181–190 of 292 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"?
Where does the individual bear responsibility in any of this?
Instead the public tends to focus on the huge evil corporation who struggles to even keep up with our demand for the very product we are damning them for.
There are 1.4 Billion cars on the road.[0] Somehow that is Shells fault? Really?
I'm not saying Shell has not committed any sins but we will need to do something about the 1.4 Billion cars before anything changes. All of those cars need to be fed. Someone will feed them.
[0] https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/how-many-cars-are-th...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
we all know the dangers of plastics, they found micro-plastics in all living things, and huge concentrations in mothers' milk. Are we going to sue dupont in 2 decades as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"?
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?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. You could extend this argument "Slavery is bad", "Genocide is bad", "War is bad" etc. are all statements of "privilege". Completely ignoring climate change, particulate pollution from fossil fuels has killed a terrible amount of people and will conti…
How many people would have died if they didn't have affordable access to power, heat, and transportation from fossil fuels? Particulate emissions are a risk but tighter emissions standards have done a lot to mitigate that problem.
It is necessary for any trade of goods with other countries for instance. Think ships for a minute, huge fuel consumers. Without them you wouldn't even have the computer you are reading this on.
The course is to change culture so it collectively seeks alternative fuels not damn the corporation that has done the very thing we have asked them to do.
So now Shell will presumably move their headquarters out of the Netherlands. Their global emissions will then no longer count as Dutch and as a result they'll comply with the judgement for reducing Dutch emissions.
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?
The problem is that this is one company in the EU. It won't change how America, Russia, the middle east, or anyone else produces fossil fuels. Shell will desiccate from this action. And people will declare victory. But EU member states will simply import more fossil fuels from elsewhere. And the environment will not be helped. I agree that we need to cut CO2 emissions. But we need global solutions to these problems.…
( sarcasm intended )
The other opportunity was to find a way to work with Shell to change the world. They are a huge power. Not make room for the others listed above to fill the void.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cert…
They predicted net cooling because smog and other particulate emissions were also rising, and those have a cooling effect. They were assuming that smog levels would continue to rise faster than greenhouse gas levels, and so the cooling effect would beat the warming effect.
Around that time people get serious in the US and much of the rest of the world about air quality, and smog not only stopped increasing in many places actually decreased significantly.