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?
>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.
This kind of question is literally determined in such court cases. There are laws about polluting, causing harm to people, the environment and such. Giving these laws meaning in practice is what courts do.
Of course, any legal system "pretends" that they're actually just interpreting... but this is never really true. If you gave an alien lawyer a book of laws, without the accompanying book of precedents (even in civil law systems), they would not know what is and isn't legal.
It is pretty interesting that there's no fine or punishment. A recognition-not-recognition that this is a pivot point. Hopefully, antitrust courts will adopt the same approach. Fining Google or Amazon has been a bust.
Laws don't come from gods, not even the gods or pure reason. The come from people. Courts, parliaments, polities, regulators, etc.
About the legal basis: "RDS’ [Royal Dutch Shell] reduction obligation ensues from the unwritten standard of care laid down in Book 6 Section 162 Dutch Civil Code, which means that acting in conflict with what is generally accepted according to unwritten law is unlawful. From this standard of care ensues that when determining the Shell group’s corporate policy, RDS must observe the due care exercised in society. The interpretation of the unwritten standard of care calls for an assessment of all circumstances of the case in question."
Excerpt from the court sentence: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:...
> 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.
Apparently the are not violating the law, but they will soon violate 'obligagtions'. From the WSJ...
'The court said that Shell wasn’t in breach of its obligation to reduce carbon emissions, but that there was an “imminent breach” and therefore set the reduction requirement. It said its ruling covered the emissions of the company’s own operations and also those of its suppliers and customers.'
When shell pumps oil out of the ground who emits it? Shell? The person who burns the oil? If a person in the Netherlands buys a car what fraction of the emissions are they "responsible" for? How about if they use the car to produce some good or service that they sell? Does the responsibility for all or some of the emissions passed on?
I get the point that at some point you just need to pick a party to pay for an externality.
> 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".
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.
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:
This could be the equivalent to price fixing, which is not productive and makes the whole system operate less efficiently, generally resulting in the opposite of what you want. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can just force it to go away by law.
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)?
"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:...
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
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.
> 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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
I think because it is clear that climate change is done by humans. It's also something we can stop by stopping the way we consume energy. This makes us responsible.
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.
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?
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?
[+] [-] gruez|4 years ago|reply
>"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|4 years ago|reply
>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-co...
[+] [-] rutierut|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dalbasal|4 years ago|reply
This kind of question is literally determined in such court cases. There are laws about polluting, causing harm to people, the environment and such. Giving these laws meaning in practice is what courts do.
Of course, any legal system "pretends" that they're actually just interpreting... but this is never really true. If you gave an alien lawyer a book of laws, without the accompanying book of precedents (even in civil law systems), they would not know what is and isn't legal.
It is pretty interesting that there's no fine or punishment. A recognition-not-recognition that this is a pivot point. Hopefully, antitrust courts will adopt the same approach. Fining Google or Amazon has been a bust.
Laws don't come from gods, not even the gods or pure reason. The come from people. Courts, parliaments, polities, regulators, etc.
[+] [-] MrGLaDOS|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnburnsy|4 years ago|reply
Apparently the are not violating the law, but they will soon violate 'obligagtions'. From the WSJ...
'The court said that Shell wasn’t in breach of its obligation to reduce carbon emissions, but that there was an “imminent breach” and therefore set the reduction requirement. It said its ruling covered the emissions of the company’s own operations and also those of its suppliers and customers.'
[+] [-] hackeraccount|4 years ago|reply
I get the point that at some point you just need to pick a party to pay for an externality.
[+] [-] treeman79|4 years ago|reply
Blacklisting Netherlands seems in the realm of possibility. As in, no oil or oil based products being allowed into country.
[+] [-] jsiepkes|4 years ago|reply
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".
[+] [-] matheusmoreira|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neaanopri|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cbmuser|4 years ago|reply
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?t...
> https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t...
[+] [-] dokem|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nomercy400|4 years ago|reply
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|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tito|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robert_foss|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dokem|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrGLaDOS|4 years ago|reply
(As the news article does not include it.)
[+] [-] whatever1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamsvystun|4 years ago|reply
> 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
[+] [-] xapata|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrfusion|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] akvadrako|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clydethefrog|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1cvmask|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Permit|4 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] poundofshrimp|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigbillheck|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Isinlor|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_tradin...
[+] [-] grumblenum|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhandley|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakub_g|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamsvystun|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamsvystun|4 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/26/dutch-court-rules-oil-giant-...
[+] [-] RandomLensman|4 years ago|reply
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|4 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] jelger|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] serjester|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aqme28|4 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] chriswarbo|4 years ago|reply
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|4 years ago|reply
> 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.
[+] [-] re-actor|4 years ago|reply
If you're doing harm to others, profit is no excuse.
[+] [-] ffggvv|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|4 years ago|reply
I guess Shell will be a British company soon.
[+] [-] clydethefrog|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chefkoch|4 years ago|reply