fossil fuels

Group That Calls CO2 ‘Essential’ Praises Trump Energy Secretary Pick Chris Wright

Spread the love

Original article by Geoff Dembicki republished from DeSmog

Climate denier Gregory Wrightstone (left) has nothing but praise for Trump’s energy secretary pick, Chris Wright (right). Credit: DeSmog

The head of the CO2 Coalition tells DeSmog that Wright agrees carbon dioxide is “not the demon molecule, it’s the miracle molecule.”

Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Energy, Chris Wright, is receiving enthusiastic approval from a climate obstruction organization that argues global carbon dioxide emissions should be increasing because the gas is “essential for life.” 

“I had a chance to sit down one-on-one with Chris in 2022 in his Denver office,” claimed Gregory Wrightstone, executive director of a group called the CO2 Coalition. For nearly a decade, the organization has publicly disputed the fundamentals of climate science while receiving donations from foundations linked to corporate backers, including the oil and gas billionaire Charles Koch. 

Wrightstone, who detailed the encounter with Wright in a recent newsletter, “was impressed with his knowledge and views on energy philosophy, which aligned closely with those of the CO2 Coalition.”

In a phone interview with DeSmog, Wrightstone elaborated on that alignment, explaining that “the main thing that he and I and the CO2 Coalition agree on is that increasing CO2 is a net benefit, it’s not the demon molecule, it’s the miracle molecule.”

Wright is currently the CEO of the fracking services company Liberty Energy and would bring no political or government experience to the role of energy secretary. Yet Wrightstone concluded that because Wright is “a petroleum engineer and energy executive, he will likely be the most highly qualified person ever to hold that position.” 

After Trump announced the nomination last week, some industry observers hailed the appointment as a sign of political moderation within the Republican cabinet, with the head of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association arguing that Wright is “a pragmatic problem solver” and “not a climate denier.”

Yet the full-throated praise that Wright is receiving from the likes of Wrightstone raises serious questions about whether the future energy secretary even thinks climate change is a problem worth addressing, said Connor Gibson, an independent research specialist who’s spent years tracking the CO2 Coalition and other groups that obstruct climate action including for Greenpeace USA. 

“The CO2 Coalition has been a persistent voice undermining the ABCs of climate change — that it’s happening, that it’s caused by human fossil fuel use, and that it’s going to be dangerous,” he told DeSmog. 

Wright didn’t respond to questions via his company Liberty Energy nor via the Trump-Vance transition team. 

Screenshot from CO2 Coalition emailed newsletter. Credit: CO2 Coalition

Backed by Koch

In email correspondence with DeSmog, Wrightstone explained how his meeting with the future nominee for energy secretary came about several years ago: “I was speaking at an event in Denver and set up a meeting in his office,” he wrote.

“We had a wide-ranging conversation, but I can’t recall any particular details,” he added during a phone interview. Yet Wright made a positive impression on the executive director of the CO2 Coalition. “The key takeaway is that he’s a big supporter of the continuing use of fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and natural gas,” Wrightstone said. 

According to Wrightstone, he and Wright’s views align on other key points, including the factually incorrect or dubious claims that “there is no man-made climate crisis,” “science is not consensus and consensus is not science,” “fossil fuels cannot be replaced by intermittent and unreliable solar and wind power,” and “history tells us that warmer periods have been beneficial, while cold periods have been horrific to humanity.”

These talking points have for years been disseminated by the CO2 Coalition, which was recently cited by Alberta’s United Conservative Party in a resolution that abandoned the oil-producing Canadian province’s net-zero targets and officially recognized “that CO2 is a foundational nutrient for all life on Earth.”

Gibson referred to the CO2 Coalition in a recent report he co-wrote along with Robert Brulle of Brown University as an “organization solely focused on disputing climate change science.”

During the first Trump administration, William Happer of the CO2 Coalition was appointed to the National Security Council but exited after only a year. White House advisors reportedly feared that his extreme views were a liability to Trump’s reelection. In 2017, Happer argued that the “demonization” of carbon dioxide “really differs little from the Nazi persecution of the Jews, the Soviet extermination of class enemies, or ISIL slaughter of infidels.”  

Nevertheless, the CO2 Coalition received more than $76,000 from foundations linked to the oil and gas billionaires Charles and David Koch during Trump’s first term, according to Gibson’s report. Greenpeace calculations show the group got $620,000 in Koch-related contributions between 2004 and 2015. 

“We have not received Koch Industries money since I’ve been here,” Wrightstone, who took over in 2021, said when asked about Koch contributions. 

Gibson argues that Wright, as a fossil fuel executive, is slightly more nuanced in expressing his views on climate change than his supporters at the CO2 Coalition. Wright acknowledges that human-caused global heating is real and potentially a problem while saying in a video posted to his LinkedIn last year that “there is no climate crisis.”

“It seems to me to be the calculated words of a CEO who recognizes that there is a potential liability of telling an outright lie to the public,” Gibson said. “Yet the effect of his comments is to leave people with the impression that climate change is not happening.”

Original article by Geoff Dembicki republished from DeSmog

Continue ReadingGroup That Calls CO2 ‘Essential’ Praises Trump Energy Secretary Pick Chris Wright

Fossil fuel supply: the elephant in the room at climate change conferences

Spread the love

Ded pixto/Shutterstock

Jordi Roca Jusmet, Universitat de Barcelona

“Natural resources … are a gift from God. Every natural resource, whether it’s oil, gas, wind, sun, gold, silver, copper, they are all natural resources. Countries should not be blamed for having them, and should not be blamed for bringing these resources to the market because the market needs them. The people need them.”

These were the words of Ilham Aliyev, president of Azerbaijan, at the opening of the recent United Nations COP29 convention on climate change in Baku. https://www.youtube.com/embed/4pqVwrMAGSc?wmode=transparent&start=0 Ilham Aliyev’s speech at COP29.

It seems completely inappropriate to sing the praises of fossil fuels at an international gathering that aims to radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, this goal is absolutely unachievable without drastic cuts to fossil fuel use, but Aliyev’s speech does have a positive, if indirect, impact – it points a spotlight at the elephant in the room, one that has remained virtually invisible throughout the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) long history.

COP agreements have never made commitments to limit fossil fuel extraction, even though this would be the most direct – and the only certain – way to rein in the leading cause of climate change.

Reducing demand but not supply: a pointless endeavour

Fossil fuels are key to climate change, but they are largely absent from COP agreements. The biggest achievement came in 2023, at COP28 in Dubai (United Arab Emirates), when an unspecified proposal was made to “transition away from fossil fuels”. This was not ratified at COP29, mainly due to pressure from Saudi Arabia.

In economic terms, the focus of climate agreements has always been on demand. It is expected that national measures, such as promoting renewable energy and public transport, or penalising the use of fossil fuels by putting a price on carbon emissions will indirectly lead to less fossil fuels being put on the market.

While these measures can be effective, they often end up lacking, or even non-existent, because they depend completely on the policies and reactions of the nations and companies who own, supply, and profit from these resources.

Commitments to supply-side agreements are not on the COP agenda, even though most of the fossil fuel reserves that are considered exploitable – and therefore economically valuable – cannot be burned if we are to even come close to the UNFCCC climate goals. They must be left in the ground.

However, global CO₂ emissions are not falling. On the contrary, the use of coal, petroleum and natural gas have hit record highs in 2024.

Evolution of global CO₂ emissions. Global Carbon Project, CC BY-SA

How can we restrict fossil fuel extraction?

Limits have been put forward in the past. In 2014, for instance, economists Paul Collier and Anthony J. Venables proposed a sequenced plan for phasing out coal, which would involve progressive measures not to start new operations and to close mines, with countries staggered in a fair order. “Fairness” would be determined by ability to pay, per capita emissions and historical responsibility.

We can also take inspiration from nuclear weapons treaties, as Professor of International Relations Peter Newell and political economist Andrew Simms have done. They advocate for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty along the lines of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Many states and cities around the world have already signed up to the initiative.

There have also been local initiatives, such as the commitment to stop extracting oil in an area of the Yasuní National Park in Ecuador due to its exceptional biodiversity and the existence of populations in voluntary isolation. This will also benefit the global climate by reducing emissions.

The proposal was initially taken up in 2007 by the then president Rafael Correa on the condition that the international community would financially compensate part of the sacrificed monetary income. However, scarce contributions to the compensation fund led Correa to renounce the initiative and allow oil exploitation.

Environmentalists, affected communities and academics demanded a referendum and, after years of litigation, the right to consultation was recognised by the courts. In August 2023, a large majority (almost 60 %) voted in favour of keeping the oil reserves “in the ground indefinitely”. Money does not always prevail, even in poor countries, though the Ecuadorian government has postponed its mandate to dismantle drilling sites, meaning many are still operational today.

A blessing for some, a curse for others

The above case and many others – such as the Niger Delta (Nigeria), where Shell has been extracting oil since 1958 – remind us that “God’s gift” of natural resources can also be a curse.

A gift for some – usually multinational companies or small numbers of wealthy people – can be a curse not only for the planet, but also for the local population who suffer the devastating environmental and social consequences of extracting these resources, and who face violent repression when they protest.

It was in places like Nigeria and Ecuador that the activist slogan “leave fossil fuels in the ground” was coined. Even if their motivation is primarily or solely to protect their territory, social movements opposing coal mining or hydrocarbon extraction undeniably contribute – from the supply side – to curbing climate change.

Together with social movements, academic and political work is key to defining the areas where preventing the exploitation of fossil fuels is a priority, and to establishing economic compensation. Martí Orta-Martínez, from the University of Barcelona, is doing just this. He is leading a project to geographically define the fossil fuel deposits that should not be burned, which was presented at a seminar in the framework of COP29.

It may sound utopian to seek supply-side international agreements, but the truth is that it is impossible to reduce global emissions and move towards decarbonisation without a rapid decrease in the extraction of fossil fuels. COPs should heed this evidence.

Given the magnitude of the climate challenge, it is not a question of deciding between demand or supply-side policies, but of using both, promoting them in each country, and reaching robust agreements at an international level.

Jordi Roca Jusmet, Catedrático de Economía, Universitat de Barcelona

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingFossil fuel supply: the elephant in the room at climate change conferences

After Ending in Overtime, COP29 Called ‘Big F U to Climate Justice’

Spread the love

Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Activists demanding that rich countries pay up for climate finance protest at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 22, 2024.
 (Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Critics of the “COP of false solutions” said that instead of much-needed funding, developing nations got “a global Ponzi scheme that the private equity vultures and public relations people will now exploit.”

It was early Sunday by the time the United Nations climate summit wrapped up in Baku, Azerbaijan after running into overtime to finalize deals on carbon markets and funding for developing countries that were sharply condemned by campaigners worldwide.

“COP29 was a dumpster fire. Except it’s not trash that’s burning—it’s our planet,” declared Nikki Reisch of the Center for International Environmental Law. “And developed countries are holding both the matches and the firehose.”

Recalling last year’s conference in the United Arab Emirates, Oil Change International global policy senior strategist Shady Khalil highlighted that “the world made a deal at COP28 to end the fossil fuel era. Now, at COP29, countries seem to have been struck with collective amnesia.”

“With each new iteration of the texts, oil and gas producers managed to dilute the urgent commitment to phase out fossil fuels,” Khalil said. “But let’s be clear: Rich countries’ failure to lead on fossil fuel phaseout and to put the trillions they have hoarded on the table has done more to imperil the energy transition than any obstructionist tactics from oil and gas producers.”

This year’s conference began November 11 and was due to conclude on Friday, but parties to the Paris agreement were still negotiating the carbon market rules, which were finalized late Saturday, and the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on climate finance.

“The carbon markets in Article 6 of the Paris agreement were pushed through COP29 in a take-it-or leave-it outcome,” said Tamra Gilbertson of Indigenous Environmental Network, decrying “a new dangerous era in climate change negotiations.”

https://twitter.com/CarbonMrktWatch/status/1860405796321808760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1860405796321808760%7Ctwgr%5E5fe69782d84f448776aec8c54957a7ea2579c856%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fcop29-baku

Sorry, this content could not be embedded. [yet again]
X

As Climate Home Newsreported, they establish two types of markets: “The first—known as Article 6.2—regulates bilateral carbon trading between countries, while Article 6.4 creates a global crediting mechanism for countries to sell emissions reductions.”

The outlet pointed to expert warnings that “the rules for bilateral trades under 6.2 could open the door for the sale of junk carbon credits—one of the weaknesses of the previous crediting mechanism set up by the U.N. known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).”

Jonathan Crook of Carbon Market Watch said in a statement that “the package does not shine enough light on an already opaque system where countries won’t be required to provide information about their deals well ahead of actual trades.”

“Even worse, the last opportunity to strengthen the critically weak review process was largely missed,” he continued. “Countries remain free to trade carbon credits that are of low quality, or even fail to comply with Article 6.2 rules, without any real oversight.”

As for Article 6.4, “much lies in the hands of the supervisory body” that’s set to resume work in early 2025, said Crook’s colleague, Federica Dossi. “To show that it is ready to learn from past mistakes, it will have to take tough decisions next year and ensure that Article 6.4 credits will be markedly better than the units that old CDM projects will generate.”

“If they are not, they will have to compete in a low-trust, low-integrity market where prices are likely to be at rock bottom and interest will be low,” Dossi added. “Such a system would be a distraction, and a waste of 10 years worth of carbon market negotiations.”

Some campaigners suggested that no matter what lies ahead, the embrace of carbon markets represents a failure. Kirtana Chandrasekaran at Friends of the Earth International said that “the supposed ‘COP of climate finance’ has turned into the ‘COP of false solutions.’ The U.N. has given its stamp of approval to fraudulent and failed carbon markets.”

“We have seen the impacts of these schemes: land grabs, Indigenous peoples’ and human rights violations,” Chandrasekaran noted. “The now-operationalized U.N. global carbon market may well be worse than existing voluntary ones and will continue to provide a get out of jail free card to Big Polluters whilst devastating communities and ecosystems.”

https://twitter.com/duycks/status/1860458500058501255?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1860458500058501255%7Ctwgr%5E5fe69782d84f448776aec8c54957a7ea2579c856%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fcop29-baku

Sorry, this content could not be embedded. [What a surprise!]
X

Chandrasekaran’s colleague Seán McLoughlin at Friends of the Earth Ireland was similarly critical of the conference’s finance deal, asserting that “Baku is a big F U to climate justice, to the poorest communities who are on the frontlines of climate breakdown.”

“COP29 has failed those who have done least to cause climate change and who are most vulnerable to climate breakdown because the process is still in thrall to fossil fuel bullies and rich countries more committed to shirking their historical responsibility than safeguarding our common future,” he said. “Now it’s back to citizens to demand our governments do the right thing. We must keep demanding the trillions, not billions owed in climate debt and a comprehensive, swift, and equitable fossil fuel phaseout. The struggle for climate justice is not over.”

Campaigners and developing nations fought for $1.3 trillion in annual climate finance from those most responsible for the planetary crisis. Instead, the NCQG document only directs developed countries to provide the Global South with $300 billion per year by 2035, with a goal of reaching the higher figure by also seeking funds from private sources.

The deal almost didn’t happen at all. As The Guardiandetailed Saturday: “Developed countries including the U.K., the U.S., and E.U. members were pushed into raising their offer from an original $250 billion a year tabled on Friday, to $300 billion. Poor countries argued for more, and in the early evening two groups representing some of the world’s poorest countries walked out of one key meeting, threatening to collapse the negotiations.”

While Simon Stiell, executive secretary of U.N. Climate Change, celebrated the NCQG as “an insurance policy for humanity, amid worsening climate impacts hitting every country,” Chiara Martinelli, director at Climate Action Network Europe, put it in the context of the $100 billion target set in 2009, which wealthy governments didn’t meet.

“Rich countries own the responsibility for the failed outcome at COP29,” Martinelli said. “The talk of tripling from the $100 billion goal might sound impressive, but in reality, it falls far short, barely increasing from the previous commitment when adjusted for inflation and considering the bulk of this money will come in the form of unsustainable loans. This is not solidarity. It’s smoke and mirrors that betray the needs of those on the frontlines of the climate crisis.”

Also stressing that “it’s not even real ‘money,’ by and large,” but rather “a motley mix of loans and privatized investment,” Oxfam International’s climate change policy lead, Nafkote Dabi, called the agreement “a global Ponzi scheme that the private equity vultures and public relations people will now exploit.”

“The terrible verdict from the Baku climate talks shows that rich countries view the Global South as ultimately expendable, like pawns on a chessboard,” Dabi charged. “The $300 billion so-called ‘deal’ that poorer countries have been bullied into accepting is unserious and dangerous—a soulless triumph for the rich, but a genuine disaster for our planet and communities who are being flooded, starved, and displaced today by climate breakdown.”

https://twitter.com/ciel_tweets/status/1860478431139447077?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1860478431139447077%7Ctwgr%5E5fe69782d84f448776aec8c54957a7ea2579c856%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fcop29-baku

Sorry, this content could not be embedded. [Who broke the twitter/X embed?]

X

Rachel Cleetus from the Union of Concerned Scientists, who is in Baku, took aim at not only rich governments, but also the host, saying that “the Azerbaijani COP29 Presidency’s ineptitude in brokering an agreement at this consequential climate finance COP will go down in ignominy.”

Cleetus’ group is based in the United States, which is preparing for a January transfer of power from Democratic President Joe Biden to Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who notably ditched the Paris agreement during his first term.

“The United States—the world’s largest historical contributor of heat-trapping emissions—is going to see a monumental shift in its global diplomacy posture as the incoming anti-science Trump administration will likely exit the Paris agreement and take a wrecking ball to domestic climate and clean energy policies,” Cleetus warned. “While some politically and economically popular clean energy policies may prove durable and action from forward-looking states and businesses will be significant, there’s no doubt that a lack of robust federal leadership will leave U.S. climate action hobbled for a time.”

“Other nations—including E.U. countries and China—will need to do what they can to fill the void,” she stressed. “Between now and COP30 in Brazil next year, nations have a lot of ground to make up to have any hope of limiting runaway climate change.”

Ben Goloff of the U.S.-based Center for Biological Diversity called out the departing Biden administration, arguing that it “should be going out with at least a signal of its moral climate commitment, not copping out ahead of the Trump 2.0 disaster.”

Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels.
Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels.

Continue ReadingAfter Ending in Overtime, COP29 Called ‘Big F U to Climate Justice’

Thousands March in London to Demand End of Fossil Fuels and Gaza Genocide

Spread the love

Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Activists march in London to demand an end to fossil fuels and militarism on November 16, 2024. (Photo: Denise Baker)

“We won’t stop until political leaders divest from war and destruction—and invest in a just, ecological, and equitable transition,” said one campaigner.

Thousands of climate justice advocates took to the streets of London on Saturday to demand the U.K. government “end its reliance on fossil fuels, commit to paying climate reparations, and end its complicity in the genocide in Gaza.”

Organizers said more than 60 groups—including Extinction Rebellion, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Amnesty International U.K., Palestine Solidarity Campaign, War on Want, and Just Stop Oil—took part in the March for Global Climate Justice. The demonstration took place amid yet another shambolic United Nations Climate Change Conference and as Israeli forces continue a war on Gaza that U.N. experts this week called “consistent with the characteristics of genocide.”

More than two dozen associated protests were held in cities and towns across Britain and Ireland, including Dublin, Edinburgh, Manchester, and Sheffield. Over 150 actions around the world are planned for what organizers are calling a Global Day of Action for Climate Justice on Saturday.

“Thousands of us united today in a historic mobilization on the streets of London, across Great Britain, and worldwide to demand an end to the era of fossil fuels and an end to the genocide in Gaza,” Climate Justice Coalition national coordinator Angus O’Brien said in a statement.

https://twitter.com/fossilfreeLDN/status/1857774665474736462?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1857774665474736462%7Ctwgr%5E4d03f57a357f87729e30fde5d9d227467ec3eeb3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Flondon-march-climate

Sorry, this content could not be embedded.

X

“The issues we face are global, and so is our response,” O’Brien added. “We won’t stop until political leaders divest from war and destruction—and invest in a just, ecological, and equitable transition.”

Lauren MacDonald, the lead campaigner at Stop Rosebank, said: “Every day we are witnessing the worsening effects of climate change as they creep closer and closer to home. All this while governments insist on pandering to the demands of mega-polluters in an endless cycle of ignorance that endangers us all.”

“Oil money has been linked to violence throughout history—and this is no different now,” MacDonald continued. “Even the Rosebank oil field here in the U.K. will see £253 million in revenue flow towards a company that has been flagged by the U.N. for human rights violations in Palestine.”

Earlier this week, green groups including Oil Change International, Friends of the Earth Palestine/PENGON, and Tipping Point U.K. highlighted how fossil fuel companies including Britain’s BP “enable and profit from Israel’s genocide in Gaza” and perpetuate “a long history of the industry’s complicity in mass atrocities worldwide.”

https://twitter.com/WarOnWant/status/1857804023807529075?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1857804023807529075%7Ctwgr%5E4d03f57a357f87729e30fde5d9d227467ec3eeb3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Flondon-march-climate

Sorry, this content could not be embedded.

X

Joanna Warrington, a campaigner at Fossil Free London—a group known for its bold direct action protests—said Saturday that “in gleaming London offices, fossil fuel giants like BP line their pockets while our planet burns and millions suffer.”

“Every day, they stop at nothing to maximize their profits, fueling genocide, corrupting politics, and pushing our climate closer to collapse,” she continued. “We are marching today to demand that the U.K. government breaks free from the grip of mega polluters, stands up to their relentless greed, and stops enabling the violence and destruction they profit from.”

“Another world is not just possible—it’s essential,” Warrington added, “and it starts with holding fossil fuel corporations accountable.”

MacDonald asserted that “if we want to maintain a liveable climate, and sever the toxic links between fossil fuels and atrocities across the globe, we must do everything we can to make a rapid and fair transition away from oil and gas.”

Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue ReadingThousands March in London to Demand End of Fossil Fuels and Gaza Genocide

‘We Don’t Give Up’: Climate Groups Resolute as Shell Wins Appeal Against Landmark Ruling

Spread the love

Original article by Jake Johnson republiahed form Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

A protester holds a sign with a Shell logo during a demonstration on March 11, 2023 in The Hague, Netherlands. (Photo: Michel Porro/Getty Images)

“This setback will only help us grow stronger,” said the Dutch climate group that originally brought the case. “Large polluters are powerful. But united, we as people have the power to change them.”

Climate campaigners didn’t sugarcoat their reactions to a Dutch court decision on Tuesday that overturned a landmark 2021 ruling ordering the oil behemoth Shell to cut its planet-warming emissions nearly in half by the end of this decade.

“We are shocked by today’s judgment,” said Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie, the Netherlands-based environmental group that originally filed suit against Shell in 2018.

“It is a setback for us, for the climate movement, and for millions of people around the world who worry about their future,” Pols said of Tuesday’s ruling by the Hague Court of Appeal. “But if there’s one thing to know about us, it’s that we don’t give up. This setback will only help us grow stronger. Large polluters are powerful. But united, we as people have the power to change them.”

The original 2021 ruling, as CNBC noted, marked “the first time in history that a company was found to have been legally obliged to align its policies with the Paris Agreement” and “sparked a wave of lawsuits against other fossil fuel companies.”

Despite acknowledging that Shell has “an obligation toward citizens to reduce CO2 emissions,” the appeals court on Tuesday scrapped a legal mandate compelling the company to slash its emissions by 45% by 2030 compared with 2019 levels, saying it was “unable to establish that the social standard of care entails an obligation for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%, or some other percentage.”

“It is primarily up to the government to ensure the protection of human rights,” the court added.

Laurie van der Burg of Oil Change International said in response that “while we mourn today’s setback, the ruling establishes a responsibility for Big Oil and Gas to act that future litigation can build on.”

“The court ruled protection against climate change is a human right, and corporations have a responsibility to reduce their emissions,” she added. “As far as we know, this is the first case where a court has acknowledged that new investments in oil and gas are incompatible with international climate goals.”

“Today’s ruling underscores the importance of world leaders now negotiating at the U.N. Climate Summit in Baku taking responsibility.”

Shell, which is responsible for just over 2% of global CO2 emissions, said in a statement that it was “pleased” with the court’s ruling and claimed to be “making good progress in our strategy to deliver more value with less emissions.”

But research by the human rights organization Global Witness has found that Shell has consistently overstated the scale of its investments in green energy—including by characterizing fossil fuels as “renewable.”

“Even as Shell claims to be reducing its oil production, it is planning to grow its gas business by more than 20% over the next few years, leading to significant additional emissions,” Global Witness wrote in a complaint to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last year.

Andy Palmen, the director of Greenpeace Netherlands, said Tuesday that while campaigners working toward a just phaseout of fossil fuel emissions are “disappointed that Shell is being allowed to continue polluting,” they “will not give up the fight.”

“This only motivates us more to take action against major polluters,” said Palmen. “It really gives hope that the court finds that Shell must respect human rights and has a duty to reduce its CO2 emissions.”

“Today’s ruling underscores the importance of world leaders now negotiating at the U.N. Climate Summit in Baku taking responsibility,” Palmen added, referring to the COP29 gathering that kicked off on Monday in Azerbaijan’s capital city. “The summit in Dubai last year marked the end of coal, oil, and gas, now governments must come up with concrete plans to move away from fossil fuels.”

The Dutch appeals court’s ruling came in the wake of new research showing that oil and gas production surged to an all-time high in 2023—the hottest year on record.

“The oil and gas industry is not transitioning,” the environmental group Urgewald and dozens of other NGOs found. “In fact, 95% of the upstream companies on [the Global Oil and Gas Exit List] are still exploring or developing new oil and gas resources. This includes the oil and gas producers TotalEnergies, Shell, BP, Eni, Equinor, OXY, OMV, and Ecopetrol, which all claim to be targeting net zero emissions by 2050.”

Nils Bartsch, head of oil and gas research at Urgewald, said Tuesday that the 2023 oil and gas production record is “deeply concerning.”

“If we do not end fossil fuel expansion and move towards a managed decline of oil and gas production,” said Bartsch, “the 1.5°C goal will be out of reach.”

Original article by Jake Johnson republiahed form Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Continue Reading‘We Don’t Give Up’: Climate Groups Resolute as Shell Wins Appeal Against Landmark Ruling