Unclaimed
@ClientEarth
100%
Climate Love
Report data
All climate reviews are user created. Help ClientEarth claim this profile by sending an invitation. If you are ClientEarth, you can claim this profile and answer reviews for free.
Richard Orengo
38 w
Environmental law organisation ClientEarth announced that it was taking Shell to court.This may however not sound out of the ordinary but what makes this case different is that there are real people at the centre of it.This time it is not the corporation that is liable,it is their board of directors. ClientEarth says that the members of the board have breached their legal duties by failing to adopt a transition strategy that aligns with the Paris agreement.Essentially,the board is not doing enough to manage the risks the company faces due to climate change. "What we are asking the court for is an order which requires the board to adopt and implement a strategy to manage climate risks in line with its duties under the (UK) Companies act,in line with its duties under English law," ClientEarth senior lawyer Paul Benson explained. https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/07/behind-the-scenes-with-the-environmental-lawyers-who-are-taking-shells-board-of-directors-
47 more agrees trigger social media ads
Shell’s board of directors are being personally sued over their alleged failure to properly manage risks associated with the climate crisis. The lawsuit says the British oil giant’s 11 directors have breached their legal duties under the UK’s Companies Act by failing to bring their climate strategy in line with the Paris Agreement. Environmental law charity ClientEarth, which filed the lawsuit, says it is the first case in the world that looks to hold corporate directors personally responsible for failing to prepare for the energy transition. “Shell may be making record profits now due to the turmoil of the global energy market, but the writing is on the wall for fossil fuels long term,” says Paul Benson, a senior lawyer at ClientEarth. “The shift to a low-carbon economy is not just inevitable, it’s already happening.” But the Shell board is persisting with a transition strategy that is “fundamentally flawed,” Benson claims. He says it leaves the company seriously exposed to the risks climate change poses to their success in the future - “despite the board’s legal duty to manage those risks”. Lawsuit against Shell has support from investors ClientEarth filed the first of its kind climate case at the High Court of England and Wales in its capacity as a shareholder. The legal claim also has the backing of institutional investors and pension funds who together own over 12 million of Shell’s 7 billion shares. These investors include pension funds like Nest - the UK’s largest workplace pension scheme - and London CIV in the UK and Swedish national pension fund AP3. In a letter to the board of directors notifying them of the legal action last year, ClientEarth said its lawsuit was in the “best interests” of the company as the economy “inevitably shifts away from fossil fuels.” They also said it was in the best interests of investors. “Investors want to see action in line with the risk climate change presents and will challenge those who aren’t doing enough to transition their business,” says Mark Fawcett, Nest’s chief investment officer. “We hope the whole energy industry sits up and takes notice.” Shell says its climate plans are ‘industry-leading’ Shell says its ‘Energy Transition Strategy’ - including its plan to be net zero by 2050 - is consistent with the 1.5C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. The company also claims its plan to halve emissions by 2030 is “industry-leading”. But ClientEarth says this covers less than 10 per cent of its overall emissions and independent assessments have found that Shell’s climate strategy is not Paris-aligned. The environmental law charity is asking the high court to order Shell to adopt a strategy that properly manages climate risks and complies with a 2021 legal order by Dutch courts to cut emissions by 45 per cent. A spokesperson from Shell said they “do not accept ClientEarth’s allegations”. “Our directors have complied with their legal duties and have, at all times, acted in the best interests of the company.” “ClientEarth’s attempt, by means of a derivative claim, to overturn the board’s policy as approved by our shareholders has no merit. We will oppose their application to obtain the court’s permission to pursue this claim.”
42 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
58 w
Action needs to be taken to any individual or organization tampering with anything to do with climate.
•
•
58 w
A good step for climate lawyers
•
58 w
Let All of them be brought to book
Sarah Chabane
76 w
•
In a judgement published on July 18th, the High Court of Justice ruled that the current UK Net Zero Strategy was inadequate and unlawful. Now in October, the UK government announced it won’t be appealing Client Earth's Net Zero court win. 🎉 What does the Government have to do now? "Now that we have received a ruling in our favour, the UK Government has eight months to update its climate strategy to include a quantified account of how its policies will actually achieve climate targets. These will have to be based on a realistic assessment of what it actually expects them to deliver." The new plan should include sound policies that stand up to the scrutiny of the Climate Change Committee "This decision is a breakthrough moment in the fight against climate delay and inaction. It forces the Government to put in place climate plans that will actually address the crisis. It’s also an opportunity to move further and faster away from the expensive fossil fuels that are adding to the crippling cost of living crisis people are facing" Sam Hunter-Jones, ClientEarth lawyer It will be interesting to see what happens within the 8 months, especially with the current government, which is more interested in expanding fossil fuels than in fighting the climate crisis. https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/news/clientearth-are-suing-the-uk-government-over-its-net-zero-strategy/?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=
150 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
•
•
28 w
Dear Sarah Chabane Your climate love has received over 50 agrees! We have reached out to ClientEarth by email and requested a response. I will keep you updated on any progress! To reach more people and increase the chance of a response, click the Share button above to share the review on your social accounts. For every new member that joins We Don't Have Time from your network, we will plant a tree and attribute it to you! /Adam, We Don't Have Time
•
•
76 w
Wow such great news!!! It is time for governments to act on climate change! Let's keep the pressure on them to act
Marine Stephan
77 w
•
Several NGOs, including ClientEarth and Zero Waste France, accused in a statement Auchan, Carrefour, Casino, Danone, Lactalis, Les Mousquetaires, Picard Surgelés, Nestlé, and McDonald's France, of not effectively combating plastic waste production. This is a first step before going to court if they have not "adopted a vigilance plan and implemented appropriate measures to mitigate the risks and prevent serious harm to the environment, health and human rights related to the use of plastics" within three months. Since 2017, French law requires companies based in France and employing more than 5,000 people in the country, or more than 10,000 worldwide, to take effective measures to prevent human rights and environmental abuses throughout their supply chain, including through a "vigilance plan." According to the law, companies have three months to meet their obligations and possibly dialogue with NGOs. At the end of this period, the NGOs have the possibility of launching legal proceedings. Let’s hope this will make these companies start caring about our planet and future. I am looking forward to seeing which action plan these companies will implement! Read more: https://www.leparisien.fr/environnement/encore-bien-trop-de-plastique-auchan-casino-danone-lactalis-mcdonalds-ces-groupes-mis-en-demeure-par-les-ong-28-09-2022-PWSZXW2YFJD4DOTPSYZWYQS3QI.php Picture: LP/Jean-Baptiste Quentin
95 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
61 w
This is good use of law
•
•
61 w
Great! Such regulations will help in a lot in solving plastic waste problem.
•
61 w
se faire taper sur les doigts @#Nestle 🇨🇵
Sarah Chabane
88 w
•
Are you craving a bit of positivity in your feed? In a judgment published on July 18, the High Court of Justice has ruled that the current UK Net Zero Strategy is inadequate and unlawful. The High Court has judged the strategy too vague, meaning that there were no assurances that targets listed under the Strategy, which aims to decarbonise the UK economy to net-zero by 2050, could be met. Quite a timing when the UK is facing its worse heatwave in history. The Court has ordered that the existing Strategy be fleshed out and amended within the next eight months. The Government has also been ordered to cover the costs of the charities that lodged the legal challenge. The illegality of the strategy is one more political embarrassment to the Government. On launch in October 2021, the Net Zero Strategy was hailed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a foreword “Our strategy for net zero is to lead the world in ending our contribution to climate change.” And by the Secretary of State, Kwasi Kwarteng: “This strategy demonstrates how the UK is leading by example, with a clear plan for the future.” Now let's hope that the next government leader will take this seriously and design a strategy that will put UK on the way to Net-Zero, we don't have time to wait. Congratulations to ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth, the GoodLaw Project and all the other organisations that show that the legal way, can create change. https://www.edie.net/high-court-deems-governments-net-zero-strategy-unlawful/
126 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
84 w
Positive news in an otherwise bleak landscape!
•
88 w
Wow! This is excellent news - props to the High Court for recognizing the real issues. Hope the US Supreme Court can one day follow...
•
88 w
Thank you for this little positive touch today 💚 was well needed
Peter Kamau
104 w
Legal action is to be brought against all 27 EU countries over the setting of unsustainable fishing quotas for 2022, two years after a deadline to end overfishing. Under the EU’s common fisheries policy, over-exploitation of fish stocks was supposed to end in 2020 but more than 40% of all commercial stocks in EU waters were unsustainably fished last year according to official monitoring data. The green law group ClientEarth filed a request on Friday asking the Council of the European Union to review the catch limits set by EU fisheries ministers for the north-east Atlantic in December 2021. If it is refused, the green watchdog has said it will file a case at the court of justice of the EU later this year. “We are taking legal action to stop EU ministers consistently allowing rampant overfishing,” said ClientEarth’s fisheries lawyer, Arthur Meeus. “These short-sighted policies are putting at risk the future of our fishing industry and the survival of coastal communities. “Poorly considered fisheries policy is also undermining the fragile balance of our ocean – one of the biggest carbon sinks of the planet – and its capacity to mitigate climate change. If ministers don’t follow the science and protect stocks, the price will be paid not only by fish and fishers but by all of us.” https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/25/clientearth-legal-action-eu-unsustainable-fishing-quotas
72 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
104 w
The acidification of the oceans has reduced fish reproduction significantly and this overfishing is not doing anyone any favours. The EU needs to roll this back ASAP, else we are entering uncharted territory and may be looking at extinction. That said, a vegetarian diet for a couple of years would go a long way in rolling back the effects of climate change in the world. But, that would be wishful thinking.
•
•
•
104 w
While we certainly support ClientEarth call for action, it is striking to see “the future of the fishing industry” as a key argument and another key argument down-toned; There is growing research that FISH FEEL PAIN and there are countless pain and agony feeling “bycatch” such as dolphins, turtles, octopuses and other species suffering from fishing and overfishing. Fish are not just swimming chunks of protein to satisfy humans needs. There is not enough space here to elaborate, but let’s ensure that while protecting our climate we in parallel do not shy away from carrying compassionate and balanced messages relevant to this planet’s species well being; We are not the only living being with an exclusive right to destroy other living beings chance of survival. Fish are likely to feel the same agony, panic and pain when choking to death in huge nets as humans do. The whole fishing industry needs huge transformation - not only fishing quota limitations.
•
•
104 w
Very true, eating fish is often seen as a better option than eating land animals but it's not ethically true. I think though, that as highlighted in the post, coastal communities that have been dependent on fishing to survive need to be taken into account when transitioning to a more plant-based diet, as well as be offered alternatives to their activity.
Peter Kamau
105 w
Environmental law firm ClientEarth, which is also a Shell shareholder, said on Tuesday that it had notified the company of its lawsuit against Shell's 13 executive and non-executive directors. The law firm has said that the Board's failure to put in place a climate plan, which aligns with the Paris Agreement must be considered a breach of their duties as per British law. The case is the first-time ever that someone has held a company's board of directors personally liable "for failing to properly prepare for the net zero transition." In a statement, Paul Benson, a ClientEarth lawyer, said, "Shell is seriously exposed to the physical and transitional risks of climate change, yet its climate plan is fundamentally flawed. The longer the Board delays, the more likely it is that the company will have to execute an abrupt 'handbrake turn' to retain commercial competitiveness and meet the challenges of inevitable regulatory developments." The not-for-profit law firm, which has a strong track record of emerging successful in climate-related cases, said that it had notified Shell and will await the firm's response before officially filing papers in the High Court of England and Wales to take the claim forward. If the case goes to the court, the Board at Shell must match its climate plans with the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement. The court can also declare that Shell's board is in breach of its legal duties. If the claimants lose, however, they could be liable for the full costs of the case. Read more: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/shell-s-board-of-directors-sued-for-not-doing-enough-for-climate-change-1031282776#:~:text=Shell's%20Board%20Of%20Directors%20Sued%20For%20Not%20Doing%20Enough%20For%20Climate%20Change,-Start%20Trading%20%3E%3E&text=(RTTNews)%20%2D%20Shell's%20Board%20of,transition%20away%20from%20fossil%20fuels.
34 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
•
105 w
Shell should be punished or forced to change... The warnings they have been given on this platform is now more than enough
•
105 w
I agree. We need to recycle ♻️ and consume less. Plant trees, plants and protect all God's living creatures. Protect our circle of life. Invest in electric vehicles and solar panels and batteries. No more fossil fuels.
•
105 w
We all need to watch this space and send any support we can their way!
Sarah Chabane
106 w
•
In a historical lawsuit brought by activist shareholders, Shell's 13 directors are being sued for failing to devise a strategy in line with the Paris agreement. The lawsuit claims the failure puts the directors in breach of their duties under the UK’s Companies Act. ClientEarth is the environmental law organisation taking the action against Shell, the organisation is calling for other shareholders to join. And they show how Shell is going in the wrong direction with some key figures: 20% is Shell's carbon intensity target by 2030, while scientific consensus and Dutch Court Order is that a 45% reduction in absolute emissions is needed. 4.4% is the amount Shell’s net emissions are calculated to rise by 2030. 14 new oil & gas projects are in the development pipeline, contrary to the recommendation of the IEA. <10% of Shell's total emissions are covered by its 2030 absolute emissions target. Paul Benson, a ClientEarth lawyer, said: “It’s the first of its kind, this case. It’s the first time that anyone has sought to hold the board accountable for failing to properly prepare for the net-zero transition.” If successful, Shell’s board could be forced by the courts to change its strategy, taking specific concrete steps to align its plan with the Paris deal. But if the claimants lose, they could be liable for the full costs of the case, including directors’ legal fees. https://www.clientearth.org/redirecting-shell/
104 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
104 w
I really hope that ClientEarth will win this case.
•
106 w
I hope they win the case
Jacqueline Marchelli
145 w
Polish people are taking their government to court over its failure to protect them from worsening climate impacts. The claimants are supported by environmental law charity ClientEarth and leading Polish law firm Gessel. The Polish Government is notable internationally for its outdated stance on climate action. Poland still produces 70 per cent of its electricity from coal, the most climate-damaging fossil fuel worldwide, and subsidises it heavily – PLN 8bn (€1.75bn) from the public purse is set to go to fossil fuels in 2021. The country is home to one of the world’s biggest coal power plants, Bełchatów, which emits approximately as much carbon dioxide each year as Slovakia. https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/06/10/polish-people-take-their-government-to-court-as-climate-impacts-worsen?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1623318565
116 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
145 w
We also need to help countries with less capacity to compete in the global marketplace to transition them. Circular economies must advance in predominant and that will mean sharing to create stability and stop poisoning our air, earth, and water. We have to push the countries who CAN to do better as leaders. We need to move even faster thank legal battles and consumers and citizens need to make their impacts felt where companies and politicians feel it.
•
•
145 w
The fact that citizens have to resort to taking their own government to court to protect their most basic human rights feels wrong, almost dystopian. But then, just as in France, Germany, or Italy having this solution as an option is also a good message that shows that the law can be an important tool when it comes to climate action. Thank you for sharing!
•
145 w
This is a good analysis. Ideally the governments should be doing well in climate action, but unfortunately the reality is far from ideal situation. However, I fully support citizens taking their governments to courts for climate change is a very good strategy that puts governments under pressure to take climate action.
Muhammad Fahd Khan
154 w
ClientEarth has efficiently used law to: 1. Block 48 coal plants 2. Make BP withdraw its greenwashing 3. Saved Europe's oldest forests from logging They are present in many countries. Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTR1yiyT9GE & join https://www.clientearth.org/ if you think you can contribute with your skills.
128 more agrees trigger social media ads
•
•
•
154 w
Dear Muhammad Fahd Khan Thank you for getting your climate love to level 2! We have reached out to ClientEarth and requested a response. I will keep you updated on any progress! /Adam We Don't Have Time
Write or agree to climate reviews to make businesses and world leaders act. It’s easy and it works.
Certified accounts actively looking for your opinion on their climate impact.
One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogue™.
•
•
•
37 w
Dear Richard Orengo Your climate love has received over 50 agrees! We have reached out to ClientEarth by email and requested a response. I will keep you updated on any progress! To reach more people and increase the chance of a response, click the Share button above to share the review on your social accounts. For every new member that joins We Don't Have Time from your network, we will plant a tree and attribute it to you! /Adam, We Don't Have Time
•
•
38 w
Great move to safe guard our climate. Change is inevitable and Shell must be ready to this transition.
•
•
38 w
good move