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

171–180 of 292 posts

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

#171

Post by whatever1 »

adamsvystun wrote: post #157
whatever1 wrote: post #142

Great news for OPEC, Russian & Chinese oil producers! Now they will be for sure the lowest cost to serve suppliers!

From HN guidelines [0]: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. You could have said: "Punishing supply would not do much without decreasing demand, it will just redistribute the profits. Moreover, the profits might go to less morally sound places." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.htm…

I stated facts.

1) Supply tends to meet demand at the cost of the marginal supplier. 2) If the West is not willing to, the rest of the folks will be happy to do so.

Btw more than 50% of the global liquids demand is for diesel, jet fuel and bunker fuel for ships. At the time of writing we do not have any viable alternatives for these, and we do not expect to have them ready and scaled up in the next 8 years.

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

#172

Post by Isinlor »

kolbe wrote: post #149
Isinlor wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

It's not only my crusade. It's also increasingly companies stakeholders. There are trillions dollar investor groups pushing for addressing risks and opportunities of climate emergency. Court cases give a lot of leverage to people inside these groups to apply pressure on companies like Shell.

Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) manages over $2 trillions

The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) with over €23 trillion in assets under management

Go against states like Netherlands, states unions like European Union, and institutional investors managing tens of trillions worth of assets at your own peril.

And the pressure will only keep increasing as the old generations die and the new take power.

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

#174

Post by aww_dang »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #144
aww_dang wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that it is tangential. Perhaps one of the safer topics to discuss in this whole debacle.

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

#176

Post by skeeter2020 »

eloff wrote: post #51
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?

It's a very tiny percentage of oil that gets used in this way.

about 3/4 is used as fuel (gas/diesel/jet) with the rest building your roads and the plastic life we all enjoy.

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

#177

Post by athrowaway3z »

mc32 wrote: post #19
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.

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.

You're not 'taking down' a supplier. You are influencing a cost-benefit analysis between waiting and spending accumulated resources.

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

#178

Post by dredmorbius »

mrfusion wrote: post #117

How come their stock isn’t way down? I’d expect a 50% drop.

Markets price in risk.

The market may have priced in the outcome, such that it was already accounted for.

The market may be pricing in appeals or counteractions which would mitigate the outcome.

Mind that much of "the market does" strongly resembles Just So Stories.

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

#179

Post by dalbasal »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #162
dalbasal wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 accom…

>> Laws don't come from gods, There is a huge body of historical law in the western world that comes from the decree of the king, literally a god.

Do you believe it? I wasn't making a normative point really. I was just describing where laws come from. A parliament (or god king) says reckless endangerment is a crime. Police, prosecutors, judges, and such put meat on this skeleton.

Also, I think the prevalent medieval european tradition was more focused on the "divine right of kings" to rule than the divinity of kings per se.

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

#180

Post by ceejayoz »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #18
chefkoch wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From an older article >A court in The Hague will hear claims that Royal Dutch Shell has broken Dutch law by knowingly hampering the global phase-out of fossil fuels, in a case that could force the company to reduce its CO2 emissions. Lawyers for a consortium led by Friends of the Earth Netherlands will argue on the first of four days of public hearings on Tuesday that Shell has been aware for decades of the damage it…

Why are they sticking it on Shell? Blame drivers. And anyway, even if Shell did hamper the global phasing out of fossils in the past we still need their oil. It's unfair to the public. And also, "knowingly hampering the global phase-out of fossil fuels" sounds like it deserves a fine, not a demand that to my ears at least sounds unreasonable. One more point, if renewables are actually viable then fossils should anywa…

> And anyway, even if Shell did hamper the global phasing out of fossils in the past we still need their oil.

This is like a trauma surgeon stabbing me and going "aren't you lucky I'm a surgeon?"

Post reply on HN