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.
-
Philippines storm victims to seek damages from Shell in “unprecedented” climate claim
The case is the first civil claim to directly link an oil firm’s climate impact to deaths and personal injury in the Global South, its backers say -
Top UN court paves way to lawsuits over inadequate climate finance
The International Court of Justice has advised that the level of climate finance given to developing countries must be compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5C -
PR firm working for Shell wins COP30 media contract
As calls grow to keep fossil fuel influence out of UN climate talks, campaigners say Edelman’s partnership with the oil and gas major raises an alarming conflict of interest
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%.
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
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.
ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
The Positive Effects We’ve Had on Others Are Profound, Whether We Know It or Not
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits