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

111–120 of 292 posts

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

#111

Post by sp332 »

aaronbeekay wrote: post #60
gruez wrote: post #45

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! I'd be pretty pissed off too if one day [item] were legal and the next day the courts declared them to be illegal because of some vague law (ie. because of a tort or "the right to life and the right to family life"). In your comment the [item]…

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.

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

#112

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]

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

#113

Post by aww_dang »

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...

Surprisingly, there's a connection to the topic at hand if you look at the parallel of prohibition and economic situations resulting from highly regulated markets.

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

#114

Post by acdha »

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.

Do you have any citation? This is a common claim by deniers, many of whom are paid to create the illusion of scientific disagreement, but it's not true.

If you look at, for example, the 1990 IPCC report the subsequent 3 decades were within the report's estimated ranges:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/ipccs-climate-projec...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...

Similarly, while certain people like to repeat the claim that scientists predicted global cooling in the 1970s it's grossly overstating the degree to which that was taken seriously by the academic community back then and how quickly it was conclusively rejected long before the turn of the century.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-cl...

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

#115

Post by yholio »

brtkdotse wrote: post #52
dylan604 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Shell is in the business of producing fossil fuels to burn. Playing devil's advocate, but what about all of the oil that is not burnt but turned into plastics and other products?

Best case: It will end up burnt as trash. Realistic case: it will end up in the oceans as microplastics

Nonetheless, have the plaintiffs proved that Shell is responsible for plastic that is burned or thrown in the ocean, as opposed to those that burn, dispose or produce plastics? Have they proven that there is NO legitimate and lawful use of oil?

This is most likely a vacuous decision of one trigger happy judge with an ax to grind. The idea that global climate change is "tort" is absurd, the phenomenon is a defining feature of the Anthropocene.

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

#116

Post by chefkoch »

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.

Judges hate this trick.

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

#118

Post by acdha »

tiahura wrote: post #108
ForHackernews wrote: post #16

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?

Yes. It's called sales revenue, which they've obtained in enormous amounts for decades as one of the largest companies in the world.

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

#119

Post by Loughla »

ForHackernews wrote: post #30
mc32 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want the drugs market to dry up you wean the users off drugs rather than combat the source of drugs because as we have learned from the Mexican drug cartels, when one goes down another one will emerge to fill the demand. In this case, you need viable alternatives.

Again, good! We want more sources of energy to emerge to replace fossil fuels. If burning carbon becomes more expensive, then hydrogen, nuclear, wind, solar, etc. become more competitive.

I think you missed the point.

When one cartel dies, there isn't immediately a beneficial alternative.

Much like in this case - if Shell leaves, there is nothing that automatically means the new actor who fills that role will offer hydrogen, solar, etc. Least friction means the new actor will just be another petroleum company.

Viable alternatives need to be in place and/or ready to immediately deploy, I think was OP's point.

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

#120

Post by ppf »

adventured wrote: post #107
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, laughab…

Yep - just looking at the reception my comment has recieved, you are absolutely correct about "running away or shouting down".

It's not just "China is burning coal", it's "China is burning coal to make all the crap we want/need and buy from them".

Post reply on HN