Enlarge image
Shell logo at a petrol station (archive image): How much petrol does the world need?
Photo: Patrick Pleul / dpa
The energy giant Shell is moving - albeit not entirely voluntarily: After the Netherlands have ordered the company to reduce its CO₂ emissions, the company wants to "face the challenge".
This is what company boss Ben van Beurden writes in a post on the LinkedIn platform.
Two weeks ago a court in The Hague ordered the group to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent by 2030, based on the level in 2019. Shell is responsible for CO₂ emissions that contribute to global warming and dangerous consequences for the Dutch population, the inhabitants of the Wadden Sea area and the rights of the people in the Netherlands, the court found.
Experts speak of a historic decision.
The reaction of the CEO to the judgment seems divided: On the one hand, the decision of the court is to be followed immediately, said van Beurden.
The judgment means "not a change, but an acceleration of our strategy."
The manager announced "courageous but measured" steps without giving any concrete plans.
At the same time, the manager criticized the decision with clear words. It is the "wrong answer" to the climate crisis. If Shell stopped selling gasoline and diesel today, that would reduce the group's carbon dioxide emissions, said van Beurden. "But it wouldn't help the world a bit." Because the demand for fuel would remain the same. "People would just drive to other gas stations." And this is how the company wants to proceed against the judgment: "We expect to appeal," the Shell boss wrote. The group had already promised an appointment.
The fact that Shell torpedoed the verdict, but at the same time praised the faster move away from fossil fuels, causes irritation among some LinkedIn users. "Why do you take action against the verdict when you can simply accelerate your strategy?" Asks a user. “The world, its customers, needs energy. But no oil. "