Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

euronews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 292 posts

Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

#11

Post by SCHiM »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #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…

I mean, just imagine, you go the the slave market and they tell you that the court ordered them to stop selling slaves on the basis that some laws say that you cannot do so!

Burning fossil fuels is bad. Shell is in the business of producing fossil fuels to burn. Shell needs to leave that business in the very long term. What's the problem here?

Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

#12

Post by gruez »

chefkoch wrote: post #3
gruez wrote: post #2

What'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…

Where does this leave other companies? If shell can be held liable for carbon emissions, then surely other companies/individuals can be held liable as well?

Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

#13

Post by chefkoch »

gruez wrote: post #12
chefkoch wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Where does this leave other companies? If shell can be held liable for carbon emissions, then surely other companies/individuals can be held liable as well?

I guess that's the plan of the plaintiff.

Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

#14

Post by toomuchtodo »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #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…

I get it. Humans are selfish and greedy. But we’ve also exceeded our carbon budget as a species, so here we are. The state could always nationalize Shell and dismantle its production capacity. This outcome seems pretty tame compared to what could’ve (and still might be) mandated. We have the technology to rapidly decarbonize, how fast we move is a choice.

The longer we wait, the more severe the consequences awaiting businesses who emit vast quantities of CO2 in the course of business. Some will adapt, some will receive a legislated or legal ruling death sentence. It is what it is.

Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

#15

Post by epistasis »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #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…

> Also, it sounds unreasonable to tell a company whose principal product produces CO2 to stop making it

No, it's not unreasonable. And it's far less unreasonable to demand damages for the harm they've done through lying about what they know and the damage it causes.

Companies like Shell have been saying that they can perform CO2 capture and sequestration to reduce emissions. But they haven't actually done it. It's time for them to perhaps try that.

We have a clear path to making Shell's products completer unnecessary while maintaining current lifestyles, we no longer need fossil fuels. Even extremely conservative, fossil fuel-friendly, and renewables-hostile groups like the International Energy Agency have now published pathways that show that fossil fuels are not necessary.

It's time to move on, and Shell can either adapt their workforce and knowledge to a disrupted economy, via offshore wind turbines or underground sequestration of CO2, or they can die out. We don't have many other options as a society.

Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

#16

Post by ForHackernews »

gruez wrote: post #12
chefkoch wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Where does this leave other companies? If shell can be held liable for carbon emissions, then surely other companies/individuals can be held liable as well?

Good!

CO2 emissions have massive externalities and the more we force companies to bear those costs (be it via court judgements, carbon taxes, or a CO2 credits market) the more they will adjust their behaviour.

Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

#17

Post by clydethefrog »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #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.

Shell has rooted itself deep into Dutch politics and society. It's called Royal Dutch Shell not just to sound fancy.

Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

#18

Post by FridayoLeary »

chefkoch wrote: post #3
gruez wrote: post #2

What'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…

Why are they sticking it on Shell? Blame drivers. And anyway, even if Shell did hamper the global phasing out of fossils in the past we still need their oil. It's unfair to the public. And also, "knowingly hampering the global phase-out of fossil fuels" sounds like it deserves a fine, not a demand that to my ears at least sounds unreasonable. One more point, if renewables are actually viable then fossils should anyway be dying a natural death. Governments should be working harder. Fine Shell and let it die slowly i say.

Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

#19

Post by mc32 »

ForHackernews wrote: post #16
gruez wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does this leave other companies? If shell can be held liable for carbon emissions, then surely other companies/individuals can be held liable as well?

Good! CO2 emissions have massive externalities and the more we force companies to bear those costs (be it via court judgements, carbon taxes, or a CO2 credits market) the more they will adjust their behaviour.

If you want the drugs market to dry up you wean the users off drugs rather than combat the source of drugs because as we have learned from the Mexican drug cartels, when one goes down another one will emerge to fill the demand.

In this case, you need viable alternatives.

Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

#20

Post by lainga »

treeman79 wrote: post #4
gruez wrote: post #2

What'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.

It would be very disruptive given that Shell is headquartered in The Hague, and NL has small but not insignificant oil reserves of its own on both land and sea.
Post reply on HN