- On May 26, the Hague District Court ordered the Anglo-Dutch oil giant to reduce its global carbon emissions by 45 percent by the end of 2030
- This was in comparison to the levels in 2019, according to Roger Cox, an environmental campaigner with the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth
- The decision was a landmark moment in the climate fight since it was the first time in history that a firm was legally obligated to match its policies with the Paris Agreement
Next targets for Climate change
GLASGOW, SCOTTISH REPUBLICAN REPUBLICAN REPUBLICAN According to the campaigners, financial institutions and individual board members could be the next targets of climate lawsuits. They were instrumental in securing a historic trial victory over Royal Dutch Shell, the world’s largest oil company.
It comes as countries rush to secure an agreement in the last days of the COP26 climate conference. Negotiators from 197 nations are taking part in talks aimed at maintaining the crucial global temperature target of 1.5 degrees Celsius alive.
There’s no way of knowing if the discussions will be able to meet the demands of the climate emergency just now.
His remarks were made at the COP26 Coalition’s People’s Summit for Climate Justice, which took place on the fringes of the United Nations-sponsored meetings in Glasgow, Scotland.
On May 26, the Hague District Court ordered the Anglo-Dutch oil behemoth to cut global carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030, compared to current levels. Shell is also accountable for its own carbon emissions as well as those of its suppliers, known as Scope 3 emissions, according to the statement.
We can’t lose anything
When preparing the Urgenda Climate Case against the Dutch government in 2012, Cox said he first considered what courtroom setbacks might imply. The Dutch Supreme Court confirmed this landmark lawsuit in December 2019, finding that the government has an obligation to decrease emissions immediately and considerably in accordance with human rights duties.
“At the moment, we essentially believed there was nothing to lose.” We’ll either win or lose, but we don’t believe there’s anything to lose if we lose a case,” Cox said. He went on to say that litigating and “trying to penetrate through the existing quo of short-term interest” was a “moral obligation.”
“Obviously, you know you’re going to lose when you start a lawsuit like that,” Cox said. “But after losing also, one can always learn something or other for climate litigators that they may build on.” “So, you don’t stop going as a kid to the streets, and we do the same as adults if it doesn’t have an immediate impact.” You keep doing it until you see results.”