Zeeland

Sint Eustatius

Groningen

Overijssel

Flevoland

Aruba

Curaçao

Limburg

Zuid-Holland

Sint Maarten

Fryslân

Saba

Noord-Brabant

Drenthe

Utrecht

Gelderland

Bonaire

Noord-Holland

Netherlands

increase renewable energy production to 84 TWh by 2030

reduce CO2 emissions from electricity sector by 20.2 Mton by 2030

reduce GHG emissions from agriculture and land use industry by additional 3.5 Mton compared to BAU

reducy industry emissions by 14.3 Mton CO2 by 2030 compared to 1990 levels

reduce business trips per car by 8 billion kilometers by 2030

30% CO2 emission reduction by hinterland and continental transport by 2030

100% emissions free sales of passenger cars by 2030

reduce emissions from built environment by 3.4 Mton by 2030 compared to reference scenario

49% GHG emissions reductions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels

14% biofuels by 2030 in the aviation industry, 100% by 2050

500 MW electrolysis capacity by 2025 and 3-4 GW capacity by 2030

To achieve a 27% share of renewable energy by 2030.



To reduce by 49% the greenhouse gases compared with 1990. 



1.5 m homes to transition from natural gas to sustainable heat

Three to four GW of electrolysis capacity for hydrogen

49 TWh of wind power to be built in North Sea.

Achieve carbon neutrality in the electricity sector by 2050

Reduce emissions by 49% by 2030 and 95% by 2050, compared with a 1990 baseline

25 Mt CO2e reduced (-17%) by 2030 against a 1990 baseline

40% cut in CO2, then 80-95% by 2030, 2050  against a 1990 baseline

40% cut in GHG emissions by 2030 compared with a 1990 baseline

60% cut in GHG from transport by 2050 against a 1990 baseline

80-95% cut in GHG by 2050 compared with a business as usual scenario

1.5% annual energy consumption savings by 2020

20% cut in energy consumption by 2020 against a 2012 baseline

15-20 PJ total energy conserved by 2020 against a 1990 baseline

1.5% savings of final energy consumption by 2023

14% share of renewables by 2020, then 16% by 2023

60% cut in CO2e in transportation by 2050 against a 1990 baseline

All new passenger cars at zero emissions by 2035, all passenger cars at zero emissions by 2050

In November 2016, Greenpeace International (GPI) signed an open letter with over 500 organizations, calling on funders to withdraw financing for an oil pipeline in North Dakota. Energy Transfer—the developer of the pipeline—and related entities cited this signature as evidence to bring GPI before U.S. courts, seeking at least $300 million in damages. A <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/energy-transfer-equity-lp-v-greenpeace-international/">federal lawsuit</a> was principally based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Energy Transfer also named Greenpeace Fund, Inc. and Greenpeace, Inc. as defendants, as well as two other organizations and individual activists. In February 2019, the court dismissed the RICO claims against the Greenpeace entities with prejudice and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Later that month, Energy Transfer filed a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/energy-transfer-lp-v-greenpeace-international/">lawsuit</a> in North Dakota state court against Greenpeace International, Greenpeace Fund, Inc., and Greenpeace, Inc. (Three individuals and a group that Energy Transfer alleged was a “front organization” for Greenpeace Fund, Inc. and Greenpeace, Inc. were also originally defendants in the state court case.) In March 2025, a jury in the North Dakota state court found that Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Fund, Inc. were liable for almost $667 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to Energy Transfer entities based on state law claims, including trespass, trespass to chattel, conversion, nuisance, defamation, tortious interference with business, and conspiracy. The Greenpeace entities indicated they will appeal if the trial court does not reverse the jury’s verdict.

On July 23, 2024, GPI sent a notice of liability to Energy Transfer (ET) under the European Union’s Anti-SLAPP Directive, stating that GPI holds ET liable for the costs of legal representation and trial expenses incurred as a result of ET’s actions. “SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The EU’s Anti-SLAPP directive was passed on April 11, 2024. On September 6, 2024, ET responded by rejecting liability and insisting its legal action was not a SLAPP suit.

In February 2025, GPI filed a case with the Public Prosecutor of the District Court of Amsterdam, citing violations of the anti-SLAPP Directives under Dutch law. GPI cited Article 6:162 (1) and (2) under the Dutch civil law, which prohibits tortious and improper social conduct. They also cited Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which entitles NGOs to the right to freedom of expression and the right to impart information. Finally, GPI cited the European Union Anti-SLAPP Directive, which GPI said was intended to shield “public watchdogs” from SLAPP suits both within and outside of the EU.

Energy Transfer insists that the lawsuits against GPI are not SLAPPs but a legitimate exercise of the company’s rights under North Dakota State Law. They maintain that there is no legal basis to establish legal liability under European or Dutch law.

On September 12, 2024, The Hague formally adopted an ordinance that prohibits advertisements for fossil fuel products and services in public and private spaces throughout The Hague. These products may include petrol, gas heating, diesel vehicles, air travel, cruise shipping, or other related items. The ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2025, serving as the first comprehensive legal ban of its kind globally. 

On April 2, 2025, trade company ANVR and travel operators TUI, D-reizen, and Prijsvrij filed a complaint in the District Court of The Hague. The plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction to suspend the ordinance, alleging that the ban disproportionately restricted commercial freedom. The plaintiffs specifically alleged that the ban violates freedom of expression as protected under Article 7 of the Dutch Constitution. The plaintiffs further alleged that the ban violates EU regulations, specifically stating that the ban provides a higher level of consumer protection than the EU Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices legally provides. The plaintiffs also contended that the advertising ban violates the free movement of goods under Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), claiming that it would disadvantage foreign market participants. 

The hearing took place on April 12, 2025, and the District Court of The Hague issued its ruling on April 25, 2025. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and upheld the ban, stating that the municipality lawfully exercised its powers under Dutch administrative law and that rights under EU law are not absolute and may be restricted for reasons of public interest. The court also stated that the measure is non-discriminatory and that public interest in combating climate change supersedes the economic interests of advertisers. 

On January 11, 2024, Greenpeace Netherlands and eight Dutch citizens of the island of Bonaire sued the Dutch State about the lack of climate adaptation and mitigation action. The plaintiffs argue that the Dutch State has not taken sufficient climate adaptation and mitigation measures to protect the people of Bonaire, a small Dutch island in the Caribbean near Venezuela, against the negative effects of climate change on human rights, in line with the 1,5⁰C goal of the Paris Agreement and human rights treaties. The complaint was launched after plaintiffs issued a warning letter in 2023, demanding to meet with Ministries in The Hague to have talks about better climate adaptation policy and action for the island, as well as more resources devoted to adaptation.

In terms of legal bases, the plaintiffs argue that the Dutch State is committing an ‘unlawful act’ (onrechtmatige daad) under Article 6:162 of the Civil Code by failing to implement adequate climate adaptation and mitigation action, in a way that protects inhabitants’ international human rights. The case follows the legal reasoning by the Dutch Supreme Court in the landmark Urgenda-case, as well as in judgement of the Dutch District Court in the Hague in the Shell-case. The rights at stake in the present case include the right to life and right to private life, family and the home in Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14 of the ECHR and the right to culture of people living on the Caribbean island under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In support, plaintiffs also invoke several provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters on relevant procedural rights and obligations, e.g. Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Aarhus Convention.

Regarding the right to culture and non-discrimination under Article 27, plaintiffs explain that the inhabitants of Bonaire are a minority within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, with a special and deeply rooted shared culture and history tied to their island. The complaint provides ample detail on the colonial history of the islands, the culture of the island and its inhabitants, as well as its current legal status as a ‘special’ municipality of the European part of the Netherlands. The plaintiffs claim that as inhabitants of Bonaire, they are not treated the same as Dutch citizens living in the European part of the Netherlands, because for ‘European Netherlands’ major adaptation works have long been planned and undertaken, resources reserved and devoted, as well as permanent, ongoing evaluations and assessments of the situation. There is no comparable protection for Bonaire. In fact, plaintiffs argue that in light of the deep structural inequality between the quality of life on Bonaire (i.e. very high levels of poverty) and those living in the European part of the Netherlands, there is reason to argue that the State should pay extra attention to the situation on Bonaire. They argue that this also follows from case law under Article 14 ECHR, and the principle of equality under Article 1 of the Dutch constitution.

Regarding Articles 2 and 8 ECHR and mitigation, the plaintiffs build on the legal reasoning previously endorsed by the Dutch Supreme Court in the Urgenda-case. Notably, Article 2 and 8 ECHR entail positive legal obligations for the Dutch State to do its ‘fair share’ to prevent dangerous climate change by adequately mitigating GHG emissions. The plaintiffs argue that based on the Netherlands’ historical emissions, compared to other countries, especially in the developing world, it is no longer fair for the Netherlands to still emit any GHGs. They also refer to studies indicating that it is feasible for the Netherlands to achieve net-zero emissions in the Netherlands by 2040, rather than 2050. As such, this is what the plaintiffs consider legally necessary for the Netherlands to do as its minimum ‘fair share’ to prevent dangerous climate change. According to the plaintiffs, the negative effects on the lives of people on Bonaire are already significant and will only increase if no action is taken. Climate change threatens, among other things, their lives, their livelihoods, their health, their cultural heritage, nature, and the possibility for future generations to live on in the same way on Bonaire.

The plaintiffs extend their legal reasoning on mitigation also to adaptation. They note that there is ‘widespread consensus’ in international climate policy and law, as well as amongst human rights bodies, that there is a need to ‘rapidly accelerate’ the implementation of adaptation measures. Plaintiffs argue that the State has a legal obligation to take all appropriate measures that may be reasonably necessary, in a timely and consistent manner. This obligation is based on due diligence, and must take into account the special needs and disproportionate vulnerability of the inhabitants of Bonaire, and the complex historical and political context of the islands. They also point to other successful climate litigation on adaptation in this regard, such as the Torres Straight Islanders case at the UN Human Rights Committee.

On September 25, 2024, the District Court in The Hague rendered an interim judgment on the admissibility of the parties. It decided that Greenpeace as an environmental NGO acting on behalf of the interests of all people on Bonaire is admissible. The 8 individual citizens' case  were not. Greenpeace is admissible based on Article 3:305a of the Civil Code, which provides for special standing for NGOs to take collective action. The Court did not consider the 8 individual admissible under the same procedure, because Greenpeace's claim already incorporates theirs as well; the citizens are not allowed to bring a claim of behalf of other residents on Bonaire in a similar way as Greenpeace; and the citizens did not sufficiently provide evidence of being 'personally directly affected' by climate change either, possibly justifying a seperate claim on their own behalf. 

Greenpeace Netherlands, along with legal teams from Kennedy Van der Laan and Prakken d’Oliveira Human Rights Lawyers, will continue to push for faster CO2 reductions and improved adaptation measures to protect Bonaire from the climate crisis. The first hearing is expected in 2025, with the State’s substantive defense to be presented later in 2025. In February 2025, Greenpeace released its final written response in this case. 

On March 28, 2025, Milieudefensie served a formal summons to ING Bank, initiating a civil lawsuit before the Amsterdam District Court. The case follows a notice of liability issued on January 19, 2024, and a final demand letter on January 16, 2025. ING responded to both letters but did not meet the group’s demands. With over 30,000 co-claimants and 100,000 members, Milieudefensie claims standing under Dutch law to pursue collective environmental and human rights claims.

ING, headquartered in Amsterdam and classified as a systemically important bank, is accused of facilitating dangerous climate change through continued financing of greenhouse gas-intensive industries without adequate climate safeguards. In 2024 alone, ING reported emissions of 261.6 Mt CO₂e, which Milieudefensie notes is approximately 1.75 times the emissions of all Dutch citizens and companies.

Milieudefensie alleges that ING’s climate conduct violates the societal duty of care under Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code. Drawing from precedent (Urgenda v Netherlands, Milieudefensie v. Shell), international climate science (IPCC, IEA), and soft law instruments (UNGPs, OECD Guidelines), the claimant argues that ING’s failure to adopt effective emissions reduction policies constitutes a tortious act.

The summons outlines that ING’s role as a financial enabler of fossil fuel expansion and other high-emission sectors results in both direct and facilitated emissions (scope 3), which ING fails to adequately report or reduce. The case relies heavily on the endangerment doctrine, highlighting ING’s long-term knowledge of climate risks, its capacity to act, and the severe, foreseeable harm resulting from inaction.

Milieudefensie asks the court to compel ING to take the following actions:
	1.	Halve its total emissions by 2030, and continue reducing thereafter, in line with the IPCC’s 1.5°C pathway.
	2.	Reduce emissions in eight major sectors it finances (e.g., steel, aviation) in line with the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario.
	3.	Cease all financing and investment in companies starting new oil and gas projects.
        4. Require all large corporate clients to submit credible, science-based climate plans.

These demands are grounded in Milieudefensie’s argument that absolute emissions reductions (not merely intensity reductions) are essential to fulfilling ING’s legal and human rights obligations.

The summons provides a comprehensive scientific basis, citing the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report and carbon budget data, which indicate that global CO₂ emissions must fall by at least 48% by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050 to preserve a 50% chance of staying within 1.5°C warming.

Milieudefensie also invokes human rights law, emphasizing ING’s responsibility to protect rights to life, health, and a clean and sustainable environment under the ECHR and other international norms. The summons references the KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland judgment, reinforcing that actors cannot evade climate responsibility by pointing to others.

Milieudefensie claims that ING’s “Terra approach” and other existing policies are inadequate because:
	•	They rely primarily on intensity targets instead of absolute reductions;
	•	They exclude 70% of ING’s financed emissions and all facilitated emissions;
	•	ING continues to support fossil fuel companies, including those expanding oil and gas production;
	•	ING lacks lacks absolute sector-specific targets;
	•	Executive remuneration is not linked to emissions reductions;
	•	ING’s engagement policy prioritizes financial risk over climate harm.

According to the Banking on Climate Chaos report, ING ranks among the top 30 fossil fuel financiers globally, having facilitated over €106 billion in fossil fuel investments since the Paris Agreement.

Anticipating ING’s likely “effectiveness” defence, Milieudefensie argues that requiring ING to act would have a direct and indirect impact on global emissions. Citing legal precedents (Urgenda, Shell, KlimaSeniorinnen, Brussels Court of Appeal, Montana case), it affirms that partial responsibility is sufficient for tortious liability and that holding ING accountable can have a systemic, flywheel effect on the market and policy landscape.

Geography

Netherlands

Recent cases