The Dutch Court of Appeal in the Milieudefensie v. Shell case declined to set a specific Scope 3 emissions reduction target for Shell, citing a lack of scientific consensus on a precise figure. Researchers from the London School of Economics argue the court misunderstood scientific uncertainty. They point out that the same emissions pathway models the court found too uncertain are routinely used by policymakers and the oil and gas industry to set reduction targets. The core issue is not whether science can inform corporate targets, but how specific targets are calculated and verified. The authors argue the court's approach undermines the precautionary principle, which holds that lack of full scientific certainty should not delay action against serious environmental harm. The case is now before the Dutch Supreme Court, and the ruling could set precedent for how courts handle climate science in forward-looking litigation against major emitters.
