Let's be hopeful for once, folks. Maybe too little, too late, but what else is there to do but try.
Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
81–90 of 292 posts
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#82This 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?
The argument is that junk food providers and social media companies should not be held responsible for misuse of their products. The question is whether there is a "safe dosage" of junk food or social media, and whether if people go beyond that dosage they do it at their own risk. If the serving size is one cookie, and I eat 25 cookies, should the baker be held accountable?
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#83>"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?
can you not compare the brutal practice of slavery (and accompanying rape and torture) to fossil fuels?
it’s deeply offensive to those whose ancestors actually were slaves
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#84"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.
No, Shell is going to just take its thousands of high paying jobs from their headquarters to a more favorable regulatory regime. Very little else will change.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#85Earlier 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?
> 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.
They just reinvented slavery with prison labor of blacks under Jim Crow laws (and plea bargain scammery) that are still used in the worlds largest concentration camps ever:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra...
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#86This 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…
A slippery slope into what? Accountability?
If you're doing harm to others, profit is no excuse.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There's a difference between prohibition and regulation or taxing. Taxing and regulating alcohol seems to be working quite well.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#88they should just move out of netherlands
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As I understand, the Dutch royals own a major stake in Shell.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#90I'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.
Forced by whom, the Netherlands?