[ad_1]
April 6, 2019 by Steve Hanley
Royal Dutch Shell is a Dutch company, which means that it is subject to the legislation of the Netherlands. On April 5, Friends Of The Earth Netherlands filed a lawsuit against Shell to force it to face its role in the climate emergency that confronts the world and its people. The prosecution includes 17,000 individuals as complainants.
They want Shell to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2010 levels and zero by 2050. Both targets are in line with the Paris Climate Agreements of 2015. According to the As the latest IPCC climate report, the only way to achieve these goals is to quickly get the global economy out of its dependence on fossil fuels.
Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law, said Friday: "The IPCC has warned that the window of action to avoid irreversible and truly catastrophic climate damage is close and closes quickly. Today's lawsuit against Shell makes it clear that the usual procedures are no longer acceptable. Companies that continue to ignore climate risks can and will be held legally accountable and financially responsible for their actions. Investors and corporate decision makers who ignore this new reality are doing so at their peril. "
Too little, too late?
Shell has recently invested heavily in renewable energy recharge and electric vehicle charging networks. In his latest annual report, he plans to reduce his carbon emissions by 3% by 2021. But Friends of the Earth say that we need to do more and more quickly.
In an interview with Real World Radio, Roger Cox, a member of the legal team who initiated the lawsuit against Shell, explained in detail the legal basis for the action. "What we do … is to send a writ of summons to Shell. It is a unique case because we are here seeking to prevent future climate damage, instead of seeking financial compensation for the losses already suffered ".
He frames the legal argument as follows.
"Every citizen, government organization or company has a duty of care to fulfill in our Dutch legal system. This means in fact that no one in this country is allowed to create a danger for others if this particular danger can be avoided. And since Shell can obviously be transformed into an energy company other than a fossil fuel company, it is not obliged to remain a fossil fuel company for decades, or forever. It can change. It therefore has the opportunity to no longer contribute to dangerous climate change. "
Cox points out that Shell is responsible for about 2% of all carbon emissions in the world, which is considerable. He added: "We believe that this type of business is crucial for at least accelerating the energy transition in the Netherlands, which will obviously have an effect on other companies and in other countries as well."
"We are looking for the same kind of reaction if we succeed in our action against Royal Dutch Shell. We also expect this to impact other fossil fuel companies by encouraging them to change.
"Another point that we highlight in this legal case is that the consequences of global warming by more than 1.5 degrees will be so severe that it will constitute a violation of human rights on a global scale and that Is one of the reasons why we expect the courts to want to consider this issue and hope that it will be concluded that it is not permissible for Companies like Shell continue their business as usual, creating a great danger of human rights violations later in the century. "
A battle is raging
The clash of ideas and ideology caused by climate change and global warming will be a titanic struggle. But in the end, this is a simple question. Should companies be allowed to make obscene profits from activities that cause physical and emotional damage to billions of people and threaten the existence of millions of species?
The answer to this question should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, but as Charles Dickens wrote, "The law is a jerk". Similar lawsuits have been filed against companies and governments around the world. We now have time to look at these defendants and the courts turn into pretzels that try to defend the indefensible. This could make a comedy worthy of Monty Python's flying circus if the consequences were not so serious.
[ad_2]
Source link