6 ms·

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

missedthecue 5y ago
Everyone in the netherlands has.
epistasis 5y ago
Seems like a good thing to make illegal! It's really weird to me how CO2 emissions are casually justified, and so many people resist the idea that companies could be held legally liable for knowingly causing harm. For pretty much any other situation, a business based on those terms would be heavily chastised and scorned, but for some reason companies like Shell get a pass for 1) doing research to discover that they are doing harm, 2) lying about that research and what they know, 3) conducting public misinformation campaigns to deceive people, and 4) deceptively influencing government policy to allow their continued harm.
- sfvisser 5y ago
  It’s not that weird if you consider that despite the negative externalities all the CO2 producing processes delivered huge upsides to literally everybody. It’s not just Shell to blame, it’s all of us. We did this, we had good reasons to do so and now we should probably dial back.
  - yohannparis 5y ago
    The difference is that Shell, and other petroleum companies, knew the harm of CO2 for 50 years, consumers only half of that roughly. They could have start investing and do R&D on alternative and mitigation and help us move forward. But no, they just buried it under the rugs to get our money. That is deception, especially when they will not be the ones responsible for cleaning up the mess.
    - acdha 5y ago
      An especially key part was the way denialism cut against economy measures: the average vehicle sold in the United States today has mileage which is substantially worse than you saw in the 1980s because there's been a multi-decade push towards much heavier vehicles with sportier engines, special subsidies for trucks and SUVs, successful attempts to exempt various industries from stricter emissions controls, etc. Had CO2 emissions been taken seriously — and given that successful predictions of the problem go back over a century we had plenty of time to plan — we could have bought additional decades to work on alternatives by continuing improvements in efficiency. Procrastinating means that we'll see more disruptive changes and worse climate impacts.
    - flavius29663 5y ago
      we all know the dangers of plastics, they found micro-plastics in all living things, and huge concentrations in mothers' milk. Are we going to sue dupont in 2 decades as well?
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        I'd prefer it happened today
      - kevingadd 5y ago
        Why wait?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - epistasis 5y ago
        Yes, and also Michelin, if they don't clean up their behavior: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/14/car-tyres-are-major-source-of-ocean-microplastics-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/14/car-tyre... I don't see how this is controversial at all. If you provide something that causes damages and make a profit, why shouldn't you also be liable for the economic harms you incur in addition to the economic gains you enjoy? Nobody is forcing these companies to continue doing what they are doing, they do it voluntarily, for money.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "It’s not just Shell to blame, it’s all of us" I call bullshit. There are only two choices withing the control of an individual: 1 - get a green energy supplier, if one is avaliable and you can afford it 2 - stop eating meat That's it. Majority of emissions are from industry and transport, we get no choice in that matter and the only way I can reduce them individually is to live in a cave.
slibhb 5y ago
Is driving a car today "knowingly contributing to a preventable dangerous situation"?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kokanator 5y ago
  I am glad you asked this question because this is what is missing in these situations. Where does the individual bear responsibility in any of this? Instead the public tends to focus on the huge evil corporation who struggles to even keep up with our demand for the very product we are damning them for. There are 1.4 Billion cars on the road.[0] Somehow that is Shells fault? Really? I'm not saying Shell has not committed any sins but we will need to do something about the 1.4 Billion cars before anything changes. All of those cars need to be fed. Someone will feed them. [0] https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/how-many-cars-are-there-in-the-world-70629 https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/how-many-cars-are-th...
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Does individual bear responsebility for lack of public transport, the fact that electric cars didnt even exist not long ago, and for living in a house that was build emitting CO2 and opposed to living in a cave? But lets go with that argument - i am 100% responsible for my CO2. If I am choosing a washing machine, are they labelled with amount of CO2 emitted in production of each? If the company lies to me about this, does anyone go to jail? Are you aware that carbon credits market ia one big fraud, with "overestimates" averaging 50x?
    - kokanator 5y ago
      > Are you aware that carbon credits market ia one big fraud, with "overestimates" averaging 50x? Carbon credits were a scam from the beginning. ( The same guy promoting them pointed to the market he owned as the solution, Al Gore ) Don't get me wrong they have huge potential but are really a false market at the moment. More like protection money or wealth transfer. > If I am choosing a washing machine, are they labelled with amount of CO2 emitted in production of each? If the company lies to me about this, does anyone go to jail? I think arguments like this let the individual again place blame on the manufacturer and not that they are an uneducated consumer ( caveat emptor ). Of course if you purchase a washing machine you must understand it took carbon for the entire production of the machine starting with the excavator that pulled the iron out of the ground to the truck that delivered it. The one that takes 'less' carbon is easy, fix the old one, or don't buy one and go the the coin laundry. But blaming the manufacturer who is currently operating within the governing authorities guidelines is disingenuous.

Everyone in the netherlands has.

Seems like a good thing to make illegal! It's really weird to me how CO2 emissions are casually justified, and so many people resist the idea that companies could be held legally liable for knowingly causing harm. For pretty much any other situation, a business based on those terms would be heavily chastised and scorned, but for some reason companies like Shell get a pass for 1) doing research to discover that they are doing harm, 2) lying about that research and what they know, 3) conducting public misinformation campaigns to deceive people, and 4) deceptively influencing government policy to allow their continued harm.

sfvisser 5y ago
It’s not that weird if you consider that despite the negative externalities all the CO2 producing processes delivered huge upsides to literally everybody. It’s not just Shell to blame, it’s all of us. We did this, we had good reasons to do so and now we should probably dial back.
- yohannparis 5y ago
  The difference is that Shell, and other petroleum companies, knew the harm of CO2 for 50 years, consumers only half of that roughly. They could have start investing and do R&D on alternative and mitigation and help us move forward. But no, they just buried it under the rugs to get our money. That is deception, especially when they will not be the ones responsible for cleaning up the mess.
  - acdha 5y ago
    An especially key part was the way denialism cut against economy measures: the average vehicle sold in the United States today has mileage which is substantially worse than you saw in the 1980s because there's been a multi-decade push towards much heavier vehicles with sportier engines, special subsidies for trucks and SUVs, successful attempts to exempt various industries from stricter emissions controls, etc. Had CO2 emissions been taken seriously — and given that successful predictions of the problem go back over a century we had plenty of time to plan — we could have bought additional decades to work on alternatives by continuing improvements in efficiency. Procrastinating means that we'll see more disruptive changes and worse climate impacts.
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    we all know the dangers of plastics, they found micro-plastics in all living things, and huge concentrations in mothers' milk. Are we going to sue dupont in 2 decades as well?
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      I'd prefer it happened today
    - kevingadd 5y ago
      Why wait?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - epistasis 5y ago
      Yes, and also Michelin, if they don't clean up their behavior: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/14/car-tyres-are-major-source-of-ocean-microplastics-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/14/car-tyre... I don't see how this is controversial at all. If you provide something that causes damages and make a profit, why shouldn't you also be liable for the economic harms you incur in addition to the economic gains you enjoy? Nobody is forcing these companies to continue doing what they are doing, they do it voluntarily, for money.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "It’s not just Shell to blame, it’s all of us" I call bullshit. There are only two choices withing the control of an individual: 1 - get a green energy supplier, if one is avaliable and you can afford it 2 - stop eating meat That's it. Majority of emissions are from industry and transport, we get no choice in that matter and the only way I can reduce them individually is to live in a cave.

slibhb 5y ago

Is driving a car today "knowingly contributing to a preventable dangerous situation"?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kokanator 5y ago
I am glad you asked this question because this is what is missing in these situations. Where does the individual bear responsibility in any of this? Instead the public tends to focus on the huge evil corporation who struggles to even keep up with our demand for the very product we are damning them for. There are 1.4 Billion cars on the road.[0] Somehow that is Shells fault? Really? I'm not saying Shell has not committed any sins but we will need to do something about the 1.4 Billion cars before anything changes. All of those cars need to be fed. Someone will feed them. [0] https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/how-many-cars-are-there-in-the-world-70629 https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/how-many-cars-are-th...
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Does individual bear responsebility for lack of public transport, the fact that electric cars didnt even exist not long ago, and for living in a house that was build emitting CO2 and opposed to living in a cave? But lets go with that argument - i am 100% responsible for my CO2. If I am choosing a washing machine, are they labelled with amount of CO2 emitted in production of each? If the company lies to me about this, does anyone go to jail? Are you aware that carbon credits market ia one big fraud, with "overestimates" averaging 50x?
  - kokanator 5y ago
    > Are you aware that carbon credits market ia one big fraud, with "overestimates" averaging 50x? Carbon credits were a scam from the beginning. ( The same guy promoting them pointed to the market he owned as the solution, Al Gore ) Don't get me wrong they have huge potential but are really a false market at the moment. More like protection money or wealth transfer. > If I am choosing a washing machine, are they labelled with amount of CO2 emitted in production of each? If the company lies to me about this, does anyone go to jail? I think arguments like this let the individual again place blame on the manufacturer and not that they are an uneducated consumer ( caveat emptor ). Of course if you purchase a washing machine you must understand it took carbon for the entire production of the machine starting with the excavator that pulled the iron out of the ground to the truck that delivered it. The one that takes 'less' carbon is easy, fix the old one, or don't buy one and go the the coin laundry. But blaming the manufacturer who is currently operating within the governing authorities guidelines is disingenuous.