Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by trueluk » Wed, May 26, 2021, 2:53 PM UTC

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?

Don't be daft. His comparison to wood is legitimate as trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

> Burning fossil fuels is bad.

Why is it bad? Becuase the temperature will go up a couple degrees. Who cares! We're engineers and we build solutions to adapt to an ever-changing world. We don't make progress by stifling productivity.

> Shell needs to leave that business in the very long term.

No, they don't NEED to do that. Well, not until the government mandates it anyway. And that's the problem. Perhaps they will leave the business, but they shouldn't until renewable energy becomes more economical than producing fossil fuels. In the meantime, it makes more sense to move production to developing countries so they have the same opportunity we had here to benefit from cheap energy.

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

#62

Post by LightG » Wed, May 26, 2021, 2:54 PM UTC

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'm sorry, but comparing this issue to IKEA shelving makes me incredibly cynical towards your comment.

A closer analogy might be if IKEA were painting their shelving with cheap, toxic substances, and ordered to stop that and to use non-harmful substances which may be more expensive.

The regulation may cause IKEA's costs to increase, in which case I would expect IKEA to innovate to overcome this regulation.

People love burning regulations, but maybe, just maybe, some are actually a "good thing".

Shell can innovate big or go home.

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

#63

Post by zackees » Wed, May 26, 2021, 2:54 PM UTC

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.

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

#64

Post by MrGLaDOS » Wed, May 26, 2021, 2:55 PM UTC

adamsvystun wrote: post #26

adamsvystun wrote: post #7

Interested to know how they arrived at the 45% number? Does anybody know?

Ok, I think I have found the answer. The number is from Shell itself - 45% is its target CO2 emissions reduction by 2035. The court seems to have moved the deadline by five years and made it legally binding. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/26/dutch-court-rules-oil-giant-...

Incorrect. It comes from an IPCC report: "In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range)." Excerpt from paragraph 2.3.5.2 of the court sentence: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:...

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

#65

Post by chriswarbo » Wed, May 26, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

FridayoLeary wrote: post #25

toomuchtodo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it. Humans are selfish and greedy. But we’ve also exceeded our carbon budget as a species, so here we are. The state could always nationalize Shell and dismantle its production capacity. This outcome seems pretty tame compared to what could’ve (and still might be) mandated. We have the technology to rapidly decarbonize, how fast we move is a choice. The longer we wait, the more severe the consequences awaiting…

>But we’ve also exceeded our carbon budget as a species So what do you suggest. From yesterday, every truck, ship factory etc should stop working because our carbon limit has been exceeded. I mean, if you think orders such as these are the way forward, that is very going to happen. Haling global fossil production= halving global energy consumption= half of all industry shutting down. I think my sums are right.

> if you think orders such as these are the way forward, that is very literally going to happen.

No, that's hyperbole. Rulings like this will cause damage, disruption, harm, etc. but nowhere near the amount of damage, disruption, harm, etc. as a 'business as usual'. The former is a short-term blow to the economy, which will rebound by transitioning to renewables (and perhaps even be stronger). The latter is less immediate, but will flood coastal cities, cause droughts and famines, and lead to mass migration, civil unrest and international conflict. We've arguably seen this already, with historic droughts in Syria contributing to its civil war, the resulting migrants causing a political crisis in Europe, culminating in the UK leaving the EU.

The short-term pain of having to wean ourselves off fossil fuels is far better than the alternative (at least, for those who plan to live another few decades and/or care about others). Still, it does not have to happen overnight.

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

#66

Post by zackees » Wed, May 26, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

trueluk wrote: post #61

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?

Don't be daft. His comparison to wood is legitimate as trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to reducing the burning of fossil fuels. > Burning fossil fuels is bad. Why is it bad? Becuase the temperature will go up a couple degrees. Who cares! We're engineers and we build solutions to adapt to an ever-changing world. We don't make progress by stifling prod…

To add to this... the government killed the alternative which was nuclear. If the government were serious about ending CO2 emissions they should start building a massive number of nuclear. Hitting Shell like this is a disaster of policy.

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

#67

Post by ppf » Wed, May 26, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

> Coal, oil and gas need to stay in the ground. People around the world are demanding climate justice

I look forward to seeing an EV battery manufactured entirely using renewable energy, instead of the current situation where developing countries burn huge amounts of brown coal to power their manufacture.

In my opinion, this is just mandated destruction of Western industry, and completely meaningless until we demand that all of the energy-intensive products we import from developing countries are also not made using fossil fuels.

Edit: Strange response. Where am I incorrect?

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

#68

Post by FridayoLeary » Wed, May 26, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

trueluk wrote: post #61

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?

Don't be daft. His comparison to wood is legitimate as trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to reducing the burning of fossil fuels. > Burning fossil fuels is bad. Why is it bad? Becuase the temperature will go up a couple degrees. Who cares! We're engineers and we build solutions to adapt to an ever-changing world. We don't make progress by stifling prod…

>His comparison to wood is legitimate as trees are a natural resource and their conservation has a similar effect on climate change compared to reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

Thanks for that! I do try and pick my comparisons and words carefully. I sometimes fail miserably but i'm glad you picked up on it.

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

#69

Post by dr_dshiv » Wed, May 26, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

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…

Isn't it just a new way to tax them? They have to figure out new lines of business that eliminate CO2—or just push billions into carbon offsets?

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

#70

Post by barelysapient » Wed, May 26, 2021, 2:59 PM UTC

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 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. Not one-off court victories in small municipalities with liberal trade policies.