Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
1–10 of 292 posts
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#2What's the legal basis of this lawsuit? Are they violating some sort of law? Are they not violating any law, but just doing "bad"? The article isn't clear.
>"Shell is the biggest polluter in the Netherlands. The company emits nine times as much CO2 as the entire Netherlands combined.
Surely this is because shell is a multinational company and the netherlands is a small country?
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#3What's the legal basis of this lawsuit? Are they violating some sort of law? Are they not violating any law, but just doing "bad"? The article isn't clear. >"Shell is the biggest polluter in the Netherlands. The company emits nine times as much CO2 as the entire Netherlands combined. Surely this is because shell is a multinational company and the netherlands is a small country?
From an older article
>A court in The Hague will hear claims that Royal Dutch Shell has broken Dutch law by knowingly hampering the global phase-out of fossil fuels, in a case that could force the company to reduce its CO2 emissions.
Lawyers for a consortium led by Friends of the Earth Netherlands will argue on the first of four days of public hearings on Tuesday that Shell has been aware for decades of the damage it has inflicted and is acting unlawfully by expanding its fossil fuel operations. It is claimed the Anglo-Dutch company is breaching article 6:162 of the Dutch civil code and violating articles 2 and 8 of the European convention on human rights – the right to life and the right to family life – by causing a danger to others when alternative measures could be be taken.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/30/shell-in-co...
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#4What's the legal basis of this lawsuit? Are they violating some sort of law? Are they not violating any law, but just doing "bad"? The article isn't clear. >"Shell is the biggest polluter in the Netherlands. The company emits nine times as much CO2 as the entire Netherlands combined. Surely this is because shell is a multinational company and the netherlands is a small country?
Curious as to response. Ignoring that a higher court doesn’t just overturn this.
Blacklisting Netherlands seems in the realm of possibility. As in, no oil or oil based products being allowed into country.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#5> However, for the Dutch-British company, the ruling is only legally binding in the Netherlands.
I guess Shell will be a British company soon.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#6What's the legal basis of this lawsuit? Are they violating some sort of law? Are they not violating any law, but just doing "bad"? The article isn't clear. >"Shell is the biggest polluter in the Netherlands. The company emits nine times as much CO2 as the entire Netherlands combined. Surely this is because shell is a multinational company and the netherlands is a small country?
Basically: They are knowingly (since 60's) contributing to a preventable dangerous situation, which is illegal in NL.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#7Interested to know how they arrived at the 45% number? Does anybody know?
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#8>"Shell will adjust its policy so that it will also emit less CO2 in real-time."
Yes, they will just dust off their magic wands and wave them round a bit and poof! No more CO2! Because up until now they have just been ignoring all the calls for climate change.
I'm incredibly cynical about this. Not because of the naive sounding statement, nor because i care too much about Shells bottom line. It's simply because this will most probably affect not Shell, but drivers at the petrol stations.
Also, it sounds unreasonable to tell a company whose principal product produces CO2 to stop making it. Especially when it's extremely necessary.
But wait! The litigant actually says this!
>but the company will not be able to continue pumping as much oil and gas as they do now.
Imagine this. You need some wooden shelves, you go to IKEA and they tell you that the court ordered them to stop selling so much wooden furniture, so no more shelves for you. I'm not sure people would accept that. I'm very, very cynical about this ruling.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#9> However, for the Dutch-British company, the ruling is only legally binding in the Netherlands. I guess Shell will be a British company soon.
Moving from the EU to GB seems like a brilliant idea these days.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#10What's the legal basis of this lawsuit? Are they violating some sort of law? Are they not violating any law, but just doing "bad"? The article isn't clear. >"Shell is the biggest polluter in the Netherlands. The company emits nine times as much CO2 as the entire Netherlands combined. Surely this is because shell is a multinational company and the netherlands is a small country?
Basically: They are knowingly (since 60's) contributing to a preventable dangerous situation, which is illegal in NL.
Seems like a good thing to make illegal!
It's really weird to me how CO2 emissions are casually justified, and so many people resist the idea that companies could be held legally liable for knowingly causing harm. For pretty much any other situation, a business based on those terms would be heavily chastised and scorned, but for some reason companies like Shell get a pass for 1) doing research to discover that they are doing harm, 2) lying about that research and what they know, 3) conducting public misinformation campaigns to deceive people, and 4) deceptively influencing government policy to allow their continued harm.