Royal Dutch Shell has appealed against a Dutch court order that should step up the pace of its global emissions cuts, arguing that society has been unfairly chosen and that tackling climate change requires “coordination”.
Executive director Ben van Beurden said that while Shell supports “urgent” action to tackle climate change, the May decision imposes a 45 per cent reduction in the group’s global net carbon emissions by 2030. he had not taken into account the full extent of Shell’s plans. .
“A court judgment, against a single company, is not effective,” Van Beurden said. “What is needed is clear and ambitious policies that will lead to fundamental changes throughout the energy system…. We will appeal because climate change is a challenge that requires both urgent action and a global approach, of collaboration and encouraging coordination. between all parties. “
The company argued that the court’s decision, which is legally binding, had not considered Shell’s own “Powering Progress” strategy published in April, that the initial hearings in the lawsuit had been held earlier.
Shell is committed to becoming a net black company by 2050 and has begun to increase investments in alternative energy sources with long-term plans to produce less oil. He says he believes his emissions will peak in 2018 and that his oil production will do so in 2019, although critics say he is likely to remain a significant producer of fossil fuels for decades to come in his plans.
The case in the Netherlands was carried by the Dutch wing of Friends of the Earth Milieudefensie with other NGOs.
Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie, wrote on Twitter Tuesday that Shell would be better off investing “his money and energy to prevent dangerous climate change” than appealing the order. “The longer Shell waits, the more serious the consequences will be for all of us.”
Judge Larisa Alwin ruled in May that Shell’s existing climate strategy was not concrete enough and that society had a human rights obligation to take further action.
She said the decision would have “far-reaching consequences” for Anglo-Dutch society, but that it was up to Shell how to execute the order.
Van Beurden said in June that Shell would “face the challenge” and that, even if the court’s order did not change the group’s strategy, it would lead to “an acceleration” in its plans.
Shell has unveiled plans this year to reduce the carbon intensity of fossil fuels it produces and sells by 6% by 2023, 20% by 2030 and 45% by 2035, compared to 2016 levels.
Carbon intensity is a measure of the carbon per megajole of energy sold, rather than the absolute measure of the amount of carbon emitted by militants over long periods of time.