LONDON — A Dutch court's decision to force Royal Dutch Shell
to make deeper, faster cuts to its climate warming emissions on the basis of
human rights could set a precedent, especially in European countries, according
to lawyers and activists.
اضافة اعلان
The court on Wednesday ordered the Anglo-Dutch company to
slash its global greenhouse gas emissions, which stood at around 1.6 billion tons
of CO2 equivalent in 2019, by 45 percent by 2030. Shell said it would appeal
the decision forcing it to cut by an amount roughly equivalent to four times
Britain's annual emissions.
"We expect a ripple effect into other jurisdictions.
Now that we have this first established liability, it definitely creates a
momentum we can build on," said Roger Cox, lawyer for activist group
Friends of the Earth, which brought the case along with Greenpeace, other
activists and Dutch citizens.
They brought the lawsuit in the Netherlands, where Shell's
headquarters are based.
The court held that Shell violated its duty of care under
Dutch law because its policies and emissions contributed to dangerous climate
change.
Shell had argued that its global emissions were not subject
to Dutch law, that the plaintiffs' claims were a matter for lawmakers and that
the company was acting lawfully and its emissions were permitted. The company
also said the plaintiffs could not establish that reducing Shell's emissions
would have an impact on climate change.
Michael Burger, a litigation specialist who represents local
US governments in climate cases including against Shell, said while Wednesday's
decision was based on Dutch law, the concept of a duty to care exists in legal
systems in Europe and around the globe.
"I think it's quite likely that we'll see other
lawsuits filed in other jurisdictions, seeking to accomplish the same
thing," he said, noting a similar case is pending against Total in
France.
Myfanwy Wood, dispute resolution partner at law firm
Ashurst, said duplicating the approach will depend on the standard of care that
applies to corporations in other jurisdictions.
Dutch climate rulings have inspired global climate
litigation before.
In 2019, the country's High Court ruled that the government
had to commit to stronger climate targets in a case brought by the Urgenda
Foundation. That decision, which paved the way for the Shell case, established
that the government had a duty of care to significantly reduce emissions.
The case "sparked a wave of similar lawsuits around the
world against governments, and we can expect that with the decision
yesterday," said Louise Fournier, a climate lawyer for Greenpeace.
There are about 425 pending climate lawsuits in various
countries and about 1,375 lawsuits in US courts, according to the Sabin Center
for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.
The US cases target the industry, while most cases in other
jurisdictions take aim at governments.
Experts said the Dutch ruling will have no legal impact on
the US cases, which are generally based on different laws and accuse the
industry of misleading the public about climate change and seek financial
damages.
However, the Dutch ruling could still influence the
US cases, said Karen Sokol, a professor at Loyola University New Orleans College
of Law. She said the Dutch decision reassures US judges that climate change
involves more than policymaking.
“The industry has done everything it can to scare courts
into 'you have no role,'” said Sokol. “It is going to get demystified and
courts will get comfortable with it.”
European legislators are working on a raft of new rules on
what type of investments should be labeled sustainable and how to reduce
planet-warming leaks from natural gas infrastructure.
"This ruling (...) increases the pressure on large
polluters and helps us in Europe to tighten climate policy for them as
well," said the Greens' European legislator Bas Eickhout, Vice Chair of
the European Parliament's Environment Committee.
"They can no longer escape the climate crisis:
International climate targets must also apply to them."
Read more business
.jpg)
.jpg)
