Court Rules on TotalEnergies' Climate Obligations
A Paris court ruled on Thursday that French oil giant TotalEnergies must disclose the climate risks linked to emissions from its oil and gas products and outline measures to address them. The case, brought by climate change NGOs and the city of Paris, is a partial victory for campaigners seeking to apply France's 2017 corporate duty of vigilance law to the climate crisis.
The court stopped short of ordering specific measures such as limiting overseas exploration or setting binding emissions reduction targets. However, it recognized that climate-related risks fall within the scope of the duty of vigilance law, which requires parent companies to identify and prevent environmental and human rights risks in their operations.
Scope 3 Emissions at the Core
The claimants, including four NGOs, accused TotalEnergies of refusing to account for indirect emissions from end users, known as Scope 3 emissions. They said these amounted to 342 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2024. TotalEnergies argued the law applied only to its own operations and contractors, not customer activity.
The court disagreed, stating that Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions are among the emissions resulting from the group's activities due to the inherent link between oil and gas production and the combustion of products by users. It declared TotalEnergies' vigilance plan incomplete and gave the company six months to amend it to include such emissions.
City of Paris Hails Landmark Decision
Deputy Mayor Alice Timsit hailed the ruling as a landmark decision in French climate law. She said, "For the first time, a judge recognises that climate risks do indeed fall under the duty of vigilance owed by large corporations, and no fossil-fuel multinational can evade this responsibility." Timsit added that the city joined the lawsuit because it is experiencing first-hand the impact of climate change on a densely populated urban metropolis.
The ruling comes as France and other European countries endure a record-breaking heatwave, highlighting the urgency of climate action.
Limited Scope of the Ruling
The NGOs had sought a halt to new fossil fuel projects and production cuts of 37% for oil and 25% for gas by 2030. The court declined to impose such measures, stating the law did not allow the judge to take the place of the company in demanding specific actions.
TotalEnergies, which accounts for less than 2% of global production, argued that production cuts or cancelled projects would simply shift output to competitors. The company had previously described the measures as unreasonable and ineffective.
Broader Context of Climate Litigation
This case is part of a growing wave of climate litigation targeting major corporate emitters. In late 2024, a Dutch appeals court overturned a ruling that had ordered Shell to deepen emissions cuts, with the country's supreme court due to issue a final ruling.
Joy Reyes, a policy fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said: "This is a significant decision, the first in France to bring a company's full climate impact within its legal duty of vigilance. The court held that climate risks are part of that duty, addressing them is a legal obligation, not voluntary good practice."
Dr Noah Walker-Crawford, a research fellow at the Grantham Research Institute, added: "This judgment is grounded in scientific consensus, treated by the court as established rather than open to dispute. Emissions warm the planet, that warming threatens human rights and that fossil fuel producers contribute to it. Central to the ruling was the inevitability of combustion. Oil and gas extracted for sale will be burned and the resulting emissions are causally tied to its extraction."
The Paris public prosecutor intervened in the civil proceedings, echoing TotalEnergies' stance that imposing an overly broad protection obligation on companies would not be workable. The case, opened in 2020, had produced interim wins for campaigners, including a 2024 appeals court decision allowing the lawsuit to proceed but dismissing claims from several local authorities, including New York City. Only the city of Paris was recognized as having standing.
