Dutch court ruling on Shell 'counter-productive': academic

The Dutch court judgment against Shell seems as much political as legal and will have unintended consequences, assuming it is even enforceable, according to scientist-turned-academic Samuele Furfari. 

In late May the commercial division of a Hague court set out a specific target for the Anglo-Dutch major to cut CO₂ emissions by at least 45% by 2030 compared with 2019. The case had been brought by seven environmental groups.

The Free University of Brussels professor Furfari told French publication Le Vif June 3 that the ruling follows the precedent set by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in 2019, which ruled that the state had to reduce its Scope 1,2 and 3 CO₂ emissions by at least 25% relative to 1990, by the end of 2020.

"This judgment will be emulated and legal pressure will be brought to bear elsewhere," he said. "Environmental activists have powerful networks. We can put this condemnation of Shell in the same category as the entry of two activist investment fund representatives into ExxonMobil's supervisory board, against the wishes of the CEO."

For over 50 years the industrial world has been cutting its production costs and therefore its energy consumption, which cuts CO2 emissions. But companies act that way to remain competitive, for the interests of their shareholders rather than climate, Furfari said.

"No industry produces CO₂ for fun or from necessity. CO₂ is the vector of life: environmental activists and the media have convinced people that CO₂ is a pollutant. To speak of "CO₂ pollution is an aberration. All human activity will always produce CO₂ which is a consequence of life," he said, later saying he could not see how the court decision could be enforced.

"The goal of a group like Shell is not about producing CO₂ but hydrocarbons from its drilling platforms. The amount of CO₂ emitted by oil production or gas is infinitesimal compared to the quantities of CO₂ generated by the consumption of this production," he said, meaning that the consumer should be sanctioned not the producer.

"Shell's business is to manage gigantic projects, whose realisation is performed by the whole oil services industry. When Shell is thus targeted, it is everyone who will suffer.... Going after a company whose raison d'être is to produce fossil energy has consequences and will destroy shareholder value," he said.

"These decisions will have no impact on the issue of climate change, any more than the development of the electric car. China and Russia will be glad of the room to develop their own industry as oil continues to arrive from Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Since the adoption in 1992 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, CO₂ emissions have increased by 58% worldwide, despite a decrease of 21.3% in the European Union. Oil demand will only go up as the global population nears 10bn by 2050. Fossil fuels have a great future," he said.