Climate Lawsuits: Holding Polluters Accountable
Growing legal actions target corporations and governments for climate change contributions or inaction on commitments.
Topics: environment, politics, individual and values
Example
In May 2021, a Dutch court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to cut its global carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. The case, brought by Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) and co-plaintiffs, was the first to order a company to cut its emissions. On 12 November 2024, the Hague Court of Appeal overturned the 45% order. It agreed that Shell has a duty to reduce its emissions, but said a court cannot set a specific percentage for one company. Milieudefensie has appealed to the Dutch Supreme Court. In the US, the youth case Juliana v. United States ended in March 2025 when the Supreme Court declined to hear it.
Key facts
- In 2021 a Dutch court ordered Shell to cut its global emissions by 45% by 2030 compared with 2019.
- Milieudefensie appealed the 2024 ruling to the Dutch Supreme Court.
Limitations
- The Shell case is still before the Dutch Supreme Court, so its final outcome is open; check the latest ruling before citing it.
Evaluations
environment evaluation
Support
Even after the appeal, a court confirmed that a private oil company has a legal duty to cut emissions, a principle that future cases can build on.
Counterargument
Without the 45% target, the ruling sets no measurable cut, so its direct effect on Shell's emissions is limited.
Rebuttal
Courts may be better at setting duties than numbers; legislators can then attach targets, as the EU does through its own climate laws.
Additional support
The appeal court also questioned whether limiting one company's sales would cut emissions if customers simply buy oil from rivals, a real problem for company-by-company litigation.
politics evaluation
Support
Litigation lets citizens press for action when governments and companies move slowly, adding courts to the tools of climate politics.
Counterargument
Judges are not elected, and deciding how fast an economy should decarbonise is a political choice; the appeal court partly accepted this point.
Rebuttal
Courts are not replacing policy when they apply existing duties of care or human rights law; they are asking whether actors meet standards already set.
Additional support
Juliana's end in the US, where courts said the issue belongs to the elected branches, contrasts with Dutch courts' willingness to rule on duties.
individual and values evaluation
Support
Milieudefensie's case was joined by over 17,000 citizens as co-plaintiffs, showing individuals using law to hold a powerful company to account.
Counterargument
Shell argued that consumers who buy fuel share responsibility, so blaming the producer alone is unfair.
Rebuttal
Producers decide what energy is on offer and spend heavily on lobbying, so they carry more responsibility than any single consumer.
Additional support
The young plaintiffs in Juliana argued for the rights of future generations, a value that courts have so far struggled to turn into enforceable law.
Sources
- De Rechtspraak (Dutch judiciary) (2024-11-12): CO2-uitstoot Shell (case page)
- Milieudefensie: Milieudefensie and Shell meet at the Supreme Court for final hearing in climate case
- OPB (2025-03-24): US Supreme Court declines landmark climate lawsuit by young Oregonians
More GP guides for this example
Topic guides
- Society and Culture GP Examples
- Politics and Governance GP Examples
- Environment and Climate GP Examples