121–130 of 292 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Should companies like Shell be compensated by the positive externalities of fossil fuel production?
China creates more CO2 than the rest of the world combined. Destroying a company like this while giving China a free pass is essentially killing competition on China’s behalf. Also, there is no live experiment showing CO2 is the source of global warming. All the models are in silica and the IPCC has been hit with a major email breach showing major manipulation of the data to hide the decline of temperature data.
I've never seen a murderer walk free by telling a judge "this other guy did more murders than me".
> giving China a free pass
What is this "free pass" of which you speak?
> All the models are in silica
Utter bollocks. Babbage never built his analytical engine, so I doubt Fourier, Foote and their contemporaries were using climate modelling software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alcohol prohibition didn't work out very well.
But CFC prohibition did. It's not as simple as just "prohibition doesn't work." It depends on the product and people's needs for it.
And what the available alternatives are.
Paints (other than interior house paints and other stuff that was already bottom of the barrel) were pretty crappy (or insanely expensive) for 20yr after they banned lead. It had its costs but paint isn't thaaaaat big of a deal to the world so it was fine.
>"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…
It's not saying that. The primary thing the court order does is move up the timeline from Shell's own stated goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 45% by 2035. It moves the deadline to 2030 and makes it legally binding instead of pinky-swear.
China creates more CO2 than the rest of the world combined. Destroying a company like this while giving China a free pass is essentially killing competition on China’s behalf. Also, there is no live experiment showing CO2 is the source of global warming. All the models are in silica and the IPCC has been hit with a major email breach showing major manipulation of the data to hide the decline of temperature data.
There are plenty of reasons to believe that CO_2 is the major driver of global warming. It has been the leading proposed cause for decades and is generally consistent with known evidence.
"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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The same could be attempted across the whole world where judicial branch holds actual power.
https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/global-climate...
https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org/
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>"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…
In this case I think the judges did the right thing, people can demand the government to create a new law where some special companies can get exceptions for the damages they cause.
I am wondering if there are ways to reduce pollution, I am thinking at those gases that are just burned because is not profitable to use them... I imagine some rich dudes deciding if they should
A invest in better tech to reduce CO2
B use money from A to buy some bigger yachts so they can go to some private islands to enjoy some crazy parties.
We can start cleaning up or local air and waters and if we really care we can stop importing products that are made with dirty resources... we need to start somewhere and we can find a way to help the poor if needed (maybe we figureout how to get the money the giants owe the society by avoiding taxes)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firstly, I think there’s a pretty clear difference between enslavement, which is a practice that intentionally deprives human beings of their rights, often violently and often en masse, and beef, coffee, and chocolate, which are food products that are enjoyed by consumers around the world. Secondly, neither slavery nor the use of CO2-generating industrial processes were suddenly found to be objectionable overnight. B…
Beef, at least, contributes in an outsized way (per kilogram, say) to climate change-related disasters and water shortages. While there are many causes of these harmful effects, it makes sense to address the biggest ones, including banning them.