Connect with us

Published

on

Trixy Elle, a fishmonger from Batasan Island, lost her home and her business when Typhoon Odette tore through the Philippines in 2021. She is among a group of survivors who filed a lawsuit this week in a UK court seeking damages from Shell over the oil giant’s role in climate change.

In today’s world, it sometimes feels like we’re all slightly more connected: that smartphones and social media have helped us to understand what people on the other side of the world are going through.

But after living through the horrors of Super Typhoon Odette, which tore through my home in the Philippines in December 2021, killing or injuring more than 1,800 people, I know this isn’t true. Unless you’ve lived through it yourself, you’ll never know the feeling of having to swim away from your own collapsing home, or the sound of 175 mph (281 km/h) winds devastating your entire community. No amount of photo or video footage can ever bridge that gap.

Fossil fuel companies in the Global North, which bear huge responsibility for the climate crisis, are largely protected from the impacts of their polluting activities. But those of us living on small islands, at the sharp edge of climate change, don’t have that luxury.

    My family lost everything. We lost our business and had to sell our precious belongings just to rebuild our house. We now live in non-stop fear. Even moments meant for joy are now tinged with anxiety and stress. After all, Odette – also named Rai – tore through our islands right before Christmas. We didn’t, and still don’t, know when the next disaster will hit, only that thanks to the fossil fuel industry, the threat is always growing.

    Profit before people

    We’ve done nothing to cause the climate crisis, but because fossil fuel companies have chosen profit over people, our lives have been destroyed. Scientists have said the likelihood of a disaster like Odette in the Philippines has roughly doubled due to global warming.

    None of this is fair. That’s why we’ve chosen to turn our fear into action and take the fossil fuel giant Shell to court.

    Since at least 1965, Shell has known that fossil fuels are the primary cause of climate change. The corporation was warned that if it failed to curb its emissions, the world could suffer major economic consequences by 2038. But still, it chose not to change course. Shell is one of the world’s largest emitters, accounting for 2.04% of historical global emissions. Contrast that to the Philippines, which has the highest risk of climate hazards but has contributed just 0.2%.

    The trail of devastation left by Typhoon Rai in Southern Leyte, the Philippines, December 2021 (Photo: Leah Payud/Oxfam)

    The trail of devastation left by Typhoon Rai in Southern Leyte, the Philippines, December 2021 (Photo: Leah Payud/Oxfam)

    We’re not naive about the scale of the challenge. Shell is a huge company with endless resources. But we’re living in an age of scientific discovery. Attribution science can now directly link individual extreme weather events to climate change, and emissions to specific fossil fuel companies.

    The law is also changing. We’re seeing courts recognise the role and responsibilities of major emitters in the harm climate change causes our planet. In May, a German court ruled that major emitters can be held liable for climate damages abroad.

    Peruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action

    In July, the International Court of Justice advised that governments have a binding duty to protect people and the planet from the climate crisis, and so the potential liabilities for fossil fuel companies are substantial. Some estimates say the climate damages attributable to the 25 largest oil and gas companies could be more than $20 trillion.

    Polluters must pay

    By filing this case, we are seeking financial compensation for losses and damages. We’re still living with the consequences of Odette, even today.

    The “polluter pays” principle is clear: those most responsible for environmental harms, including fossil fuel giants like Shell, should cover the costs of managing them. That’s the basis of our claim. We are also asking for concrete steps to be taken, from replanting mangroves to rebuilding sea walls, in line with our right to a balanced and healthy environment, something set out in the Filipino constitution.

    Just as importantly, we are asking for justice. We want to send a powerful message to companies like Shell. For too long they have been able to burn fossil fuels while chasing endless profit, despite knowing how dangerous it is. But in 2025 the science and the law are both on our side. Sooner or later they will have to clean up their act.

    ===========================================================

    Shell says claim is “baseless”

    When asked to comment on the pending case by Climate Home News in October, Shell acknowledged that more global action was needed on climate change but rejected the suggestion that the company had unique knowledge about the problem.

    A company spokesperson has responded to media reports about this week’s court filing saying: “This is a baseless claim, and it will not help tackle climate change or reduce emissions.”

    The post The risk of another “super typhoon” is growing – that’s why we’re suing Shell appeared first on Climate Home News.

    The risk of another “super typhoon” is growing – that’s why we’re suing Shell

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    Climate Activists Stage Mock Funeral for Landmark Climate Rule

    Published

    on

    The Trump EPA’s repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding revokes the agency’s authority to regulate climate pollution. Environmental activists are mourning the loss while vowing to resurrect it.

    A procession of mourners representing sea level rise, melting permafrost, ecocide and other climate calamities grieved the demise of a groundbreaking climate rule outside the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 9 headquarters in downtown San Francisco on Tuesday.

    Climate Activists Stage Mock Funeral for Landmark Climate Rule

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    IEA slashes pre-war oil demand forecast by nearly a million barrels per day

    Published

    on

    Global oil demand is expected to be almost one million barrels per day less than was forecast before the Iran war, as shortages and soaring costs prompt drastic cutbacks by consumers and businesses, a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Wednesday.

    With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz choking off supplies and keeping prices high, less oil is being used to make products such as jet fuel, LPG cooking gas and petrochemicals, the Paris-based IEA said in its monthly oil report, forecasting the biggest quarterly demand drop since the COVID pandemic.

    The Iran war “upends our global outlook”, the government-backed agency said, adding that it now expects oil demand to shrink by 80,000 barrels per day in 2026 from last year.

    Before the conflict began, the IEA said in February it expected oil demand to rise by 850,000 barrels per day this year, meaning the difference between the pre-war and current estimates is 930,000 barrels a day, or 340 million barrels a year.

    That could have a significant impact on the outlook for planet-heating carbon emissions this year.

    At an intensity of 434 kg of carbon dioxide per barrel of oil – the estimate used by the US Environmental Protection Agency – the annual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from oil for 2026, compared with the pre-war forecast, is similar to the amount emitted by the Philippines each year.

    Harry Benham, senior advisor at Carbon Tracker, told Climate Home News that he expects at least half of the reduction in oil demand to be permanent because of efficiency gains, behavioural change and faster electrification.

    The oil shock is leading to oil being replaced, especially in transport, with electricity and other fuels, just as past oil shocks drove lasting reductions in consumption, he said. “The shock doesn’t delay the transition – it reinforces it,” he added.

    Demand takes a hit

    While demand for oil has fallen significantly, supplies have fallen even further. Supply in March was 10 million barrels a day less than February, the IEA said, calling it the “largest disruption in history”.

    This forecast relies on the assumption that regular deliveries of oil and gas from the Middle East will resume by the middle of the year, the IEA said, although the prospects for this “remain unclear at this stage”.

      Last month, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the CERAWeek oil industry conference that prices were not high enough to lead to permanent reductions in demand for oil, known as demand destruction.

      But the IEA said on Wednesday that “demand destruction will spread as scarcity and higher prices persist”.

      Industries contributing to weaker demand for oil include Asian petrochemical producers, who are cutting production as oil supplies dry up, the report said, while consumers are cutting back on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which is mainly used as a cooking gas in developing countries, the IEA said.

      Flight cancellations caused by the war have dampened demand for oil-based jet fuel, the IEA said. As well as cancellations caused by risk from the conflict itself, airports have warned that fuel shortages could lead to disruption.

      Across the world, governments, businesses and consumers have sought to reduce their oil use after the war. The government of Pakistan has cut the speed limit on its roads, so that people drive at a more fuel-efficient speed, and Laos has encouraged people to work from home to preserve scarce petrol and diesel.

      Nepal’s EV revolution pays off as oil crisis causes pain at the pumps

      Consumers in Bangladesh are seeking electric vehicles (EVs) to avoid fuel queues and, in Nigeria, more people are seeking to replace petrol and diesel generators with solar panels, Climate Home News has reported.

      In the longer term, the European Union is considering cutting taxes on electricity to help it replace fossil fuels and France is promoting EVs and heat pumps.

      IEA urged to help “future-proof” economies

      Meanwhile, the IEA came under fire last week from energy security experts, including former military chiefs, who signed an open letter in which they accused the agency of offering “only a temporary response to turbulent markets”, calling for stronger structural action “to future-proof our economies”.

      They said that besides releasing emergency oil stocks and offering advice on how to reduce oil demand in the short term, the IEA should show countries how to reduce their exposure to volatile oil and gas markets.

      The IEA has also been under pressure from the Trump administration to talk less about the transition away from fossil fuels.

      This article was amended on 15 April 2026 to correct the drop in 2026 forecast oil demand from “nearly a billion” to “nearly a million”

      The post IEA slashes pre-war oil demand forecast by nearly a million barrels per day appeared first on Climate Home News.

      IEA slashes pre-war oil demand forecast by nearly a million barrels per day

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Iowa Moves to Shield Farmers, Ethanol Plants, From Lawsuits Over Emissions

      Published

      on

      Climate lawsuits are a largely nonexistent threat to farmers in the state, but ethanol producers could benefit from the law.

      DES MOINES, Iowa—Aaron Lehman has many concerns about the fate of Iowa’s farmers. Climate lawsuits aren’t one.

      Iowa Moves to Shield Farmers, Ethanol Plants, From Lawsuits Over Emissions

      Continue Reading

      Trending

      Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com