Thread by @tessakhan

An absolutely historic decision from the Hague District Court against #Shell. Aside from the obvious headline emissions reduction order (45% by 2030 compared to 2019) there is so much to unpack in the court's reasoning. A few (personal) highlights 👇
theguardian.com/business/2021/…

Much like its decision in the climate case brought by @urgenda against the Dutch gov't, the court found that human rights obligations aren't directly enforceable against the defendant, but that they can be used to determine the standard of care that the defendant owes

In this instance, it's significant that the Court drew on voluntary or soft law principles like the UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights to inform its expectations of Shell's conduct. A very welcome way to give those soft standards some real teeth.

The distinction that the Court draws between Shell's 'obligation of result' for its Scope 1 emissions, vs a 'best efforts' obligation for Scope 3 emissions, definitely needs some further scrutiny, but still no question that this is a HUGE deal...

including the Court's observation that "it is internationally endorsed that companies bear responsibilities for Scope 3 emissions". I can certainly think of a few groups who have been endorsing that view for a while!

Last slightly more sober point before moving on to the more fun stuff: the Court takes a more generous/permissive approach to negative emissions than the Dutch courts' decisions in the @urgenda litigation, in which they were clear that NETs were v risky & not proven at scale

As mentioned, there's so much more exciting, substantive analysis to be done here, but just a couple of enjoyable aspects of the Court's reasoning worth highlighting: 1st, the comprehensive rejection of Shell's market substitution argument. Noone's buying it guys, time to move on

The hilarious attempt by Shell to rely on the commitment in the Sustainable Dev't Goals to the provision of "reliable, modern & sustainable energy for all" as a reason not to reduce emissions. You have to admire the audacity.

Some v enjoyable grace notes in the way the Court structures its narrative, incl. a para on Shell's report/documentary from the 1980s on the dangers of climate change...

Followed immediately by the sentence "From 2006/2007 onward, the Shell group invested in tar sand in Canada in order to extract tar sand oil."

So much to enjoy here. Thank you, @LaurievdBurg @milieudefensie @CoxRoger & everyone else involved for your brave, brilliant work. An amazing way to cap a nightmare week for oil & gas execs. Long may it continue.

Important qualification that this was the approach taken by the District Cout of the Hague in the 1st @urgenda decision; the subsequent decisions were of course directly human rights-based against the State!