A Win for Shell, A Loss for Humanity

Shell Wins! Climate Loses!

In a twist worthy of a satirical dystopia, Shell—the self-proclaimed patron saint of “net zero someday”—just secured a courtroom win that feels like a gut punch to anyone who has read a thermometer lately. This week, the Dutch Court of Appeal overturned a groundbreaking 2021 ruling that had demanded Shell actually reduce emissions by 45% by 2030, as though climate change wasn’t some distant nuisance but an existential crisis. Shell’s CEO was probably popping champagne while the planet sweats through its hottest year ever.

A Win for Shell, A Loss for Humanity

Let’s rewind. Back in 2021, the District Court of The Hague had the audacity to tell Shell it couldn’t keep treating the planet like an ATM for destruction. The court ruled Shell must slash emissions, including the big, ugly Scope 3 ones—those pesky emissions from customers burning Shell’s oil and gas. Shell appealed, claiming this was all very unfair, because why should one company bear responsibility for… you know, its actual business model?

Fast-forward to this week: the Court of Appeal decided Shell’s argument—that cutting emissions might just make other fossil fuel giants richer—was somehow persuasive. Translation? “If we don’t wreck the climate, someone else will. So why bother?” And just like that, Shell got off the hook. Scope 3 obligations? Gone. Corporate accountability? LOL, good one.

Protecting Human Rights… But Not Too Much

Here’s the kicker: the Court of Appeal still acknowledged that climate protection is a human right. Imagine that! The right not to drown in rising seas or choke on air pollution. But apparently, Shell’s right to squeeze profits out of oil rigs until the last iceberg melts is equally sacred. The court left the door open for future lawsuits, hinting that Shell’s new oil and gas investments might not align with this whole “don’t kill the planet” thing. But for now, Shell’s free to carry on drilling, polluting, and cashing checks from investors like BlackRock and Vanguard, who no doubt slept well knowing their portfolios remain lucratively carbon-heavy.

The Pyrrhic Victory Nobody Asked For

Shell’s legal win is being called a Pyrrhic victory by optimists who believe it sets the stage for stricter accountability. Sure, the court admitted companies have climate obligations, and sure, regulators like the EU are drafting Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence directives. But let’s not kid ourselves. Shell’s execs aren’t losing sleep over transition plans; they’re busy spinning this win as proof that being terrible is just smart business.

Meanwhile, scientists, NGOs, and regulators are left scrambling to develop sector-specific emission-reduction pathways that companies like Shell will spend millions lobbying against. Because nothing screams “climate leader” like fighting tooth and nail to avoid reducing emissions while plastering your logo across wind farms for PR points.

What Now? More Hot Air and Legal Battles

While the legal framework for corporate accountability gets clearer, companies like Shell are perfecting the art of dodging it. The EU’s new sustainability directive might force big emitters to adopt Paris-aligned transition plans, but let’s not hold our collective breath waiting for Shell to have an epiphany. It’s not like their business model is built on burning the very thing destroying the planet. Oh, wait—it is.

So here’s the real question: When will courts stop bending over backwards to protect corporate profits and start prioritizing the survival of humanity? Until then, Shell and its cronies will keep drilling, polluting, and lobbying, with their investors cheering them on. And the rest of us? We’ll keep wondering what the actual f*ck it will take for climate justice to mean something.

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.