” said Donald Pols, the Milieudefensie chief executive, after
the hearing. “We want to hold all companies accountable – to combat dangerous
climate change.”
Shell
argued in court that it plays its role in energy transition and pointed to the
lobbying it had done in favour of climate policies such as the EU
emissions-trading scheme and the US Inflation Reduction Act.
Milieudefensie
said it was “quite clear” that Shell had used its social influence to safeguard
the role of oil and gas and that it had continued to do so with its policies.
In recent months, Shell has backtracked on a series of clean energy ambitions.
“I think
it’s a little bit far-fetched from Shell to argue they are in favour of the
energy transition, at least to the extent of being in line with the Paris
agreement,” said Roger Cox, Milieudefensie’s lawyer in the case.
The appeal
wraps up just days after the European court of human rights sided with a group
of 2,400 Swiss women who sued their government over its climate policy.
Both Shell
and Milieudefensie cited the Swiss case to support their arguments on Friday.
Shell argued that the decision of the 17 Strasbourg judges showed it was up to
states, rather than companies, to rein in emissions. Milieudefensie said it
showed that “judges have an important role to play in the complex debate on
preventing dangerous climate change”.
A report
last week found that 57 companies are linked to 80% of carbon emissions since
2016, though the bulk of that comes from their customers burning the fuels they
sell.
At the
appeal, Milieudefensie argued that Shell should not achieve the original
emissions reduction target by simply selling off fossil fuel assets, which may
then land in the hands of companies with less public scrutiny and dirtier
operations. Shell argued that the original ruling gave it the freedom to do so
and said the activist group had failed to contest this point by lodging a
cross-appeal.
The
planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the
good, the bad and the essential
Frans
Everts, director of Shell in the Netherlands, said in the company’s closing
remarks that he was concerned by the “unintended consequences” of the lawsuit.
He said the activists wanted to limit the supply of Shell’s products before its
customers are “able, willing or ready to switch to less fossil fuels”.
He said:
“As long as the demand for these products doesn’t change – and people can just
go to the competitor – there is not one less carbon molecule in the air. And
without a clean alternative to oil and gas products, the energy transition will
not benefit either.”
In 2021,
after evidence for the original case was filed, the International Energy Agency
published a report on reaching net zero emissions by 2050 that found no room
for new oil and gas exploration. Companies including Shell have since continued
to invest in new oil and gas fields despite protests from climate scientists
and activists.
A verdict
is expected on 12 November 2024.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário