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

31–40 of 292 posts

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

#31

Post by toomuchtodo »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #25
toomuchtodo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>But we’ve also exceeded our carbon budget as a species So what do you suggest. From yesterday, every truck, ship factory etc should stop working because our carbon limit has been exceeded. I mean, if you think orders such as these are the way forward, that is very going to happen. Haling global fossil production= halving global energy consumption= half of all industry shutting down. I think my sums are right.

Institute a carbon tax that increases at a linear rate and use the revenue to subsidize clean electrical generation and storage mechanisms (battery and pumped storage), EV subsidies, EV charging infra (both for light and heavy vehicles), and invest in ammonia production from renewables for marine applications. Air travel should be disincentivized whenever possible with a similar tax until cleaner alternatives are developed. Support robust building energy efficiency improvement measures (heat pumps, insulation, and similar). Require carbon neutral or negative concrete production. Rapidly scale up polysilicon production to meet solar PV manufacturing needs (we need ~600GW of solar PV produced and installed annually to meet climate targets, a 4x increase from current production capacity).

There will be some petroleum consumption remaining, and in the short term we’ll need to tax that at a rate that pays for the removal of the resulting carbon using air source carbon capture (Climeworks and similar). I believe the current cost of that is $600 per ton of CO2 based on Climeworks’ letter to Stripe notifying they completed their initial removal objective they were contracted for.

With all that said, the planetary climate doesn’t really consider GDP as a worthwhile metric, so perhaps we should revisit it as well (compared to having a functioning, stable ecosystem to exist in).

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

#32

Post by missedthecue »

rutierut wrote: post #6
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?

Basically: They are knowingly (since 60's) contributing to a preventable dangerous situation, which is illegal in NL.

Everyone in the netherlands has.

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

#33

Post by epistasis »

dannykwells wrote: post #29

"Ruling will only hold in the Netherlands". I can see Shell just exiting the Netherlands rather than lowering emissions by 45% globally . Another weak, symbolic ruling from a European court.

This is good! What else is a court supposed to do? If She'll exits the Netherlands than all the better for the Netherlands.

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

#34

Post by chriswarbo »

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.

(Royal Dutch) Shell is based in the Netherlands. I doubt they'd "blacklist" themselves.

The Netherlands is part of the European Union, whose members can trade freely between each other. Trying to cut off oil from the Netherlands would also require cutting it off to France, Germany, Spain, etc.

Who would enforce such a silly action in any case? Presumably the government and army of the Netherlands wouldn't want to cut itself off; in which case, what would prevent anyone with lorries, boats or planes from bringing in "oil or oil based products" (at a hefty markup)?

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

#35

Post by solarkraft »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #24
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?

And if the government can reach as far into your life as putting limits and fining you for carbon emissions, is there anything in your private life they can't touch? Perhaps some people agree with the tool now, but wait until you see how they use it later. Eventually, you will get someone with the power who will use it for something you disagree with, in a big way.

Right, what’s next? A ban on drunk driving? No more littering? Forbidding domestic abuse?

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

#36

Post by berkes »

SCHiM wrote: post #11
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?

What is more, Shell already planned to divert investments from fossil fuel to renewables.

The court ordered them to do this earlier and in larger numbers.

That would be like IKEA telling you "we don't have those shelves. See, were already working on selling less wooden furniture over the coming ten years, but the court ordered us to this now. So we now already have these awesome cardboard shelves for you. And next year we'll have plastic and metal ones too".

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

#37

Post by serjester »

This seems like a slippery slope. Should the makers of junk food also be held liable for impacting the health of countless individuals? The research has been out there for decades. What about social media companies? Where do we draw the line between personal responsibility and shifting blame on to suppliers for not taking action sooner? It’s hard to judge them for making money while operating within the laws we design.

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

#38

Post by solarkraft »

berkes wrote: post #23
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?

Shell was held liable because it is the largest emitter in the Netherlands. Their defence "but if we don't deliver the fossil fuels other companies will", which was not taken over by the court. The Judge (paraphrased) said "Those other companies will also have to reduce their carbon emissions".

If you ever find yourself making this argument, ask yourself very hard whether you are the bad guy.

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

#39

Post by dbingham »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #24
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?

And if the government can reach as far into your life as putting limits and fining you for carbon emissions, is there anything in your private life they can't touch? Perhaps some people agree with the tool now, but wait until you see how they use it later. Eventually, you will get someone with the power who will use it for something you disagree with, in a big way.

Conversely, if we have no way for the majority to hold a minority accountable for catastrophic harm done to the majority where does that leave us?

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

#40

Post by chefkoch »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #24
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?

And if the government can reach as far into your life as putting limits and fining you for carbon emissions, is there anything in your private life they can't touch? Perhaps some people agree with the tool now, but wait until you see how they use it later. Eventually, you will get someone with the power who will use it for something you disagree with, in a big way.

> And if the government can reach as far into your life as putting limits and fining you for carbon emissions, is there anything in your private life they can't touch

I know corporations are people in the US but since when do they have a private live?

And i guess it's already illegal to harm others by polluting the environment in most juristictions.

Post reply on HN