Europe's largest port is being sued over its continued dependence on fossil fuels, even as the continent's electric vehicle market surges ahead of China and the U.S. in global demand. The Port of Rotterdam Authority, which handles nearly as much cargo as all UK ports combined, has set targets to cut its own direct and purchased energy emissions by 90% over an 11-year target period between 2019 and 2030. But environmental groups say that's not enough.
Rotterdam's industrial cluster currently emits about 29 million tonnes of CO2 a year — roughly half of the Netherlands' domestic emissions. Mark van Dijk, head of external relations at the Port of Rotterdam Authority, acknowledged: "It's not good." The fossil fuels flowing through the port are ultimately linked to around 600 megatonnes of CO2 a year, according to research by CE Delft. Five refineries, including Shell's largest in Europe, process hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil a day while a tight cluster of chemical plants feeds factories across the continent.
The Legal Challenge
A lawsuit brought by environmental group Advocates for the Future argues that the Port of Rotterdam Authority isn't doing enough to phase out fossil-based energy. The group wants a concrete plan to wind down the coal, oil and gas flows whose emissions dwarf those of most countries. Maikel van Wissen, director of Advocates for the Future, said: "A state-owned enterprise should take legal obligations on states to reduce emissions." He added: "We are asking in the lawsuit to phase out that dependency, to create alternatives. It takes time, but if you don't have a plan, you always choose cheap short-term solutions. This is an important hub, if you do it in a controlled way, you offer an alternative, that will stop industry from moving elsewhere."
The port's plan includes developing a hydrogen hub where companies can test new fuels, investing in onshore power so ships can plug into the grid instead of burning fuel at berth, and supporting bunkering of alternatives such as LNG, biofuels and methanol. It's also focusing in the short term on CCS, or Carbon Capture and Storage, to capture CO2 and store it in depleted gas fields through the Porthos project.
The Structural Barriers
Oscar van Veen, director of innovation at the Port of Rotterdam, said: "We try to work together with the polluters, and slowly phase them out." He then corrected himself: "As fast as possible, of course." But the port authority's room for manoeuvre is limited. Bettina Kampman, from environmental consultancy CE Delft, said: "The Port of Rotterdam is a key player in this sustainable transition but their sphere of influence is limited." She added that new developments need physical space and that electricity needed to electrify processes is limited at the moment because of a lack of power cables.
Many of the biggest emitters in the port answer to headquarters in the U.S. or China. If the rules in Rotterdam become too tight, they can simply move, as Shell shifted its headquarters to the UK and Unilever left Rotterdam altogether. The geopolitics aren't always helpful. U.S. President Donald Trump has cast doubt on climate policy and railed against wind power while offering incentives that favour fossil fuels over renewables.
Emeritus professor Harry Geerlings of Erasmus University Rotterdam said he was sceptical that any single port authority can drive a full transition on its own. He argued that what's needed is a global level playing field, such as the framework provided in Europe by the Emissions Trading System and past rules on sulphur in marine fuels. He said: "If you have the right incentives, you change the behaviour of these companies." He also said many ships now sail with dual fuel set ups, burning cleaner, low-sulphur fuel as they enter European waters, then flipping back to cheaper, high sulphur heavy fuel oil once they're out on the high seas.
Europe's EV Momentum
While Rotterdam wrestles with its industrial legacy, Europe's consumer transition is gathering pace. Global EV demand rose again in June, with Europe offsetting weakness in China and the U.S., indicating strength in European EV adoption and market growth. The contrast is stark: European consumers are shifting faster than policy can keep up, while Europe's industrial infrastructure remains locked into fossil fuel dependence by global capital flows and regulatory gaps.
Advocates for the Future wants a detailed phase-out plan for fossil activities, not just a long-term promise of climate neutrality by 2050. Van Wissen said: "We are not asking for anything extraordinary. We're asking for a plan that really contributes to a sustainable future for the port." Van Dijk said, "We do want the same thing," and said Rotterdam and its critics are, on paper at least, heading for the same destination: net zero around mid century.
Why This Matters:
The Rotterdam lawsuit exposes a fundamental problem in Europe's Green Deal: consumer behaviour is changing faster than industrial infrastructure. European EV demand is outpacing China and the U.S., but the continent's biggest port still handles fossil fuels linked to 600 megatonnes of CO2 a year. The port authority's 90% emissions cut target applies only to its own operations, not the vast flows of coal, oil and gas it facilitates. Without binding phase-out plans for fossil activities, state-owned enterprises can promise net zero by 2050 while continuing to expand the infrastructure that makes decarbonization impossible. The case also highlights the limits of national action: when refineries and chemical plants answer to U.S. or Chinese headquarters, they can simply relocate if European rules become too strict. That's why Europe needs continent-wide regulation — carbon border adjustments, binding phase-out timelines, and massive public investment in alternatives — not voluntary commitments from individual port authorities. The Green Deal cannot succeed if it leaves the hardest decisions to local actors operating in a global market.