In the Netherlands, officers dominated that Shell has to halt advertisements that declare clients can render their gas purchases “carbon neutral” by paying for carbon offsets. The reasoning is fairly easy: Shell has, uh, no proof that their claims had been true.

The resolution isn’t legally binding, nevertheless it’s nonetheless an excellent signal. Shell has two weeks to enchantment the choice. After that, the courtroom will publish a last resolution, which might power Shell to tug the advertisements.

The Netherlands’ courts have actually been kicking Shell’s ass of late. Earlier this summer season, a Dutch courtroom issued a large ruling ordering the oil firm to slash its carbon air pollution 45% by 2030. The firm additionally now joins BP and Chevron in getting hauled to courtroom for greenwashing.

The new ruling, handed down final week by the Dutch Advertising Code Committee (a nationwide advertising and promoting watchdog), got here in response to a complaint filed in April by 9 authorized college students at Vrije University’s Climate Change and Sustainability Law Clinic in Amsterdam. The college students’ criticism was backed by the Reclame Fossielvrij (Fossil-Free Advertising) marketing campaign and Greenpeace Netherlands.

The 95-page filing particularly calls out a Shell advert marketing campaign during which the corporate tells its clients that in the event that they pay an additional cent per liter of gas, the cash will go to forest conservation and tree planting tasks meant to cancel out the carbon air pollution related to the gas. (You can see the advertisements here.) The 9 college students dug into the carbon credit on provide and located they had been sketchy at greatest.

“For example, one form of carbon compensation that the company offers is a pledge to protect forests in Peru from logging. Our research shows that this forest was not actually being logged in the years before Shell started protecting it,” one of many college students, Lisa van Langen, mentioned in a statement. “Also, forests are absorbing increasingly less carbon, and the forest could burn down. Shell wants to compensate climate damage that is 100% definite with a measure that they cannot know for sure will work, or for how long it will work.”

The findings match with a rising physique of analysis displaying the maths behind carbon offsets is dicey. Forests meant to sequester carbon within the western U.S. have gone up in flames this summer season and there are myriad discrepancies with how the applications calculate carbon sequestered that will result in extra carbon emissions. (They additionally elevate a slew of human rights points, too.) In courtroom, Shell countered by saying they did analysis to again up their claims. An organization spokesperson told Bloomberg that Shell will “study the ruling in detail and consider any necessary changes to communications.”

The college students and their supporters are pondering greater than this one case and are calling for an entire ban on fossil gas promoting. It appears if that type of coverage can be carried out anyplace, it will likely be the Netherlands. Six political parties have professed their assist for such a ban. Late final yr, town of Amsterdam additionally moved to outlaw all fossil gas ads. This previous May, Amsterdam passed a ban on fossil gas advertisements in its metro stations. And the nation additionally has a historical past of imposing such restrictions on evil industries: For a long time, the Netherlands has had a ban on tobacco promoting.

Of course, going after Big Oil’s promoting received’t by itself finish the fossil gas financial system, however analysis exhibits that the business has lengthy used advertisements and different advertising methods to keep up its social license. Ending polluting firms’ means to make false claims—or higher but, promote in any respect—might definitely play a job in clear power transition.