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

221–230 of 292 posts

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

#221

Post by kansface »

SCHiM wrote: post #11
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 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 ruling was unequivocally outside the rule of law in my estimate. You want to stop climate change? Great! Pass some laws via the legislature, enforce them via fines and jail through action initiated by the executive branch under the oversight of an impartial judicial system. Exactly which law could not be enacted by a judge under this precedent/newly found tort? Why are we foisting our collective guilt as a society onto a single hate-able company as if ordinary people making quotidian decisions lack fault, agency, and responsibility?

Yes, I realize we are not talking about the US...

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

#222

Post by ClumsyPilot »

kokanator wrote: post #182
slibhb wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is driving a car today "knowingly contributing to a preventable dangerous situation"?

I am glad you asked this question because this is what is missing in these situations. 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 commit…

Does individual bear responsebility for lack of public transport, the fact that electric cars didnt even exist not long ago, and for living in a house that was build emitting CO2 and opposed to living in a cave?

But lets go with that argument - i am 100% responsible for my CO2. If I am choosing a washing machine, are they labelled with amount of CO2 emitted in production of each? If the company lies to me about this, does anyone go to jail?

Are you aware that carbon credits market ia one big fraud, with "overestimates" averaging 50x?

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

#223

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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.

This idea that megacorps are above the law and can scoff at democracy is perverse, dangerous, and rampant on this site.

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

#224

Post by ClumsyPilot »

adamsvystun wrote: post #150
robert_foss wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon capture is such an red herring it's not even funny. For years carbon dioxide intense industries have been talking about it in order to avoid clamp downs on their factories/power plants. When it comes down to it, it just isn't a fiscally viable technology.

Just because it is not fiscally viable currently, does not mean that it cannot be in the future.

That ship has sailed 50 years ago. It takes 20-30 years to replace cars on the road or powerstations.

Anything that cannot be massproduced today is a fool's errand

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

#225

Post by kaba0 »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #24
gruez wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s as if we are living in a society and one’s actions influence others?

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

#226

Post by kaba0 »

JamesBarney wrote: post #207
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.

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.

Maybe we should not have to improve the quality of our lives at any price.

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

#227

Post by chriswarbo »

RandomLensman wrote: post #217
chriswarbo wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> No sure anything will help us in such a scenario, to be honest

Congratulations, you got there in the end.

Meanwhile, Dutch activists have made some minor progress in the fight to fix the climate.

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

#228

Post by ClumsyPilot »

dredmorbius wrote: post #178
mrfusion wrote: post #117

How come their stock isn’t way down? I’d expect a 50% drop.

Markets price in risk. The market may have priced in the outcome, such that it was already accounted for. The market may be pricing in appeals or counteractions which would mitigate the outcome. Mind that much of "the market does" strongly resembles Just So Stories.

Alternatively we are in a massive carbon bubble, because valuation of these companies is based on their reserves, by the time we'll get to the last drops of oil they'll have to deal with famine and roving tribes of technobarbarians. Thats not a risk, it's a certainty.

When this buble pops it will make 2008 look like a frat party.

https://www.cbd.int/financial/doc/carbon-bubble.pdf

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

#229

Post by kaba0 »

kokanator wrote: post #182
slibhb wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is driving a car today "knowingly contributing to a preventable dangerous situation"?

I am glad you asked this question because this is what is missing in these situations. 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 commit…

We are not innocents, but we are not the perpetuators either. We should bare the responsibility by paying a premium for any surplus CO2 emitted during the production and transfer of any product we buy. But it will only happen with sane, international laws that take into account the environmental impact of all products.

Also, a large populace is easily manipulated and democracy is not that direct for the average person to have a proper say. And “the market will solve it” mentality never ever worked, not even thought to work by Adam Smith generally — only in very regulated markets.

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

#230

Post by ppf »

Isinlor wrote: post #193
ppf wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is it a hypothetical? You've already said that China has slipped on its carbon neutrality goals, all while we continue to import ever more manufactured goods from that country. Now would be the time to start taxing those, which as I pointed out, we would never do.
Post reply on HN