35 ms·

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

249 points by chefkoch 5y ago

serjester 5y ago
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 design.
- aqme28 5y ago
  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?
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    Alcohol prohibition didn't work out very well.
    - xapata 5y ago
      There's a difference between prohibition and regulation or taxing. Taxing and regulating alcohol seems to be working quite well.
      - karaterobot 5y ago
        Working quite well for what purpose?
        xapata 5y ago
        Taxes appear to have a proportional effect on consumption in several categories (alcohol, tobacco, etc.), so they're a good policy tool. Much better than trying to prohibit.
    - aqme28 5y ago
      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.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >It depends on the product and people's needs for it. And what the available alternatives are. Paints (other than interior house paints and other stuff that was already bottom of the barrel) were pretty crappy (or insanely expensive) for 20yr after they banned lead. It had its costs but paint isn't thaaaaat big of a deal to the world so it was fine.
  - karaterobot 5y ago
    The argument is that junk food providers and social media companies should not be held responsible for misuse of their products. The question is whether there is a "safe dosage" of junk food or social media, and whether if people go beyond that dosage they do it at their own risk. If the serving size is one cookie, and I eat 25 cookies, should the baker be held accountable?
    - LeanderK 5y ago
      Well, I think it's important whether the company encourages unsafe behaviour. If you only have gigantic menus with no incentive to take the small soda, or if social media is engineered to be as addictive way beyond the healthy amount, then I think the companies take some of the blame. I think this analogy holds for shell.
    - kaba0 5y ago
      First of all, it should be regulated one level above, like not having Big Sugar/Corn syrup put into every single edible thing, to a point where the population is literally addicted and feels food without it bland. That is a crime against a whole nation. Second of all, yeah, cheaper product at the expense of the consumer’s health is not an okay step. But yet again it is supposed to be the government’s job to blacklist some ingredients, mandate proper labeling of them, as well as the amount of energy/minerals contained.
- re-actor 5y ago
  A slippery slope into what? Accountability? If you're doing harm to others, profit is no excuse.
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  > 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?
- Isinlor 5y ago
  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.
gruez 5y ago
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?
- chefkoch 5y ago
  From an older article >A court in The Hague will hear claims that Royal Dutch Shell has broken Dutch law by knowingly hampering the global phase-out of fossil fuels, in a case that could force the company to reduce its CO2 emissions. Lawyers for a consortium led by Friends of the Earth Netherlands will argue on the first of four days of public hearings on Tuesday that Shell has been aware for decades of the damage it has inflicted and is acting unlawfully by expanding its fossil fuel operations. It is claimed the Anglo-Dutch company is breaching article 6:162 of the Dutch civil code and violating articles 2 and 8 of the European convention on human rights – the right to life and the right to family life – by causing a danger to others when alternative measures could be be taken. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/30/shell-in-court-over-claims-it-hampered-fossil-fuels-phase-out https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/30/shell-in-co...
  - gruez 5y ago
    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?
    - chefkoch 5y ago
      I guess that's the plan of the plaintiff.
    - ForHackernews 5y ago
      Good! CO2 emissions have massive externalities and the more we force companies to bear those costs (be it via court judgements, carbon taxes, or a CO2 credits market) the more they will adjust their behaviour.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
> However, for the Dutch-British company, the ruling is only legally binding in the Netherlands. I guess Shell will be a British company soon.
- chefkoch 5y ago
  Moving from the EU to GB seems like a brilliant idea these days.
  - LightG 5y ago
    Yes, GB, the dumping ground for "regulatory-challenged" companies and individuals everywhere. Brimming with pride, mate.
- clydethefrog 5y ago
  Shell has rooted itself deep into Dutch politics and society. It's called Royal Dutch Shell not just to sound fancy.
  - huubuub 5y ago
    It's called Royal Dutch Shell since it sprung from a merger between a dutch and a britsh company (Royal Dutch Oil and Shell). It's meant to reflect the names of the former companies more than indicate some deep ties with the Netherlands. Not too long ago they changed the dual Dutch/British legal structure that was in place before and become a company fully under british law.
    - aww_dang 5y ago
      As I understand, the Dutch royals own a major stake in Shell.
      - cr1895 5y ago
        That isn’t however the reason it is designated a Royal company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koninklijk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koninklijk
adamsvystun 5y ago
Interested to know how they arrived at the 45% number? Does anybody know?
- adamsvystun 5y ago
  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-shell-must-cut-carbon-emissions-by-45percent-by-2030-in-landmark-case.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/26/dutch-court-rules-oil-giant-...
  - MrGLaDOS 5y ago
    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:RBDHA:2021:5339 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:...
FridayoLeary 5y ago
>"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 will most probably affect not Shell, but drivers at the petrol stations. Also, it sounds unreasonable to tell a company whose principal product produces CO2 to stop making it. Especially when it's extremely necessary. But wait! The litigant actually says this! >but the company will not be able to continue pumping as much oil and gas as they do now. Imagine this. You need some wooden shelves, 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. I'm not sure people would accept that. I'm very, very cynical about this ruling.
- SCHiM 5y ago
  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?
  - berkes 5y ago
    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 year we'll have plastic and metal ones too".
    - FridayoLeary 5y ago
      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.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Now this is something that could have an actual impact on carbon emissions. The sooner these fossil fuel companies get fined or taxed the better.
- cbmuser 5y ago
  Shell could just shutdown for a week and I bet that court will revoke their decision in no time. Seriously, such verdicts are completely pointless and achieve absolutely nothing. The court can’t blame Shell for decisions that are made by politicians, especially in the energy sector. If an industrial country wants to reduce emissions, it must build nuclear power plants unless it has the potential for large hydro or geothermal installations per capita. For reference, compare the emissions of France and Germany and you realize the highest potential for decarbonization lies in the energy sector and nuclear is extremely efficient in achieving that - while renewables are not: > https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?time=latest&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t... > https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?time=latest&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t...
  - irdc 5y ago
    Shell could certainly shut down to force their will upon the Dutch people...for about 10 minutes or so; after that, the entire board will be behind bars and the company nationalised. Don’t be silly. Energy is a national interest. Secondly, one of the reasons for this verdict (see 2.5.9 and 4.4.20 in the judgement) is that Shell has known about the dangers of excessive CO₂ emissions since the 1980s. If this wasn’t about CO₂ but H₂S (a foul smelling and poisonous gas) they’d have to have stopped already.
- neaanopri 5y ago
  Fossil fuel companies aren't greedy monopoly men burning oil for no reason. Oil companies sell oil to consumers. Imagine if US gas prices went up overnight to $10/gallon. There would be riots. Jan 6th would look like a warm-up. But does anybody realistically think that they can carbon-capture 1 gallon of gas's worth of carbon emissions for $7? How much would it realistically cost? It's willful ignorance to think that we can continue to use the same amount of energy while waiting for technology to improve and become greener. We have the choice between immediate, painful cuts to energy usage ($20/gal gas), or doing irreparable harm to our planet. We are choosing the latter.
nomercy400 5y ago
What does it mean to 'cut' emissions by 45%? Is that relative (e.g. to total production)? Is it an absolute number (e.g. N tons CO2)? Does this take company growth into account? What if Shell split off their CO2 production business in another company (e.g. Shell RED), does the original company now have 100% less CO2 production (e.g. Shell GREEN)?
- MrGLaDOS 5y ago
  "The assessment culminates in the conclusion that RDS is obliged to reduce the CO2 emissions of the Shell group’s activities by net 45% at end 2030 relative to 2019 through the Shell group’s corporate policy. This reduction obligation relates to the Shell group’s entire energy portfolio and to the aggregate volume of all emissions (Scope 1 through to 3). It is up to RDS to design the reduction obligation, taking account of its current obligations and other relevant circumstances. The reduction obligation is an obligation of result for the activities of the Shell group, with respect to which RDS may be expected to ensure that the CO2 emissions of the Shell group are reduced to this level. This is a significant best-efforts obligation with respect to the business relations of the Shell group, including the end-users, in which context RDS may be expected to take the necessary steps to remove or prevent the serious risks ensuing from the CO2 emissions generated by the business relations, and to use its influence to limit any lasting consequences as much as possible." Excerpt from the court sentence: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:...
  - Aperocky 5y ago
    That sounds like Shell can use more teslas. while selling the same amount of fuel if not more. Hey at least we are not releasing the CO2 emission.
dannykwells 5y ago
"Ruling will only hold in the Netherlands". I can see Shell just exiting the Netherlands rather than lowering emissions by 45% globally. Another weak, symbolic ruling from a European court.
- epistasis 5y ago
  This is good! What else is a court supposed to do? If She'll exits the Netherlands than all the better for the Netherlands.
  - kolbe 5y ago
    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.
    - Isinlor 5y ago
      Hopefully we can force similar rulings in other countries and on the EU level. This ruling may be a precedent since it is partially based on the European law. The same could be attempted across the whole world where judicial branch holds actual power. https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/global-climate-litigation/ https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/global-climate... https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org/ https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org/ http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation/ http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation...
      - kolbe 5y ago
        There's a line in The Wire where an honest hard working security guard asks Marlo to not disrespect him by stealing in front of him. Marlo says, "you want it to be one way, but it's the other way," then Marlo kills him. You can downvote me all you want. You can "hope" to do whatever in your crusade. You can tell me all about what "could" happen if the world weren't the way is. But it's not that way. It's the other way.
jsiepkes 5y ago
> 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".
MrGLaDOS 5y ago
Here is a link to the actual full court sentence (English version): https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:... (As the news article does not include it.)
zackees 5y ago
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.
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  > 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.
  - ppf 5y ago
    >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.
    - chriswarbo 5y ago
      Oops, sorry I forgot that there's no such thing as life-cycle assessment, amortised cost analysis, payback periods or any of the similar analyses performed every day by engineers, purchasers, operators, accountants, companies and governments. I guess they haven't been invented yet. Sounds like you've found a gap in the market; why not pitch it to YC?
      - ppf 5y ago
        Oddly enough, I don't see a "carbon-neutral" lifecycle assesment done for all the solar panels on the market. Or on an EV, discounting the ridiculous "carbon exchange" system.
ppf 5y ago
> 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?
- adventured 5y ago
  It's absolutely meaningless. It's a sick joke. China recently overtook the entire developed world combined in greenhouse gas emissions [1] and their output is still set to keep climbing for decades yet. Very soon they'll be at three times the emissions of the US. And meanwhile they're building new coal power plants as fast as they can put them up. None of this Shell type stuff matters. Not one bit. It's fake, laughable green theater until you stop the extreme and growing emissions output coming from China (which isn't going to happen under any circumstances and everyone knows it). It's a bunch of childish rich people in the developed world virtue signaling while the planet burns down regardless because their actions don't amount to mattering what-so-ever back in reality. Let's see the EU stand up to China and start shutting down their trade with China until they reverse on emissions; right, nobody, absolutely nobody, dares to even discuss such actions. Which is another way of saying they have no intention of actually ever doing anything about climate change. And that fact of reality is the one the green virtue signaling crowd is too cowardly to ever face up to. They run away or try to shout you down if you point out the reality of the situation: you can now take emissions to zero in the developed world and it won't matter at all unless you stop China's runaway output. And that's before Africa adds another billion people in the coming decades and seeks a similar pattern of development (again, the green theater is all a bullshit fraud unless the plan is to stop all of this development across the board immediately, otherwise none of it matters). [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837
  - ppf 5y ago
adventured 5y ago
I'll be curious to see when nations like Norway or Canada, which are hyper polluters per capita when you include their fossil fuel production and trade, will be forced to cut their lucrative oil industries in half or worse.
- creaghpatr 5y ago
  Forced by whom, the Netherlands?
  - adventured 5y ago
    I agree with the sentiment. That's always the environmental challenge. Who's going to enforce/stop/change any of it? The most likely answer, rooted in reason, logic and an understanding of human nature, is: absolutely nobody is going to stop any of it in a way that is going to matter. We've far since crossed the point of no return. You can take all emissions to zero in the developed world and it won't matter at all now, it won't stop anything. It's game over. If the climate change experts are correct about how it all works, then the house is going to burn down and nothing can or will stop it, realistically. And that's a super simple - hilariously easy - extrapolation just based on one nation's hyper expanding greenhouse gas emissions alone. It won't stop the virtue signalers however; virtue signaling is all they really have. When the plan is to not actually do anything about what's happening, then the comfort remaining is to virtue signal while you watch it all burn, because it makes one feel better.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      You believe the house will burn down, but virtue signallers are the problem?
- Isinlor 5y ago
  From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Netherlands_v._Urgenda_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Netherlands_v._Ur... > The case, while not the first climate change litigation,[16] the original 2015 ruling against the Netherlands was heralded worldwide as the first successful tort action against a government to address climate change to protect human rights, an area otherwise known as climate justice.[7] The ruling on the Netherlands case led to similar climate justice lawsuits in other countries, including Belgium, France, Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, Britain, Switzerland and Norway. [11] Hopefully there are ongoing litigations that will hold Norway liable as well. https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/global-climate-litigation/ https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/global-climate... https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org/ https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org/ http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation/ http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation...
xapata 5y ago
Let's be hopeful for once, folks. Maybe too little, too late, but what else is there to do but try.
ffggvv 5y ago
they should just move out of netherlands
Permit 5y ago
How much will this affect average oil/gas consumers in the EU? Weren't the Yellow Vest Protests[1] started in response to increased fuel prices (in that case, in the form of a tax). Presumably this will increase prices? Or will we only see a decline in Shell's emissions, but an increase in those of every other oil/gas producer? Is there an alternative outcome? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement
mrfusion 5y ago
How come their stock isn’t way down? I’d expect a 50% drop.
- clydethefrog 5y ago
  At the latest shareholders meeting around 30 % was in favour for a shift to more sustainable business.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  Maybe people don't expect the ruling to stand. Shell is 11% of the AEX stock index. If they were forced to halve their operations just because of a change in the courts interpretation it would create a significant lack of confidence in the business legal environment. The Dutch government is more business friendly than that.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  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.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    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 https://www.cbd.int/financial/doc/carbon-bubble.pdf
tito 5y ago
Sounds like this could push Shell to fund a beachhead market to get carbon removal companies started up. Note: folks seriously interested in carbon removal or starting a carbon removal company should check out http://airminers.org http://airminers.org
- robert_foss 5y ago
  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.
  - adamsvystun 5y ago
    Just because it is not fiscally viable currently, does not mean that it cannot be in the future.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      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
    - freshpots 5y ago
      It will always be more expensive to remove a trace gas, economically and on an energy basis, than emitting it in the first place. We would need MORE renewables to remove the CO2 from the air. It is just ridiculous to spend more energy than what was generated from burning fuel to remove its CO2 from the air.
      - tito 5y ago
        100%. A common misconception with carbon removal is that it's somehow an alternative for reducing emissions. It's not. The planet needs to go carbon neutral full stop. We need tons of work to be done there. And....even when we do, there's still way too much carbon dioxide already on the air. That's where carbon removal comes in.
whatever1 5y ago
Great news for OPEC, Russian & Chinese oil producers! Now they will be for sure the lowest cost to serve suppliers!
- adamsvystun 5y ago
  From HN guidelines [0]: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. You could have said: "Punishing supply would not do much without decreasing demand, it will just redistribute the profits. Moreover, the profits might go to less morally sound places." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - whatever1 5y ago
    I stated facts. 1) Supply tends to meet demand at the cost of the marginal supplier. 2) If the West is not willing to, the rest of the folks will be happy to do so. Btw more than 50% of the global liquids demand is for diesel, jet fuel and bunker fuel for ships. At the time of writing we do not have any viable alternatives for these, and we do not expect to have them ready and scaled up in the next 8 years.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      The first nuclear powered container ship was built in 1959, and we could have had zero emissions ships all this time. We can replace all jet fuel with biofuel, all diesel with electric or hydrogen.
      - whatever1 5y ago
        So to be clear, the viable path you refer to includes complete elimination of gasoline usage globally, 100% conversion to biojet fuel and biodiesel from jet and diesel respectively, and ~ 50% of the world vessel fleet to be converted to nuclear. In 8 years.
1cvmask 5y ago
The article states that this is only legally binding in the Netherlands. Shell can easily cut their CO2 emissions in the Netherlands by 45% till 2030 as per the ruling. Worse case they will shut down their operations.
poundofshrimp 5y ago
This doesn’t seem fair. Sure, Shell is the largest emitter, but what about other emitters? We need a carbon tax that would distribute the responsibility evenly.
- bigbillheck 5y ago
  Who said anything about stopping with Shell?
- Isinlor 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_trading_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_tradin...
mhandley 5y ago
So now Shell will presumably move their headquarters out of the Netherlands. Their global emissions will then no longer count as Dutch and as a result they'll comply with the judgement for reducing Dutch emissions.
- jakub_g 5y ago
  Netherlands is actually one of the most attractive countries to have HQ in, due to low tax rates. Sure, if they look around they could find something similar but the bad publicity from this would be really huge IMO.
  - mhandley 5y ago
    The bad publicity will probably be mostly confined to the Netherlands. So presumably they'll figure out the expected costs of that, vs the cost to their global business model of 45% reduction in production. Pretty sure which way that maths will work out. If they've got any sense, they'll also start to ramp up their investments in renewables, as I'm sure they can see the writing is on the wall for their current business model. But I doubt they'll be willing or able to change fast enough for 2030.
RandomLensman 5y ago
Why is climate change the only global risk that gets that kind of treatment? We have no asteroid defense, for example. And that is without a doubt an end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it risk. How do we tackle super volcanoes? How are we planning for climates more similar to other geological periods, where it was much warmer or colder without human intervention? Is it even clear that climate change is the biggest risk to address now? Why don't we have similar movements to mitigate other large risk?
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  > 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 those satellites and getting them into orbit hasn't 'depleted our allocated space launches'; it's made us better at getting to space; which makes us more prepared for sending asteroid intercept/divert missions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    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 scenario, to be honest
    - chriswarbo 5y ago
      > 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.
grumblenum 5y ago
More market share for Aramco and Rosneft.

249 points by chefkoch 5y ago

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 design.

aqme28 5y ago
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?
- aww_dang 5y ago
  Alcohol prohibition didn't work out very well.
  - xapata 5y ago
    There's a difference between prohibition and regulation or taxing. Taxing and regulating alcohol seems to be working quite well.
    - karaterobot 5y ago
      Working quite well for what purpose?
      - xapata 5y ago
        Taxes appear to have a proportional effect on consumption in several categories (alcohol, tobacco, etc.), so they're a good policy tool. Much better than trying to prohibit.
  - aqme28 5y ago
    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.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      >It depends on the product and people's needs for it. And what the available alternatives are. Paints (other than interior house paints and other stuff that was already bottom of the barrel) were pretty crappy (or insanely expensive) for 20yr after they banned lead. It had its costs but paint isn't thaaaaat big of a deal to the world so it was fine.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  The argument is that junk food providers and social media companies should not be held responsible for misuse of their products. The question is whether there is a "safe dosage" of junk food or social media, and whether if people go beyond that dosage they do it at their own risk. If the serving size is one cookie, and I eat 25 cookies, should the baker be held accountable?
  - LeanderK 5y ago
    Well, I think it's important whether the company encourages unsafe behaviour. If you only have gigantic menus with no incentive to take the small soda, or if social media is engineered to be as addictive way beyond the healthy amount, then I think the companies take some of the blame. I think this analogy holds for shell.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    First of all, it should be regulated one level above, like not having Big Sugar/Corn syrup put into every single edible thing, to a point where the population is literally addicted and feels food without it bland. That is a crime against a whole nation. Second of all, yeah, cheaper product at the expense of the consumer’s health is not an okay step. But yet again it is supposed to be the government’s job to blacklist some ingredients, mandate proper labeling of them, as well as the amount of energy/minerals contained.
re-actor 5y ago
A slippery slope into what? Accountability? If you're doing harm to others, profit is no excuse.
chriswarbo 5y ago
> 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?
Isinlor 5y ago
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.

gruez 5y ago

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?

chefkoch 5y ago
From an older article >A court in The Hague will hear claims that Royal Dutch Shell has broken Dutch law by knowingly hampering the global phase-out of fossil fuels, in a case that could force the company to reduce its CO2 emissions. Lawyers for a consortium led by Friends of the Earth Netherlands will argue on the first of four days of public hearings on Tuesday that Shell has been aware for decades of the damage it has inflicted and is acting unlawfully by expanding its fossil fuel operations. It is claimed the Anglo-Dutch company is breaching article 6:162 of the Dutch civil code and violating articles 2 and 8 of the European convention on human rights – the right to life and the right to family life – by causing a danger to others when alternative measures could be be taken. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/30/shell-in-court-over-claims-it-hampered-fossil-fuels-phase-out https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/30/shell-in-co...
- gruez 5y ago
  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?
  - chefkoch 5y ago
    I guess that's the plan of the plaintiff.
  - ForHackernews 5y ago
    Good! CO2 emissions have massive externalities and the more we force companies to bear those costs (be it via court judgements, carbon taxes, or a CO2 credits market) the more they will adjust their behaviour.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

> However, for the Dutch-British company, the ruling is only legally binding in the Netherlands. I guess Shell will be a British company soon.

chefkoch 5y ago
Moving from the EU to GB seems like a brilliant idea these days.
- LightG 5y ago
  Yes, GB, the dumping ground for "regulatory-challenged" companies and individuals everywhere. Brimming with pride, mate.
clydethefrog 5y ago
Shell has rooted itself deep into Dutch politics and society. It's called Royal Dutch Shell not just to sound fancy.
- huubuub 5y ago
  It's called Royal Dutch Shell since it sprung from a merger between a dutch and a britsh company (Royal Dutch Oil and Shell). It's meant to reflect the names of the former companies more than indicate some deep ties with the Netherlands. Not too long ago they changed the dual Dutch/British legal structure that was in place before and become a company fully under british law.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    As I understand, the Dutch royals own a major stake in Shell.
    - cr1895 5y ago
      That isn’t however the reason it is designated a Royal company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koninklijk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koninklijk

adamsvystun 5y ago

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

adamsvystun 5y ago
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-shell-must-cut-carbon-emissions-by-45percent-by-2030-in-landmark-case.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/26/dutch-court-rules-oil-giant-...
- MrGLaDOS 5y ago
  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:RBDHA:2021:5339 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:...

FridayoLeary 5y ago

>"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 will most probably affect not Shell, but drivers at the petrol stations. Also, it sounds unreasonable to tell a company whose principal product produces CO2 to stop making it. Especially when it's extremely necessary. But wait! The litigant actually says this! >but the company will not be able to continue pumping as much oil and gas as they do now. Imagine this. You need some wooden shelves, 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. I'm not sure people would accept that. I'm very, very cynical about this ruling.

SCHiM 5y ago
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?
- berkes 5y ago
  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 year we'll have plastic and metal ones too".
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    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.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Now this is something that could have an actual impact on carbon emissions. The sooner these fossil fuel companies get fined or taxed the better.

cbmuser 5y ago
Shell could just shutdown for a week and I bet that court will revoke their decision in no time. Seriously, such verdicts are completely pointless and achieve absolutely nothing. The court can’t blame Shell for decisions that are made by politicians, especially in the energy sector. If an industrial country wants to reduce emissions, it must build nuclear power plants unless it has the potential for large hydro or geothermal installations per capita. For reference, compare the emissions of France and Germany and you realize the highest potential for decarbonization lies in the energy sector and nuclear is extremely efficient in achieving that - while renewables are not: > https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?time=latest&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t... > https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?time=latest&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t...
- irdc 5y ago
  Shell could certainly shut down to force their will upon the Dutch people...for about 10 minutes or so; after that, the entire board will be behind bars and the company nationalised. Don’t be silly. Energy is a national interest. Secondly, one of the reasons for this verdict (see 2.5.9 and 4.4.20 in the judgement) is that Shell has known about the dangers of excessive CO₂ emissions since the 1980s. If this wasn’t about CO₂ but H₂S (a foul smelling and poisonous gas) they’d have to have stopped already.
neaanopri 5y ago
Fossil fuel companies aren't greedy monopoly men burning oil for no reason. Oil companies sell oil to consumers. Imagine if US gas prices went up overnight to $10/gallon. There would be riots. Jan 6th would look like a warm-up. But does anybody realistically think that they can carbon-capture 1 gallon of gas's worth of carbon emissions for $7? How much would it realistically cost? It's willful ignorance to think that we can continue to use the same amount of energy while waiting for technology to improve and become greener. We have the choice between immediate, painful cuts to energy usage ($20/gal gas), or doing irreparable harm to our planet. We are choosing the latter.

nomercy400 5y ago

What does it mean to 'cut' emissions by 45%? Is that relative (e.g. to total production)? Is it an absolute number (e.g. N tons CO2)? Does this take company growth into account? What if Shell split off their CO2 production business in another company (e.g. Shell RED), does the original company now have 100% less CO2 production (e.g. Shell GREEN)?

MrGLaDOS 5y ago
"The assessment culminates in the conclusion that RDS is obliged to reduce the CO2 emissions of the Shell group’s activities by net 45% at end 2030 relative to 2019 through the Shell group’s corporate policy. This reduction obligation relates to the Shell group’s entire energy portfolio and to the aggregate volume of all emissions (Scope 1 through to 3). It is up to RDS to design the reduction obligation, taking account of its current obligations and other relevant circumstances. The reduction obligation is an obligation of result for the activities of the Shell group, with respect to which RDS may be expected to ensure that the CO2 emissions of the Shell group are reduced to this level. This is a significant best-efforts obligation with respect to the business relations of the Shell group, including the end-users, in which context RDS may be expected to take the necessary steps to remove or prevent the serious risks ensuing from the CO2 emissions generated by the business relations, and to use its influence to limit any lasting consequences as much as possible." Excerpt from the court sentence: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:...
- Aperocky 5y ago
  That sounds like Shell can use more teslas. while selling the same amount of fuel if not more. Hey at least we are not releasing the CO2 emission.

dannykwells 5y ago

"Ruling will only hold in the Netherlands". I can see Shell just exiting the Netherlands rather than lowering emissions by 45% globally. Another weak, symbolic ruling from a European court.

epistasis 5y ago
This is good! What else is a court supposed to do? If She'll exits the Netherlands than all the better for the Netherlands.
- kolbe 5y ago
  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.
  - Isinlor 5y ago
    Hopefully we can force similar rulings in other countries and on the EU level. This ruling may be a precedent since it is partially based on the European law. The same could be attempted across the whole world where judicial branch holds actual power. https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/global-climate-litigation/ https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/global-climate... https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org/ https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org/ http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation/ http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation...
    - kolbe 5y ago
      There's a line in The Wire where an honest hard working security guard asks Marlo to not disrespect him by stealing in front of him. Marlo says, "you want it to be one way, but it's the other way," then Marlo kills him. You can downvote me all you want. You can "hope" to do whatever in your crusade. You can tell me all about what "could" happen if the world weren't the way is. But it's not that way. It's the other way.

jsiepkes 5y ago

> 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".

MrGLaDOS 5y ago

Here is a link to the actual full court sentence (English version): https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:... (As the news article does not include it.)

zackees 5y ago

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.

chriswarbo 5y ago
> 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.
- ppf 5y ago
  >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.
  - chriswarbo 5y ago
    Oops, sorry I forgot that there's no such thing as life-cycle assessment, amortised cost analysis, payback periods or any of the similar analyses performed every day by engineers, purchasers, operators, accountants, companies and governments. I guess they haven't been invented yet. Sounds like you've found a gap in the market; why not pitch it to YC?
    - ppf 5y ago
      Oddly enough, I don't see a "carbon-neutral" lifecycle assesment done for all the solar panels on the market. Or on an EV, discounting the ridiculous "carbon exchange" system.

ppf 5y ago

> 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?

adventured 5y ago
It's absolutely meaningless. It's a sick joke. China recently overtook the entire developed world combined in greenhouse gas emissions [1] and their output is still set to keep climbing for decades yet. Very soon they'll be at three times the emissions of the US. And meanwhile they're building new coal power plants as fast as they can put them up. None of this Shell type stuff matters. Not one bit. It's fake, laughable green theater until you stop the extreme and growing emissions output coming from China (which isn't going to happen under any circumstances and everyone knows it). It's a bunch of childish rich people in the developed world virtue signaling while the planet burns down regardless because their actions don't amount to mattering what-so-ever back in reality. Let's see the EU stand up to China and start shutting down their trade with China until they reverse on emissions; right, nobody, absolutely nobody, dares to even discuss such actions. Which is another way of saying they have no intention of actually ever doing anything about climate change. And that fact of reality is the one the green virtue signaling crowd is too cowardly to ever face up to. They run away or try to shout you down if you point out the reality of the situation: you can now take emissions to zero in the developed world and it won't matter at all unless you stop China's runaway output. And that's before Africa adds another billion people in the coming decades and seeks a similar pattern of development (again, the green theater is all a bullshit fraud unless the plan is to stop all of this development across the board immediately, otherwise none of it matters). [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837
- ppf 5y ago

adventured 5y ago

I'll be curious to see when nations like Norway or Canada, which are hyper polluters per capita when you include their fossil fuel production and trade, will be forced to cut their lucrative oil industries in half or worse.

creaghpatr 5y ago
Forced by whom, the Netherlands?
- adventured 5y ago
  I agree with the sentiment. That's always the environmental challenge. Who's going to enforce/stop/change any of it? The most likely answer, rooted in reason, logic and an understanding of human nature, is: absolutely nobody is going to stop any of it in a way that is going to matter. We've far since crossed the point of no return. You can take all emissions to zero in the developed world and it won't matter at all now, it won't stop anything. It's game over. If the climate change experts are correct about how it all works, then the house is going to burn down and nothing can or will stop it, realistically. And that's a super simple - hilariously easy - extrapolation just based on one nation's hyper expanding greenhouse gas emissions alone. It won't stop the virtue signalers however; virtue signaling is all they really have. When the plan is to not actually do anything about what's happening, then the comfort remaining is to virtue signal while you watch it all burn, because it makes one feel better.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    You believe the house will burn down, but virtue signallers are the problem?
Isinlor 5y ago
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Netherlands_v._Urgenda_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Netherlands_v._Ur... > The case, while not the first climate change litigation,[16] the original 2015 ruling against the Netherlands was heralded worldwide as the first successful tort action against a government to address climate change to protect human rights, an area otherwise known as climate justice.[7] The ruling on the Netherlands case led to similar climate justice lawsuits in other countries, including Belgium, France, Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, Britain, Switzerland and Norway. [11] Hopefully there are ongoing litigations that will hold Norway liable as well. https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/global-climate-litigation/ https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/global-climate... https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org/ https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org/ http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation/ http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation...

xapata 5y ago

Let's be hopeful for once, folks. Maybe too little, too late, but what else is there to do but try.

ffggvv 5y ago

they should just move out of netherlands

Permit 5y ago

How much will this affect average oil/gas consumers in the EU? Weren't the Yellow Vest Protests[1] started in response to increased fuel prices (in that case, in the form of a tax). Presumably this will increase prices? Or will we only see a decline in Shell's emissions, but an increase in those of every other oil/gas producer? Is there an alternative outcome? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement

mrfusion 5y ago

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

clydethefrog 5y ago
At the latest shareholders meeting around 30 % was in favour for a shift to more sustainable business.
akvadrako 5y ago
Maybe people don't expect the ruling to stand. Shell is 11% of the AEX stock index. If they were forced to halve their operations just because of a change in the courts interpretation it would create a significant lack of confidence in the business legal environment. The Dutch government is more business friendly than that.
dredmorbius 5y ago
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.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  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 https://www.cbd.int/financial/doc/carbon-bubble.pdf

tito 5y ago

Sounds like this could push Shell to fund a beachhead market to get carbon removal companies started up. Note: folks seriously interested in carbon removal or starting a carbon removal company should check out http://airminers.org http://airminers.org

robert_foss 5y ago
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.
- adamsvystun 5y ago
  Just because it is not fiscally viable currently, does not mean that it cannot be in the future.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    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
  - freshpots 5y ago
    It will always be more expensive to remove a trace gas, economically and on an energy basis, than emitting it in the first place. We would need MORE renewables to remove the CO2 from the air. It is just ridiculous to spend more energy than what was generated from burning fuel to remove its CO2 from the air.
    - tito 5y ago
      100%. A common misconception with carbon removal is that it's somehow an alternative for reducing emissions. It's not. The planet needs to go carbon neutral full stop. We need tons of work to be done there. And....even when we do, there's still way too much carbon dioxide already on the air. That's where carbon removal comes in.

whatever1 5y ago

Great news for OPEC, Russian & Chinese oil producers! Now they will be for sure the lowest cost to serve suppliers!

adamsvystun 5y ago
From HN guidelines [0]: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. You could have said: "Punishing supply would not do much without decreasing demand, it will just redistribute the profits. Moreover, the profits might go to less morally sound places." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- whatever1 5y ago
  I stated facts. 1) Supply tends to meet demand at the cost of the marginal supplier. 2) If the West is not willing to, the rest of the folks will be happy to do so. Btw more than 50% of the global liquids demand is for diesel, jet fuel and bunker fuel for ships. At the time of writing we do not have any viable alternatives for these, and we do not expect to have them ready and scaled up in the next 8 years.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    The first nuclear powered container ship was built in 1959, and we could have had zero emissions ships all this time. We can replace all jet fuel with biofuel, all diesel with electric or hydrogen.
    - whatever1 5y ago
      So to be clear, the viable path you refer to includes complete elimination of gasoline usage globally, 100% conversion to biojet fuel and biodiesel from jet and diesel respectively, and ~ 50% of the world vessel fleet to be converted to nuclear. In 8 years.

1cvmask 5y ago

The article states that this is only legally binding in the Netherlands. Shell can easily cut their CO2 emissions in the Netherlands by 45% till 2030 as per the ruling. Worse case they will shut down their operations.

poundofshrimp 5y ago

This doesn’t seem fair. Sure, Shell is the largest emitter, but what about other emitters? We need a carbon tax that would distribute the responsibility evenly.

bigbillheck 5y ago
Who said anything about stopping with Shell?
Isinlor 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_trading_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_tradin...

mhandley 5y ago

So now Shell will presumably move their headquarters out of the Netherlands. Their global emissions will then no longer count as Dutch and as a result they'll comply with the judgement for reducing Dutch emissions.

jakub_g 5y ago
Netherlands is actually one of the most attractive countries to have HQ in, due to low tax rates. Sure, if they look around they could find something similar but the bad publicity from this would be really huge IMO.
- mhandley 5y ago
  The bad publicity will probably be mostly confined to the Netherlands. So presumably they'll figure out the expected costs of that, vs the cost to their global business model of 45% reduction in production. Pretty sure which way that maths will work out. If they've got any sense, they'll also start to ramp up their investments in renewables, as I'm sure they can see the writing is on the wall for their current business model. But I doubt they'll be willing or able to change fast enough for 2030.

RandomLensman 5y ago

Why is climate change the only global risk that gets that kind of treatment? We have no asteroid defense, for example. And that is without a doubt an end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it risk. How do we tackle super volcanoes? How are we planning for climates more similar to other geological periods, where it was much warmer or colder without human intervention? Is it even clear that climate change is the biggest risk to address now? Why don't we have similar movements to mitigate other large risk?

chriswarbo 5y ago
> 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 those satellites and getting them into orbit hasn't 'depleted our allocated space launches'; it's made us better at getting to space; which makes us more prepared for sending asteroid intercept/divert missions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  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 scenario, to be honest
  - chriswarbo 5y ago
    > 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.

grumblenum 5y ago

More market share for Aramco and Rosneft.