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

101–110 of 292 posts

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

#101

Post by brendanmc6 »

trueluk wrote: post #61
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?

Don't be daft. His comparison to wood is legitimate as trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to reducing the burning of fossil fuels. > Burning fossil fuels is bad. Why is it bad? Becuase the temperature will go up a couple degrees. Who cares! We're engineers and we build solutions to adapt to an ever-changing world. We don't make progress by stifling prod…

> the temperature will go up a couple degrees. Who cares! We're engineers

Sorry, this is one of the worst takes on climate I've ever seen on HN, and the bar here is very low...

Take time to actually study the problem and you will come to the same conclusion: it can only be solved with government intervention. The most efficient government intervention would be a carbon tax set at the estimated social cost of carbon, but that (being a tax) is also extremely politically unpopular.

So we are left with less efficient policies, like outright bans, court orders, expensive subsidies, and emissions caps.

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

#102

Post by Permit »

How much will this affect average oil/gas consumers in the EU? Weren't the Yellow Vest Protests[1] started in response to increased fuel prices (in that case, in the form of a tax).

Presumably this will increase prices? Or will we only see a decline in Shell's emissions, but an increase in those of every other oil/gas producer? Is there an alternative outcome?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement

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

#103

Post by mrcartmenez »

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…

Either most of your car journeys are to IKEA or your statement is an example of the Weak Man fallacy.

Sure, some people with disabilities who live outside of the delivery radius of an ikea will need to drive there. Is that the majority of car use? No.

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

#104

Post by whatshisface »

1cvmask wrote: post #85
whatshisface wrote: post #71

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! 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...

It's a mischaracterization to say that Jim Crow made emancipation pointless. It may have been an attempt to reduce its practical importance, but it didn't come close to reversing it in the vast majority of cases.

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

#105

Post by jayd16 »

whatshisface wrote: post #71
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?

> 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.

Better than the alternative.

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

#106

Post by dbingham »

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…

Scientists have been talking about the need to draw down carbon emissions for DECADES. Four decades, in fact. We had a report just 3 years ago that gave us a very clear timeline for the need to draw down.

If companies have failed to respond to that, they have only themselves to blame at this point. When we've asked, and asked, and asked and made clear the necessary timeline, at some point, we have to put force behind that.

If governments had put that force behind it earlier, then that force could have come with a gentler timeline. But at this point, we don't have time for that. We have to rip off the bandaid. And the longer we wait, the worse that rip is going to be.

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

#107

Post by adventured »

ppf wrote: post #67

> Coal, oil and gas need to stay in the ground. People around the world are demanding climate justice I look forward to seeing an EV battery manufactured entirely using renewable energy, instead of the current situation where developing countries burn huge amounts of brown coal to power their manufacture. In my opinion, this is just mandated destruction of Western industry, and completely meaningless until we demand…

It's absolutely meaningless. It's a sick joke. China recently overtook the entire developed world combined in greenhouse gas emissions [1] and their output is still set to keep climbing for decades yet. Very soon they'll be at three times the emissions of the US. And meanwhile they're building new coal power plants as fast as they can put them up.

None of this Shell type stuff matters. Not one bit. It's fake, laughable green theater until you stop the extreme and growing emissions output coming from China (which isn't going to happen under any circumstances and everyone knows it). It's a bunch of childish rich people in the developed world virtue signaling while the planet burns down regardless because their actions don't amount to mattering what-so-ever back in reality. Let's see the EU stand up to China and start shutting down their trade with China until they reverse on emissions; right, nobody, absolutely nobody, dares to even discuss such actions. Which is another way of saying they have no intention of actually ever doing anything about climate change.

And that fact of reality is the one the green virtue signaling crowd is too cowardly to ever face up to. They run away or try to shout you down if you point out the reality of the situation: you can now take emissions to zero in the developed world and it won't matter at all unless you stop China's runaway output. And that's before Africa adds another billion people in the coming decades and seeks a similar pattern of development (again, the green theater is all a bullshit fraud unless the plan is to stop all of this development across the board immediately, otherwise none of it matters).

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837

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

#108

Post by tiahura »

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.

Should companies like Shell be compensated by the positive externalities of fossil fuel production?

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

#109

Post by shlant »

jujkjkm wrote: post #92
chefkoch wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'd be pretty pissed off too if one day [item] were legal and the next day the courts declared them to be illegal They lied for decades about the dangers of climate change.

Scientists and governments lied about climate change as well. Go back and look up the many, many wrong predictions over the decades. You have no argument.

A brand new account to spout climate change denialism... how brave of you

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

#110

Post by Isinlor »

adventured wrote: post #78

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.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Netherlands_v._Ur...

> The case, while not the first climate change litigation,[16] the original 2015 ruling against the Netherlands was heralded worldwide as the first successful tort action against a government to address climate change to protect human rights, an area otherwise known as climate justice.[7] The ruling on the Netherlands case led to similar climate justice lawsuits in other countries, including Belgium, France, Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, Britain, Switzerland and Norway. [11]

Hopefully there are ongoing litigations that will hold Norway liable as well.

https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/global-climate...

https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org/

http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation...

Post reply on HN