Do you agree with Shell's defence? If you do not, what's the role of government for the society?
For example, the 1992 UN Climate Convention said:
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner
The European part of the Netherlands ratified that. It also ratified the 2015 Paris agreement.
Argument seems to be that is enough to require Shell to react soon and strongly.
I think I agree. I don’t see a need to introduce financial incentives. The government doesn’t pay companies who don’t dump chemical waste, persons who don’t steal, etc. either. It’s enough that it says those things shouldn’t happen. IMO, this case is similar (but more abstract). The government clearly said we must act soon; Shell knew that, and didn’t do enough.
I mostly agree with the ideas behind most of these rulings. But it feels like broad interpretations of vague laws are being used to regulate outside of the democratic process. Regulation is the purview of the legislative or executive branch, not the judicial. Especially because the first 2 branches are (here in the Netherlands) democratically elected.
Consider (hypothetically) what would happen here if 90% of citizens were against this ruling. How would they revert it. Or should it not be revertable? I don't think it is revertable, and I think that is a massive end-run around democracy.
I didn't think about this but now that you mention it, it does seem like a judge regulating from the bench instead of lawmakers making laws or executives making policy.
> The court does not follow RDS’ argument that the claims of Milieudefensie et al. require decisions which go beyond the lawmaking function of the court. The court must decide on the claims of Milieudefensie et al.30 Assessing whether or not RDS has the alleged legal obligation and deciding on the claims based thereon is pre-eminently a task of the court. In the following assessment, the court interprets the unwritten standard of care from the applicable Book 6 Section 162 Dutch Civil Code on the basis of the relevant facts and circumstances, the best available science on dangerous climate change and how to manage it, and the widespread international consensus that human rights offer protection against the impacts of dangerous climate change and that companies must respect human rights.
BTW - In the Groningen, in the north of the Netherlands exploitation of natural gas reserves started causing earthquakes. Even the house I was renting in a town next to Groningen had to be inspected due to the earthquakes. The exploitation will be stopped in 2022 due to the harm. The Groningen gas field is operated by the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij BV (NAM), a joint venture between Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil with each company owning a 50% share.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field
> After protests in Groningen because of the increase in induced earthquakes, whose event count shows an exponential growth in time, [5] the Dutch government decided on 17 January 2014 to cut output from the gas field and pay those affected by the earthquake a compensation worth 1.2 billion Euro, spread over a period of 5 years. The ministry said production would be cut in 2014 and 2015 to 42.5 bcm (billion cubic metres) and in 2016 to 40 bcm.[6]
> The State Supervision of Mines has brought forward that the production level should be cut back to 30 bcm to avoid the more severe quakes. Although it is technically possible to reduce Groningen's output to this level and still meet domestic demand, the ministry keeps production high (currently[when?] 39.4 bcm per year). Groningen officials are not satisfied with the measures. As of January 2015, no houses have been reinforced, nothing has been done about many seriously damaged buildings, and the risk of severe quakes, possibly resulting in collapsed buildings, injuries and death, is still too high.[7][8] In June 2016, the Netherlands' National Mines Inspectorate advised the Dutch Government to reduce production even further to 24 bcm per year.[9] On 23 September 2016 Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte confirmed that gas extraction from the northern Groningen gas field will be held at 24 bcm per year for the coming five years.[10]
> On March 29, 2018 the government announced it would shut down the gas extraction entirely by 2030 for safety reasons.[11][12]
> In September 2019, the Dutch government announced a further acceleration of the decommissioning of the field, stopping all regular production in 2022.
Of course Netherlands will not have power to enforce rules on fully foreign oil concerns not operating in the Netherlands.
But at least the demand from the Nederlands is appropriately reduced.
There is no single magical solution to this problem. Everyone needs to do their part.
