Hello, hello. Okay. Last month in November, a Dutch court ruled in Shell's favor on an appeal in a big

international climate case. It got loads of headlines around the world, but it wasn't quite the win for Shell that a lot of media coverage has made it out to be.

This was an appeal of a 2021 ruling.

It held that Shell is required to reduce all of its global emissions everywhere that it operates, including what are called scope three emissions.

So not just the emissions of its operations, but also the emissions associated with the use of its

products. The court back in 2021 ruled that Shell had to reduce those emissions by 45% by the end of 2030.

It was a huge ruling and an unexpected one.

Shell predictably appealed that ruling,

and this new judgment is the result of that appeal.

The biggest thing that the court walked back was this specific

number, 45% by 2030. That's the commitment that countries have made when they signed on to the

Paris Climate Accord that they would reduce emissions by 45% by the end of 2030 compared with their 2019 emissions. What the court called into

question was whether that same commitment is applicable to Shell or whether it needs to be

adjusted for particular companies. So that's what's been reported as this big win. But at the same time

that it said it's not quite sure about these

specific numbers, the court did reaffirm that Shell is in fact required to reduce its global

emissions, including scope three, because its failure to do so could make it impossible for

the Netherlands to meet its commitments under the Paris Climate Accord.

That's actually a pretty big deal, so much so that one expert I spoke with even said he would not be surprised to see Shell appeal this ruling,

despite the fact that they're currently taking a victory lap in the news.

I'm Amy Westervelt. Today, a look at what this

ruling means for future attempts to use the court to hold companies and governments accountable

...