TotalEnergies (TTE) announced that it has decided to appeal a recent ruling by the Paris Judicial Court ordering the company to identify and disclose measures to address climate risks resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the use of its oil and gas products.
The French energy giant said that it intends to argue that climate change is a global phenomenon outside the scope of France’s vigilance law, the basis of the suit, and that it should not be held responsible for the choices of motorists to drive vehicles powered by fossil fuels.
The ruling, issued last month, followed a lawsuit filed in 2020 by a group of NGOs including Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, France Nature Environnement, and the City of Paris, after France’s adoption of its “duty of vigilance” law in 2017, requiring large companies to have a vigilance plan to assess and prevent their operational impacts on the environment and human rights.
In the suit, the organizations argued that TotalEnergies’ vigilance plan was incomplete, by not sufficiently incorporating the climate-related risks and harms resulting from its activities, and particularly from the GHG emissions resulting from the combustion of fossil fuel products, which represent nearly 90% of the company’s GHG footprint.
In its judgement, the court ruled that climate-related risks to which the company contributes through its activities fall within the scope of the vigilance law, and that TotalEnergies must identify the adverse climate impacts caused by the release of GHG emissions resulting from its activities in its risk mapping.
The court added in its ruling that emissions from the company’s activities include Scope 3 emissions, in particular due to the “inherent link between oil and gas production and the combustion of the products by end users.”
The court ruled that TotalEnergies plan is incomplete without Scope 3 emissions, and ordered the company to complete the plan within 6 months, with Scope 3 added to its risk mapping, along with related measures corresponding to the risks.
In a statement released by TotalEnergies immediately following the ruling, the company said that it “takes note of the Court’s request to also include customers’ emissions (Scope 3) in its vigilance plan and to update it accordingly,” and said that it will supplement its plan.
In its new statement, however, TotalEnergies revealed that it plans to appeal the ruling. The company outlined a series of arguments underlying its planned appeal, including noting that “climate change, as a global phenomenon, does not fall within the scope of the duty of vigilance law,” and that while the law “is intended to drive responsible corporate behaviour with respect to risks of harm resulting from companies’ own activities, those of their subsidiaries and those of their suppliers and subcontractors,” it “does not encompass their clients’ activities over which companies do not have control. “
The company added:
“TotalEnergies does not decide whether a motorist chooses to drive a petrol-powered vehicle, use biodiesel, or drive an electric vehicle. However, TotalEnergies seeks to ensure that motorists have access to the energy they choose to use.”
In a statement released by Notre Affaire à Tous, the organization said that the NGOs behind the suit will defend the ruling before the Court of Appeal.
The NGO said:
“TotalEnergies’ position is as simple as it is unacceptable: climate change is supposedly too global a phenomenon for them to be responsible for, and the emissions generated by burning the oil and gas they extract and sell are supposedly solely the result of their customers’ choices. TotalEnergies would thus like to be able to decide to develop new fossil fuel projects, organize the marketing of these energy sources, and reap considerable profits (US$11.2 billion in net profit for the first half of 2026 alone), all while maintaining that they have no obligation to prevent the foreseeable climate consequences of their use.”
Comments
Log in or sign up to join the conversation.