this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
161 points (98.2% liked)

News

23274 readers
3176 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
161
Shell says landmark climate ruling obstructs fight against climate change (www.reuters.com)
submitted 7 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Shell on Tuesday told a Dutch court a 2021 order that it should drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions lacks a legal basis and risks obstructing the fight against climate change.

In a landmark ruling that shocked the energy sector, a lower Dutch court in 2021 ordered Shell to reduce its planet warming carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 from 2019 levels.

The order related not only to Shell's own emissions, but also to those caused by the buyers and users of its products.

Shell said that implementing the ruling would force it to shrink its business and would only lead customers to shift to other suppliers of fuel.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 6 points 7 months ago

Shell said that implementing the ruling would force it to shrink its business and simply lead customers to shift to other suppliers of fuel.

As much as I'd like to remark with snark that "I don't see a problem with Shell shrinking", this point is important. Shell would essentially sell less oil, driving prices up and making its competitors profit more. Remember, Saudi Arabia can single handedly manipulate oil prices.

"It obstructs the role that Shell can and wants to play in the energy transition."

Given that Shell's role is to OBSTRUCT energy transition in the first place, it's a good thing this ruling happened. I mean, the article exposes that next:

Shell's lawyers said it was up to governments to set climate policies and goals, as courts lacked a mandate to do so. But Friends of the Earth Netherlands, which brought the case, said Shell influences government policies worldwide through its size and global presence and is one the most important drivers of demand for oil and gas.

Shell's lawyers stressed the company's investments in the development of non-fossil fuels as well as its support for the Paris Climate Agreement and said the company's targets to reduce its own emissions went further than the court's order.

Shell earlier this month weakened a 2030 carbon reduction target and scrapped a 2035 objective, citing expectations for strong gas demand and uncertainty in the energy transition, even as it affirmed a plan to cut emissions to net zero by 2050.

"We're totally reducing our emissions! Pay no mind to these actions proving the contrary!"