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

41–50 of 292 posts

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

#41

Post by aqme28 »

serjester wrote: post #37

This seems like a slippery slope. Should the makers of junk food also be held liable for impacting the health of countless individuals? The research has been out there for decades. What about social media companies? Where do we draw the line between personal responsibility and shifting blame on to suppliers for not taking action sooner? It’s hard to judge them for making money while operating within the laws we desig…

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or you think you're making a salient point. Poe's law, I guess.

What is wrong with junk food providers considering the impact on the health of their customers? Why should social media companies not worry about the mental health of the user?

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

#42

Post by dylan604 »

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?

>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?

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

#43

Post by sfvisser »

epistasis wrote: post #10
rutierut wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically: They are knowingly (since 60's) contributing to a preventable dangerous situation, which is illegal in NL.

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.

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

#44

Post by FridayoLeary »

berkes wrote: post #36
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?

What is more, Shell already planned to divert investments from fossil fuel to renewables. The court ordered them to do this earlier and in larger numbers. That would be like IKEA telling you "we don't have those shelves. See, were already working on selling less wooden furniture over the coming ten years, but the court ordered us to this now. So we now already have these awesome cardboard shelves for you. And next ye…

I don't think anyone can churn out, overnight an entire new line of products, while simultaneously scrapping their old line. I think it would be wiser to work with Shell to see if their timeline can be compressed, their investments expanded etc. rather then throwing out unreasonable demands.

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

#45

Post by gruez »

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?

> 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!

I'd be pretty pissed off too if one day [item] were legal and the next day the courts declared them to be illegal because of some vague law (ie. because of a tort or "the right to life and the right to family life"). In your comment the [item] was something most people would find objectionable (slaves), but you can very well substitute this for other stuff you enjoy, eg. beef, coffee, chocolate, etc.

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

#46

Post by pydry »

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…

Internally there was a battle in Shell between execs arguing that the company needed to double down on its green investments and the old school faction arguing that they should double down on traditional (i.e. oil/gas/lubricants/plastics/etc.) investments.

From what I heard the former group kind of lost. Shell is still making green investments - just way fewer.

You might argue that I'm being a hopeless optimist and selfishly ignoring the needs of drivers here but I'm hoping the outcome of this lawsuit will add some power to the "green" faction (already responsible for the world's biggest wind farm) in future arguments about upcoming investment decisions.

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

#47

Post by jsiepkes »

> Milieudefensie voor Veranderaars (Friends of the Earth Netherlands)

For anyone wondering "Friends of the Earth Netherlands" is not a translation of "Milieudefensie voor Veranderaars" (the name of the organisation). It's apparently the name of a larger alliance they just happen to be part of.

The literal translation of their Dutch name "Milieudefensie" is basically "Environmental Defense".

The "voor Veranderaars" part is their slogan which translates to something like "for changers".

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

#49

Post by solarkraft »

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…

> Especially when it's extremely necessary.

Your assumption is flawed.

> you go to IKEA and they tell you that the court ordered them to stop selling so much wooden furniture, so no more shelves for you

They’d either tell me they’re not selling wooden shelves anymore and offer me an alternative or lose my business to someone who does. This is happening to car makers.

> I'm not sure people would accept that. I'm very, very cynical about this ruling.

Change takes a bit of time to get used to, especially if it’s abrupt. Necessary (i. e. without an alternative) things going away or becoming more expensive is unpopular (and some people just irrationally rage at any new responsibility affecting them), but subsidies a free market & regulation are quite efficient at creating those.

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

#50

Post by Lutger »

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.

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 got what they wanted and lobby for the same judgement for their competitors, then get on with it and finally reduce their emissions.

Post reply on HN