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

91–100 of 292 posts

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

#91

Post by aqme28 »

aww_dang wrote: post #80
aqme28 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Alcohol prohibition didn't work out very well.

But CFC prohibition did. It's not as simple as just "prohibition doesn't work." It depends on the product and people's needs for it.

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

#92

Post by jujkjkm »

chefkoch wrote: post #55
gruez wrote: post #45

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! 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]…

>I'd be pretty pissed off too if one day [item] were legal and the next day the courts declared them to be illegal They lied for decades about the dangers of climate change.

Scientists and governments lied about climate change as well. Go back and look up the many, many wrong predictions over the decades.

You have no argument.

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

#93

Post by chriswarbo »

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…

> Where do we draw the line

Good news, we don't have to! We just need to tax harmful things to cover the cost of their externalities, e.g. junk food should be taxed to pay for the burden it places on the healthcare system; the same goes for cigarettes; carbon emissions should be taxed to cover the cost of subsequent extraction; and so on.

> It’s hard to judge them for making money while operating within the laws we design.

Erm, what? You started by arguing against stricter laws (framed in a JAQing off manner); then blame weak laws for not preventing the damage. How does that make any sense?

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

#94

Post by berkes »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #44
berkes wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't think anyone can churn out, overnight an entire new line of products, while simultaneously scrapping their old line.

If you cannot adjust to clearly visible, external requirements or demands, you honestly don't deserve to be kept in business.

Everyone knows fossils are at a dead end. Shell has known this for over 60 years now; they acknowledge that themselves!

Requiring the change that apparently a corporate moloch is not able to make themselves is neither unreasonable nor overnight. As I point out elsewhere in this thread: competition manages fine to pivot to renewable fuels (diesel, ethanol, kerozine etc) and beyond that, in far less time, as can be seen in action with e.g. Neste Oyi

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

#95

Post by Isinlor »

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…

Should companies be liable for knowingly putting poison into food they sell? Yes, obviously.

> It’s hard to judge them for making money while operating within the laws we design.

The laws should include not knowingly causing harm to the people if there are alternatives available.

> This seems like a slippery slope.

Courts are there to weight the obligations put on companies and rights of individuals. As long as judicial system works, there is no slippery slope.

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

#96

Post by KptMarchewa »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #44
berkes wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They were poisoning planet for decades, so now we have to pay them to find other business.

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

#97

Post by aww_dang »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #68
trueluk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's an argument for storing carbon as finished wood products.

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

#98

Post by gruez »

aaronbeekay wrote: post #60
gruez wrote: post #45

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! 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]…

Firstly, I think there’s a pretty clear difference between enslavement, which is a practice that intentionally deprives human beings of their rights, often violently and often en masse, and beef, coffee, and chocolate, which are food products that are enjoyed by consumers around the world. Secondly, neither slavery nor the use of CO2-generating industrial processes were suddenly found to be objectionable overnight. B…

>Firstly, I think there’s a pretty clear difference between enslavement, which is a practice that intentionally deprives human beings of their rights, often violently and often en masse, and beef, coffee, and chocolate, which are food products that are enjoyed by consumers around the world.

But which one is fossil fuels closer to? I think it's clear that fossil fuels is closer to beef, coffee, and chocolate than slavery.

>Secondly, neither slavery nor the use of CO2-generating industrial processes were suddenly found to be objectionable overnight. Both have been the subject of intense attention across the globe and over decades. Nobody at Shell is surprised that carbon dioxide is a problem. They have made the choice to continue to invest in and defend their business model for many years.

Should beef, coffee, and chocolate producers also watch their back? They all have issues as well. eg. beef: cow farts, deforestation for pastures/soy production, negative health effects of red meat.

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

#99

Post by FridayoLeary »

chriswarbo wrote: post #65
FridayoLeary wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 imme…

>No, that's hyperbole

Agreed. I think I came across slightly hyperbolic. The use of the word literally was a poor choice and i edited it out. I would like to point that i did caveat my comment with an "if you follow that through" but maybe that wasn't enough. Though i still don't necessarily agree with the rest of your comment.

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

#100

Post by yholio »

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…

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

What the hell? Trees grow using CO2 from the air, and then release that same carbon back when the wood is burned or rots in a forest somewhere. Conserving trees does nothing for climate except for a very small amount of carbon sequestered by tropical forests in their soil.

Meanwhile, oil is 100% carbon that has not been in atmosphere since Jurasic times. If you like Jurasic climates, I guess that's perfectly fine.

Post reply on HN