Shell thinks CO2 obligation goes too far and inefficient: ‘Close coal-fired power stations first’ | climate

At the same time, Shell must maintain space to supply oil and gas. The oil giant argued this on Wednesday during the second day of the appeal in Milieudefensie’s groundbreaking climate case. After both parties spoke for the first time on Tuesday, Shell was now given a whole day to explain its position.

In 2021, the judge decided that Shell must reduce its emissions by 45 percent by 2030. This applies to our own emissions, but also to those of all customers who burn Shell petrol, kerosene and gas. In practice, this means that Shell will have to sell much less fossil fuels.

According to Shell, the judge may not impose a mandatory CO2 target on the company. But the percentage chosen by the court is certainly too high, according to the company. Shell only sells oil and gas, while the use of coal in particular must be sharply reduced in the coming years.

Shell’s lawyer pointed to the most ambitious climate scenario of the International Energy Agency (IEA). The use of coal must be more than halved between 2019 and 2030, while emissions from gas and oil will decrease by ‘only’ 20 to 30 percent: less than is required of Shell. With that scenario, global warming is limited to around 1.5 degrees.

Ontvang meldingen bij nieuws Stay informed with notifications

The court put its finger on the sore spot by asking Shell how much the company wanted to reduce its sales of oil and gas. The company’s lawyer had to answer that sales of liquefied natural gas will increase by another 20 to 30 percent in the coming years. Oil production will remain the same until 2030.

That image fits with the conclusion of think tanks such as Carbon Tracker, which say that Shell’s plans are not yet in line with the agreements in the Paris Agreement. These require that the use of oil and gas also decrease significantly.

Shell still invests a lot more in oil and gas production than in sustainable energy. But the oil company says it is in the “leading group”, because it invests a lot of money in green energy compared to other oil companies.

Moreover, the company says it only responds to market demand. According to the company, it is up to governments to ensure that people and companies can become more sustainable and switch to green alternatives.

According to Shell, a court may not impose a CO2 reduction order on the company, because politics must determine how much emissions will be reduced and which sectors will come first. But the order would also not have the intended effect. “Imposing the reduction order could even lead to an increase in global emissions,” said Shell lawyer Tiemen Drenth.

According to him, a competitor will then supply the oil and gas that the company is no longer allowed to sell. And if Shell stops production from certain oil fields, extraction can be resumed by another company, causing more pollution.

Shell sees natural gas as a “transition fuel” that in some cases can even reduce climate change. “When gas replaces coal consumption, Shell actually contributes to reducing global emissions,” said lawyer Daan Lunsingh Scheurleer.

Producing steel or electricity with gas releases less CO2 than with coal. Shell did not say how much of its gas sales would fall into this climate-friendly category.

Shell cites statements from various experts to prove that the judge’s order is ineffective. In the meantime, Milieudefensie points to other experts who say that the judge’s order does have an effect.

The question is whether that discussion matters at all for the court’s decision. Because the lower court decided in 2021 that Shell had a duty of care to significantly reduce its own CO2 emissions, regardless of the effect on global emissions.

Milieudefensie will have all day on Thursday to argue why the court’s original judgment should be upheld. A final hearing day will follow next week, during which the court will question both parties about their positions.