Sounds like this could push Shell to fund a beachhead market to get carbon removal companies started up. Note: folks seriously interested in carbon removal or starting a carbon removal company should check out http://airminers.org
Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
141–150 of 292 posts
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#142Great news for OPEC, Russian & Chinese oil producers! Now they will be for sure the lowest cost to serve suppliers!
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#143Earlier 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.
[deleted]
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. Thanks for that! I do try and pick my comparisons and words carefully. I sometimes fail miserably but i'm glad you picked up on it.
There's an argument for storing carbon as finished wood products.
But that was not even a tangential side point of mine. To my mind it was just a pertinent comparison. I'll bear in mind what you said but i'm slightly disappointed.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#145Earlier 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?
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?
Well, I think it's important whether the company encourages unsafe behaviour. If you only have gigantic menus with no incentive to take the small soda, or if social media is engineered to be as addictive way beyond the healthy amount, then I think the companies take some of the blame. I think this analogy holds for shell.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#146Earlier 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?
> 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…
> From a quality and sustainability of human life, these were terrible times.
Unchecked, climate change will ALSO lead to terrible times for humans. Just because it's not immediately impactful, does not make it ignorable.
From that perspective, it's arguable that our options are "Some amount of near-term lowering of quality of life" or "A large amount of long-term, in the future, loss of quality of life." Continuing to burn the levels of fossil fuels we currently do is borrowing against a debt that may be literally impossible to repay.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#147Sounds like this could push Shell to fund a beachhead market to get carbon removal companies started up. Note: folks seriously interested in carbon removal or starting a carbon removal company should check out http://airminers.org
Carbon capture is such an red herring it's not even funny. For years carbon dioxide intense industries have been talking about it in order to avoid clamp downs on their factories/power plants. When it comes down to it, it just isn't a fiscally viable technology.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#148How come their stock isn’t way down? I’d expect a 50% drop.
At the latest shareholders meeting around 30 % was in favour for a shift to more sustainable business.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Hopefully we can force similar rulings in other countries and on the EU level. This ruling may be a precedent since it is partially based on the European law. 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..…
There's a line in The Wire where an honest hard working security guard asks Marlo to not disrespect him by stealing in front of him. Marlo says, "you want it to be one way, but it's the other way," then Marlo kills him.
You can downvote me all you want. You can "hope" to do whatever in your crusade. You can tell me all about what "could" happen if the world weren't the way is. But it's not that way. It's the other way.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#150Sounds like this could push Shell to fund a beachhead market to get carbon removal companies started up. Note: folks seriously interested in carbon removal or starting a carbon removal company should check out http://airminers.org
Carbon capture is such an red herring it's not even funny. For years carbon dioxide intense industries have been talking about it in order to avoid clamp downs on their factories/power plants. When it comes down to it, it just isn't a fiscally viable technology.
Just because it is not fiscally viable currently, does not mean that it cannot be in the future.