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

251–260 of 292 posts

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

#251

Post by imtringued »

ppf wrote: post #151
chriswarbo wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China creates more CO2 than the rest of the world combined. I've never seen a murderer walk free by telling a judge "this other guy did more murders than me". > giving China a free pass What is this "free pass" of which you speak? > All the models are in silica Utter bollocks. Babbage never built his analytical engine, so I doubt Fourier, Foote and their contemporaries were using climate modelling software.

>What is this "free pass" of which you speak? We gladly buy almost everything from China (lithium batteries, electronics, wind turbines, solar panels, all of which take a tremendous amount of energy to manufacture), without ever asking if they were made in a "CO2 neutral" way.

If China did nothing but produce those things then we should praise China because all its CO2 emissions exist for the sake of reducing CO2 emissions.

The real problem is that they also produce everything else.

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

#252

Post by kokanator »

kaba0 wrote: post #229
kokanator wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perso…

>We are not innocents, but we are not the perpetuators either.

Of course you are perpetuators. Where did your computer come from? For most it came from the largest polluter on the planet by nearly double.[0] Most likely your shoes came from there as well. The point is the consumer is buying the stuff that basically outsources the pollution.

Creating strong environmental regulation locally but allowing products from polluting countries just displaces the problem ( and jobs btw ). Tariffs solve this, quickly. I think this is where your democracy comment comes in. The mob doesn't want to pay more so they fight this type of legislation or executive order and thus are perpetuators of the problem.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-...

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

#253

Post by ClumsyPilot »

kokanator wrote: post #250
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> Are you aware that carbon credits market ia one big fraud, with "overestimates" averaging 50x? Carbon credits were a scam from the beginning. ( The same guy promoting them pointed to the market he owned as the solution, Al Gore ) Don't get me wrong they have huge potential but are really a false market at the moment. More like protection money or wealth transfer. > If I am choosing a washing machine, are they label…

"The one that takes 'less' carbon is easy ... go the the coin laundry. "

Thank you for providing exibit A - blaming the consumer for being uneducated and yet getting it all wrong yourself -> Your frequent trips to the laundry will produce much more carbon than you could ever save by not buying an appliance that serves for 10 years on average.

"But blaming the manufacturer who is currently operating within the governing authorities guidelines is disingenuous."

But blamind the consumer who is currently operating withing governing authorities guidelines is fair game. HN morality at it's finest, when corporations have more rights than people do.

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

#254

Post by yohannparis »

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?

If they knew that it was harmful and decided to ignore and hide the facts, yes!

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

#255

Post by imtringued »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #238
kolbe wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Shell is going to just take its thousands of high paying jobs from their headquarters to a more favorable regulatory regime. Very little else will change.

These are just little tremours before the eruption of public discontent once the reality of climate change sets in. Once we have 100 million refugees because half of bangladesh is underwater, it will get urgly and all the fuckerage will come back to haunt them.

An increase in the defense budget will take care of the problem.

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

#256

Post by kokanator »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #253
kokanator wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you aware that carbon credits market ia one big fraud, with "overestimates" averaging 50x? Carbon credits were a scam from the beginning. ( The same guy promoting them pointed to the market he owned as the solution, Al Gore ) Don't get me wrong they have huge potential but are really a false market at the moment. More like protection money or wealth transfer. > If I am choosing a washing machine, are they label…

"The one that takes 'less' carbon is easy ... go the the coin laundry. " Thank you for providing exibit A - blaming the consumer for being uneducated and yet getting it all wrong yourself -> Your frequent trips to the laundry will produce much more carbon than you could ever save by not buying an appliance that serves for 10 years on average. "But blaming the manufacturer who is currently operating within the governi…

> Your frequent trips to the laundry will produce much more carbon than you could ever save by not buying an appliance that serves for 10 years on average.

Not if you go to the laundry next to the grocery. Why would you spend more money on fuel when you could combine a trip?

> But blamind the consumer who is currently operating withing governing authorities guidelines is fair game.

The consumer is the one that influences the market and has the power to remove or advance politicians. If there is no market to fill the producer will no longer produce. Do you think manufacturing moved to China because the corporations liked China and the logistics or because people would actually buy cheeper products made in China?

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

#257

Post by karaterobot »

xapata wrote: post #87
aww_dang wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alcohol prohibition didn't work out very well.

There's a difference between prohibition and regulation or taxing. Taxing and regulating alcohol seems to be working quite well.

Working quite well for what purpose?

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

#258

Post by JamesBarney »

epistasis wrote: post #246
JamesBarney wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> blaming them because they sold a product happily used to improved our quality of life seems silly. "Blame" isn't really the important part here, the important part is enacting corrective action for harm done. Even if they hadn't conducted a misinformation campaign, Shell profited by causing great harm. As a purely financial entity, without introducing any morality or ethics, they owe the financial damages they have…

If you take every super major oil producer today and say they have to produce half as much oil what happens?

They sell off half their assets to smaller oil companies. But you still have the same number of wells pumping oil/gas.

I just don't see how this helps anyone, it's a silly PR win.

Shell didn't wrought any economic harm on their customers. We as a society have failed to regulate the consumption of oil/gas (as well as all other sources of CO2 emission), this is not directly the oil/gas companies fault, we're just using them as a scape goat. We might as well blame car companies, construction companies, power companies, steel manufacturing companies who are all just as if not more responsible for CO2 emissions.

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

#259

Post by [deleted] »

kaba0 wrote: post #226
JamesBarney wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#260

Post by barelysapient »

archontes wrote: post #76
barelysapient wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that this is one company in the EU. It won't change how America, Russia, the middle east, or anyone else produces fossil fuels. Shell will desiccate from this action. And people will declare victory. But EU member states will simply import more fossil fuels from elsewhere. And the environment will not be helped. I agree that we need to cut CO2 emissions. But we need global solutions to these problems.…

Or they implement carbon fixing, and the EU implements tariffs on non-carbon-neutral petro such that the environment is helped...

Great ideas. Sadly not the direction being taken by the EU.
Post reply on HN