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

131–140 of 292 posts

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

#131

Post by acdha »

yohannparis wrote: post #53
sfvisser wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that weird if you consider that despite the negative externalities all the CO2 producing processes delivered huge upsides to literally everybody. It’s not just Shell to blame, it’s all of us. We did this, we had good reasons to do so and now we should probably dial back.

The difference is that Shell, and other petroleum companies, knew the harm of CO2 for 50 years, consumers only half of that roughly. They could have start investing and do R&D on alternative and mitigation and help us move forward. But no, they just buried it under the rugs to get our money. That is deception, especially when they will not be the ones responsible for cleaning up the mess.

An especially key part was the way denialism cut against economy measures: the average vehicle sold in the United States today has mileage which is substantially worse than you saw in the 1980s because there's been a multi-decade push towards much heavier vehicles with sportier engines, special subsidies for trucks and SUVs, successful attempts to exempt various industries from stricter emissions controls, etc.

Had CO2 emissions been taken seriously — and given that successful predictions of the problem go back over a century we had plenty of time to plan — we could have bought additional decades to work on alternatives by continuing improvements in efficiency. Procrastinating means that we'll see more disruptive changes and worse climate impacts.

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

#132

Post by xyzelement »

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.

I would say that like many things in life, it's a tradeoff. There're costs and benefits to using these things. Talking about one side but not the other doesn't make sense.

Quick personal example - I lived through energy shortages as a kid in the Soviet Union. Situations where there was no heat in the winter and/or no fuel for cars and public transport.

From pure fossil fuel consumption standpoint, these were great times, as we weren't using any. From a quality and sustainability of human life, these were terrible times.

At the very least "burning fossil fuels is bad" is a statement of privilege. A person who's cold or unable to travel or get necessities delivered would never say this.

None of this is to say that we shouldn't move towards primarily nuclear in the long term - we should but we need to talk about this in a mature way.

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

#133

Post by adventured »

creaghpatr wrote: post #90
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.

Forced by whom, the Netherlands?

I agree with the sentiment. That's always the environmental challenge. Who's going to enforce/stop/change any of it?

The most likely answer, rooted in reason, logic and an understanding of human nature, is: absolutely nobody is going to stop any of it in a way that is going to matter.

We've far since crossed the point of no return. You can take all emissions to zero in the developed world and it won't matter at all now, it won't stop anything. It's game over.

If the climate change experts are correct about how it all works, then the house is going to burn down and nothing can or will stop it, realistically. And that's a super simple - hilariously easy - extrapolation just based on one nation's hyper expanding greenhouse gas emissions alone.

It won't stop the virtue signalers however; virtue signaling is all they really have. When the plan is to not actually do anything about what's happening, then the comfort remaining is to virtue signal while you watch it all burn, because it makes one feel better.

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

#134

Post by cr1895 »

aww_dang wrote: post #89
huubuub wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That isn’t however the reason it is designated a Royal company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koninklijk

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

#135

Post by ppf »

ISL wrote: post #125
zackees wrote: post #63

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.

When the neighborhood is burning and your house, along with your neighbors', is on fire, it is reasonable to address your own fire, perhaps at the same time as extending support to others. 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.

Every time we mandate that some product can't be produced in the West, China gladly fills the gap, burning huge amounts of brown coal in the process. Why do you think they have a global monopoly on solar cell and lithium battery production? They are incredibly energy-intensive processes.

It would be like, in your analogy, somehow by putting out your own fire, someone else's house started burning.

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

#136

Post by jbay808 »

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?

Which of those aren't already internalized?

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

#137

Post by dalbasal »

gruez wrote: post #2

What's the legal basis of this lawsuit? Are they violating some sort of law? Are they not violating any law, but just doing "bad"? The article isn't clear. >"Shell is the biggest polluter in the Netherlands. The company emits nine times as much CO2 as the entire Netherlands combined. Surely this is because shell is a multinational company and the netherlands is a small country?

>> Are they violating some sort of law?

This kind of question is literally determined in such court cases. There are laws about polluting, causing harm to people, the environment and such. Giving these laws meaning in practice is what courts do.

Of course, any legal system "pretends" that they're actually just interpreting... but this is never really true. If you gave an alien lawyer a book of laws, without the accompanying book of precedents (even in civil law systems), they would not know what is and isn't legal.

It is pretty interesting that there's no fine or punishment. A recognition-not-recognition that this is a pivot point. Hopefully, antitrust courts will adopt the same approach. Fining Google or Amazon has been a bust.

Laws don't come from gods, not even the gods or pure reason. The come from people. Courts, parliaments, polities, regulators, etc.

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

#138

Post by slibhb »

rutierut wrote: post #6
gruez wrote: post #2

What's the legal basis of this lawsuit? Are they violating some sort of law? Are they not violating any law, but just doing "bad"? The article isn't clear. >"Shell is the biggest polluter in the Netherlands. The company emits nine times as much CO2 as the entire Netherlands combined. Surely this is because shell is a multinational company and the netherlands is a small country?

Basically: They are knowingly (since 60's) contributing to a preventable dangerous situation, which is illegal in NL.

Is driving a car today "knowingly contributing to a preventable dangerous situation"?

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

#139

Post by jbay808 »

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.

Seems fair; your carbon emissions somehow manage to reach their way into my life!

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

#140

Post by FridayoLeary »

berkes wrote: post #94
FridayoLeary wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone can churn out, overnight an entire new line of products, while simultaneously scrapping their old line. I think it would be wiser to work with Shell to see if their timeline can be compressed, their investments expanded etc. rather then throwing out unreasonable demands.

> I don't think anyone can churn out, overnight an entire new line of products, while simultaneously scrapping their old line. If you cannot adjust to clearly visible, external requirements or demands, you honestly don't deserve to be kept in business. Everyone knows fossils are at a dead end. Shell has known this for over 60 years now; they acknowledge that themselves! Requiring the change that apparently a corporat…

>Everyone knows fossils are at a dead end

If that is true Shell should die naturally. Images of stranded fish, flopping and gasping for breath springs to mind. This court order indicates otherwise. I'm under no illusions that orders like this won't hurt me in a real way. And i am not a fan at all of EV's in their current format. Despite (what i perceive) propaganda (NOT a negative connotation, mind you) to the contrary, i don't think they are mature enough to replace ICE.

Slightly off topic but i'm a huge fan of those electric scooters and bikes. I think they are the way forward, not some huge EV. They should definitely be made legal, anyway everyone uses them. I just have a depressing feeling that they shall be slaughtered, hamstrung and/ or castrated on the altar of pedestrian safety.

Post reply on HN