Sint Eustatius

Sint Maarten

Groningen

Curaçao

Utrecht

Limburg

Drenthe

Aruba

Zeeland

Noord-Brabant

Flevoland

Bonaire

Zuid-Holland

Noord-Holland

Fryslân

Saba

Overijssel

Gelderland

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

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

In Apr. 2026, the Dutch environmental organization Milieudefensie initiated a second climate lawsuit against Shell plc before a Dutch court, seeking an order requiring Shell to stop developing new oil and gas fields and to progressively reduce its greenhouse gas emissions between 2030 and 2050. The case builds on the earlier Milieudefensie v. Shell litigation, in which the Hague Court of Appeal held in Nov. 2024 that Shell has an individual responsibility to contribute to the mitigation of dangerous climate change.  

The plaintiffs argue that there is “no room” within the remaining global carbon budget for the development of new oil and gas fields and that continued fossil fuel expansion risks creating a long-term “carbon lock-in,” delaying the energy transition and undermining the goals of the Paris Agreement. The summons relies extensively on climate science, including reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency (IEA), and UNEP Emissions Gap Reports, as well as the 2025 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change obligations.  

Milieudefensie bases its claims on Section 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, arguing that Shell’s conduct constitutes an unlawful act and breaches an unwritten duty of care under Dutch tort law.   The plaintiffs invoke the Dutch doctrine of hazardous negligence, human rights protections under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the precautionary principle, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), intergenerational equity, and customary international law. The summons also cites soft law instruments, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, to support the argument that companies have an independent responsibility to reduce Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions in line with climate science.  

The plaintiffs contend that Shell has long known about the risks of climate change through its own internal research dating back to the 1980s, yet continued to obstruct climate action through lobbying and fossil fuel expansion. According to the summons, Shell has interests in approximately 700 undeveloped oil and gas fields worldwide and approved 32 new fields between May 2021 and Apr. 2025. The plaintiffs allege that 50–60% of Shell’s planned investments between 2023 and 2030 are directed toward fields that were not yet producing in 2024.  

Milieudefensie seeks several forms of relief. First, it requests an order requiring Shell to cease developing and bringing into production new oil and gas fields, including by preventing the transfer of undeveloped fields to third parties to circumvent the restriction. Second, the plaintiffs seek binding emissions reduction obligations for Shell’s Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, with interim reduction targets for 2035, 2040, and 2050. The principal demand relies on the IEA Net Zero Emissions advanced economies scenario and would require substantial reductions in oil- and gas-related emissions relative to 2022 levels. The plaintiffs also request that Shell be prohibited from meeting its reduction targets through carbon offsets or by divesting emitting assets.  

Shell reportedly responded to pre-litigation notices in 2025 and 2026, arguing that its current climate policies are sufficient and that litigation against individual companies is ineffective in addressing climate change. The plaintiffs reject this “effectiveness defense,” arguing that Dutch and comparative climate jurisprudence recognizes that individual actors can be required to contribute their fair share to addressing climate harms, regardless of the conduct of others.  

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 concerning insufficient climate adaptation and mitigation measures to protect the residents of Bonaire from the impacts of climate change. Bonaire is a Caribbean island and a special municipality of the Netherlands. The claim was brought following a warning letter sent in 2023, in which the plaintiffs requested consultations with Dutch ministries regarding stronger climate adaptation policies and increased resources for the island.  

Greenpeace argued that the Dutch State failed to take adequate mitigation and adaptation measures to protect the human rights of Bonaire’s inhabitants, in violation of its obligations under international and domestic law. The claim relied on Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, alleging an unlawful act due to insufficient climate action. The plaintiffs invoked the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 ECHR, the right to culture under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and procedural rights under the Aarhus Convention. They also referred to the Netherlands’ climate obligations under the Paris Agreement.

The plaintiffs emphasized that Bonaire faces heightened vulnerability to climate change, including increased heat stress, sea level rise, water scarcity, ecosystem degradation, and associated health impacts. They argued that Bonaire’s residents are treated differently from residents of the European Netherlands without adequate justification, noting that large-scale and long-term adaptation planning and investment exist in the European Netherlands but not in Bonaire. The claim also highlighted structural inequalities, including high poverty levels on the island, and argued that these factors require heightened state attention under principles of equality and non-discrimination.

With respect to mitigation, Greenpeace relied on the reasoning developed by the Dutch Supreme Court in Urgenda Foundation v. The Netherlands, arguing that Articles 2 and 8 ECHR impose positive obligations on the State to contribute its fair share to preventing dangerous climate change. The plaintiffs asserted that the Netherlands’ current mitigation trajectory was insufficient and inconsistent with its human rights obligations. They extended this reasoning to adaptation, arguing that due diligence requires timely and effective adaptation measures tailored to the specific risks faced by Bonaire’s population, including impacts on health, housing, livelihoods, and cultural life.

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 of The Hague issued an interim judgment on admissibility. The court found Greenpeace Netherlands admissible under Article 3:305a of the Civil Code as a representative organization acting in the collective interest. The individual claims brought by eight residents of Bonaire were declared inadmissible, as Greenpeace’s claim already encompassed their interests and the individuals had not demonstrated that they were personally and directly affected in a manner justifying separate claims.

On January 29, 2026, the District Court of The Hague issued its final judgment on the merits. The court held that the Dutch State had failed to take sufficient climate mitigation and adaptation measures to protect the residents of Bonaire and that this failure violated Articles 8 and 14 ECHR. The court found that Bonaire’s inhabitants face disproportionate climate risks, including serious risks to health and well-being, and that the State had not adequately justified treating Bonaire differently from the European Netherlands in its climate policies.

The court ordered the Dutch State, within 18 months, to incorporate binding interim greenhouse gas reduction targets into national legislation covering the entire economy. The court also ordered the State to ensure that, by 2030, a detailed and implemented climate adaptation plan is in place for Bonaire to increase the island’s resilience to climate impacts.

The decision is notable for its reliance on human rights law, its emphasis on equality and non-discrimination within a state’s own territory, and its engagement with international and regional climate jurisprudence. It also represents a significant development in climate litigation concerning state obligations to protect particularly vulnerable territories from the impacts of climate change.



Geography

Netherlands

Recent cases