Tag: Shell

Follow the Money Leaving Wind Farms

The energy transition was supposed to be the defining corporate story of the 2020s. For Shell, it has become the story of what the company tried, reconsidered, and is now unwinding at a pace that leaves little room for ambiguity about where management stands.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Boluwatife Remy reveals what many have overlooked, widespread disinvesting in wind power.  Not so long ago, the climate feaful were badgering education and religious institutions, among others, to disinvest in hydrocarbons from Big Oil companies.  Well, the worm has turned.  Remy’s article at benzinga is
Why Shell Is Selling Its Wind Farms—And What It’s Building Instead. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The energy transition was supposed to be the defining corporate story of the 2020s. For Shell (NYSE:SHEL), it has become the story of what the company tried, reconsidered, and is now unwinding at a pace that leaves little room for ambiguity about where management stands.

Bloomberg reported Friday that Shell is preparing to offload a portfolio of offshore wind farms in a transaction expected to generate more than $1 billion. Rothschild and PJT Partners are handling the advisory work, with the formal sale process targeted for 2027. Shell said nothing publicly. What the company has not stayed quiet about, expressed through a long sequence of exits and disposals over the past two years, is the direction it has chosen and the conviction behind it.

This Is Not a One-Off Decision

Anyone tempted to read the Bloomberg report as an isolated portfolio adjustment has not been following what Shell has been doing since Wael Sawan took the chief executive role with an explicit mandate to tighten the company’s strategic focus and restore the return on capital that investors had been pushing for.

The wind exits have been coming in steady succession. Shell walked away from the Atlantic Shores offshore wind project in the United States, absorbing a $1 billion writedown after concluding the numbers no longer worked. It sold its half of the MarramWind floating offshore wind development off Scotland to joint venture partner ScottishPower Renewables and abandoned the CampionWind project it had been developing independently.

Positions in other offshore wind assets across multiple markets have been quietly sold down as each successive review of the business case reached the same conclusion. The explanation attached to each departure has been consistent: the project either fails to meet the company’s return thresholds or no longer fits what Shell believes it does well.

One exit looks like a portfolio decision. A dozen exits
over twenty-four months looks like a verdict.

What Shell Is Building in Place of Wind

The company Sawan is assembling has a narrower and more deliberate focus than the Shell that spent the early 2020s presenting sweeping energy transition commitments to investors and government audiences. Liquefied natural gas trading and upstream oil and gas production are where the strategy now concentrates, businesses where Shell carries genuine competitive advantages built over decades that no amount of capital could quickly replicate elsewhere.

That repositioning is not unique to Shell. The same reassessment has been running simultaneously across the major integrated oil companies. BP has been selling renewable assets and reorienting capital toward upstream production. Equinor reduced its renewable energy workforce by around 20% while boosting spending on oil and gas. TotalEnergies negotiated an exit from nearly $1 billion in U.S. offshore wind leases and committed the equivalent amount to domestic fossil fuel development instead.

 The companies that arrived at the 2021 and 2022 investor days with ambitious clean energy targets have each, at their own pace and with varying degrees of public candor, concluded that those targets were built on assumptions that did not hold.

How Offshore Wind Lost Its Financial Logic

The deterioration in offshore wind economics between 2021 and 2024 was sharper than almost anyone inside the industry publicly acknowledged while it was happening. Construction costs climbed as specialist installation vessels became scarce and supply chains struggled to keep pace with the volume of projects that had been approved simultaneously across European and American markets.

Interest rates moved from near zero to levels that fundamentally changed the math on capital-intensive long-duration infrastructure. Turbine manufacturers, squeezed between fixed-price contracts and rising input costs, ran into serious financial difficulty.

The gap between what projects were expected to cost when developers submitted bids and what actually arrived on the invoice became a recurring crisis.

Contracts got cancelled. Projects got written down. 

Governments that had structured power purchase agreements around cost assumptions from a different era found themselves in renegotiations that pleased nobody. The companies carrying the heaviest exposure to offshore wind at the peak of the enthusiasm cycle spent years managing the fallout from decisions that looked reasonable in 2020 and looked considerably

What This Means for Shell Shareholders

Selling wind farms that are not generating acceptable returns and redirecting the proceeds into businesses that are creates a cleaner financial picture for investors who have been watching Shell carry underperforming assets longer than they would have preferred. 

Shell has been among the more aggressive capital returners among the major oil companies, and management has been consistent about treating buyback capacity and dividend sustainability as priorities that outrank maintaining positions in low-return businesses.

The assets being brought to market will find buyers. Infrastructure funds and specialist renewable developers have been steady acquirers of divested offshore wind portfolios throughout this cycle, often able to hold the assets more cheaply than integrated oil companies whose capital costs and return expectations create a structural disadvantage in low-margin infrastructure. Shell selling is not the same as the assets disappearing. It is the assets moving to owners better suited to hold them.

What stays with Shell is the part of the energy business it has decided it is actually good at. For investors, that clarity is worth more than a diversified portfolio of businesses generating mixed returns and requiring constant explanation.

See Also: Wind Power Economic Failure

The Short Lives of Wind Turbines

Energy Transition Meltdown Could Mean Global Bifurcation

“Energy Transition Meltdown Could Mean Global Bifurcation” is an article published in late December 2025 by Vijay Jayaraj, at the CO₂ Coalition.
Jayaraj argues that 2025 marked a turning point where major energy companies abandoned aggressive “green” commitments, exposing the net-zero energy transition as an unrealistic “fantasy” driven by bureaucracy rather than economics or science.
He concludes that without heavy subsidies, green megaprojects (e.g., carbon capture) are uneconomical, and corporations are prioritizing shareholder returns over ESG pressures.

An offshore oil rig silhouetted against a colorful sunset, surrounded by calm ocean waters.

“Energy Transition Meltdown Could Mean Global Bifurcation” is an article published in late December 2025 by Vijay Jayaraj, at the CO₂ Coalition.

Jayaraj argues that 2025 marked a turning point where major energy companies abandoned aggressive “green” commitments, exposing the net-zero energy transition as an unrealistic “fantasy” driven by bureaucracy rather than economics or science.

He concludes that without heavy subsidies, green megaprojects (e.g., carbon capture) are uneconomical, and corporations are prioritizing shareholder returns over ESG pressures.

An abandoned landscape featuring two damaged wind turbines and fallen solar panels, set against a dark sky with a crescent moon.

From The CO2 Coalition´s Substack

By Vijay Jayaraj

An offshore oil platform silhouetted against a colorful sunset over the ocean.

History will likely remember 2025 as the year energy corporatists finally stopped pretending there is a climate crisis. For a decade, a bizarre theater of the absurd played out as titans of the oil and gas industry apologized for their core business while pledging allegiance to a “green transition” that existed mostly in the imaginations of Western bureaucrats. But the curtain has seemingly fallen.

ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest energy producers, has slashed $10 billion from its low-carbon investment commitments through 2030. Simultaneously, the company announced that it expects $25 billion in earnings growth from 2024 to 2030 to be powered primarily by increases in oil and gas production, which will push daily output to 5.5 million barrels of oil equivalent by the end of the decade.

This is not a company abandoning climate responsibility but rather at last recognizing what has long been obvious: The path prescribed by the climate industrial complex is economically destructive and operationally impossible – even with massive government subsidies.

For years, the global energy strategy has been surreal. Companies that built the modern world on the back of energy-dense hydrocarbons indulged those celebrating the arrival of wind turbines and solar panels to power civilization. But reality, stubborn and unforgiving, has interrupted the psychedelic revelry.

ExxonMobil’s low-carbon investments will be paced to policy support and customer demand, says the company. That is corporate speak meaning that spending on green projects is paused unless the government – using our tax dollars – subsidizes the risk or until a market exists.

Megaprojects, once heralded as the future, are now in line for deferral. Why? Because without taxpayer handouts, the economics of trying to bury underground a plant food like carbon dioxide simply do not work – and defy common sense.

The energy sector is pivoting from a strategy of “grow clean at all costs” to “returns first, transition last.” “Green” projects are being relegated to a secondary capital bucket – a token for good PR instead of a core activity.

Europe’s Shell and Aker BP and Canada’s Enbridge have withdrawn from the Science Based Targets initiative to establish “science-based emissions reductions.” This was a retreat from what is described as a “credible, science-based net-zero framework” because there was neither credibility nor science. It was a political suicide pact. The energy giants looked at the cliff’s edge and refused to jump.

British multinational BP, having abandoned its promise to go “Beyond Petroleum,” has raised its oil and gas spending and softened its renewable targets.

ENEOS Holdings, a Japanese refiner, has discarded hydrogen production targets, with CEO Tomohide Miyata explaining that “the shift toward a carbon-neutral society appears to be slowing.”

These U-turns represent a renaissance in policy realism. Energy needs do not disappear because politicians make speeches at climate summits or corporations allocate funds to ESG programs or governments attempt to control consumption and choices of appliances and automobiles.

Second thoughts about an inevitably doomed “green” transition is a victory for the single mother in the U.S. trying to budget for winter heating and for the small business owner in the U.K. whose margins are crushed by one of the highest commercial electricity rates in the world. And for the billions of people in developing nations, this pivot could be salvation from generational poverty.

The question now is whether governments will recognize what corporations have made clear: that the energy transition was a fantasy infused with scientific language and draped in moralistic gingerbread. Or will they continue to increase subsidies and regulations?

Very likely, there will be a bifurcation: on the one hand, western bureaucracies, particularly in Europe, continuing an economic decline under mandates and taxes, and on the other, pragmatic governments, many of them in Asia, pursuing prosperity with fuels and technologies that work.

This commentary was first published by Daily Caller on December 25, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

What’s New!

The CO2 Coalition has released its new episode of the Climate Debrief Podcast featuring Jules de Waart (Part 1). Watch the full video here!

Shell Oil Sued Over “Causing Typhoon” in Philippines in Major Test Case

A massive ‘lawfare’ claim backed by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth has been filed in the UK’s Royal Courts of Justice claiming that Shell Oil played a part in a devastating typhoon in the Philippines in 2021. At the centre of the case is a Green Blob-funded weather ‘attribution’ study that claims Typhoon Rai, also known as Odette, was made significantly worse due to human caused climate change. The study has been recently published and is heavily linked to academic institutions funded by the green billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham.

Satellite image of Typhoon Rai making landfall in the Philippines, with geographical markers highlighting Manila and Davao.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

Rescue workers in orange vests assist people stranded in floodwaters, with a partially submerged boat visible amid rushing water.

A massive ‘lawfare’ claim backed by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth has been filed in the UK’s Royal Courts of Justice claiming that Shell Oil played a part in a devastating typhoon in the Philippines in 2021. At the centre of the case is a Green Blob-funded weather ‘attribution’ study that claims Typhoon Rai, also known as Odette, was made significantly worse due to human caused climate change. The study has been recently published and is heavily linked to academic institutions funded by the green billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham.

The action has been filed by a number of survivors of the Philippines storm that caused considerable damage in parts of the Philippines in late 2021. It claims financial compensation as well as “injunctive relief to curb Shell’s destructive activities”.

Typhoons are not unknown in this part of the world, but recent evidence suggests there has been little change in the overall trend over the last 100 years. Numbers and intensity of storms rise and fall over shorter periods but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has seen little evidence that humans have recently caused the trend to get worse. In fact, a recent paper published in Nature found “robust declining trends in the annual number of tropical cyclones at global and regional scales during the 20th century”. The paper was titled: ‘Declining tropical cyclone frequency under global warming.’

The key attribution paper in the Shell case uses a standard technique measuring the outputs of two computer model simulations. This imagines an atmosphere where humans have emitted carbon dioxide by burning hydrocarbons and one where there is no such contribution. To say the process is controversial would be an understatement. It cannot count as scientific work under the Popperian principle since the results are unable to be tested and are unfalsifiable. The field of weather attribution is dedicated to grabbing media headlines and providing ammunition for lawfare cases.

If the Shell case ever gets to court, it will be interesting to see how weather attribution claims stand up to forensic cross examination. Shell could call on the services of the distinguished science writer Roger Pielke Jr., who has noted that he can think of no other area of research “where the relaxing of rigour and standards has been encouraged by research in order to generate claims more friendly to headlines, political advocacy and even lawsuits”. Pielke suggests that the rise of individual event attribution studies coincides with frustration that the IPCC cannot say that the frequency and intensity of most types of extreme weather have increased in an era where humans are using oil and gas. In his view, they offer “comfort and support” to those focused on climate advocacy.

The Typhoon Rai attribution paper is written by four academics from the University of Sheffield and Imperial College London. Both universities have financial links with Jeremy Grantham. The fourth author Nathan Sparks works at the Grantham Institute at Imperial. The Philippines’ Category 5 Cyclone Rai caused widespread damage across the southern-central part of the country, with compounding effects of extreme rainfall, high winds and storm surges. It is claimed that a “multi-method, multi-model probabilistic event attribution” found that wind speeds of landfalling storms like Rai had become 70% more likely due to humans emitting ‘greenhouse’ gases. Looking of course at you in particular Shell Oil. Lawsuits and lawyers thrive on precise numbers so “multi-method probabilistic” modelling along with “compound event attribution theory” produces the conclusion that human-caused climate change “has likely more than doubled the likelihood of a compound event like Typhoon Rai”.

As noted, it will be interesting to see how all this modelling stands up to examination in a civil law court. The less charitable might note that this probabilistic guff would not last five minutes in a criminal court where hard and conclusive evidence, such as DNA, fingerprints, confessions and observations, is generally considered a basic requirement to secure a conviction.

The Rai civil lawsuit has been filed under Philippines tort law in the London Courts due to the domicile of Shell in the UK. The case is backed by three large activist groups who are thought to be covering the legal and organisational costs. Greenpeace is providing advocacy, research and mobilisation support, while Legal Rights and Natural Resources Centre, the local member of Friends of the Earth International, is said to be handling local legal coordination matters. Also involved is a local grouping under the banner of Philippine Movement for Climate Justice. Shell is accused of being responsible for producing 2% of global fossil fuel emissions that have directly contributed to human-caused atmospheric warming. For good measure, Shell is said to have known about the alleged risks for decades, a common claim made by activists that will no doubt be tested in any future court hearing. The mainstream rules around ‘settled’ climate science, where discussion is effectively banned in the interests of promoting the Net Zero fantasy, are unlikely to apply in the London High Court.

The Shell litigation is an important test case. Activists have spent years seeking financial support and recognition for their pseudoscientific claims that they can measure a chaotic and non-linear atmosphere. Such is the level of refinement and expertise that they claim, many people believe they are able to pin the blame for individual weather events on humans. Most mainstream media hype their alchemistic pronouncements without question, but it will be interesting to see how the attribution claims stand up to the attention of m’Learned Friends in a combative court forum.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.

Shell abandons huge biofuel project in Netherlands

British oil giant Shell announced Wednesday it has abandoned construction of one of Europe’s largest biofuel plants in the Netherlands, as it focuses on its fossil fuels business.

A man dressed as a superhero, wearing glasses and a green recycling symbol shirt, stands confidently with a green cape billowing in the wind against a city skyline.

British oil giant Shell announced Wednesday it has abandoned construction of one of Europe’s largest biofuel plants in the Netherlands, as it focuses on its fossil fuels business. AFP has the story.

Faced with weak market conditions, the company last year suspended construction of the renewables biofuel factory in Rotterdam that was intended to produce sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and diesel from waste.

“As we evaluated market dynamics and the cost of completion, it became clear that the project would be insufficiently competitive,” Machteld de Haan, Shell’s downstream, renewables and energy solutions president, said in a statement. 

Read the full story here.

Shell Nederland Raffinaderij B.V., a subsidiary of Shell plc, has decided not to restart construction of its planned biofuels facility at the Shell Energy and Chemicals Park in Rotterdam, which began in 2022. Following an in-depth commercial and technical evaluation to reassess the project’s competitiveness, Shell will no longer proceed with the project. 

Machteld de Haan, Shell’s Downstream, Renewables and Energy Solutions President, said: “As we evaluated market dynamics and the cost of completion, it became clear that the project would be insufficiently competitive to meet our customers’ need for affordable, low carbon products. This was a difficult decision, but the right one, as we prioritise our capital towards those projects that deliver both the needs of our customers and value for our shareholders” Shell Global has the story.

“We continue to believe that low carbon molecules, including biofuels, will underpin the future energy system. Shell is at the forefront of this industry and its development as one of the world’s largest traders and suppliers of biofuels, including Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF),” said De Haan. 

Shell is taking action to be the investment case and partner of choice through the energy transition. Between 2023 and 2024, Shell has invested U.S.$8 billion in lower carbon options, including power, carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen and low-carbon fuels. In 2024, Shell traded over 10 billion litres of low carbon fuels and sold 10 times more than we produced. In the same year, Shell became one of the world’s leading suppliers of SAF.

The Netherlands remains a key location for Shell, where our businesses span the breadth of its energy system – from upstream production of oil and gas through to our network of retail sites. In recent years, Shell has invested €6.5 billion across a wide range of energy transition projects in the Netherlands. This includes enabling CO2 storage through the Porthos CCS project, developing renewable hydrogen at Holland Hydrogen 1, and installing new furnaces and the electrification of key manufacturing processes at Shell Chemicals Park Moerdijk.

Read the full story here.

BP Faces “Existential Crisis” After Ruinous Attempt to Go Green

BP’s green pivot has backfired spectacularly, hammering profits and leaving the company vulnerable to a hedge fund siege, writes Jonathan Leake in the Telegraph.

Screenshot

From The Daily Sceptic

By Richard Eldred

BP’s green pivot has backfired spectacularly, hammering profits and leaving the company vulnerable to a hedge fund siege, writes Jonathan Leake in the Telegraph. Here’s an excerpt:

Addressing journalists and executives at the Royal Lancaster Hotel overlooking Hyde Park, Bernard Looney, BP’s new Chief Executive, urged them to “reimagine” his company as a champion of green power.

By 2030, BP would have cut oil and gas production by 40%, he pledged, with the lost fossil fuel income replaced by wind farms, solar parks and biofuels made from plants.

He said: “BP has been an international oil company for over a century… Now we are pivoting to become an integrated energy company.

“We believe our new strategy provides a comprehensive and coherent approach to turn our Net Zero ambition into action. This coming decade is critical for the world in the fight against climate change.”

Five years on from that speech in February 2020, the company is beleaguered by a ruthless activist investor, under pressure to boost its flatlining share price and considering a return to the oil and gas exploration that made it so successful to begin with.

The abrupt turn follows decades of crisis at one of Britain’s most venerable institutions. Today, its future is more uncertain than ever.

The Net Zero plans unveiled by Looney have hammered profits and generated intense speculation about a takeover, break up or even a merger with arch-rival Shell.

This month the fears became real with revelations that Elliott, a Florida-based hedge fund and corporate raider, has built a £3.8 billion stake in BP – and is laying siege to the company.

On Wednesday, BP will face the ultimate test at its capital markets day when Murray Auchincloss, the company’s current chief executive, will seek to persuade sceptical investors that he can deliver a “fundamental reset”.

To win round doubters, he is expected to announce a major break with the last five years – shifting away from Net Zero and back towards its oil and gas heritage.

But many in the City are asking how a company of BP’s size and stature has found itself in this position in the first place….

BP’s Net Zero pledges were backed by precise numbers.

Looney promised that by 2030 BP would boost investment in renewables tenfold from $500 million (£395 million) to $5 billion and build windfarms and solar parks with a capacity of 50 gigawatts – roughly enough to supply the whole UK on a windy and sunny day.

Over the same period it would slash oil and gas production from the equivalent of 2.6 million barrels of oil a day to 1.5 million. Refining throughput would drop from 1.7 million barrels a day to just 1.2 million. …

It did not take long for problems to start emerging.

After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, oil and gas prices spiked. The surge rained cash down on fossil fuel producers, including BP. However, it raised questions as to why the company was pulling back from such a profitable market.

In February 2023, after a blockbuster $28 billion profits for 2022 linked to the global energy crisis, Looney was forced to slash his pledge to cut production by 40% by the end of the decade to a more modest 25%.

BP’s shareholders had realised that the green spending they supported in 2020 had halved their dividends. Total shareholder returns had underperformed Shell by 15%, France’s TotalEnergies by 30%, Chevron by 60% and ExxonMobil by 100%. …

Few of Looney’s 2020 promised renewable energy projects have materialised.

Earlier this month BP used its 2024 results day to announce that those that have been built – such as its 10 US windfarms – are to be sold. Its other wind assets (mostly planning approvals, including around the UK), are to be shunted into an independent joint venture.

BP Lightsource, BP’s solar subsidiary, is still building solar farms – but these are then sold on, meaning no long-term investment or income.

Pushed by analysts, Auchincloss, Looney’s replacement, confirmed a halt to all investment in wind and solar. “We have completely decapitalised renewables,” he said.

The same results showed BP made $8.9 billion in underlying profit compared with $13.8 billion in 2023 – its worst annual result since 2020, the year of the pandemic.

In response, Auchincloss promised a wave of new oil and gas production, including BP’s sixth hub in the Gulf of Mexico. The Kaskida development will soon be producing 80,000 barrels of crude oil a day, with other developments planned in Iraq, India, Brazil, Egypt and the UK’s North Sea.

Overall, he has suggested BP’s oil production will rise by 2-3% a year until 2030.

All that, say analysts, completely contradicts the “zombie” Net Zero strategy bequeathed by Looney – as well as offering a strong clue as to what Auchincloss’s “fundamental reset” will include – a full-blooded return to oil and gas.

Worth reading in full.

The climate case of the century

On the 12th of November, the Hague Court of Appeal ruled in the “climate case of the century” that Milieudefensie (“FoE”) filed against Shell in 2019. FoE demands that Shell reduce emissions throughout the entire chain by at least 45% by 2030. The foundation “Man & Environment” (M&E) joined the case to represent the interests of Dutch citizens.

From Climate Etc.

by Lucas Bergkamp

On the 12th of November, the Hague Court of Appeal ruled in the “climate case of the century” that Milieudefensie (“FoE”) filed against Shell in 2019. FoE demands that Shell reduce emissions throughout the entire chain by at least 45% by 2030. The foundation “Man & Environment” (M&E) joined the case to represent the interests of Dutch citizens.

The Court of Appeal was not impressed by FoE’s “go green or go extinct” rhetoric and rejected its claims.  Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal’s ruling leaves much to be desired and did not eliminate the threat of activist NGOs launching climate cases to effect “system change,” i.e., set aside democracy, subordinate citizens and destroy the economy.

Climate science

Although M&M had offered strong rebuttals with expert reports, the Court of Appeal uncritically adopted many of FoE’s factual statements about the urgency and seriousness of the climate problem.  In doing so, the Court relied on the authority of the IPCC and the alleged “consensus” that would emerge from their reports, in particular the SPMs.

The Court not only took the IPCC reports as irrebuttable proof, but also attributed normative force to them. For example, the Court ruled that climate scientists have determined that the average temperature on earth may not rise by more than 1.5 degrees. In doing so, the Court, like the Dutch Supreme Court, ignored that science cannot set norms and that scientists are not authorized to set social standards. The Dutch judiciary’s scientistic tendency is extremely worrisome and does not bode well for future climate-related judgments.

Dangerous climate change

A case in point, the Court arrives at the alarmist conclusion that “the climate problem is the biggest problem of our time” and that the danger of climate change is great and even “life-threatening”. Based on the non-factual findings of fact and obligatory references to the Paris climate agreement, the Urgenda judgment and the Klimaseniorinnen ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court confirmed a right to protection against “dangerous climate change.”

“Protection against dangerous climate change,” the Court says, “is a human right,” without any caveats or qualifications. Obviously, realizing this human right will be at the expense of all kinds of other human rights and interests, such as the right to (or interest in) reliable and affordable energy. Inevitably, the right to protection against “dangerous climate change” will harm the realization of other “sustainable development goals.” Although M&E had flagged these kinds of trade-offs extensively, the judges did not bother to deal with these implications of climate morality.

Dog whistle

This new human right must be respected not only by states, but also by large corporations, the Court found.  In civil liability law, this right translates into a duty of care for companies. According to the Court, the Paris goals require measures to reduce the demand for fossil fuels and to limit the supply of fossil fuels. Oil and gas companies should therefore consider “the negative impact on the energy transition when investing in the production of fossil fuels.”

With this line of reasoning, the judgment suggests that “saving the climate” legitimizes creeping expropriation of oil and gas companies. This dog whistle did not escape the attention of FoE’s lawyer, who has hinted at further legal proceedings to prevent the development, expansion and financing of oil and gas production, referring to forthcoming climate finance case against ING, the largest Dutch bank.

Reduction Percentage

FoE lost the case based on two lucid moments of the judges. FoE had demanded that Shell reduce scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. With regard to scope 1 and 2, the Court of Appeal ruled that Shell had committed itself to this objective and is on track to achieve it, so that claim was rejected.

With regard to scope 3 emissions, the Court of Appeal concluded that neither the law nor climate science sets specific reduction standards for a company such as Shell. The 45% invoked by FoE, the Court found, is only an “average global reduction in all sectors” that does not apply to each country and each business sector individually. Indeed, this point had been well explained in M&E’s submissions to the Court.

In this regard, the judgment serves as a dialogue between the courts and the climate movement. Climate science therefore knows what is expected of it: set reduction standards for the oil and gas sector and the courts (at least, the Dutch courts) will enforce them.

Effectiveness

The Court of Appeal also undermined FoE’s lawsuit by finding that the reduction order sought by FoE would be ineffective. This too had been explained in detail in M&E’s expert opinions. As the Court confirmed, there is no reason to believe that a reduction obligation imposed on a specific company will have any positive effect: if Shell sells less oil and gas, other suppliers will simply take its place and any “climate gain” will be illusory.

Progressive realization

In line with the human rights theory of ‘progressive realization’, the court-made right to protection against ‘dangerous climate change’ is slowly but surely being realized. Two steps forward, one step back: first governments, then companies, then a specific reduction percentage, and then no such percentage.

This week, it was a step back, but the District Court’s verdict in first instance has already had its effect. With that verdict in hand, many other lawsuits have been launched and the climate movement has been able to persuade the European Union to oblige companies to implement a “climate transition plan” in accordance with 1.5 degrees. Judges have learned rapidly how to play the political climate game.

Threat remains

This is the first climate ruling in the Netherlands that is favourable to citizens who are suffering under the ever-rising prices of energy and other products. M&E’s intervention has had its effect, as it demonstrated for the Court that there are other interests affected by these kinds of cases and that other valid perspectives on the issues generate dramatically different conclusions. Moreover, as the main reasons for denying FoE’s claims are rather factual in nature, it will be difficult to find a good angle to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, which review only points of law.

A battle has been won, but the climate war will rage on. Activist NGOs will be able to derive new legal bases from the Court’s ruling for further climate cases.

NGOs for the people

To prevent that democracy is set aside and the people are subordinated to climate activists supported by the judiciary, interventions by NGOs that are sympathetic to the interests of citizens will continue to be essential. There is much enthusiasm around this idea, but the financing of the activities continues to be the biggest challenge.

All in all, the ruling of the Hague Court of Appeal is an important first step towards restoring rationality and balance in judicial decision-making in climate cases.  The rejection of the case against Shell will have ripple effects on many other climate cases throughout the world, and should cause the EU to rethink the obligation for companies to implement a climate transition plan consistent with 1.5C.

In all things climate, to use a Chinese proverb, “the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”

Climate Litigation: The Dutch Case and a Pattern of Vexatious Lawsuits

A recent Dutch court decision has highlighted yet another chapter in the ongoing saga of climate litigation. These lawsuits, often celebrated by environmental groups as heroic stands against alleged corporate or governmental indifference, more frequently reveal themselves to be little more than vexatious attempts to impose ideological agendas through the legal system. The Dutch case fits squarely into this pattern, raising questions about the validity of such litigation and its broader consequences.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

A recent Dutch court decision has highlighted yet another chapter in the ongoing saga of climate litigation. These lawsuits, often celebrated by environmental groups as heroic stands against alleged corporate or governmental indifference, more frequently reveal themselves to be little more than vexatious attempts to impose ideological agendas through the legal system. The Dutch case fits squarely into this pattern, raising questions about the validity of such litigation and its broader consequences.

The Dutch Case: An Overview

In this latest instance, a court in the Netherlands dismissed a climate-related lawsuit brought by activists targeting Shell. The suit alleged that the company had not done enough to reduce carbon emissions and protect the environment. Despite the plaintiffs’ claims of moral urgency, the court found the case insufficiently grounded in legal merit.

This is far from the first instance of activists leveraging the courts to advance their goals, but the Dutch case is emblematic of a deeper trend: the increasing use of climate lawsuits as tools for coercion rather than justice.

The Rise of Vexatious Climate Litigation

The Dutch case is part of a growing global trend of lawsuits aimed at holding corporations or governments “accountable” for climate change. However, many of these cases bear the hallmarks of being frivolous, ideological, or outright manipulative.

  • Strategic Exploitation of Legal Loopholes: Plaintiffs often target corporations in jurisdictions with loose standing rules or sympathetic judges. These cases frequently stretch or redefine legal principles, demanding courts take on the role of policymakers.
  • Litigation for Show, Not Substance: Such cases often generate massive media coverage, regardless of their legal merits. For activists, winning in the court of public opinion can be more valuable than winning in an actual courtroom.
  • Undermining Judicial Integrity: By attempting to insert speculative climate models and projections as evidence, these lawsuits place the judiciary in the precarious position of ruling on matters far outside its expertise.

In the Dutch case, as in others, the goal appears less about achieving meaningful outcomes and more about harassing companies into compliance with activist demands.

A History of Questionable Cases

To understand the Dutch ruling in context, it’s worth examining similar lawsuits that have failed to deliver meaningful results:

  1. Juliana v. United States: Touted as a landmark case, a group of young activists sued the U.S. government, alleging constitutional violations for failing to address climate change. While the case garnered massive media attention, it was ultimately dismissed because the judiciary recognized it lacked authority to mandate sweeping policy changes.
  2. ExxonMobil and the Rockefeller Funding Nexus: ExxonMobil has faced numerous lawsuits alleging it misled investors about the risks of climate change. However, investigations revealed these lawsuits were often coordinated by ideologically motivated groups, such as the Rockefeller Family Fund, raising questions about their legitimacy.
  3. Australian Lawfare: In Australia, environmental groups have used legal challenges to delay mining and infrastructure projects. While framed as environmental justice, these lawsuits have cost billions in economic losses, without significantly advancing environmental goals.

Each of these cases reveals a troubling pattern: lawsuits designed to weaponize the legal system, not to solve problems, but to impose a particular worldview.

The Broader Consequences of Vexatious Lawsuits

These cases are not harmless. They impose significant costs—financial, social, and institutional:

  • Economic Costs: Businesses targeted by these lawsuits face steep legal fees and reputational damage, even when cases are ultimately dismissed. These costs are inevitably passed on to consumers, raising prices and stifling innovation.
  • Judicial Backlog: Vexatious lawsuits clog court systems, diverting resources from legitimate cases. Courts are not designed to function as substitute legislatures or scientific bodies, yet these cases demand precisely that.
  • Chilling Effects on Business: The constant threat of litigation discourages investment and innovation, particularly in industries already grappling with tight margins and regulatory uncertainty.
  • Erosion of Trust in the Legal System: When the courts are used as a political tool, public confidence in judicial impartiality declines.

The Dutch case adds yet another log to this growing fire, illustrating how legal systems can be exploited for ideological gain rather than justice.

Climate Activism as Legal Harassment

The rise of these lawsuits reflects a broader trend in modern climate activism: the use of coercive tactics to impose compliance. Whether through public shaming, regulatory lobbying, or vexatious litigation, the goal is the same—to bypass democratic processes and enforce top-down mandates.

The courts, however, are ill-suited to play this role. Climate models, policy trade-offs, and societal priorities are matters for public debate and legislative decision-making, not judicial fiat.

Conclusion: Time to Push Back

The Dutch court’s decision to dismiss this latest climate case should be welcomed as a step in the right direction. It serves as a reminder that the courts cannot and should not be hijacked to serve ideological agendas. However, it is not enough to celebrate isolated victories. Broader reforms are needed to prevent the legal system from being used as a weapon against economic freedom, innovation, and rational governance.

Climate lawsuits like the Dutch case reveal the folly of allowing ideologues to dictate policy through legal harassment. If left unchecked, this trend will do far more harm than good—eroding institutions, stifling progress, and undermining trust in the very systems that activists claim to protect.

H/T charlie

Shell wins appeal in landmark emissions case

The ruling was handed down as the COP29 climate summit is staged in Azerbaijan though the judgment is unlikely to be the end of the matter.

The ruling was handed down as the COP29 climate summit is staged in Azerbaijan though the judgment is unlikely to be the end of the matter.

Shell has won its appeal against a climate court ruling that it must sharply reduce its carbon emissions.

The oil and gas producer went to the Court of Appeal in the Netherlands following a decision in support of environmental campaign groups in the country, including Friends Of The Earth. Sky News has the story.

That ruling, in 2021, ordered Shell to cut its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels in order to protect Dutch citizens.

The emissions curbs included those caused by the use of Shell’s products.

The judge in the appeal dismissed all the claims against Shell.

The company, which exited its dual headquarters structure in The Hague in 2022 to reside only in the UK, had argued that the original district court decision was flawed on many grounds.

They included that only nation states can set such sweeping demands and that such a cut to its business would only shift output towards its competitors without any benefit to the planet.

The ruling was handed down as the COP29 climate summit is staged in Azerbaijan and just months after Shell weakened a 2030 carbon reduction target and scrapped a 2035 objective, citing expectations for strong gas demand and uncertainty in the energy transition.

Advertisement

Tuesday’s judgment may not be the end of the matter.

Read the full story here.

US oil giant abandons California after 150 years over ‘harsh’ green policies

One of America’s biggest oil companies is to abandon its headquarters in California amid a backlash against “harsh” green policies.

Chevron on Friday said it would relocate to Houston, Texas, breaking a historic association with the Golden State that stretches back to the 1870s.

MIDLAND, TEXAS – MARCH 11: Oil pumpjacks work in the Permian Basin oil field on March 11, 2022 in Midland, Texas. United States President Joe Biden imposed a ban on Russian oil, the world’s third-largest oil producer, which may mean that oil producers in the Permian Basin will need to pump more oil to meet demand. The Permian Basin is the largest petroleum-producing basin in the United States. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

How long will it be before BP and Shell follow suit, and leave the UK?

One of America’s biggest oil companies is to abandon its headquarters in California amid a backlash against “harsh” green policies.

Chevron on Friday said it would relocate to Houston, Texas, breaking a historic association with the Golden State that stretches back to the 1870s.

Chevron’s decision follows repeated warnings from bosses that stringent environmental regulations and other moves by the Californian government had made doing business there too difficult.

It is the latest oil company to walk away from the state, while other employers such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX have also relocated following rows with state authorities about new legislation.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/02/oil-giant-abandons-california-150-years-harsh-green-policy

The Offshore Wind Energy Scandal Is Even Worse Than You Think

These 11 charts show how America’s biggest NGOs are colluding with foreign corporations that want to industrialize our oceans with thousands of turbines that will hurt whales and ratepayers.

Two of Europe’s biggest energy companies are abandoning the SS Offshore Wind.

From The Robert Bryce Substack

By Robert Bryce

These 11 charts show how America’s biggest NGOs are colluding with foreign corporations that want to industrialize our oceans with thousands of turbines that will hurt whales and ratepayers.

This humpback whale washed ashore on Martha’s Vineyard in June 2023. Photo: Abigail Rosen, MV Times.

Two of Europe’s biggest energy companies are abandoning the SS Offshore Wind.

In May, Shell, the UK-based oil and gas giant (2023 revenue: $317 billion), announced that it was cutting staff from its offshore wind business because, according to Bloomberg, the company has decided to focus on markets that “deliver the most value for our investors and customers.” Bloomberg also reported that the staff cuts were made after the departures of top executives in the company’s offshore wind and renewable power businesses.

Last month, Murray Auchincloss, the CEO of oil and gas giant BP, imposed a “hiring freeze and paused new offshore wind projects.” According to Reuters, the new CEO is putting more “emphasis on oil and gas amid investor discontent over its energy transition strategy” and that BP (2023 revenue: $208 billion) was cutting investments in “big budget, low-carbon projects, particularly in offshore wind, that are not expected to generate cash for years.”

The moves by BP and Shell are only the latest examples of the troubles facing the offshore wind sector, which has been foundering on the shoals of higher interest rates, citizen opposition, and ballooning costs. Over the past year, numerous projects on the Eastern Seaboard, including Skipjack Wind in Maryland, Park City Wind in Connecticut, and South Coast Wind in Massachusetts, have been canceled due to bad economics. In all, according to data compiled by Ed O’Donnell, a nuclear engineer and a principal at New Jersey-based Whitestrand Consulting, about 14,700 megawatts of offshore wind capacity has been canceled. For comparison, about 15,500 megawatts of capacity is now in development, under construction, or operational.

Of course, those figures don’t jibe with the tsunami of hype about offshore wind energy that has appeared in major media outlets. But the hard reality is that America’s offshore wind sector is a subsidy-dependent industry that is dominated by foreign companies who are in bed with some of America’s biggest climate NGOs, including the NRDC (gross receipts: $555 million) and Sierra Club (Gross receipts: $184 million).

Those NGOs and others, including the National Wildlife Federation (gross receipts: $142 million) and Conservation Law Foundation (gross receipts: $17.5 million), are leading the most shameful environmental betrayal in modern American history. Rather than seek to protect marine mammals and stop the industrialization of our oceans, they are eagerly promoting the installation of hundreds of offshore wind platforms smack in the middle of the known habitat of the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale.

“What is Big Wind going to say when they kill the last whale? ‘Sorry’?” ACK 4 Whales president Vallorie Oliver on the porch of her home in Nantucket, on July 8, 2024. Photo by author.

Last week, I gave public lectures in Nantucket and Newport on the energy transition and offshore wind energy. Those events allowed me to take a deep dive into the cesspool of offshore wind and the entities pushing it. Two small groups, ACK 4 Whales and Green Oceans, sponsored the lectures. (The groups are so new that they haven’t filed Form 990s.) The lectures allowed me to meet dozens of committed and interesting people from all walks of life, income levels, and political beliefs, who are fighting the insanity of offshore wind. Among them was Vallorie Oliver, a native of Nantucket who is the president of ACK 4 Whales. Oliver’s father worked as a carpenter and fisherman on the island. She has been fighting the offshore wind projects since 2019.

Oliver reminds me of the dozens of other Americans I’ve been privileged to meet over the last decade as I’ve reported on the backlash against the encroachment of Big Wind and Big Solar. When we talked at her modest home in Nantucket last Monday, I told Oliver that she’s special, but not unique. Oliver — and the many others I’ve met who are fighting the energy sprawl that inevitably comes with alt-energy — all share a common value. What is it? It’s the desire to protect their homes, neighborhoods, viewsheds, and property values from the climate change carpetbaggers who are only interested in the profits they can make by paving vast swaths of territory with solar panels and wind turbines.

In an email on Sunday afternoon, Oliver told me what keeps her motivated: “There are no do-overs when the last whale is killed off,” she explained. “There are fewer than 350 North Atlantic Right Whales left. What is Big Wind going to say when they kill the last whale? ‘Sorry’?”

These 11 charts show the offshore wind energy scandal is even worse than you think.

Chart 1: About two-thirds of the offshore projects that are operating, under construction, or proposed are owned either entirely, or in part, by foreign companies.
Chart 2: Those foreign companies are feasting on subsidies. As shown below, the foreign corporations pushing for offshore wind in U.S. waters have, according to data from Good Jobs First, collected more than $9 billion in local, state, and federal subsidies, loans, or loan guarantees, and they are eager for more. How lucrative are the offshore wind subsidies? Consider Vineyard Wind, the 800-megawatt offshore project owned by Avangrid, the Spanish company, and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. Construction costs on the project will be about $4 billion. With an investment tax credit of about 40%, those two foreign outfits could collect as much as $1.6 billion in federal tax credits on Vineyard Wind alone.   

Chart 3: If there’s a better example of how climate NGOs have sold out to big business — and Big Oil — I can’t name it. Here’s a screenshot from the New York Offshore Wind Alliance website that shows the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex at work.

Chart 4: Yup.

Chart 5: Ibid.

Chart 6: I’m old enough to remember when environmental groups cared about whales. Alas, that was a long time ago. On Sunday, the Daily Mail published an article about Apostolos Gerasoulis, a Rutgers professor emeritus of computer science who built a software system to analyze the dozens of whale deaths that have occurred on the Eastern Seaboard over the past few years. Gerasoulis set out to determine if the whale deaths were related to the loud blasts of sonar used by offshore wind survey vessels. His conclusion: “Offshore wind kills whales…The numbers never lie. There is a cause. We have shown that the cause for death of the whales is offshore wind. Period.” (H/t fellow Substack writer David Blackmon.)  

Chart 7: Can we trade the Sierra Club for an environmental group that cares about protecting marine mammals? The text below is from the club’s website.

Chart 8: This bit of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo is buried in the environmental impact statement the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management did on Vineyard Wind. Here’s my plain English translation: “These projects won’t make any difference on climate change. But they are good because they allow state-level bureaucrats to say they met their policy goals.”

Chart 9: The big NGOs claim we must build gigawatts of offshore wind because of climate change. But given the enormous size of the U.S. power grid (1,300 gigawatts), whatever reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that might be achieved with offshore wind will be the equivalent of a fart in a hurricane.

Chart 10: Short of throwing currency into a boiler, offshore wind energy is the most expensive way to generate electricity. The recent announcement that the state of New York will pay $155 per megawatt-hour for the juice from the Empire Wind project proves that point.

Chart 11: The states on the East Coast that are building offshore wind have some of the highest electricity prices in the country. Those rates will go higher due to offshore wind. (California is also planning to spend billions on offshore wind, but that’s a topic for another Substack.)

I will close by repeating W. Edwards Deming’s famous line: “In God we trust, all others must bring data.” The data shows offshore wind energy is a lousy deal for whales and ratepayers.