Live data from Hacker News

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

euronews.com

191–200 of 292 posts

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

#191
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?

When shell pumps oil out of the ground who emits it? Shell? The person who burns the oil? If a person in the Netherlands buys a car what fraction of the emissions are they "responsible" for? How about if they use the car to produce some good or service that they sell? Does the responsibility for all or some of the emissions passed on?

I get the point that at some point you just need to pick a party to pay for an externality.

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

#192
post #94

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…

>If you cannot adjust to clearly visible, external requirements or demands, you honestly don't deserve to be kept in business.

There are 1.4 Billion cars in the world. They are obviously focused on the demand. [0]

https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/how-many-cars-are-th...

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

#193
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you wage a war you take any wins you can. You fight for every corner and every street. Western policies create a forcing function on the technology development. We need to make products so good that they win even without climate emergency. Tesla is a perfect example of that. Solar energy soon will also be simply better than any fossil fuels. It is also important to have your own stuff together when demanding the…

Why would we tax imports from China, when they make 90% of our solar modules?

That's a hypothetical. If:

a) We will keep on meeting our emission targets

b) China will keep on missing their emission targets

then it does not make sense to import anything from China.

My guess is that CCP is quite serious about climate change and will attempt to fulfill it's obligations.

They are already slipping by targeting carbon neutrality in 2060 vs. 2050.

But we are not doing enough either.

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

#195
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you not compare the brutal practice of slavery (and accompanying rape and torture) to fossil fuels? it’s deeply offensive to those whose ancestors actually were slaves

Is the issue that the comparison is bad and/or doesn't add much value - or just that we should generally avoid discussing that topic unless directly related?

in general imo one shouldn’t make comparisons to:

1. nazis/holocaust 2. slavery

etc…

as it devalues the actual event you’re comparing it to. i get that it’s just meant to make a point but even over using the comparison in everyday speech devalues it

it’s fine talking about those issues in general.

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

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Due to their size and reach, the oil giants have massive political clout. A major reason we do not have carbon taxes yet is because of their ability to lobby (bribe) politicians across the globe. These lawsuits matter because they hinder the companies ability to wield influence. Every dollar they spend on lawsuits and settlements is one less dollar they can spend on lobbyists, climate denial "research", etc...

Additionally, these lawsuits raise the cost of being in the oil business compared to renewables. So the "new actor" is much more likely to be a renewable company, simply due to the fact that investors do not like regulatory uncertainty.

It is worth mentioning that the oil industry is now in support of a carbon tax. On paper, this sounds good. But what really is going on is that they realize that the writing is on the wall and that after decades of opposing a carbon tax, their best chance of survival moving forward is to try to move the conversation away from regulations and towards "free market solutions". But this is cynical for a few reasons, the primary one being that it is much easier to convince a future Republican administration to retroactively lower the carbon tax (under the guise of "job creation" or some other nonsense) than it would be to repeal strict environmental regulations. And the other primary reason is that a carbon tax essentially "kicks the can down the road", i.e. it doesn't actually solve climate change or prevent the fossil fuel industry from continuing to do business as usual. It just makes the price of fossil fuel based products a little higher. Where as a regulatory approach would likely significantly hinder the companies ability to operate and likely significantly reduce the size and scope of the fossil fuel market

This is important, because in the next few years we are likely going to see the oil companies try to get a "seat at the negotiating table" so to speak. So these lawsuits are important because it puts these companies on the defensive, and potentially cuts them off at the knees, hindering their ability to water down future climate change legislation.

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

#197

>"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…

> Also, it sounds unreasonable to tell a company whose principal product produces CO2 to stop making it. Especially when it's extremely necessary.

Something something war of northern aggression, grumble southern way of life, indignant dispossession of rightful property, incoherent state's rights...

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

#198

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.

Netherlands is actually one of the most attractive countries to have HQ in, due to low tax rates. Sure, if they look around they could find something similar but the bad publicity from this would be really huge IMO.

The bad publicity will probably be mostly confined to the Netherlands. So presumably they'll figure out the expected costs of that, vs the cost to their global business model of 45% reduction in production. Pretty sure which way that maths will work out.

If they've got any sense, they'll also start to ramp up their investments in renewables, as I'm sure they can see the writing is on the wall for their current business model. But I doubt they'll be willing or able to change fast enough for 2030.

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

#199

This doesn’t seem fair. Sure, Shell is the largest emitter, but what about other emitters? We need a carbon tax that would distribute the responsibility evenly.

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

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

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

#200
Why is climate change the only global risk that gets that kind of treatment? We have no asteroid defense, for example. And that is without a doubt an end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it risk.

How do we tackle super volcanoes? How are we planning for climates more similar to other geological periods, where it was much warmer or colder without human intervention?

Is it even clear that climate change is the biggest risk to address now? Why don't we have similar movements to mitigate other large risk?

Post reply on HN