Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by whatshisface » Wed, May 26, 2021, 2:59 PM UTC

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?

>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!

Last time they tried this the United States rent itself apart in its bloodiest war.

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

#72

Post by huubuub » Wed, May 26, 2021, 3:00 PM UTC

clydethefrog wrote: post #17

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.

It's called Royal Dutch Shell since it sprung from a merger between a dutch and a britsh company (Royal Dutch Oil and Shell). It's meant to reflect the names of the former companies more than indicate some deep ties with the Netherlands. Not too long ago they changed the dual Dutch/British legal structure that was in place before and become a company fully under british law.

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

#73

Post by archontes » Wed, May 26, 2021, 3:00 PM UTC

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…

Affecting drivers at the petrol station is exactly what needs to happen. Pricing in externalities is how free markets deal with the effects of behavior.

If prices increase, demand will fall, and the price will fall, and a new equilibrium will be arrived at.

I'd like to recommend taking a look at The Undercover Economist. It can be had for cheap.

https://www.amazon.com/Undercover-Economist-Tim-Harford/dp/0...

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

#74

Post by Isinlor » Wed, May 26, 2021, 3:01 PM UTC

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.

There are other legal protections and courts are there to weight them.

If a company knowingly cause harm to third parties they must be sanctioned.

Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.

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

#75

Post by LightG » Wed, May 26, 2021, 3:01 PM UTC

chefkoch wrote: post #9

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.

Moving from the EU to GB seems like a brilliant idea these days.

Yes, GB, the dumping ground for "regulatory-challenged" companies and individuals everywhere.

Brimming with pride, mate.

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

#76

Post by archontes » Wed, May 26, 2021, 3:02 PM UTC

barelysapient wrote: post #70

SCHiM wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The problem is that this is one company in the EU. It won't change how America, Russia, the middle east, or anyone else produces fossil fuels. Shell will desiccate from this action. And people will declare victory. But EU member states will simply import more fossil fuels from elsewhere. And the environment will not be helped. I agree that we need to cut CO2 emissions. But we need global solutions to these problems.…

Or they implement carbon fixing, and the EU implements tariffs on non-carbon-neutral petro such that the environment is helped...

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

#77

Post by phkahler » Wed, May 26, 2021, 3:02 PM UTC

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?

>> 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?

Shell doesn't burn fossil fuels. As you note they produce them (or pump them out of the ground and refine them). Telling Shell to produces less in one country means the people buying those fuels will simply get them from somewhere else, probably at higher price.

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

#78

Post by adventured » Wed, May 26, 2021, 3:02 PM UTC

I'll be curious to see when nations like Norway or Canada, which are hyper polluters per capita when you include their fossil fuel production and trade, will be forced to cut their lucrative oil industries in half or worse.

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

#79

Post by jmcdl » Wed, May 26, 2021, 3:03 PM UTC

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…

This kind of supply destruction is going to be very bullish for oil prices and oil company stocks in countries not looking to handicap their own companies.

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

#80

Post by aww_dang » Wed, May 26, 2021, 3:03 PM UTC

aqme28 wrote: post #41

serjester wrote: post #37

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 desig…

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or you think you're making a salient point. Poe's law, I guess. What is wrong with junk food providers considering the impact on the health of their customers? Why should social media companies not worry about the mental health of the user?

Alcohol prohibition didn't work out very well.