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

201–210 of 292 posts

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

#201

Post by Isinlor »

xyzelement wrote: post #132
SCHiM wrote: post #11

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?

> 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…

The court ruling is mature, we need more decisions like that across the world.

We also need to keep pushing and monitoring schemes like European Union Emission Trading Scheme and Chinese National Carbon Trading Scheme.

The goal is for global carbon emissions to peak in 2030 and be gone by 2050.

Hopefully USA will follow too.

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

#203

Post by Jap2-0 »

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…

For those who were curious:

Article 6:162 Definition of a ‘tortious act’

- 1. A person who commits a tortious act (unlawful act) against another person that can be attributed to him, must repair the damage that this other person has suffered as a result thereof.

- 2. As a tortious act is regarded a violation of someone else’s right (entitlement) and an act or omission in violation of a duty imposed by law or of what according to unwritten law has to be regarded as proper social conduct, always as far as there was no justification for this behaviour.

- 3. A tortious act can be attributed to the tortfeasor [the person committing the tortious act] if it results from his fault or from a cause for which he is accountable by virtue of law or generally accepted principles (common opinion).

[0] http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/civilcodebook066.htm

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

#204

Post by cbmuser »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #22

Now this is something that could have an actual impact on carbon emissions. The sooner these fossil fuel companies get fined or taxed the better.

Shell could just shutdown for a week and I bet that court will revoke their decision in no time.

Seriously, such verdicts are completely pointless and achieve absolutely nothing.

The court can’t blame Shell for decisions that are made by politicians, especially in the energy sector.

If an industrial country wants to reduce emissions, it must build nuclear power plants unless it has the potential for large hydro or geothermal installations per capita.

For reference, compare the emissions of France and Germany and you realize the highest potential for decarbonization lies in the energy sector and nuclear is extremely efficient in achieving that - while renewables are not:

> https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t...

> https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t...

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

#205

Post by neaanopri »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #22

Now this is something that could have an actual impact on carbon emissions. The sooner these fossil fuel companies get fined or taxed the better.

Fossil fuel companies aren't greedy monopoly men burning oil for no reason. Oil companies sell oil to consumers.

Imagine if US gas prices went up overnight to $10/gallon. There would be riots. Jan 6th would look like a warm-up.

But does anybody realistically think that they can carbon-capture 1 gallon of gas's worth of carbon emissions for $7? How much would it realistically cost?

It's willful ignorance to think that we can continue to use the same amount of energy while waiting for technology to improve and become greener. We have the choice between immediate, painful cuts to energy usage ($20/gal gas), or doing irreparable harm to our planet. We are choosing the latter.

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

#206

Post by jelger »

RandomLensman wrote: post #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 a…

I think because it is clear that climate change is done by humans. It's also something we can stop by stopping the way we consume energy. This makes us responsible.

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

#207

Post by JamesBarney »

yohannparis wrote: post #53
sfvisser wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that weird if you consider that despite the negative externalities all the CO2 producing processes delivered huge upsides to literally everybody. It’s not just Shell to blame, it’s all of us. We did this, we had good reasons to do so and now we should probably dial back.

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.

I don't think Shell understood the harms of CO2 any earlier than researchers in the field.

Should they punish anyone who initiated a disinformation campaign? absolutely!

But blaming them because they sold a product happily used to improved our quality of life seems silly.

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

#208

Post by FooHentai »

brtkdotse wrote: post #52
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?

Best case: It will end up burnt as trash. Realistic case: it will end up in the oceans as microplastics

Best case is likely putting it back in the ground. Burning it results in a release of it's stored carbon to the atmosphere.

Still not a perfect solution, since many plastics will leach harmful substances into the ground without robust containment measures, but of the outcomes realistically available to us, plastic ending up in properly-run landfills is probably the best case.

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

#209

Post by amackera »

zackees wrote: post #63

China creates more CO2 than the rest of the world combined. Destroying a company like this while giving China a free pass is essentially killing competition on China’s behalf. Also, there is no live experiment showing CO2 is the source of global warming. All the models are in silica and the IPCC has been hit with a major email breach showing major manipulation of the data to hide the decline of temperature data.

> China creates more CO2 than the rest of the world combined

China emits about 30% of world-wide CO2 emissions, so less than the rest of the world combined.[1]

> Also, there is no live experiment showing CO2 is the source of global warming. All the models are in silica and the IPCC has been hit with a major email breach showing major manipulation of the data to hide the decline of temperature data.

This is typical FUD repeated ad nauseam by science deniers. The scientific consensus is that global warming is caused by human activity.

-- 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

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

#210

Post by [deleted] »

flavius29663 wrote: post #166
yohannparis wrote: post #53

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN