The Dutch court’s ruling on Royal Dutch Shell Plc will determine whether it is legally responsible for climate change, and executives of major global oil companies will pay close attention to this case.

A panel of judges from the Lower Court of The Hague will rule on Wednesday, and environmental activists will also pay close attention to the case. Although the judgment is only legally binding in the Netherlands, it will be reviewed as a new litigation area and may guide judges in other places to deliberate.

Shell was sued by Friends of the Earth’s Dutch subsidiary Milieudefensie. His lawyers spent two weeks in court earlier this year. They argued that the company’s purpose was to extract fossil fuels and disrupt the Paris Agreement. Limiting the temperature to below Celsius is a violation of human rights. 1.5 degrees Celsius.

In order to avoid oil spills and other unintentional pollution behaviors, oil companies around the world have so-called prudential obligations and must comply with these obligations in the countries where they operate. A ruling made them responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of the fossil fuel they extracted. This is a landmark victory for environmental activists, who are increasingly seeking reforms from the courts. According to climatecasechart.com database data, in the end, there are close to 1,700 climate change cases for governments and companies.

Eric De Brabandere, professor of international dispute resolution at Leiden University in the Netherlands, said: “There is no doubt that this is a very important case.” “Not only because it directly targets such a large scale Oil companies, but also indirectly attacked the entire oil extraction industry.”

Shell acknowledged its role in combating climate change and stated that it is doing so, but it has better achieved this goal through cooperation rather than court action.

Shell’s legal director, Donny Ching, said at the company’s annual meeting last week: “Tackling climate change is a huge, huge challenge that requires a collaborative and global approach. “I don’t think litigation will help us. . “

17,000 plaintiffs

Milieudefensie summoned 17,000 people to sign as co-plaintiffs, saying that this was “the first time the court has been asked to order a polluting multinational company to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in order to save the climate.”

Michael Berg, executive director of the Sabine Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University School of Law, said: “Judges all over the world are facing climate change cases and are seeking other judges as references.”

Shell’s recent decision has not disappeared in the two countries where the Anglo-Dutch company is jointly listed. The British Supreme Court said in February that thousands of Nigerians could sue Shell in London to harm the environment in West Africa. A month ago, a Dutch court ordered Shell Nigeria branch to compensate local people for losses caused by an oil spill 13 years ago. This was also a case brought by Milieudefensie.

As the Federal Court of Appeals ruled that global issues require politics rather than political issues, New York City’s setback last month was due to efforts to get Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP Plc and other energy companies to help pay the public costs of fighting climate change. Legal action.

Making a company liable for violation of the Paris Agreement by not signing it may be inconsistent with international law. Although the case was tried in The Hague, where the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court are located, it is still tried in the local court of first instance in accordance with Dutch law.

De Brabandere said: “The test will be: to what extent Shell is obliged to reduce climate change, but this is not a necessary condition.” “International law does not really apply to companies, but to governments, and governments have the responsibility to apply them to the company.”

The Dutch environmental organization successfully sued the Dutch government in 2015, demanding it reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the ruling in 2019, stating that “the state has an obligation to do everything it can.”

The International Energy Agency refocused on energy companies last week, telling them to stop developing new oil, natural gas and coal fields today, otherwise they will face the danger of rising global temperatures.

Angus Walker, a partner at BDB Pitmans London, said: “There are already many days to extract fossil fuels, and traditional oil exploration companies will have to quickly switch to green alternatives.” “Whether it wins or not, Shell may All need to read the writing on the wall and catch up.”

Other oil giants face a showdown on Wednesday. Activist investor No. 1 Engine is trying to replace a third of ExxonMobil’s board of directors at its annual meeting in an attempt to make a climate-friendly overhaul of the world’s largest oil exporter. Chevron Corp., the second-largest US producer, will face its targeted campaign at its annual meeting that day.