♪ host: this is al jazeera. these are your top stories. u.k. prime minister boris johnson says disseminations are said to pledge one billion coronavirus vaccines two countries. he spoke hours after u.s. president joe biden promised 500 million doses by mid-2022. pres. biden: 200 million of these doses will be delivered this year, 2021. and 300 million more will be delivered in the first half of 2022. let me be clear.

just as with the 80 million euros as we previously announced, the united states is providing these 500 million doses with no strings attached, let me say it again, no strings attached. our vaccine donations do not include pressure for favors or potential concessions. we are doing this to save lives, to end this pandemic. that is it, period. host: the united nations is warning three to 50,000 people in ethiopia's tigre region are facing or living in famine. complex begin in november when the ethiopian government forces enter the area. aid agencies say 5 million people are the verge of famine unless they get urgent humanitarian aid. president micro has announced reorganization of military presence in this arid region of west africa. 5000 french soldiers have been deployed to fight arm groups linked to al qaeda and isil.

the recently suspended corporation following a coup d'etat. israeli police have fired stun grenades into gaza palestinians in occupied east jerusalem. if all is a politician calling for most of the old city. authorities can say it can go ahead next week if the root is change. video has emerged so to show guards assaulting shackled palestinian prisoners in israeli jail. a newspaper says security footage from march 2019 shows more than 50 inmates allegedly linked to hamas being dragged to the floor and beaten. the paper says only 4 of the 10 guards are being investigated over the incident at the present in the southern region. those are your headlines. inside story coming up next. stay with us. ♪

>> we will change our energy strategy, the words of royal dutch shell following a court ruling forcing it to cut its emissions. a clear victory for environmentalists. but what does it mean for the oil and gas industry? this is inside story. ♪ host: hello and welcome to the program. i am peter dobbie. it is a landmark case brought by clement campaign is. for the first time and oil giant has been legally obliged to

adjust his policy to save the planet. british dutch multinational shelton now says he plans to speed up its plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions in response to that ruling. last month the company was ordered by a court in the hague to reduce emissions by 45% by the year 2030, a much higher reduction then first pledge to lower its emissions by 20%. the lawsuit was filed in 2019 by seven activist groups at a more than 17,000 dutch people. environmentalists say shell is obliged to bring its business into line with the 2015 paris climate accord. the show ceo -- shell ceo's of the company will appeal it ruling. he added for shell this ruling does not meet a change but rather an acceleration of our strategy. we have a clear target to become a net zero emissions business by 2050. we will seek ways to reduce emissions even further in a way that remains purposeful and

profitable. an estimated 1800 lawsuits related to climate change have been fought over in courtrooms worldwide and climate activist are willing to take on even more companies. environmental groups and local authorities in france and file the case targeting tou thao energies. major energy companies are making changes as they come in a growing pressure to cut their emissions. chevron investors have voted in favor of a proposal to cut its emissions, while shareholders at exxon elected 2 climate activist to the company board. while the industry operations are estimated to account for 90% of all human made greenhouse gas emissions, that includes methane that poses a global warming to write more than 25 times greater than that of carbon dioxide. oil is estimated to release 1/3 of carbon emissions well per while gas produces 1/5. the drilling method known effect

-- that as fracking is known to contaminate drinking water it with chemicals linked to serious health diseases. there is also the risk of oil spills that as a devastating impact on marine life. an explosion of a bp oil rig release more than 13 million gallons into the gulf of mexico causing one of the worst environmental disasters. ♪ let's get going and bring in our guest. in amsterdam, we have mina, lead campaigner of friends of the netherlands. we have an economist and energy analyst, and in rome, lorenzo at the university of pretoria and an author. welcome to inside story. i am coming to you first in amsterdam. does this mean big, polluting companies around the world who are taking chunks out of the ozone now in effect have a duty of care to all of us? >> yes, yeah.

[laughter] we should with our case against shell can no longer continue causing dangerous climate change and this is a strong signal to other companies also responsible for a lot of co2 emissions. host: national courts legislating internationally because that is in effect what we are talking about the business, is that good or bad? >> it is new, it is something that has happened in the u.s. for some time. it has really not happened that much in europe, but the climate change debate is a global thing, so we should not be surprised that it is happening. it is good for companies to comply, and sometimes it is very much a first row thing. it is easy to see this in the

first world. we also need to look very hard at what it means in emerging economies and what it means for energy policy and someone. host: lorenzo, will we expect to see court litigation around the corner? it will be a long, slow process. presumably we are talking about a time span of years but it will happen. host: special ed >> -- >> of course it would. in 2019, the netherlands was the first country to accept a lawsuit against the government for not doing enough against climate change. that was the first time, and after that thousands of courts around the world have done the same. in parts of the united states and so forth. now they have taken on companies, and i think it is going to happen again and again. if you think about the fact that they started in 2015, and in 2021 they have already ruled on a number of levels that things have to change and both

governments and companies have a direct responsibility toward the rights of citizens in this field, it will not be a long process. it will be quicker than politics. host: nine, back to you in amsterdam. is it your understanding that this ruling only applies within europe, because global warming is not respect borders, global warming does not respect different jurisdictions, and i guess that is a problem for the courts and companies we are talking about and international governments as well? >> that is something that we have knowledge in our case against shell, and also the dutch acknowledges. climate change is not something from within borders, it is a global phenomenon, and especially the impact is being seen in the global south, all though -- are mainly in the

global north and that is why it is so important because it applies to shell all over the world. shell as to reduce its co2 emissions by 45% globally on average globally, so maybe shelton will move faster in europe and slower in other places in the world, but average 45% in 2030 which is a big step but a necessary step becaine this is what science said seems to be done to avoid dangerous climate change. it is a global verdict although it is done in the netherlands. that is a big step forward in our fight against lima change. -- i met change -- climate change. these companies are often in europe and the u.s. but their impact as globally as well as his verdict. host: cornelia, after your appearance on this program you are offered and you accept the job as ceo at exxon in america.

can not run the company. exxon is well known as having been a climate change denier. they spent a long time as a corporate strategy saying it is not real, do not worry about it. how do you tweak and alter exxon to make it come in behind what the oil and gas industry has to become? >> that is a very good question, and it goes at one thing because european companies have been quite good. shell was not one of the first comedies that did not look at just thursday until -- look at just their co2 emissions but that of their clients. european companies are really revamping oil companies to become energy companies, to do more renewables and so on, and the american companies are really lagging behind, so if i

was exxon, i would work very closely with european companies just to get the right measures in place and to do more in terms of beefing up, finding myself away from an oil company into an energy company. this being said, it is great. at one of the things i would like to see is that we look a little bit more not just at the overall impact, but we should also look at the environmental impact of uses and sources of energy for the full lifecycle. i would like to see what do electric vehicles, what does that mean from designing them through decommissioning them, and there is still a lot of work to be done in order to really look at the impact of various energy sources and uses are over the full lifecycle, not saying that we all need to change and we all need to adhere to the

1.5° centigrade of preindustrial levels of global warming. host: for poor countries or countries that are asset rich when it comes to fossil fuels, oil, gas, and etc. but are in a fiscally precarious situation, countries like nigeria, is this a curse for them because their entire economy, 80%, 90% is based on oil and gas? >> it is not a curse. many of these countries have been oppressed in a way, abused by these companies. otherwise nigeria it would be a very rich company, so these countries, nigeria, mozambique, now that these countries -- none of these countries have gained out of this. the inequality has generated contradictions. milan is one of the most expensive cities in the world

because oil companies are pushing up the prices people cannot afford a house. they are ravaged by conflict and so on and so forth. mozambique is having a reemergence of work because of exploration and shell and others are at the forefront. these countries did not get a good deal out of this. the question is can we get a good agreement internationally that as we move out of oil we are also going to pay reparation costs to countries that have to bear the burden of the wrong source of energy without benefiting directly from it? it is an opportunity to up these economies diversified. they have suffered from what is known as the dutch disease. the oil and gas and other natural resources have been a curse, but a blessing for these countries and it is an opportunity to change. let's not presented as a risk to these countries.

these countries have paid a high price from having been exploited by cause -- because of what lies under the ground. host: nine, do you trust other oil company's around the world and companies that are still involved in coal mining and fracking as well to the right thing? can i suggest you that the royal dutch shell ceo actually got it right when he said we cannot do this quickly because if we stop taking the oil out of the ground, the demand is still going to be there, so somebody else will meet that demand. >> i think this is a very difficult topic to address, because we cannot look into the future, although we try all the time. we are seeing pressure on fossil fuel companies, not just shell but other national companies are being put under pressure, increasing pressure.

this was a historic verdict that will indeed lead to shell having to change its business, and many other companies are interested in their essence, but let's not for -- assets, but let's not forget all of the countries in the world what to avoid a dangerous limit crisis to occur, so there are things changing, and his verdict going to be a very important aspiration of this transition, so other companies might think in the short term they could win for this, but if we look at the global transition going on, all of the oil and gas companies really have to take a step back and look at their business model? -- model. is it a sustainable business model? we need to move away from oil, gas, and coal. they have known it and they have netted for a very long time.

all of these companies tried to be the last man standing, but this verdict shows that is no longer possible, not for shell but also other companies that are sued, and hopefully they will avoid having to go to court and change their business model already, or governments will take the responsibility and satan no longer within our borders. host: cornelia, depending upon how individual organizations react over the next year or 2 or three perhaps, could be -- could this be a big win for multinational companies. shell's share price went up. that seems counterintuitive. they share price should go down, but if they handle it properly they can actually make money out of this, because surely the price at the pump might go up, and also price per barrel at an opec level might go up as well.

>> i would say the reason shell and all other oil companies share prices have gone up is you have seen this year and loan -- year alone oil prices go up by more than 35%. if you compare it to a year ago it is 100%, so that is that. i look at european companies, and they have actually been quite responsible. b.p., tootalle are we defining themselves as energy companies doing a lot more on renewables. one thing i am concerned, and it works for the first world, but i am a bit concerned if i look at developing economies who still have energy poverty and many aces, how can we go that quickly just substituting for

hydrocarbons? we may not be able to, so we need to find a way of getting there. just one quick remark, when one of your guests a will companies are exporting these countries, if you look at shell, bp, they have been trying very hard to be responsible corporate citizens, but a lot of it is down to the elites of those countries who are not always doing the best for their populations. host: lorenzo, you weren't smiling and shaking your head there. do you want to go back on that point? >> i do not want to be disrespectful but we lebo diseko civil wars -- but we live in 2 civil wars. just in africa there been civil wars and reactions of rebellion for centuries. and previously, and known since

at least the 1960's against oil companies doing so. against shell, in particular. this is the history of nigeria. i am surprised a lot of people perhaps and the rest of the world do not know. people have been executed for rebelling against oil fields run by european countries. as we speak there is the emergence of a civil war in mozambique. the country has been pacified after the civil war of the 1980's and 1990's because of gas exploration exported by european companies. these companies have already been indicted, convicted so many times for many different activities, and now finally there is a verdict that says you can also be convicted for not doing enough to reduce climate change, which is a threat to everyone, and one of the reasons why some of these companies will see their shares increase in value is because a lot of people, consumers, as well as

shareholders are understanding that the future of energy is without oil, so the quicker you change the more valuable the company will be at some point, and this is not me saying this. this is the world bank, imf, companies that will -- own oil will have stranded assets. it means liabilities. it is like having something that you are going to have to pay for, not something valuable in the market, and a lot of investors are realizing this. host: i will come back to you at a point about consumption habits . nine, quantify it for me what is going on. we have more than 400 cases like this around the world excluding the united states, and the columbia law school today with the financial times on their website making the point that in the united states alone there are almost 1400 similar cases, going to the american legal system, so that is 16,700 cases

around the planet. we are pushing back as it officials or the groups like yours, so quantify for me what that is? what is happening? >> the movement is getting stronger and stronger, also the records. we see that governments are not doing enough, not protecting us citizens against the climate crisis, and therefore people decided to take their own future and say we do not want this anymore. we are going to court because it is about our future, and i am still young, so it is actually about my future. all of these climate court cases together can be extremely effective, but also individual ones, we were the first ones that were successful against a private company and making sure

the company needs to change its policy. we also see court cases where compensation for damages. those cases are especially important for people in the global south facing these damages already, and we see cases against governments. all of these cases together show we are concerned, and to do not want to go to court. going to court is one of the last resources, but we are at the point where the crisis is so real that we have to take these measures, and that is growing at every success leads to more cases, but if i can i would like to respond quickly to what was said earlier about companies in europe. the judge made very clear shell is not doing enough. i always hear but shell is doing better than exxon, or european

companies are already doing more to become more sustainable. i think they are mostly very good in talking to green top, but actions are lacking behind and that is something that we proved to this court case. host: we are rapidly approaching the end of the program. lorenzo, let's go back to that idea of consumption habits. clearly people, we, all of us have got to change how we do what we do. anyone who has lived and worked in america, good luck trying to get people out of their suvs and three ton trucks. if you work and live in the middle east, and you try to get people out of their toyota land cruiser's or nissan pathfinder's, not going to happen until the oil and fuel runs out. who doesn't and how do you do it? how do you get people into electric smartcards? >> the question is not whether

you need to replace one type of car with another type of car although electric vehicles are better than internal combustion cars. the question is is this the type of mobility we want? what is lacking is public transport. those of us who live in europe live happily without a car. we do not use personal cars as the u.s., and i think it is a matter of rethinking what it means to be a developed country. a developed country is a country that does better, not a country that does more. spending hours and hours in a traffic jam does not mean better. our friends on the inside side of the atlantic should understand that. the more we invest in public transportation, the more we do so efficiently, is electric as much as possible and electric based on good lifecycle assessments, and we have these

methods we will build a better society. host:, cornelia, the pressure is mounting in the oddest of quarters. the church of england, the man who runs the church of england pensions board, which has a financial link up with schultz is actually this is good news -- shell is actually saying this is good news. it does -- is this a change that simile cannot be denied and must be dealt with? >> absolutely, and when you get this investment in environmental, social, and government compliant investments , it is the fastest growing asset class in the world, and that is where investors are moving. by 2025, more than 50% of all professionally managed money will be esg compatible, and that

is where this is going to end that is also where the court verdict is going to, and if companies do not become compliant with new standards, it will be hard to attract investment, but then again one of the things i would just like to say, and i am glad our colleague from italy said that is that we also need to look at the full lifecycle investment, because it is so easy to say electric vehicles are better or this is better. we need to look at what this means in terms of the full lifecycle of any use or source of energy. host: we have to leave that discussion there, that is a good point to and for today. thank you to all, our guests. and thank you for your company. you can see the show again viewed the website, al jazeera.com and our facebook

page. you can join the conversation on twitter. for me at the inside story team here in the law, -- doha, thanks for watching. ♪ ■x?x■x■x■ñ■o usic]

artbound was made possible in py the los angeles county arts com, the department of cultural affas boing, the california endowment, the california humanitie oft musi