Comparing two court rulings on Shell's carbon emissions with climate-policy science

In November 2024, a ruling by a Dutch Court of Appeal overturned a 2021 District Court verdict concerning the obligations of the oil and gas company Shell to reduce its carbon emissions. This perspective article examines the scientific basis of the differing arguments in the two court rulings, with a particular focus on the effectiveness of emissions-reduction strategies. To this end, we first summarize the reasoning in both rulings and identify their key points of divergence. Subsequently, we assess which ruling aligns more closely with the scientific literature on climate policy. Our analysis zooms in on four issues: the public-good nature of climate mitigation and the problem of free-riding; the aim and impact of the European Union's Emissions Trading System; the treatment of Scope 3 emissions generated by end users of Shell's products; and the roles of companies versus the state in achieving emissions reductions. We conclude that the Court of Appeal's ruling is more consistent with current scientific insights about effective climate policy than the earlier District Court decision. This is not to deny that companies like Shell will have to fundamentally transform – or otherwise eventually disappear – on the path to a zero‑carbon economy. But such change is most likely to occur as the outcome of a systemic policy approach that delivers steady and substantial emissions reductions across all sectors and jurisdictions. We therefore argue that a more effective legal strategy is to pursue legal action against governments that fail to implement policies in line with internationally agreed climate targets.