Shell has initiated a £1.7 million legal action against Greenpeace following an incident where activists occupied a Shell vessel in the North Sea.
The legal action coincides with Shell’s CEO Wael Sawan’s strategic pivot towards increasing fossil fuel production, moving away from renewable energy initiatives.
This shift by Shell has drawn criticism from environmentalists and some of its own staff. The lawsuit against Greenpeace, one of the most substantial financial claims against an environmental organization, is likely to escalate the existing tensions.
The incident in question involved activists boarding a floating production storage offloading unit in January, aiming to coincide their protest with the announcement of Shell’s annual financial results on February 2, which revealed a historic profit of $40 billion (£32.6 billion).
Shell has proposed a settlement where Greenpeace would pay $1.4 million and agree to refrain from future protests on Shell’s facilities.
Greenpeace has countered the offer, stating it would commit to such terms only if Shell adhered to a judicial ruling requiring it to cut its emissions by 45% by 2030 across all operations.
With negotiations between the two parties breaking down, the stage is set for a legal confrontation in the High Court.
Areeba Hamid, the co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, criticized Shell’s leadership under Wael Sawan, accusing the company of discarding any semblance of positive intentions in favor of a harmful agenda that jeopardizes both investors and those most affected by climate change.
“Mr. Sawan appears to be attempting to undermine Greenpeace’s campaigning efforts, thereby muting the urgent calls for climate justice and reparations for the damages incurred. We are pushing for the dismissal of this case and for governmental regulation of Shell, as it’s evident that Sawan’s priorities are profit-centric, with little regard for the human implications,” Hamid stated.
Environmental activists have increasingly focused on targeting oil and gas producers instead of advocating for reduced consumption.
In response, a representative for Shell stated: “The demand for a consistent supply of oil and gas is essential for households, drivers, and businesses, and these resources continue to be an integral component of the UK’s energy framework as we transition to more renewable energy sources. Initiatives like the Penguins project are crucial for maintaining this supply, and the local, responsible extraction of oil and gas is imperative for the UK’s energy independence.
“While we fully support the fundamental right to protest, it must be conducted in a safe and lawful manner. Our concern is solely with preventing actions at sea or within ports that could potentially put lives at risk.
“The act of boarding a 72,000 metric-ton vessel while at sea is not only illegal but also exceedingly perilous.”
