Frequently asked questions and documents about our Climate Case for the Future

A. The core of the case

Q1. Why are you launching a climate lawsuit against the Port of Rotterdam Authority?

Because the Port of Rotterdam still relies heavily on fossil fuels, while the climate crisis demands a rapid, fair, and controlled phasing out of our fossil dependency.

The Port of Rotterdam is one of the largest fossil fuel hubs in Europe. Enormous quantities of oil, coal, and gas are processed, stored, transported, and used via the port. In doing so, the port contributes substantially to dangerous climate change.

The Port of Rotterdam Authority manages and develops the port area. It determines who receives land, which infrastructure is developed, and under what conditions companies operate. Yet, a plan to phase out fossil activities in the port in a controlled manner is lacking.

That is why we are launching the Climate Case for the Future. We want the Port Authority to choose a port that is clean, strong, and future-proof.

Q2. What do you demand from the Port of Rotterdam Authority?

We demand that the Port Authority align its climate policy with the Paris Climate Agreement.

Specifically, we are asking for a climate plan for the controlled phasing out of fossil activities in the port. That plan must aim for complete climate neutrality by 2050. Not only for emissions within the port area itself, but for the total climate impact of the activities facilitated by the Port Authority.

The Port Authority must, among other things:

1. create sector-specific phase-out pathways for coal, oil, and gas;

2. establish measurable interim targets for 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045;

3. make binding agreements with customers regarding the phase-out of fossil fuel activities;

4. stop entering into new contracts that lead to long-term dependence on fossil fuels;

5. make room for sustainable industry, clean energy, circularity, and future-proof employment.

So, it is not about stagnation. It is about the port taking back control.

Q3. Why do you call this the Climate Case for the Future?

Because this case concerns the future of young people, future generations, and the port itself.

The choices made now will determine what the port will look like in ten, twenty, or thirty years. Will Rotterdam continue to cling to a fossil fuel model that is becoming increasingly vulnerable? Or will the port choose clean energy, sustainable industry, and jobs that will endure into the future?

For young people, climate change is not an abstract risk. They live the longest with the consequences of the choices made today. That is why young people are central to this case.

Q4. Is this a case against the Port of Rotterdam?

No. This is not a case against the port. This is a case for the future of the port.

The port is important to Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Europe. Precisely for this reason, it must become future-proof. A port that remains dependent on fossil fuels for too long faces major risks: declining demand for fossil products, stricter climate regulations, geopolitical shocks, stranded assets, and job losses.

We want to prevent the port from changing too late. A controlled phase-out of fossil fuels creates room for development: sustainable industry, renewable energy, circularity, and new jobs.

Change begins in Rotterdam.

B. Why the Port of Rotterdam Authority?

Q5. Why are you focusing on the Port Authority and not on Shell, BP, or other fossil fuel companies?

Because the Port Authority holds a unique position.

Fossil fuel companies in the port have their own responsibilities. But the Port Authority is the manager and operator of the entire port area. It allocates land, enters into contracts, develops infrastructure, and helps determine which activities are given space in the port.

Individual companies primarily look out for their own business interests. The Port Authority must look at the whole picture. That is precisely why the Port Authority is the party that must take the lead in the transition of the port as a whole.

The Port Authority is the central hub. It can be expected that it provides direction to the port.

Q6. Is the Port Authority responsible for emissions that occur outside Rotterdam?

Yes. The Port Authority is not only responsible for what literally comes out of the chimneys in the port. It is actually responsible for the fossil fuel activities it facilitates on its territory.

The Port Authority leases land, enters into contracts, develops infrastructure, and profits from activities that lead to significant emissions elsewhere. Think of oil, coal, and gas that are processed, transported, and ultimately burned via Rotterdam.

Anyone who facilitates such activities and has influence over them cannot ignore their climate impact. The Port Authority cannot hide behind its customers. It must also take action itself.

Q7. Isn't the Port Authority already doing a lot regarding sustainability?

The Port Authority is doing things that are important. It is working on new energy, hydrogen, CO₂ storage, electrification, and sustainable infrastructure. That is good.

But it is not enough. The Port Authority's climate policy focuses primarily on emissions within the port area. The largest part of the climate impact lies precisely in the fossil fuel flows passing through the port: oil, coal, and gas that are burned or used elsewhere.

Moreover, the Port Authority focuses mainly on expansion and conversion, but not on decommissioning. Yet the transition requires all three: expansion, conversion, and decommissioning. A more efficient fossil fuel industry remains a fossil fuel industry. Without a decommissioning plan, the port remains stuck in the past.

Q8. Is this not actually the responsibility of the Municipality of Rotterdam and the State?

The Municipality of Rotterdam and the State also have a responsibility. Politics cannot remain inactive during this energy crisis. Furthermore, in this case, the Municipality of Rotterdam and the State are also the shareholders of the Port Authority: the Municipality of Rotterdam owns 70% and the State 30%.

However, that does not absolve the Port Authority of its own responsibility. The Port Authority manages the port area, enters into contracts with companies, and helps determine how the port develops. That is why we are holding the Port Authority itself accountable. Precisely because the Port Authority is a state-owned enterprise, it can be expected that it gives significant weight to public interests: protection against dangerous climate change, sustainable prosperity, employment, and the interests of current and future generations.

C. Fossil fuel phase-out and the port of tomorrow

Q9. What do you mean by fossil fuel phase-out?

Fossil fuel phase-out means that the port will become less dependent on oil, coal, and gas step by step.

This will not happen overnight. We are not asking for a sudden stop. We are asking for a controlled transition plan. With clear choices, deadlines, and agreements with companies.

Chaos threatens precisely without a plan. Then the market determines when refineries close, fossil fuel flows disappear, and who pays the bill. With a phase-out plan, the Port Authority can take control and ensure that employees, companies, and the city can prepare in time.

Q10. Do you want to close refineries, coal terminals, and LNG terminals?

We are not asking for a sudden closure of companies.

We are asking for a plan for a controlled phase-out. Some fossil fuel activities will have to disappear in the long term. Other activities will need to be converted. The Port Authority must clarify, sector by sector, the path towards climate neutrality in 2050.

This includes interim targets for 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045. This clarifies which choices are necessary now, which investments are future-proof, and which activities actually lead to fossil lock-in.

Q11. Doesn't phasing out in Rotterdam simply lead to the relocation of emissions?

That is not a given. And it is no reason to do nothing.

Global use of fossil fuels must decrease over the coming decades to meet climate goals. The question is therefore not whether fossil fuels will disappear, but how. Will this happen uncontrollably, driven by market shocks and geopolitical crises? Or will it happen in a controlled manner, with regard for employees, industry, and public interests?

Moreover, we are not just asking for a phase-out. We are also asking for a build-up. Fossil fuel activities must make way for sustainable alternatives. In this way, Rotterdam remains an important port, but for the economy of tomorrow.

Q12. Doesn't this jeopardize the energy security of the Netherlands?

No. Energy security does not call for more dependence on fossil fuels, but for less.

As long as the Netherlands remains dependent on international oil and gas markets, households and businesses will remain vulnerable to wars, geopolitical tensions, and price shocks. The energy crises of recent years show just how vulnerable that dependence is.

A port that focuses on clean energy, electrification, hydrogen, storage, circularity, and offshore wind actually contributes to a stronger and more independent energy system. This is in the interest of us all.

Q13. Won't this make energy more expensive for ordinary people?

No. This case is specifically intended to prevent ordinary people from continuing to pay the price for fossil dependency.

Sustainable energy is already cheaper than fossil energy in many places. Once wind farms and solar panels are built, the costs of generating electricity are relatively low and stable. The problem is that there is still too little clean energy available and that industry too often remains dependent on oil, coal, and gas.

As a result, households and businesses remain vulnerable to fossil price shocks. We have seen this in recent years. As soon as international gas and oil markets come under pressure, ordinary people's energy bills rise. Fossil dependency is therefore no guarantee of affordability. On the contrary: it makes energy unpredictable and expensive.

Fossil energy sometimes seems cheap, but the real costs are enormous: climate damage, health damage, subsidies, geopolitical dependency, and future recovery costs. That bill often ends up with citizens, employees, and young people. A controlled phase-out of fossil fuels and the build-up of clean energy will actually make the Netherlands more resilient, stable, and affordable in the long run. That is precisely why the port must now choose the energy of the future.

D. Young people, employees, and society

Q14. Why do young people play an important role in your campaign?

Because young people live with the consequences of climate change the longest.

Current fossil fuel choices place a burden on their future. More heat, extreme weather, rising sea levels, damage to nature, and growing uncertainty regarding housing, work, and safety. Young people did not cause this crisis, but they are the ones paying the price.

That is why young people actively support this case. They show that the future is not only an economic issue but also a question of justice. The port must not pass on fossil fuel debt to the generations that come after us.

Q15. Why are young people not co-plaintiffs?

Because we do not want to burden young people with the pressure of a legal process.

Advocates for the Future is a legal NGO that advocates for the public interest, including the interests of young people and future generations. That is precisely why Advocates for the Future is pursuing this case.

Young people play an important public and societal role in this case, but do not have to act personally as plaintiffs. They must be able to make their voices heard without bearing the legal burden of a years-long lawsuit.

Q16. What does this case mean for employees of the port?

A future-proof port is also in the interest of employees.

The energy transition will have major consequences for the port. If the Port Authority waits too long, change threatens to take place abruptly and uncontrollably. In that case, jobs will actually come under pressure.

With a controlled phase-out strategy, timely investments can be made in new business activity, retraining, fair employment conditions, and sustainable employment. Employees must not become the victims of a fossil fuel model that is approaching its expiration date.

A just transition begins with looking ahead honestly.

Q17. Is this case bad for the business climate?

No. A fossil fuel port without a future plan is actually bad for the business climate. Companies wishing to invest in clean industry, circularity, electrification, and renewable energy need clarity. A serious climate plan provides direction, certainty, and confidence.

Rotterdam can remain attractive to companies building the economy of tomorrow. However, it must be clear that the port will not continue to cling to an economy based on fossil fuels.

E. Process, support, and follow-up

Q18. What happens legally now?

We are sending the Port Authority a cease and desist letter. This is a formal legal letter in which we ask the Port Authority to comply with our demands.

With this letter, the Port Authority is given the opportunity to take responsibility itself. We ask the Port Authority to confirm within six weeks that it will present a serious phase-out plan.

If the Port Authority fails to do so, we can take the next step and take the matter to court. We hope that a lawsuit will ultimately not be necessary. But if the Port Authority continues to refuse to phase out the port's dependence on fossil fuels, we will go to court.

Q19. How can young people, Rotterdammers, and others support this case?

Anyone who wants a future-proof port can support this case.

You can help by sharing the case, supporting campaigns, attending meetings, speaking to city council members and members of parliament, and helping to build the movement for a sustainable port.

This case concerns the world in which we live. It is therefore important that the debate is also held outside the courtroom.

Running a lawsuit is expensive. You can also make a donation via our website.

Young people can become youth representatives for the Climate Case for the Future. This means showing that you support this cause. You represent the voice of young people in our campaigns, hold talks with the port, write opinion pieces, and much more! You are not legally responsible, you run no financial risk, and you do not need a lawyer.

Q20. What happens if you win?

Then the Port Authority must create a serious climate plan that phases out fossil fuel activities in the port in a controlled manner and brings the port in line with the Paris Climate Agreement.

This does not mean that the judge decides which terminal closes when, or how every hectare of the port must be developed. That responsibility remains with the Port Authority. However, the Port Authority must create a plan that is effective, measurable, and legally sound.

A victory would therefore mean that the Port Authority can no longer suffice with sustainability within the existing fossil fuel structure. It must then actually steer towards phasing out fossil fuel activities, building up sustainable alternatives, and a port that is climate-neutral by 2050.

That is exactly what this case is about: not holding back the port, but giving the port a future.