Supporting Clintel in their “Climate Case of the Century”

Clintel, a Netherlands-based nonprofit that promotes science-based climate policy in line with the rule of law, is changing the course of climate litigation, which is dominated by the movement climate to date. Indeed, Clintel has applied for leave to intervene in a high-profile Dutch court case between the oil company Shell and the environmental NGO Friends of the Earth (known in the Netherlands as Milieudefensie). .

Climate case of the century

This case is currently pending appeal before the Court of Appeal of The Hague. In the first instance case, the District Court found, based on evidence submitted by Friends of the Earth, that at or above an average temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius, “dangerous climate change” will occur. It ruled that Shell must do its part to prevent such “dangerous climate change”. Clintel opposes the scientific and factual basis for this claim.

Friends of the Earth (FoE) calls this the ‘Climate Case of the Century’. Clintel agrees and will therefore intervene.

Global Meaning

In the Netherlands we currently have two outstanding climate cases. In 2015, the Dutch NGO Urgenda won a lawsuit against the Dutch state, demanding more reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Now the FoE has won a private company, Shell, in a climate lawsuit. Cover was requested by the Hague District Court to adopt corporate policies that aim to reduce net CO2 emissions from group operations by 45% by the end of 2030 compared to 2019. This reduction obligation applies to the entire portfolio. Shell Corporation’s global energy portfolio. Shell must not only reduce its own emissions, but also ensure that its suppliers and customers (Scope 3) emissions are significantly reduced.

As such, many citizens and businesses around the world will be affected by the court’s ruling. However, neither citizens nor businesses outside of Shell are represented in court.

Litigation lover

The judgment and court documents reveal that this is a type of ‘lover’ case in which the parties have agreed on the facts. Shell is unlikely to defend itself against the alarming claims made by the FoE because the company has made similar statements before. Moreover, today, a large, publicly traded company cannot openly deny the “climate crisis”. If a company does so, it will be condemned by the media, activists and a large number of politicians. No public company can withstand such reputational damage. Climate activists exploit the inability of corporations to protect themselves.

Earth’s friends in power

With the big win over Shell in its pocket, the FoE asked for ambitious ‘climate plans’ from 30 major Dutch companies, including food companies, even banks and companies. insurance company. These climate plans have been verified by “New Climate Institute,” a consulting firm known for “Climate action tracking” has turned climate into a huge revenue model. As a result, the majority ranked the “climate crisis index” red.

These companies face the same dilemma as Shell. If they fight back, they may suffer reputational damage. Shell moved its headquarters from The Hague to London last year and will receive large grants for CCS (carbon capture and storage) and green hydrogen projects. Ultimately, the bill for all these ‘climate plans’ will be paid by people and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Small companies have suffered due to high energy prices, which are only partly related to the war in Ukraine and are essentially the result of environmental and climate policies.

The strategies and arguments developed in this case are also deployed in other countries to get judges to impose climate policies that violate scientific principles, civil rights, separation of powers and legislation.

Clintel’s Intervention

Clintel, founded by renowned Dutch climate journalist Marcel Crok and emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout, is saying “enough.” In October, Clintel submitted a request to the Hague Court of Appeal to join the FoE v Shell case as an independent third party. Clintel’s aim was to make it clear that the judge’s ruling was based on a distorted picture of climate science, the role of the IPCC, and the state of the climate. It will also protect the rights and interests of citizens and democracy.

Unsurprisingly, but disappointingly nonetheless, both Shell and FoE opposed Clintel’s proposed intervention. The court ordered a hearing on March 15, 2023 so that Clintel could defend its case.

Join Clintel

The outcome of this case will be critical to the future of climate litigation around the world. Clintel must win this battle to restore balance and science-based policymaking. Clintel seeks your help and support.

Clintel has launched a special website for this lawsuit: climatecaseofthecentury.org.

Anyone in the world can (for free) join our case (either as a citizen/attorney or as a scientist) by filling out a form on the website. The more people involved, the more your voice will be heard. You can also help us by notifying others who may want to participate in our case.

Clintel faces powerful and well-funded opponents. FoE receives millions of euros in direct subsidies from the Dutch government! In order to achieve the objective and reverse the course of events, Clintel needed financial support for this major lawsuit. All details on how you can contribute are available on climatecaseofthecentury.org.

Many thanks in advance for your help and support!

Guus Berkhout & Marcel Crok, founders of Clintel
For more information, please contact Clintel’s general email address, [email protected]. Clintel also published World Climate Declaration has now been signed by 1500 scientists and experts around the world.