We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience.
This includes personalizing content and advertising.
By pressing "Accept All" or closing out of this banner, you consent to the use of all cookies and similar technologies and the sharing of information they collect with third parties.
You can reject marketing cookies by pressing "Deny Optional," but we still use essential, performance, and functional cookies.
In addition, whether you "Accept All," Deny Optional," click the X or otherwise continue to use the site, you accept our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, revised from time to time.
You are being directed to ZacksTrade, a division of LBMZ Securities and licensed broker-dealer. ZacksTrade and Zacks.com are separate companies. The web link between the two companies is not a solicitation or offer to invest in a particular security or type of security. ZacksTrade does not endorse or adopt any particular investment strategy, any analyst opinion/rating/report or any approach to evaluating individual securities.
If you wish to go to ZacksTrade, click OK. If you do not, click Cancel.
Shell Faces Renewed Legal Pressure on Fossil Fuel Expansion
Read MoreHide Full Article
Shell plc (SHEL - Free Report) is under intensifying legal scrutiny as environmental organization Milieudefensie, the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth, announces fresh legal action. The NGO, based in Netherlands, claims that by investing in new oil and gas projects despite a previous court decision requiring emissions reductions, the integrated oil and gas company violated its duty of care under Dutch law. This case could escalate tensions between fossil fuel corporations and climate activists pressing for stricter adherence to international climate goals.
Legal Action Rooted in Previous Landmark Court Ruling
The foundation of this new lawsuit lies in a historic 2021 court decision, upheld in part during a 2023 appeal, which found Shell partially liable for climate change. The appeal acknowledged Shell’s obligation to reduce CO2 emissions, citing its substantial role in contributing to the climate crisis. However, it stopped short of specifying a target percentage for reductions. Milieudefensie now argues that Shell’s ongoing fossil fuel investments clearly violate the legal duties affirmed by that judgment.
“Companies like Shell have it within their power to combat the climate problem and therefore have a legal obligation to reduce emissions,” stated the Dutch Court of Appeal.
Despite growing climate concerns, Shell reaffirmed during the recent Capital Markets Day that it plans to expand fossil fuel operations, particularly in the sectors of liquefied natural gas and oil production through 2040. This strategy directly conflicts with climate science, which indicates that new fossil fuel development must be halted to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
More than 700 new oil and gas fields are presently under development by Shell, per a thorough report by Milieudefensie and Global Witness. Since May 2021, Shell has finalized investment decisions for 32 new projects, potentially resulting in 972 million tons of CO2 emissions, an amount nearly equivalent to the annual emissions of the entire European Union.
Climate Crisis and Fossil Fuel Accountability
The main thrust of Milieudefensie's argument is that the climate crisis is essentially a fossil fuel crisis. Over 80% of global carbon emissions are attributed to fossil fuel use, with oil and gas accounting for more than half of that. The NGO claims that companies like Shell are deliberately stalling the energy transition by prioritizing short-term profits over long-term planetary health. In its formal letter to Shell, Milieudefensie underlined:
“Shell is actively undermining the transition to clean energy by lobbying for and investing in long-term fossil fuel infrastructure. This goes against both climate science and public interest.”
Shell Defends Position, Advocates for Collaborative Transition
In response to the impending lawsuit, Shell agrees that urgent climate action is needed, but criticized Milieudefensie’s approach, claiming that it does not contribute meaningfully to a successful energy transition. The company reiterated its belief that transitioning to cleaner energy requires cooperation between governments, businesses and consumers, rather than litigation.
Despite these claims, Shell’s actions suggest a clear prioritization of fossil fuel assets. Industry analysts have noted that investor pressure and declining stock performance have pushed major oil companies like Shell and another integrated oil and gas company, BP plc (BP - Free Report) , to double down on hydrocarbons, rather than pivot aggressively toward renewables.
This is not Milieudefensie’s first climate lawsuit. Earlier this year, the NGO filed a legal case against Dutch bankING Group, accusing the financial institution of failing to cut ties with fossil fuel projects. ING Group rebutted the claim, calling it “unrealistic,” but the case further demonstrates a growing legal strategy targeting climate inaction not only among oil firms but also among their financial backers.
Next Steps in Legal Proceedings Against Shell
Legal action against Shell is expected to commence within four weeks, pending its response. If the court rules in favor of Milieudefensie, Shell could be forced to abandon future oil and gas developments and reassess its climate policy for 2030 through 2050.
This lawsuit marks a turning point in the global battle against climate change. With increasing pressure from both the public and judicial systems, energy corporations may soon face unprecedented accountability for their role in driving the climate emergency.
Conclusion: A Critical Test for Corporate Climate Responsibility
As Shell faces mounting legal and social pressure, the broader implications for the fossil fuel industry are unmistakable. The outcome of this case could reshape the energy landscape in Europe and beyond, reinforcing the principle that corporate climate responsibility is not optional but a legal and ethical imperative. Environmental groups are no longer relying solely on protest, they are turning to courts to enforce planetary stewardship. Shell’s next move may determine whether it adapts to the era of climate accountability or becomes a cautionary tale of corporate resistance.
SHEL’s Zacks Rank & Key Picks
Currently, SHEL and BP have a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold).
Comstock Resources is valued at $6.68 billion. In the past year, its shares have risen 128.2%. Comstock Resources, an independent energy producer in the United States, holds approximately 1.1 million acres primarily within the highly prospective Haynesville and Bossier shale regions of North Louisiana and East Texas. The company's core business involves the acquisition, exploration, development and production of natural gas and oil from these assets.
Expand Energy is valued at $26.40 billion. In the past year, its shares have risen 28%. Based in Oklahoma City, OK, Expand Energy is an independent natural gas production company. With significant interests in shale formations across Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Louisiana, Expand Energy focuses on the acquisition, exploration and development of properties for producing oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids.
See More Zacks Research for These Tickers
Normally $25 each - click below to receive one report FREE:
Image: Bigstock
Shell Faces Renewed Legal Pressure on Fossil Fuel Expansion
Shell plc (SHEL - Free Report) is under intensifying legal scrutiny as environmental organization Milieudefensie, the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth, announces fresh legal action. The NGO, based in Netherlands, claims that by investing in new oil and gas projects despite a previous court decision requiring emissions reductions, the integrated oil and gas company violated its duty of care under Dutch law. This case could escalate tensions between fossil fuel corporations and climate activists pressing for stricter adherence to international climate goals.
Legal Action Rooted in Previous Landmark Court Ruling
The foundation of this new lawsuit lies in a historic 2021 court decision, upheld in part during a 2023 appeal, which found Shell partially liable for climate change. The appeal acknowledged Shell’s obligation to reduce CO2 emissions, citing its substantial role in contributing to the climate crisis. However, it stopped short of specifying a target percentage for reductions. Milieudefensie now argues that Shell’s ongoing fossil fuel investments clearly violate the legal duties affirmed by that judgment.
“Companies like Shell have it within their power to combat the climate problem and therefore have a legal obligation to reduce emissions,” stated the Dutch Court of Appeal.
Shell’s Investment Strategy Contradicts Climate Commitments
Despite growing climate concerns, Shell reaffirmed during the recent Capital Markets Day that it plans to expand fossil fuel operations, particularly in the sectors of liquefied natural gas and oil production through 2040. This strategy directly conflicts with climate science, which indicates that new fossil fuel development must be halted to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
More than 700 new oil and gas fields are presently under development by Shell, per a thorough report by Milieudefensie and Global Witness. Since May 2021, Shell has finalized investment decisions for 32 new projects, potentially resulting in 972 million tons of CO2 emissions, an amount nearly equivalent to the annual emissions of the entire European Union.
Climate Crisis and Fossil Fuel Accountability
The main thrust of Milieudefensie's argument is that the climate crisis is essentially a fossil fuel crisis. Over 80% of global carbon emissions are attributed to fossil fuel use, with oil and gas accounting for more than half of that. The NGO claims that companies like Shell are deliberately stalling the energy transition by prioritizing short-term profits over long-term planetary health. In its formal letter to Shell, Milieudefensie underlined:
“Shell is actively undermining the transition to clean energy by lobbying for and investing in long-term fossil fuel infrastructure. This goes against both climate science and public interest.”
Shell Defends Position, Advocates for Collaborative Transition
In response to the impending lawsuit, Shell agrees that urgent climate action is needed, but criticized Milieudefensie’s approach, claiming that it does not contribute meaningfully to a successful energy transition. The company reiterated its belief that transitioning to cleaner energy requires cooperation between governments, businesses and consumers, rather than litigation.
Despite these claims, Shell’s actions suggest a clear prioritization of fossil fuel assets. Industry analysts have noted that investor pressure and declining stock performance have pushed major oil companies like Shell and another integrated oil and gas company, BP plc (BP - Free Report) , to double down on hydrocarbons, rather than pivot aggressively toward renewables.
Milieudefensie Continues Legal Strategy Beyond Shell
This is not Milieudefensie’s first climate lawsuit. Earlier this year, the NGO filed a legal case against Dutch bank ING Group, accusing the financial institution of failing to cut ties with fossil fuel projects. ING Group rebutted the claim, calling it “unrealistic,” but the case further demonstrates a growing legal strategy targeting climate inaction not only among oil firms but also among their financial backers.
Next Steps in Legal Proceedings Against Shell
Legal action against Shell is expected to commence within four weeks, pending its response. If the court rules in favor of Milieudefensie, Shell could be forced to abandon future oil and gas developments and reassess its climate policy for 2030 through 2050.
This lawsuit marks a turning point in the global battle against climate change. With increasing pressure from both the public and judicial systems, energy corporations may soon face unprecedented accountability for their role in driving the climate emergency.
Conclusion: A Critical Test for Corporate Climate Responsibility
As Shell faces mounting legal and social pressure, the broader implications for the fossil fuel industry are unmistakable. The outcome of this case could reshape the energy landscape in Europe and beyond, reinforcing the principle that corporate climate responsibility is not optional but a legal and ethical imperative. Environmental groups are no longer relying solely on protest, they are turning to courts to enforce planetary stewardship. Shell’s next move may determine whether it adapts to the era of climate accountability or becomes a cautionary tale of corporate resistance.
SHEL’s Zacks Rank & Key Picks
Currently, SHEL and BP have a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold).
Investors interested in the energy sector might look at some better-ranked stocks like Comstock Resources, Inc. (CRK - Free Report) and Expand Energy Corporation (EXE - Free Report) , each holding a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) at present. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.
Comstock Resources is valued at $6.68 billion. In the past year, its shares have risen 128.2%. Comstock Resources, an independent energy producer in the United States, holds approximately 1.1 million acres primarily within the highly prospective Haynesville and Bossier shale regions of North Louisiana and East Texas. The company's core business involves the acquisition, exploration, development and production of natural gas and oil from these assets.
Expand Energy is valued at $26.40 billion. In the past year, its shares have risen 28%. Based in Oklahoma City, OK, Expand Energy is an independent natural gas production company. With significant interests in shale formations across Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Louisiana, Expand Energy focuses on the acquisition, exploration and development of properties for producing oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids.