Shell on Tuesday told a Dutch court a 2021 order that it should drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions lacks a legal basis and risks obstructing the fight against climate change.

In a landmark ruling that shocked the energy sector, a lower Dutch court in 2021 ordered Shell to reduce its planet warming carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 from 2019 levels.

The order related not only to Shell’s own emissions, but also to those caused by the buyers and users of its products.

Shell said that implementing the ruling would force it to shrink its business and would only lead customers to shift to other suppliers of fuel.

    • Bgugi@lemmy.world
      9·
      2 months ago

      Only shell knows that the Earth’s atmosphere has a built-in CO2 counter, and by rolling it over climate change can be resolved!

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        7·
        2 months ago

        I don’t know, that sounds like it might take a while. What if we just changed the Earth’s oil filter and consulted VW on how to get past an emissions check?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        2·
        2 months ago

        I’ve actually heard people make that argument. “Plants need CO2. This will increase crop yields.” Which is technically true, global greening is part of climate change, but it also applies to weeds. So…

    • No_Eponym
      1·
      2 months ago

      I mean, eventually if you destroy the climate and the humans, you won’t need to worry about human-driven climate change at all.

  • perviouslyiner@lemmy.world
    22·
    2 months ago

    force it to shrink its business

    Well yes, if your entire business is the cause of a problem that needs to be solved, then this is a good thing.

    If only the “green energy” parts of your business were real and not just several pages of CGI and prose in the annual report, then maybe this wouldn’t be so much of a problem!

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    7·
    2 months ago

    Shell said that implementing the ruling would force it to shrink its business and simply lead customers to shift to other suppliers of fuel.

    As much as I’d like to remark with snark that “I don’t see a problem with Shell shrinking”, this point is important. Shell would essentially sell less oil, driving prices up and making its competitors profit more. Remember, Saudi Arabia can single handedly manipulate oil prices.

    “It obstructs the role that Shell can and wants to play in the energy transition.”

    Given that Shell’s role is to OBSTRUCT energy transition in the first place, it’s a good thing this ruling happened. I mean, the article exposes that next:

    Shell’s lawyers said it was up to governments to set climate policies and goals, as courts lacked a mandate to do so. But Friends of the Earth Netherlands, which brought the case, said Shell influences government policies worldwide through its size and global presence and is one the most important drivers of demand for oil and gas.

    Shell’s lawyers stressed the company’s investments in the development of non-fossil fuels as well as its support for the Paris Climate Agreement and said the company’s targets to reduce its own emissions went further than the court’s order.

    Shell earlier this month weakened a 2030 carbon reduction target and scrapped a 2035 objective, citing expectations for strong gas demand and uncertainty in the energy transition, even as it affirmed a plan to cut emissions to net zero by 2050.

    “We’re totally reducing our emissions! Pay no mind to these actions proving the contrary!”