4 ms·

Netherlands court orders oil giant Shell to cut emissions

71 points by gingersnap 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
greenyoda 5y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27290508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27290508
tchalla 5y ago
> The company's defence is that if people feel progress towards cutting emissions is too slow, they should lobby governments - not Shell - to change policies and introduce financial incentives. Do you agree with Shell's defence? If you do not, what's the role of government for the society?
- timwaagh 5y ago
  sounds so logical. but i dont think it works that way, in NL at least. international agreements are considered legally binding, just like laws are or perhaps they even supersede them. the court might therefore hold a company or individual to comply with a treaty. shell's defense may not be valid, i think. still it's a black day for NL. we're still very much a petroleum economy.
  - gruez 5y ago
    What "international agreements" are we talking about? The ones for meeting climate targets, or the ones for ISDS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem...)?
    - timwaagh 5y ago
      Not (just) those. The Constitution has two articles (93, 94) that say treaties from 'people rights' institutions (like the UN, I guess) are legally binding and supersede national law of there is a conflict.
- Someone 5y ago
  The argument made is that governments already changed policies. For example, the 1992 UN Climate Convention said: The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner The European part of the Netherlands ratified that. It also ratified the 2015 Paris agreement. Argument seems to be that is enough to require Shell to react soon and strongly. I think I agree. I don’t see a need to introduce financial incentives. The government doesn’t pay companies who don’t dump chemical waste, persons who don’t steal, etc. either. It’s enough that it says those things shouldn’t happen. IMO, this case is similar (but more abstract). The government clearly said we must act soon; Shell knew that, and didn’t do enough.
  - nickff 5y ago
    You seem to be assuming that ‘financial incentives’ means subsidies or tax credits, but the financial incentives could be carbon taxes or other penalties instead.
    - qqqwerty 5y ago
      it is too late for carbon taxes. Those might have worked 10 to 20 years ago. Carbon taxes could have allowed for a gradual shift away from fossil fuels, but we have about 10 years to cut our emissions by half. Considering most capital equipment (vehicles, power plants, etc...) have a 20-30 operating life a gradual transition is no longer feasible. Measures like banning sales of new gas powered vehicles, and mandating that all new power production equipment be carbon neutral are now table stakes for anyone that is serious about meeting targets.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    AFAIK UN statements even ratified ones aren't laws, they're agreements that those countries will create laws to those effects.
- gehsty 5y ago
  Not sure what Shell is talking about, they recently won a Dutch offshore wind tender with zero subsidy, assuming they expect it to be profitable why shouldn’t they be able to expand on this?
- Isinlor 5y ago
  The Dutch law allows for class action lawsuits where interests of the claimants are bundled. For example if a company would be poisoning local ground waters the citizens should be able to enforce their rights in the court. In this case the company is changing atmosphere in a way that endangers Dutch residents due to the fact that portion of the population lives below the sea level and climate change is likely to cause rise in the sea level. > The court does not follow RDS’ argument that the claims of Milieudefensie et al. require decisions which go beyond the lawmaking function of the court. The court must decide on the claims of Milieudefensie et al.30 Assessing whether or not RDS has the alleged legal obligation and deciding on the claims based thereon is pre-eminently a task of the court. In the following assessment, the court interprets the unwritten standard of care from the applicable Book 6 Section 162 Dutch Civil Code on the basis of the relevant facts and circumstances, the best available science on dangerous climate change and how to manage it, and the widespread international consensus that human rights offer protection against the impacts of dangerous climate change and that companies must respect human rights. BTW - In the Groningen, in the north of the Netherlands exploitation of natural gas reserves started causing earthquakes. Even the house I was renting in a town next to Groningen had to be inspected due to the earthquakes. The exploitation will be stopped in 2022 due to the harm. The Groningen gas field is operated by the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij BV (NAM), a joint venture between Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil with each company owning a 50% share. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field > After protests in Groningen because of the increase in induced earthquakes, whose event count shows an exponential growth in time, [5] the Dutch government decided on 17 January 2014 to cut output from the gas field and pay those affected by the earthquake a compensation worth 1.2 billion Euro, spread over a period of 5 years. The ministry said production would be cut in 2014 and 2015 to 42.5 bcm (billion cubic metres) and in 2016 to 40 bcm.[6] > The State Supervision of Mines has brought forward that the production level should be cut back to 30 bcm to avoid the more severe quakes. Although it is technically possible to reduce Groningen's output to this level and still meet domestic demand, the ministry keeps production high (currently[when?] 39.4 bcm per year). Groningen officials are not satisfied with the measures. As of January 2015, no houses have been reinforced, nothing has been done about many seriously damaged buildings, and the risk of severe quakes, possibly resulting in collapsed buildings, injuries and death, is still too high.[7][8] In June 2016, the Netherlands' National Mines Inspectorate advised the Dutch Government to reduce production even further to 24 bcm per year.[9] On 23 September 2016 Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte confirmed that gas extraction from the northern Groningen gas field will be held at 24 bcm per year for the coming five years.[10] > On March 29, 2018 the government announced it would shut down the gas extraction entirely by 2030 for safety reasons.[11][12] > In September 2019, the Dutch government announced a further acceleration of the decommissioning of the field, stopping all regular production in 2022.
- rocqua 5y ago
  I do. This is a political, not legislative issue. This is actually another in a series of court cases where judges decide on broad political issues in the Netherlands. The big difference is that previous cases were against government, whereas this was against a company. I mostly agree with the ideas behind most of these rulings. But it feels like broad interpretations of vague laws are being used to regulate outside of the democratic process. Regulation is the purview of the legislative or executive branch, not the judicial. Especially because the first 2 branches are (here in the Netherlands) democratically elected. Consider (hypothetically) what would happen here if 90% of citizens were against this ruling. How would they revert it. Or should it not be revertable? I don't think it is revertable, and I think that is a massive end-run around democracy.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    >Or should it not be revertable? I don't think it is revertable, and I think that is a massive end-run around democracy. I didn't think about this but now that you mention it, it does seem like a judge regulating from the bench instead of lawmakers making laws or executives making policy.
seiferteric 5y ago
Assuming the oil mostly comes from abroad, what's to stop shell from "achieving" the 45% cut by simply selling the production capacity, contracts, wells etc to someone else?
- ChrisSD 5y ago
  This is why we have judges. They can look at the totality of the evidence to determine if Shell has actually complied.
  - seiferteric 5y ago
    Unfortunately I don't think that will work. Assume shell stops producing in wells in Nigeria for example. Do you think that Nigeria will simply allow the well to sit unused? I really doubt that. At some point they would simply take it back and give it to some other oil concern to operate.
    - Isinlor 5y ago
      Given the precedent the same laws will apply to the new oil concern. Of course Netherlands will not have power to enforce rules on fully foreign oil concerns not operating in the Netherlands. But at least the demand from the Nederlands is appropriately reduced. There is no single magical solution to this problem. Everyone needs to do their part.
      - seiferteric 5y ago
        > demand from the Nederlands is appropriately reduced. You mean supply is reduced? > There is no single magical solution to this problem. Everyone needs to do their part. To reduce demand in your country: 1) Immediately apply significant increase of tax on all products that emit CO2 produced in your country. 2) Place tariffs on all imports from countries who do not apply similar taxes. ... What am I missing?
        Isinlor 5y ago
twiss 5y ago
The judgment is here: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:... (English version)

71 points by gingersnap 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

greenyoda 5y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27290508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27290508

tchalla 5y ago

> The company's defence is that if people feel progress towards cutting emissions is too slow, they should lobby governments - not Shell - to change policies and introduce financial incentives. Do you agree with Shell's defence? If you do not, what's the role of government for the society?

timwaagh 5y ago
sounds so logical. but i dont think it works that way, in NL at least. international agreements are considered legally binding, just like laws are or perhaps they even supersede them. the court might therefore hold a company or individual to comply with a treaty. shell's defense may not be valid, i think. still it's a black day for NL. we're still very much a petroleum economy.
- gruez 5y ago
  What "international agreements" are we talking about? The ones for meeting climate targets, or the ones for ISDS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem...)?
  - timwaagh 5y ago
    Not (just) those. The Constitution has two articles (93, 94) that say treaties from 'people rights' institutions (like the UN, I guess) are legally binding and supersede national law of there is a conflict.
Someone 5y ago
The argument made is that governments already changed policies. For example, the 1992 UN Climate Convention said: The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner The European part of the Netherlands ratified that. It also ratified the 2015 Paris agreement. Argument seems to be that is enough to require Shell to react soon and strongly. I think I agree. I don’t see a need to introduce financial incentives. The government doesn’t pay companies who don’t dump chemical waste, persons who don’t steal, etc. either. It’s enough that it says those things shouldn’t happen. IMO, this case is similar (but more abstract). The government clearly said we must act soon; Shell knew that, and didn’t do enough.
- nickff 5y ago
  You seem to be assuming that ‘financial incentives’ means subsidies or tax credits, but the financial incentives could be carbon taxes or other penalties instead.
  - qqqwerty 5y ago
    it is too late for carbon taxes. Those might have worked 10 to 20 years ago. Carbon taxes could have allowed for a gradual shift away from fossil fuels, but we have about 10 years to cut our emissions by half. Considering most capital equipment (vehicles, power plants, etc...) have a 20-30 operating life a gradual transition is no longer feasible. Measures like banning sales of new gas powered vehicles, and mandating that all new power production equipment be carbon neutral are now table stakes for anyone that is serious about meeting targets.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  AFAIK UN statements even ratified ones aren't laws, they're agreements that those countries will create laws to those effects.
gehsty 5y ago
Not sure what Shell is talking about, they recently won a Dutch offshore wind tender with zero subsidy, assuming they expect it to be profitable why shouldn’t they be able to expand on this?
Isinlor 5y ago
The Dutch law allows for class action lawsuits where interests of the claimants are bundled. For example if a company would be poisoning local ground waters the citizens should be able to enforce their rights in the court. In this case the company is changing atmosphere in a way that endangers Dutch residents due to the fact that portion of the population lives below the sea level and climate change is likely to cause rise in the sea level. > The court does not follow RDS’ argument that the claims of Milieudefensie et al. require decisions which go beyond the lawmaking function of the court. The court must decide on the claims of Milieudefensie et al.30 Assessing whether or not RDS has the alleged legal obligation and deciding on the claims based thereon is pre-eminently a task of the court. In the following assessment, the court interprets the unwritten standard of care from the applicable Book 6 Section 162 Dutch Civil Code on the basis of the relevant facts and circumstances, the best available science on dangerous climate change and how to manage it, and the widespread international consensus that human rights offer protection against the impacts of dangerous climate change and that companies must respect human rights. BTW - In the Groningen, in the north of the Netherlands exploitation of natural gas reserves started causing earthquakes. Even the house I was renting in a town next to Groningen had to be inspected due to the earthquakes. The exploitation will be stopped in 2022 due to the harm. The Groningen gas field is operated by the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij BV (NAM), a joint venture between Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil with each company owning a 50% share. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field > After protests in Groningen because of the increase in induced earthquakes, whose event count shows an exponential growth in time, [5] the Dutch government decided on 17 January 2014 to cut output from the gas field and pay those affected by the earthquake a compensation worth 1.2 billion Euro, spread over a period of 5 years. The ministry said production would be cut in 2014 and 2015 to 42.5 bcm (billion cubic metres) and in 2016 to 40 bcm.[6] > The State Supervision of Mines has brought forward that the production level should be cut back to 30 bcm to avoid the more severe quakes. Although it is technically possible to reduce Groningen's output to this level and still meet domestic demand, the ministry keeps production high (currently[when?] 39.4 bcm per year). Groningen officials are not satisfied with the measures. As of January 2015, no houses have been reinforced, nothing has been done about many seriously damaged buildings, and the risk of severe quakes, possibly resulting in collapsed buildings, injuries and death, is still too high.[7][8] In June 2016, the Netherlands' National Mines Inspectorate advised the Dutch Government to reduce production even further to 24 bcm per year.[9] On 23 September 2016 Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte confirmed that gas extraction from the northern Groningen gas field will be held at 24 bcm per year for the coming five years.[10] > On March 29, 2018 the government announced it would shut down the gas extraction entirely by 2030 for safety reasons.[11][12] > In September 2019, the Dutch government announced a further acceleration of the decommissioning of the field, stopping all regular production in 2022.
rocqua 5y ago
I do. This is a political, not legislative issue. This is actually another in a series of court cases where judges decide on broad political issues in the Netherlands. The big difference is that previous cases were against government, whereas this was against a company. I mostly agree with the ideas behind most of these rulings. But it feels like broad interpretations of vague laws are being used to regulate outside of the democratic process. Regulation is the purview of the legislative or executive branch, not the judicial. Especially because the first 2 branches are (here in the Netherlands) democratically elected. Consider (hypothetically) what would happen here if 90% of citizens were against this ruling. How would they revert it. Or should it not be revertable? I don't think it is revertable, and I think that is a massive end-run around democracy.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  >Or should it not be revertable? I don't think it is revertable, and I think that is a massive end-run around democracy. I didn't think about this but now that you mention it, it does seem like a judge regulating from the bench instead of lawmakers making laws or executives making policy.

seiferteric 5y ago

Assuming the oil mostly comes from abroad, what's to stop shell from "achieving" the 45% cut by simply selling the production capacity, contracts, wells etc to someone else?

ChrisSD 5y ago
This is why we have judges. They can look at the totality of the evidence to determine if Shell has actually complied.
- seiferteric 5y ago
  Unfortunately I don't think that will work. Assume shell stops producing in wells in Nigeria for example. Do you think that Nigeria will simply allow the well to sit unused? I really doubt that. At some point they would simply take it back and give it to some other oil concern to operate.
  - Isinlor 5y ago
    Given the precedent the same laws will apply to the new oil concern. Of course Netherlands will not have power to enforce rules on fully foreign oil concerns not operating in the Netherlands. But at least the demand from the Nederlands is appropriately reduced. There is no single magical solution to this problem. Everyone needs to do their part.
    - seiferteric 5y ago
      > demand from the Nederlands is appropriately reduced. You mean supply is reduced? > There is no single magical solution to this problem. Everyone needs to do their part. To reduce demand in your country: 1) Immediately apply significant increase of tax on all products that emit CO2 produced in your country. 2) Place tariffs on all imports from countries who do not apply similar taxes. ... What am I missing?
      - Isinlor 5y ago

twiss 5y ago

The judgment is here: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:... (English version)