By Andy May
Friends of the Earth (Netherlands) sued Royal Dutch Shell, using The Netherlands law that allows non-governmental organizations to sue over environmental or social issues that affect all citizens. They won a judgement that ordered Shell to reduce its emissions in 2030 by 45% compared to 2019. The reduction includes the emissions by Shell’s customers around the world, including you and me.
Shell has appealed the verdict, which is now before the Hague Court of Appeals. Clintel has intervened (in Dutch here) as a third party in the case to make the case that the court did not consider evidence that climate change is not a danger to Dutch citizens. The court ruled that Shell’s emissions threaten to cause “dangerous climate change,” a phrase and concept that even the IPCC does not use.
Shell did not contest this phrase, a phrase that is not supported by observational evidence. The only evidence is from unvalidated climate models that clearly do not match observations to date.
Since this case affects Shell’s customers and suppliers worldwide, Clintel is asking people from around the world to sign a petition asking the court to consider the scientific evidence that Shell’s global emissions are not dangerous. Shell, and other companies are often terrified of adverse publicity if they challenge the popular, politically correct, and erroneous view that anthropogenic climate change is dangerous. This is despite evidence that it is not. Until Shell and other companies “grow a pair,” it is up to us to fight this nonsense.
Please sign their petition here, and if possible, donate to help them pay their legal costs.
Signed – and thank you Anthony/Charles for bringing this to the attention of the WUWT readership.
Thanks for the links.
The party at fault is the Netherlands government, for crafting a bill that ends up with a preposterous result. I could see how a court in the Netherlands could collect evidence of damage to Friends of the Earth, in the Netherlands.
Claims of damage to parties that were never presented or deposed is the court arrogating a power to “correct injustice” that did not occur in their jurisdiction, if at all.
Thanks for the chance to add my name to the list. Proud to stand up for sanity.
Thanks. Petition signed.
Done.
It’s a pity they don’t invite comments either.
The Dutch are surely capable of actually looking at real sea level changes, not inadequate modeled ones. They’ve already built half a country below sea level.
Shell might not be as stupid as it pretends to be. Shell’s headquarters is now exclusively in Perfidious Albion.
By what standing does a Netherlands court claim the right to control the actions of a company in other countries?
If this ruling is allowed to stand the only option that Shell would have, would be to shut down all of it’s operations in the Netherlands so that the Netherlands courts have no assets to seize.
Signed.
Signed and donated. This insanity has to stop.
unfortunately, the insanity won’t stop- it’ll get far worse until it leads to economic/social/political/military catastrophes
Now, considering the political climate, how surprising would it be to find Shell’s attorneys, in the name of their client, disavowing all those friendly claims of no danger in evidence? – witch! witch! witch!
Firstly, it is not clear that companies like Shell are not actively partaking in this anti-carbon scam. They are doing many things to hasten the ultimate monopolisation of all resources, including not even bothering to challenge an obviously untrue charge as the essay explains.
Secondly, before I sign a petition for Shell, can I see where Shell has fought for me recently, when the price of energy suddenly skyrocketed for no reason at all. No reason at all.
Stopping fuel extraction in Texas does not really explain the prices, as the shortfalls are made up by all the fuel stolen from Iraq, Libya and Syria, counted as American Production.
I think I’ll save my prayers for those on my side…
Sow tHE wind and rashLy reap the whirLwind.
I WILL NOT SIGN.
RDS has ample resources and if they choose not to mount a proper defense out of fear of being painted as “deniers” then that is their problem and they deserve what they get. Not only will they not mount their own defense, they refuse to fund others. What would the debate look like if skeptical scientists had proper funding that RDS and their ilk could easily provide? What would the debate look like if scientists were assured of long term funding that could not be cut off by political correctness? I’ve spent untold hours of my time debating and trying to change minds at great cost to myself. RDS and their competitots are the beneficiaries of the time and effort skeptics have put into trying to inject some sanity into the debate. Fossil fuel companies are the direct beneficiaries of that. What have they done for themselves?
As for the Dutch, while I have sympathy for the common people, they will have to face the reality of a world without fossil fuels to finally “get it” and do something about it. Facts are lost in this debate. Having a race between freezing to death and starving to death might finally inject some sanity into decision making.
A pox on both their houses.
https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/our-climate-target.html#iframe=L3dlYmFwcHMvY2xpbWF0ZV9hbWJpdGlvbi8
It says right on their web site that their goal is to achieve net zero by 2050. If they are determined to cut their own throats (or at least give the appearance of doing so) why should I lift a finger to support them?
Even though Shell’s behavior is very dubious, keep in mind that if they lose this case it creates a legal precedent. They are going after thirty major other companies as well, blackmailing then with their lawsuit threats to take a green stance. If they win these suits, it will be even darker times for people in the Netherlands. That’s why I have joined the court case under my real name and donated. The organisations suing Shell are NOT acting on my behalf and NOT in my interest.
This is an interesting example of where “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” does not work.
David,
I’m not asking you to support the idiots at Shell. Clintel is entering the lawsuit as a third party. They are not supporting Shell, they are simply pointing out that climate change is not dangerous, which any informed person should already know. I’m asking you to support clintel.
Any informed person should know? The EU just agreed to reduce emissions by 62% by 2030.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/eu-reaches-agreement-pivotal-carbon-market-deal-czech-eu-presidency-2022-12-18/
Let them Sri Lanka themselves. Clintel will not prevail in court because facts and reason no longer matter. Big Oil has the resources to flip this debate on its head. The sooner they are backed into a corner where they have no other choice, the better. By intervening, Clintel is letting Shell off the hook.
I agree. Unless you are prepared to call out BS then you do not deserve to survive.
The single benefit of climate models is the proof they offer that CO2 does zip. No model shows snow increasing. No model shows the Southern Ocean and Antarctica cooling. No model shows Greenland gaining in elevation and permanent ice cover. Likewise for Iceland. No model shows the Nino34 region being trendless.
There was no global energy balance in 1850 as all models assume. Oceans take hundreds to thousands of years to get heat in and out of the abyss. How can there possible be an energy balance in 1850.
No climate model can replicate glaciation and termination. If CO2 does all the warming, how was it possible for Earth to recover from glaciation when CO2 levels were 185ppm. It is all BS based iupon drivel about “greenhouse gasses”. So silly it is far beyond ridiculous.
I’ve signed as well; it feels good to do something!
Done and done.
What could possibly go wrong when you do not counter BS with knowledge.
Climate has always changed. What civilisation is now witnessing is the termination of the modern interglacial. Northern oceans will warm up putting more water into the atmosphere in late summer early autumn that will fall as snow in late autumn early winter. Snow is already accumulating again.
It is beyond belief that a fantasy about CO2 altering Earth’s energy balance could get so much traction. There are a lot of knowledgable engineers and scientist asleep or with financial incentives based on keeping the fairy tale going to allow this nonsense to gain currency.
Shell would be best served by just shutting up shop for a few weeks rather than dying by a thousand cuts. The madness needs to be called out. Send all employees on unpaid leave, let chaos prevail in the energy sector then ask for government subsidies to come back on line.
‘Shell would be best served by just shutting up shop for a few weeks rather than dying by a thousand cuts.’
Going ‘Galt’, while tempting, is not an available strategy for a publicly held corporation. Unfortunately for Shell, and for humanity in general, this madness doesn’t end until the ‘looters and moochers’ lose their hold on governments. And that probably doesn’t happen until people get a full dose of the effects of climate alarmism.
The temperature at 10 a.m. in the Netherlands. Will global warming cause canals to freeze over?
who are clintel and why should i support them if shell cant be arsed?
asking as a shell shareholder.
Sorry, I should not have assumed everyone would know who clintel is. I added a link to the post and their front page is here: Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) climate change and climate policy.
Duly signed. I am now a self appointed Amateur Climatologist.
I suggest most climatologists are amateurs. There are exceptions of course like Dr. John Cristy. I just watched him in a new YouTube video: “Data shows there’s no climate catastrophe looming – climatologist Dr J Christy debunks the narrative”
There, I finally understood why his work is so important. His satellite data measures the temperature from the ground up through most of the atmosphere and he can do this across the entire planet. That’s real science- not tree ring temperature proxies. It’s crazy that anyone can claim what the temperature of the planet was150 years ago.
Signed up.
All that is required to cut emissions by 45% is to sell 45% less product. Split shell into 2 companies each with 50% of the sales.
Alternatively place a warning sign on the pumps “To be used only with approved carbon capture device”.
If the customer fails to follow the warning that is nothing to go with shell.
Why not pass a law requiring motor fuel to be carbon free.
Biden is reportedly warming up to the idea of decarbonated fuels. Just recently he told WH staffers that when he drinks the carbonated stuff he gets gas.
In a related story the Energy Department announced it had begun refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reverve.
Top UK Oil And Gas Producer Backs Out Of Licensing Because Of Windfall Tax
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Top-UK-Oil-And-Gas-Producer-Backs-Out-Of-Licensing-Because-Of-Windfall-Tax.html
There is a Shell snippet :
Windfall Tax Puts Shell’s $30B UK Investment Plan At Risk
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/WIndfall-Tax-Could-Risk-Shells-30B-UK-Investment-Plan.html
There is Wind Power and Windfall obscene profits, and now, horror of horrors Windfall Tax!
Looks like Shell et. al. have hugely benefited for both geopolitical and energy political idiocy.
Citizens have already paid!
Considering oil baron Rockefeller’s founding of the Club of Rome and the Davos Great Reset. Shell’s CEO John Loudon was right there with Maurice Strong.
And Royal Duch Shell CEO Jeroen ven der Veer in Feb 2007 called for a global cap-and-trade system, Reuters reported.
Anyone signing MUST demand an explanation from Royal Dutch Shell on why they founded the Panda and Petrol WWF, which started the crazy environmental stampede!
It’s time for Shell to do exactly what they’re told to do and more…. reduce their carbon footprint and their customers in the Netherlands to zero.
Good luck, dutchies…
I would encourage all sensible, right minded people to visit Clintels website and sign the legal submission as a concerned member of the public, Engineer, academic etc and donate if you can to support them in this vital legal case
Thanks!
Why are “Friends Of The Earth” opposed to returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came? Obviously that’s where it belongs to prevent ice ages.
Why did WUWT use anti-Shell artwork (David the righteous hero pitted against wicked Goliath Shell)?
The picture completely negates Andy May’s entire article.🤨
Janice, Remember, clintel is fighting both Shell and Friends of the Earth. Shell did not dispute the claim that CO2 emissions ae dangerous, in a way they are just as guilty as the judge and the Friends of the Earth.
Thanks for the clarification, Andy. I think it would be better to not create the impression, nevertheless, that Shell and “Friends of the Earth” are morally equivalent.
Just stop selling Petrol Diesel and Gas in Holland . Same should apply to any of the US states being sued
No, I don’t think so. I don’t buy Shell petrol. I buy whatever is cheapest and it isn’t Shell. If they can’t grow a pair and defend themselves and get sued for their cowardice, they deserve to go out of business. There are plenty of other gas companies who will be happy to sell to Shell’s customers.
Signed,
Cagey Consumer
It doesn’t do any good to boycott one brand of gasoline (or diesel, for that matter) as they all get their fuel from the same terminals, which get their fuel from the same pipelines or barges. Refineries all dump their fuel into common pipelines, so you can’t get exclusively Exxon or Shell gasoline.