Milieudefensie et al.’s appendix with speaking notes for session day 3

  1. I would like to briefly respond to the questions of the Court of Appeal and Shell’s answers regarding the policy and Shell’s intended investments. This is to prevent misunderstandings.
  2. First: Shell presents its climate policy, and in essence all its public statements – including the marketing film with which it concluded the opening argument – with a disclaimer. This disclaimer makes it clear that Shell’s targets and ambitions are conditional. The disclaimer makes it clear that Shell’s future-oriented statements are based on the current expectations and assumptions of the management board and that these are subject to change.
  3. In Shell’s words, these future-oriented judgments can be recognised by the following terms: "These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as "aim", "ambition", "anticipate", "believe", "could", "estimate", "expect", "goals", "intend", "may", "milestones", "objectives", "outlook", "plan", "probably", "project", "risks", "schedule", "seek", "should", "target", "will" and similar terms and phrases."1
  4. What Shell ‘expects’, ‘aims for’ or claims as a ‘target’ is therefore conditional, inter alia on government policy and a non-exhaustive series of 13 other circumstances.

Shell’s target for Scope 1 and 2 emissions

  1. The disclaimer thus also applies to Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Shell announced in 2022 that it wanted to halve Scope 1 and 2 emissions in 2030 compared to 2016. There is no guarantee that Shell will actually realise that reduction. The importance of awarding the claim therefore remains.2
  2. In any event, if Shell realises this target, this concerns a reduction of approximately 40 Mt, which is equal to only 2.4% of the total emissions of the Shell Group based on the total emissions in 2019.3,4 Nor does the target lead to a reduction in Shell’s production, as previously explained.5 Nor does the target lead to a reduction in the sale of oil and gas by Shell.
  3. The conditionality of Shell’s targets also clearly appears from the fact that Shell scrapped some targets last month. I explained this in the written arguments.6

Shell’s other targets

  1. Shell has no targets for reducing its total Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions by 2030 in an absolute sense. Shell only uses intensity targets for Scope 1, 2 and 3, which leaves room for an increase in the total Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. We also explained this in the written submissions.7 Shell itself does not expect a decrease in its absolute Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions.8

  2. For 2030 that intensity target is 15-20%. Shell adjusted this target for 2030 downward compared to the previous climate strategy, this was 20%.9

  3. I would like to remind you that lowering carbon intensity can simply be effected by adding renewable energy to the energy portfolio and using carbon credits, without actually selling fewer fossil fuel products.10 The CEO called this the “dilution” of carbon intensity.

  4. On 14 March, Shell also presented the new ambition to reduce its absolute Scope 3 emissions from oil products by 15-20% in 2030 compared to 2021.11 Two remarks must be made in this respect.

  5. First, in the same announcement Shell made it clear it wanted to expand LNG sales by 20-30% in 2030 compared to 2022. Shell confirmed this again yesterday. This growth in LNG sales can set off the reduction in CO2 emissions from oil products.12

  6. Second, Shell makes it clear in unambiguous wording that this “ambition” is no more than a forecast of the change that it expects in the market. I would like to recall the words of mr. Lunsingh Scheurleer in response to the questions of the Court:

    “And that is why Shell thinks with regard to a part of the market: the circumstances are now such that we can take advantage of this and we expect to be able to realise this ambition in this manner.

    There is a good reason, however, why it calls it an ambition, in order to express that the matter concerns emissions that it fundamentally does not control, but it is its expectation, based on estimations of external factors like those that have an effect on Shell’s business.”

  7. mr. Lunsingh Scheurleer again confirmed what Shell’s disclaimer makes clear: Shell’s ambitions or targets are subject to change and are not binding.

  8. The figure that Shell showed yesterday of the “estimated share of energy sales 2016-2030” does not provide any insight whatsoever into the absolute volumes of oil and LNG that Shell intends to sell.

The ambitions that Shell has let go