In a historic move, the Paris Judicial Court is delving into a major climate lawsuit against TotalEnergies, a French oil giant. This pivotal case could redefine corporate accountability regarding climate change as it seeks to mandate the reduction of the company’s fossil fuel output and emissions to align with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature goal.
The hearing, taking place this Thursday and Friday, represents a groundbreaking moment as French judges address whether an oil and gas multinational can be legally obligated to adhere to global climate targets. According to a press release from the plaintiffs, this is a first for France’s legal system.
Should the plaintiffs prevail, the outcome could establish a significant precedent with implications that might extend well beyond France, as noted by legal experts and climate advocates.
The lawsuit was initiated in January 2020 by several French nonprofits—Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, ZEA, Les Eco Maires, and France Nature Environnement—alongside numerous French municipal bodies. They argue against TotalEnergies’ ongoing fossil fuel ventures, citing the company’s awareness of their environmental impact and its inadequate response to climate risks.
This legal action is unprecedented in France, aiming to halt a multinational oil firm’s role in exacerbating climate change through fossil fuel expansion. The plaintiffs cite violations of the 2017 French duty of vigilance law, which compels large corporations to identify and mitigate serious environmental and human rights risks. This case marks the first application of this law in a climate context.
Furthermore, the lawsuit invokes Article 1252 of the French civil code, allowing citizens to take legal action for environmental protection.
TotalEnergies, in its defense, describes the lawsuit as “misconceived and has no legitimacy,” arguing that the plaintiffs are unfairly assigning global and European energy system responsibilities solely to them. The company stated, “It makes no sense at all to prevent TotalEnergies [from] producing oil and gas that the global energy system still uses today,” emphasizing that the courtroom is not the proper venue for advancing energy transitions.
The company maintains that it is investing in lower-carbon energy sources and reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and contends that the duty of vigilance law is inapplicable to climate change, with the Paris Agreement setting obligations exclusively for nations, not corporations.
Plaintiffs demand TotalEnergies align its operations with a trajectory that limits global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, seeking a court mandate for enforceable emission cuts throughout the company’s supply chain. These emissions represent approximately 90% of the company’s total greenhouse gas output.
As a prominent global oil and gas entity, TotalEnergies significantly contributes to the atmospheric greenhouse gases exacerbating the climate crisis. The lawsuit highlights the company’s ongoing production increase plans, tied to major fossil fuel projects consuming over half of the remaining carbon budget meant for the 1.5-degree target.
Global warming is projected to surpass the 1.5-degree threshold imminently, but scientists assert that reversing this trend is plausible with urgent emission reductions and a fossil fuel phase-out.
Yann Robiou du Pont, a climate scientist from the University of Bergen, emphasized the necessity of pursuing all emission-reduction efforts to return to below 1.5 degrees of warming. He stated that IPCC and International Energy Agency scenarios indicate no room for fossil fuel expansion under a 1.5-degree limit.
The International Court of Justice affirmed in a landmark opinion that the 1.5-degree target remains a key international law benchmark and cautioned that continued fossil fuel activities might constitute internationally wrongful acts.
“Not a Passive Bystander”
The lawsuit further highlights TotalEnergies’ awareness of fossil fuels’ climate risks and its efforts to delay the energy transition. A 2021 study revealed the company’s early acknowledgment of climate change’s potential “catastrophic consequences” in 1971, yet it later engaged in climate denial and delay tactics.
Benjamin Franta, a University of Oxford senior research fellow, stated, “We found that even though Total was aware of climate change as early as the 1970s, the company banded together with other fossil fuel companies in the 1980s and developed a plan to deny the science of climate change and to convince people that climate science was too uncertain, and that it would be too expensive to do anything about it.”
Franta added, “We know that Total was not a passive bystander, but that it played an active role in inventing and promoting climate denial, obstructing climate solutions and even still today greenwashing its image.”
This lawsuit follows an October ruling by the Paris Judicial Court—also presiding over the current climate case—that found TotalEnergies misled consumers about its carbon neutrality claims. Climate advocates lauded this as a historic verdict against fossil fuel industry greenwashing.
The ongoing climate case aims to extend this ruling’s impact by compelling TotalEnergies to enact substantial corporate changes, not just alter its messaging.
Franta remarked, “Like the rest of the fossil fuel industry, it’s not meaningfully transitioning in a way that’s adequate to avoid catastrophic climate change or to align with the Paris Agreement goals. Now we need courts to step in, and compel companies like Total to do the right thing.”
Climate Litigation on the Rise
This lawsuit is part of a growing global trend of climate litigation targeting carbon majors, including major fossil fuel and cement producers responsible for significant historical carbon emissions.
In the U.S., numerous lawsuits have been filed against large oil and gas companies, seeking to hold them accountable for alleged climate deception and resulting damages. In 2021, a Dutch court ordered Shell to reduce emissions by 45% across its supply chain by 2030, though this order was overturned on appeal. Nevertheless, the appeals court recognized high-emitting companies’ responsibility to align with Paris Agreement goals. Recently, Milieudefensie filed a new case against Shell, challenging its oil and gas expansion.
Shell now faces another lawsuit in the U.K. from survivors of super typhoon Odette in the Philippines, seeking accountability for 2021 storm damages. Similarly, Pakistani farmers recently filed a case in Germany against carbon majors RWE and Heidelberg Materials for losses from a 2022 flooding event. Last year, a German court acknowledged in principle that large emitters could be liable for climate-related damages in a separate case against RWE by a Peruvian farmer.
Franta noted, “The case against TotalEnergies is part of a growing trend in which courts are finding that companies that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases do have responsibilities with regard to climate change.” He added that a similar ruling in the Total case “would be incredibly impactful internationally.”
Théa Bounfour, a senior environmental legal officer at Sherpa, expressed optimism, stating, “If we win, I think it will certainly set a precedent in France but also more widely.”
Paul Mougeolle, a senior legal officer at Notre Affaire à Tous, emphasized the significance of France’s duty of vigilance law, noting it reflects a general principle found in domestic tort law in many countries.
“If we can make sure this general principle is applicable in climate change, including to private actors, large fossil fuel companies, then it could be replicable in other jurisdictions,” Mougeolle explained.
The hearing will feature legal arguments and expert testimonies, with two French IPCC climate scientists expected to testify on Friday. A court decision is anticipated within three to six months, according to Mougeolle.
Original Story at insideclimatenews.org