Shell contends that a compulsory climate objective imposed upon it is both unlawful and ineffective, the company asserted on Wednesday. Furthermore, the CO2 mandate enforced by the court in 2021 is considered excessively high, according to Shell. The company argues that the global priority should be reducing coal consumption.
Concurrently, Shell insists on retaining the flexibility to supply oil and gas. This stance was articulated by the oil giant on Wednesday during the second day of the landmark climate case, following presentations from both sides on Tuesday, Shell was afforded an entire day to expound upon its position.
In 2021, the court ruled that Shell must reduce its emissions by 45 percent by 2030. This directive encompasses both Shell’s own emissions and those generated by all customers burning Shell gasoline, kerosene, and gas. Practically, this implies that Shell must significantly curtail its fossil fuel sales.
Shell maintains that the court lacks the authority to impose a mandatory CO2 target on the company. Moreover, Shell deems the percentage selected by the court to be excessively high. The company exclusively deals in oil and gas, while the imperative in the upcoming years is to substantially decrease coal usage.
Shell’s legal counsel referenced the most ambitious climate scenario outlined by the International Energy Agency (IEA). According to this scenario, coal consumption must decrease by over half between 2019 and 2030, while emissions from gas and oil would only decrease by 20 to 30 percent – a figure lower than what Shell is being compelled to achieve. This scenario, according to Shell, would keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.