6 ms·

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
      I'm referring to your example where the oil is still extracted. The Netherlands can reduce it's own fossil fuel extraction and reduce the demand for external fossil fuel extraction. The tax scheme already exists and is implemented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin... The Netherlands is reducing and eliminating the internal fossil fuel extraction. Groningen gas field it is the largest natural gas field in Europe and the tenth-largest in the world and the extraction will be stopped in 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field But this one is actually more due to the earthquakes than just climate change.
      - seiferteric 5y ago
        Forgive me, but if the tax scheme already exists an appropriately taxes CO2 emissions, then what is the point of this lawsuit? *Or rather, what is the point of the mandatory 45% cut? Shouldn't the taxes accomplish that already?
        Isinlor 5y ago
        The point is that Shell is ignoring its obligations. Apparently future taxes were not sufficient to change their practices right now. It is a fact stated by the company itself and the court opinion. From the court ruling: > The RI Annual Briefing 2020 contains the following warning (‘Definitions and cautionary note’), inter alia: > Additionally, it is important to note that as of April 16, 2020, Shell’s operating plans and budgets do not reflect Shell’s net-zero emissions ambition. (...) > Since 2016, the Dutch NGO Follow This, shareholder in RDS, has submitted various resolutions with the request to exchange the investments of the Shell group in oil and gas for sustainable energy. The RDS Board has consistently recommended its shareholders to vote against these resolutions for being contrary to the company’s interests. The RDS Board stated the following, among other things: > “tying the Company’s hands to a renewables only mandate would be strategically and commercially unwise.” > The majority of shareholders has voted against these resolutions. (...) > It is also an established fact that RDS has set more stringent climate ambitions for the Shell group in 2019 and 2020 (see under 2.5.18). However, business plans in the Shell group still have to be updated in accordance with these climate ambitions, and a further explanation of its future portfolio and plans is forthcoming. In the court’s view, RDS’ policy, policy intentions and ambitions for the Shell group largely amount to rather intangible, undefined and non-binding plans for the long-term (2050). These plans (‘ambitions’ and ‘intentions’) are furthermore not unconditional but – as can be read in the disclaimer and cautionary notes to the Shell documents – dependent on the pace at which global society moves towards the climate goals of the Paris Agreement (‘in step with society and its customers’). Emissions reduction targets for 2030 are lacking completely; the NCF identifies the year 2035 as an intermediate step (see under 2.5.19). From this the court deduces that RDS retains the right to let the Shell group undergo a less rapid energy transition if society were to move slower. Moreover, RDS has insufficiently contested the standpoint of Milieudefensie et al. that RDS’ planned investments in new explorations are not compatible with the reduction target to be met. The Shell group’s policy, as determined by RDS, mainly shows that the Shell group monitors developments in society and lets states and other parties play a pioneering role. In doing so, RDS disregards its individual responsibility, which requires RDS to actively effectuate its reduction obligation through the Shell group’s corporate policy.

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
    I'm referring to your example where the oil is still extracted. The Netherlands can reduce it's own fossil fuel extraction and reduce the demand for external fossil fuel extraction. The tax scheme already exists and is implemented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin... The Netherlands is reducing and eliminating the internal fossil fuel extraction. Groningen gas field it is the largest natural gas field in Europe and the tenth-largest in the world and the extraction will be stopped in 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field But this one is actually more due to the earthquakes than just climate change.
    - seiferteric 5y ago
      Forgive me, but if the tax scheme already exists an appropriately taxes CO2 emissions, then what is the point of this lawsuit? *Or rather, what is the point of the mandatory 45% cut? Shouldn't the taxes accomplish that already?
      - Isinlor 5y ago
        The point is that Shell is ignoring its obligations. Apparently future taxes were not sufficient to change their practices right now. It is a fact stated by the company itself and the court opinion. From the court ruling: > The RI Annual Briefing 2020 contains the following warning (‘Definitions and cautionary note’), inter alia: > Additionally, it is important to note that as of April 16, 2020, Shell’s operating plans and budgets do not reflect Shell’s net-zero emissions ambition. (...) > Since 2016, the Dutch NGO Follow This, shareholder in RDS, has submitted various resolutions with the request to exchange the investments of the Shell group in oil and gas for sustainable energy. The RDS Board has consistently recommended its shareholders to vote against these resolutions for being contrary to the company’s interests. The RDS Board stated the following, among other things: > “tying the Company’s hands to a renewables only mandate would be strategically and commercially unwise.” > The majority of shareholders has voted against these resolutions. (...) > It is also an established fact that RDS has set more stringent climate ambitions for the Shell group in 2019 and 2020 (see under 2.5.18). However, business plans in the Shell group still have to be updated in accordance with these climate ambitions, and a further explanation of its future portfolio and plans is forthcoming. In the court’s view, RDS’ policy, policy intentions and ambitions for the Shell group largely amount to rather intangible, undefined and non-binding plans for the long-term (2050). These plans (‘ambitions’ and ‘intentions’) are furthermore not unconditional but – as can be read in the disclaimer and cautionary notes to the Shell documents – dependent on the pace at which global society moves towards the climate goals of the Paris Agreement (‘in step with society and its customers’). Emissions reduction targets for 2030 are lacking completely; the NCF identifies the year 2035 as an intermediate step (see under 2.5.19). From this the court deduces that RDS retains the right to let the Shell group undergo a less rapid energy transition if society were to move slower. Moreover, RDS has insufficiently contested the standpoint of Milieudefensie et al. that RDS’ planned investments in new explorations are not compatible with the reduction target to be met. The Shell group’s policy, as determined by RDS, mainly shows that the Shell group monitors developments in society and lets states and other parties play a pioneering role. In doing so, RDS disregards its individual responsibility, which requires RDS to actively effectuate its reduction obligation through the Shell group’s corporate policy.