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

211–220 of 292 posts

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

#211

Post by Isinlor »

Loughla wrote: post #119
ForHackernews wrote: post #30

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…

> 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.

Emission Trading Schemes put friction on another petroleum company.

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

#213

Post by chriswarbo »

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…

> Is it even clear that climate change is the biggest risk to address now?

Did you know: more than one thing can happen in the world at once!

Fighting climate change doesn't prevent us spotting or stopping asteroids, or supervolcanoes, or whatever. Where in the world did you get such zero-sum nonsense from?

The satellites we use to monitor CO2 levels in the atmosphere are great at spotting volcanic activity.

Building those satellites and getting them into orbit hasn't 'depleted our allocated space launches'; it's made us better at getting to space; which makes us more prepared for sending asteroid intercept/divert missions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll

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

#214

Post by JamesBarney »

Lutger wrote: post #50
treeman79 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Shell has always countered the argument that they should to more to reduce CO2 emissions by making the government responsible for forcing them. They say they even asked the government to intervene, as it's unrealistic to expect a company to do so of it's own accord. Of course, they don't mean that, but it is an integral part of their greenwashing campaigns. The proper response would be to rejoice that they finally go…

> The proper response would be to rejoice that they finally got what they wanted and lobby for the same judgement for their competitors, then get on with it and finally reduce their emissions.

Because they didn't get what they want.

Imagine you make widgets and you pay your employees $5/hr. You want to pay your employees $10/hr but you can't because your widgets would then be too expensive, you'd be driven out of business and your employees would have to get jobs elsewhere for $5/hr. But if a the government enforced a $10/hr minimum wage then you can pay your employees $10/hr, you don't go out of business, and your employees can keep their jobs.

It's a collective action problem and the government is uniquely good at solving them while businesses are uniquely bad.

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

#215

Post by webnrrd2k »

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?

Yes, other companies should be held liable as well... I think that the situation is analogous to sueing asbestos manufacturers or cigarette companies.

Was it ok, from a legal or societal perspective, for these manufacturers to mount a disinformation program, in favor of their products, while knowingly causing direct harm to their customers? How does the fact that other companies will (potentially) step in and do the same thing change the situation?

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

#216

Post by fredoliveira »

slibhb wrote: post #187
fredoliveira wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you know the answer to this, but I'll put it in writing: sadly, yes.

That's not my answer.

I'm happy to hear your answer, if you want to share. This is why we're here: to discuss different points of view.

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

#217

Post by RandomLensman »

chriswarbo wrote: post #213
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…

> Is it even clear that climate change is the biggest risk to address now? Did you know: more than one thing can happen in the world at once! Fighting climate change doesn't prevent us spotting or stopping asteroids, or supervolcanoes, or whatever. Where in the world did you get such zero-sum nonsense from? The satellites we use to monitor CO2 levels in the atmosphere are great at spotting volcanic activity. Building…

That is precisely my concern! Where in the world did you get that nonsense that capacity for chance and production is unlimited? So if an asteroid defense were(!) to be more urgent (don't say it is) than that might need the resources first.

Btw. spotting volcanic activity will not help you on a big eruption that changes the climate for millions of years (Deccan Traps anyone?). No sure anything will help us in such a scenario, to be honest

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

#218

Post by rkk3 »

nradov wrote: post #167
rkk3 wrote: post #158

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.

Isn't there a difference between tradeoff's in the 1800's and 2021?

The benefits of fossil fuels is not the issue, the cost is. If today we in fact have alternative's that do not inflict such a terrible cost on human life, is it incorrect to say the choice is "bad".

The WHO estimates 7 million people a year are dying from air pollution. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1

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

#219

Post by ClumsyPilot »

sfvisser wrote: post #43
epistasis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a good thing to make illegal! It's really weird to me how CO2 emissions are casually justified, and so many people resist the idea that companies could be held legally liable for knowingly causing harm. For pretty much any other situation, a business based on those terms would be heavily chastised and scorned, but for some reason companies like Shell get a pass for 1) doing research to discover that they a…

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.

"It’s not just Shell to blame, it’s all of us"

I call bullshit. There are only two choices withing the control of an individual:

1 - get a green energy supplier, if one is avaliable and you can afford it

2 - stop eating meat

That's it. Majority of emissions are from industry and transport, we get no choice in that matter and the only way I can reduce them individually is to live in a cave.

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

#220

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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?

I'd prefer it happened today
Post reply on HN