Environmental group Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie) announced that it is launching a new court case against Shell, following up on its initial case which resulted in a ruling – subsequently overturned on appeal – requiring the energy giant to slash its emissions, including those from its customers’ use of products.

In the new case, Milieudefensie said that, based on the appeals court’s ruling that Shell has a duty to combat climate change and reduce emissions, it is demanding that the company stop bringing new oil and gas fields into production, and that Shell must progressively reduce its emissions between 2030 and 2050.

In a response provided by Shell, the company said that the new case is “unrealistic, unreasonable, and fundamentally misplaced,” and that it “ignores the role that oil and gas will continue to play in the coming decades,” to ensure a stable energy supply as new renewable energy sources become more widely available.

Milieudefensie against Shell in 2019, arguing that the company was in breach of its legal duty of care under Dutch law due to its impact on climate change, and that the company was undermining the ambitions of the Paris Agreement to limit average temperature rise to well below 2˚C, and to pursue efforts to limit to 1.5˚C.

In a 2021 ruling, the court held Shell responsible for greenhouse gas emissions resulting from its customers’ use of its products and ordered Shell to slash emissions by 45% by 2030, on a 2019 basis, including its Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. In 2024, however, an appeals court reversed the ruling, finding that sufficient scientific evidence does not currently exist to support a specific emissions reduction requirement such as the 45% ruling, and agreeing with an argument by Shell that mandating a requirement from the company to reduce emissions caused by the use of its products by customers would not be effective in cutting emissions, as it would require Shell to stop selling fuels, while customers would continue to purchase those fuels from other suppliers.

The appeals court did acknowledge, however, that “fossil fuel consumption is largely responsible for creating the climate problem and that addressing climate change is something that cannot wait,” adding that “companies like Shell, which contribute significantly to the climate problem and have it within their power to contribute to combating it, have an obligation to limit CO2 emissions in order to counter dangerous climate change.”

Milieudefensie said that the new case is being launched following a statement made by Shell last year indicating that it aims to produce and sell more gas until after 2030, and that it does not intend to reduce the production and sale of oil, and in light of the court’s ruling that it said “held that Shell has an obligation to reduce its emissions and that new oil and gas projects may be at odds with international climate agreements.”

In its statement, however, Shell said that “Milieudefensie repeats numerous arguments that The Hague Court of Appeal completely rejected in 2024,” and noted that if it is prevented from developing oil and gas resources, the rights to oil and gas fields will be allocated by governments to other companies, adding that “this does not benefit the climate at all.”

Shell said:

“Despite the fact that renewable energy is becoming more widely available, Milieudefensie ignores the role that oil and gas will continue to play in the coming decades. The claim also overlooks how the global energy system works.”