Can Shell be forced to reduce its emissions by the court?

Shell recently won an appeal in a case against Milieudefensie that demanded they drastically reduce their carbon emissions. This case gained international attention.

Words:

• A verdict is a judge or jury’s final decision in a court case after reviewing the evidence and arguments. For example: guilty or not guilty.
• To appeal means to formally ask a judge to change their decision, and bring forth a new case so a judge may reconsider the original decisions.
• A landmark case is an impactful court case that has big consequences for similar cases.
• A judge’s ruling is what happens after the verdict. It’s the action the judge takes based on the verdict. For example, the advice or suggested punishment.
• When someone’s has the obligation to do something, it means they are responsible for doing it, often because they owe it to someone else.
• The phrase greenhouse gas is often used to describe the gases produced by human activity that cause climate change. These are also called emissions. 
• When someone explains something “in layman’s terms”, it means they are explaining it in a way that most people will understand.
• To reach net zero is when companies no longer produce more greenhouse gases than they absorb, recycle, or compensate for. In other words, they do more good for the planet than they do harm.
• To reach a consensus is to agree.

Video:

Watch the video to 1:19.

1.  What did Milieudefensie (called Friends of the Earth in this video) demand of Shell in their case in 2021? Mention what they wanted Shell to do and by when.

2. Why did Shell argue that the ruling from 2021 would be counter effective?

A: Oil and gas still need to be produced in the future to fuel the growing population.

B: Consumers would still buy oil and gas, but from their competitors. 

C: Oil and gas can be produced in a climate-friendly way. 

D: It should be the responsibility of the consumers, not the companies, to reduce carbon emissions.

3. Is Shell planning to achieve net zero by 2030? 

Watch from 01:19 to the end of the video.

Look at the statement True or false? 

According to the judge, Milieudefensie can’t demand Shell reduces its emissions by a specific percentage, because it’s unclear how much they need to be reduced by to make the climate goals in 2030.

5. In their statement. Milieudefensie seems to see a silver lining in the judge’s ruling. What is this silver lining? 

6. What could Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth) do next?

A: Sue Shell for the legal costs of the court case. 

B: Gather more signatures from Dutch citizens.

C: Set a clear emission reduction goal for Shell.

D: Appeal the judge’s decision. 

7. Do you think a court can demand a company to reduce its emissions, or do you think it’s the responsibility of the consumer that uses the company’s product? In this case, is it Shell’s responsibility, or the consumer’s responsibility to use less fuel such as petrol?

Van de makers van All Right!, Of Course! en Taalblokken Engels