Norskioikeustieteilijä arvioi case Shellin seurauksia, investoinnit hiilidioksidin kaappaukseen tai tuotannon alasajo vaihtoehtoina, oikeuden perusteluiden mukaan ei todennäköistä että alasajettua tuotantoa tulisi korvaamaan muut öljyfirmat :
”…the implication of the ruling may well be that Shell needs to cut its production, unless the company plans for extensive carbon removal measures such as tree-planting or carbon capture and storage.
One of Shell’s objections was that requiring it to reduce its emissions would simply mean that other companies would take its place and sell fossil fuels. This ‘perfect substitution’ (or ‘market substitution’) argument, as well as the underlying study that Shell commissioned, were briskly dismissed by the court, drawing among others on the Production Gap Report. Specifically, the court argued that Shell was wrong to assume that others would step in, given that ‘it is necessary to reduce the worldwide oil and gas extraction and to facilitate the curtailment of CO2 emissions that cause dangerous climate change; other companies will also have to make a contribution’. Moreover, efforts by Shell to move away from oil and gas production would likely have other, less tangible, ripple effects that would lead to emission reductions, especially when such efforts are backed by governments.”
