I'm referring to your example where the oil is still extracted. The Netherlands can reduce it's own fossil fuel extraction and reduce the demand for external fossil fuel extraction.
The Netherlands is reducing and eliminating the internal fossil fuel extraction. Groningen gas field it is the largest natural gas field in Europe and the tenth-largest in the world and the extraction will be stopped in 2022.
The point is that Shell is ignoring its obligations.
Apparently future taxes were not sufficient to change their practices right now. It is a fact stated by the company itself and the court opinion.
From the court ruling:
> The RI Annual Briefing 2020 contains the following warning (‘Definitions and cautionary note’), inter alia:
> Additionally, it is important to note that as of April 16, 2020, Shell’s operating plans and budgets do not reflect Shell’s net-zero emissions ambition. (...)
> Since 2016, the Dutch NGO Follow This, shareholder in RDS, has submitted various resolutions with the request to exchange the investments of the Shell group in oil and gas for sustainable energy. The RDS Board has consistently recommended its shareholders to vote against these resolutions for being contrary to the company’s interests. The RDS Board stated the following, among other things:
> “tying the Company’s hands to a renewables only mandate would be strategically and commercially unwise.”
> The majority of shareholders has voted against these resolutions. (...)
> It is also an established fact that RDS has set more stringent climate ambitions for the Shell group in 2019 and 2020 (see under 2.5.18). However, business plans in the Shell group still have to be updated in accordance with these climate ambitions, and a further explanation of its future portfolio and plans is forthcoming. In the court’s view, RDS’ policy, policy intentions and ambitions for the Shell group largely amount to rather intangible, undefined and non-binding plans for the long-term (2050). These plans (‘ambitions’ and ‘intentions’) are furthermore not unconditional but – as can be read in the disclaimer and cautionary notes to the Shell documents – dependent on the pace at which global society moves towards the climate goals of the Paris Agreement (‘in step with society and its customers’). Emissions reduction targets for 2030 are lacking completely; the NCF identifies the year 2035 as an intermediate step (see under 2.5.19). From this the court deduces that RDS retains the right to let the Shell group undergo a less rapid energy transition if society were to move slower. Moreover, RDS has insufficiently contested the standpoint of Milieudefensie et al. that RDS’ planned investments in new explorations are not compatible with the reduction target to be met. The Shell group’s policy, as determined by RDS, mainly shows that the Shell group monitors developments in society and lets states and other parties play a pioneering role. In doing so, RDS disregards its individual responsibility, which requires RDS to actively effectuate its reduction obligation through the Shell group’s corporate policy.
Emissions Trading Scheme is actually a very clever tax that self adjusts. EU is putting a cap on the emissions and the allowed emissions are auctioned, so that companies must compete for smaller and smaller pool of allowances. If companies do not reduce emissions there is no limit to how high taxation can go, as the tax rate is market driven with limited supply of allowances.
I think Shell may be simply in denial of the reality and/or may be hoping that political back channels will preserve status quo.
The tax scheme already exists and is implemented:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin...
The Netherlands is reducing and eliminating the internal fossil fuel extraction. Groningen gas field it is the largest natural gas field in Europe and the tenth-largest in the world and the extraction will be stopped in 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field
But this one is actually more due to the earthquakes than just climate change.