14 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhere 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 agoI guess that's the plan of the plaintiff.
- ForHackernews 5y agoGood! 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.
- mc32 5y agoIf you want the drugs market to dry up you wean the users off drugs rather than combat the source of drugs because as we have learned from the Mexican drug cartels, when one goes down another one will emerge to fill the demand. In this case, you need viable alternatives.
- ForHackernews 5y agoAgain, good! We want more sources of energy to emerge to replace fossil fuels. If burning carbon becomes more expensive, then hydrogen, nuclear, wind, solar, etc. become more competitive.
- Loughla 5y agoI think you missed the point. When one cartel dies, there isn't immediately a beneficial alternative. Much like in this case - if Shell leaves, there is nothing that automatically means the new actor who fills that role will offer hydrogen, solar, etc. Least friction means the new actor will just be another petroleum company. Viable alternatives need to be in place and/or ready to immediately deploy, I think was OP's point.
- qqqwerty 5y agoDue to their size and reach, the oil giants have massive political clout. A major reason we do not have carbon taxes yet is because of their ability to lobby (bribe) politicians across the globe. These lawsuits matter because they hinder the companies ability to wield influence. Every dollar they spend on lawsuits and settlements is one less dollar they can spend on lobbyists, climate denial "research", etc... Additionally, these lawsuits raise the cost of being in the oil business compared to renewables. So the "new actor" is much more likely to be a renewable company, simply due to the fact that investors do not like regulatory uncertainty. It is worth mentioning that the oil industry is now in support of a carbon tax. On paper, this sounds good. But what really is going on is that they realize that the writing is on the wall and that after decades of opposing a carbon tax, their best chance of survival moving forward is to try to move the conversation away from regulations and towards "free market solutions". But this is cynical for a few reasons, the primary one being that it is much easier to convince a future Republican administration to retroactively lower the carbon tax (under the guise of "job creation" or some other nonsense) than it would be to repeal strict environmental regulations. And the other primary reason is that a carbon tax essentially "kicks the can down the road", i.e. it doesn't actually solve climate change or prevent the fossil fuel industry from continuing to do business as usual. It just makes the price of fossil fuel based products a little higher. Where as a regulatory approach would likely significantly hinder the companies ability to operate and likely significantly reduce the size and scope of the fossil fuel market This is important, because in the next few years we are likely going to see the oil companies try to get a "seat at the negotiating table" so to speak. So these lawsuits are important because it puts these companies on the defensive, and potentially cuts them off at the knees, hindering their ability to water down future climate change legislation.
- tiahura 5y agoShould companies like Shell be compensated by the positive externalities of fossil fuel production?
- acdha 5y agoYes. It's called sales revenue, which they've obtained in enormous amounts for decades as one of the largest companies in the world.
- GordonS 5y agoThey already are - they don't give fuel away for free.
- jbay808 5y agoWhich of those aren't already internalized?
- spaetzleesser 5y agoThat's called profits and they are getting plenty of that.
- berkes 5y agoShell was held liable because it is the largest emitter in the Netherlands. Their defence "but if we don't deliver the fossil fuels other companies will", which was not taken over by the court. The Judge (paraphrased) said "Those other companies will also have to reduce their carbon emissions".
- solarkraft 5y agoIf you ever find yourself making this argument, ask yourself very hard whether you are the bad guy.
- dbingham 5y agoJust for clarity's sake, the argument you're referring to is the "If we don't do it, others will" argument that Shell made, right?
- solarkraft 5y agoYep.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- brobdingnagians 5y agoAnd if the government can reach as far into your life as putting limits and fining you for carbon emissions, is there anything in your private life they can't touch? Perhaps some people agree with the tool now, but wait until you see how they use it later. Eventually, you will get someone with the power who will use it for something you disagree with, in a big way.
- solarkraft 5y agoRight, what’s next? A ban on drunk driving? No more littering? Forbidding domestic abuse?
- dbingham 5y agoConversely, if we have no way for the majority to hold a minority accountable for catastrophic harm done to the majority where does that leave us?
- chefkoch 5y ago> And if the government can reach as far into your life as putting limits and fining you for carbon emissions, is there anything in your private life they can't touch I know corporations are people in the US but since when do they have a private live? And i guess it's already illegal to harm others by polluting the environment in most juristictions.
- Isinlor 5y agoThere are other legal protections and courts are there to weight them. If a company knowingly cause harm to third parties they must be sanctioned. Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.
- jbay808 5y agoSeems fair; your carbon emissions somehow manage to reach their way into my life!
- kaba0 5y agoIt’s as if we are living in a society and one’s actions influence others?
- webnrrd2k 5y agoYes, other companies should be held liable as well... I think that the situation is analogous to sueing asbestos manufacturers or cigarette companies. Was it ok, from a legal or societal perspective, for these manufacturers to mount a disinformation program, in favor of their products, while knowingly causing direct harm to their customers? How does the fact that other companies will (potentially) step in and do the same thing change the situation?
- FridayoLeary 5y agoWhy are they sticking it on Shell? Blame drivers. And anyway, even if Shell did hamper the global phasing out of fossils in the past we still need their oil. It's unfair to the public. And also, "knowingly hampering the global phase-out of fossil fuels" sounds like it deserves a fine, not a demand that to my ears at least sounds unreasonable. One more point, if renewables are actually viable then fossils should anyway be dying a natural death. Governments should be working harder. Fine Shell and let it die slowly i say.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> And anyway, even if Shell did hamper the global phasing out of fossils in the past we still need their oil. This is like a trauma surgeon stabbing me and going "aren't you lucky I'm a surgeon?"
- FridayoLeary 5y agoMaybe, but if no one else was around, you would be in no position to refuse his help.
- vineyardmike 5y agoThey’re sticking it to shell because they’re trying to reduce carbon emissions as a nation and shell accounts for 90% of total carbon emissions (according to another comment here). So if they want to make an impact nationally, it basically has to be against shell.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y agoWhy not go after them for the damage caused by their sale of plastic pellets as well. Through the idea of "recycling" they created, they knowingly hampered the public's discovery of the truth about plastics.
- nomoreplease 5y agoIronically, Shell is often mentioned in business studies and books as having a famous 'Futures group' that tries to predict what the future might be so they can base their strategy on it. Looks like they screwed up either the prediction or what to do about climate change. Looks like they are now called the scenarios group: https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/scenarios/meet-the-shell-scenarios-team.html https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-futur... Also ironically, one of the members of that group joined Shell in 1980 and is "a board member of the International Emissions Trading Association and was its Chairman from 2011-13. He is a board member of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions in Washington, USA, and the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute in Melbourne, Australia."
- dehrmann 5y agoThis is a weird legal angle. Some amount of hampering competing products is to be expected, this is just different because it's oil. Governments need to either pass laws that make it clear how they're favoring renewables and not oil or stop caring about oil altogether. Courts ruling on production of oil violating rights to family and life is just too vague of an interpretation.
- Jap2-0 5y agoFor those who were curious: Article 6:162 Definition of a ‘tortious act’ - 1. A person who commits a tortious act (unlawful act) against another person that can be attributed to him, must repair the damage that this other person has suffered as a result thereof. - 2. As a tortious act is regarded a violation of someone else’s right (entitlement) and an act or omission in violation of a duty imposed by law or of what according to unwritten law has to be regarded as proper social conduct, always as far as there was no justification for this behaviour. - 3. A tortious act can be attributed to the tortfeasor [the person committing the tortious act] if it results from his fault or from a cause for which he is accountable by virtue of law or generally accepted principles (common opinion). [0] http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/civilcodebook066.htm http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/civilcodebook066.htm