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

21–30 of 292 posts

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

#21

Post by dividedbyzero »

treeman79 wrote: post #4
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?

Curious as to response. Ignoring that a higher court doesn’t just overturn this. Blacklisting Netherlands seems in the realm of possibility. As in, no oil or oil based products being allowed into country.

"Blacklisting" the Netherlands from receiving any oil or oil products? A member state of the European Union with Borders to Germany and Belgium and with access to the North Sea? Who should do this "blacklisting", Royal Dutch Shell, headquartered in The Hague, NL? And who is supposed to enforce it? Even if there was a case for such a thing, which there isn't, no member state of the EU ever would dream of doing any such thing, since that would violate the Four Freedoms doctrine of the EU, and also because the neighbors get a sizable part of their oil and oil products through Rotterdam.

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

#23

Post by berkes »

gruez wrote: post #12
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…

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?

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".

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

#24

Post by brobdingnagians »

gruez wrote: post #12
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…

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.

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

#25

Post by FridayoLeary »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #14
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 get it. Humans are selfish and greedy. But we’ve also exceeded our carbon budget as a species, so here we are. The state could always nationalize Shell and dismantle its production capacity. This outcome seems pretty tame compared to what could’ve (and still might be) mandated. We have the technology to rapidly decarbonize, how fast we move is a choice. The longer we wait, the more severe the consequences awaiting…

>But we’ve also exceeded our carbon budget as a species

So what do you suggest. From yesterday, every truck, ship factory etc should stop working because our carbon limit has been exceeded. I mean, if you think orders such as these are the way forward, that is very going to happen. Haling global fossil production= halving global energy consumption= half of all industry shutting down. I think my sums are right.

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

#26

Post by adamsvystun »

adamsvystun wrote: post #7

Interested to know how they arrived at the 45% number? Does anybody know?

Ok, I think I have found the answer. The number is from Shell itself - 45% is its target CO2 emissions reduction by 2035. The court seems to have moved the deadline by five years and made it legally binding.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/26/dutch-court-rules-oil-giant-...

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

#27

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

chefkoch wrote: post #3
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?

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 not go after them for the damage caused by their sale of plastic pellets as well. Through the idea of "recycling" they created, they knowingly hampered the public's discovery of the truth about plastics.

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

#28

Post by nomercy400 »

What does it mean to 'cut' emissions by 45%?

Is that relative (e.g. to total production)? Is it an absolute number (e.g. N tons CO2)? Does this take company growth into account?

What if Shell split off their CO2 production business in another company (e.g. Shell RED), does the original company now have 100% less CO2 production (e.g. Shell GREEN)?

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

#30

Post by ForHackernews »

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.

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.
Post reply on HN