Dutch Court Rules Oil Giant Shell Must Cut Carbon Emissions By 45% By 2030 (cnbc.com) 175
A Dutch court on Wednesday ruled oil giant Royal Dutch Shell must reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 from 2019 levels. That's a much higher reduction than the company's current aim of lowering its emissions by 20% by 2030. CNBC reports: Shell's current climate strategy states that the company is aiming to become a net-zero emissions business by 2050, with the company setting a target of cutting its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2035. A spokesperson for Shell said the company "fully expect to appeal today's disappointing court decision." "We are investing billions of dollars in low-carbon energy, including electric vehicle charging, hydrogen, renewables and biofuels," the spokesperson said via email. "We want to grow demand for these products and scale up our new energy businesses even more quickly."
The lawsuit was filed in April 2019 by seven activist groups -- including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace -- on behalf of 17,200 Dutch citizens. Court summons claimed Shell's business model "is endangering human rights and lives" by posing a threat to the goals laid out in the Paris Agreement. Roger Cox, a lawyer for environmental activists in the case, said in a statement that the ruling marked "a turning point in history" and could have major consequences for other big polluters.
The lawsuit was filed in April 2019 by seven activist groups -- including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace -- on behalf of 17,200 Dutch citizens. Court summons claimed Shell's business model "is endangering human rights and lives" by posing a threat to the goals laid out in the Paris Agreement. Roger Cox, a lawyer for environmental activists in the case, said in a statement that the ruling marked "a turning point in history" and could have major consequences for other big polluters.
Exxon too (Score:3, Informative)
Meanwhile activists have managed to get onto the board of Exxon too.
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworl... [nhk.or.jp]
Activists? (Score:5, Insightful)
just wondering why people who are trying to conserve the environment in a state that is fit for human life are activists, but people who are actively destroying the environment are conservatives.
Re:Activists? (Score:4, Insightful)
just wondering why people who are trying to conserve the environment in a state that is fit for human life are activists, but people who are actively destroying the environment are conservatives.
Congrats! Turns out that if you get to frame the whole argument and just assume your axioms, then you get to win every argument! (Inside your own head, anyway.)
Re: (Score:2)
Axioms are assumptions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL...oh man, thanks, I needed a good laugh in the morning.
Seriously, were you able to actually type that with a straight face?
Re:Activists? (Score:4, Informative)
LOL...oh man, thanks, I needed a good laugh in the morning.
Seriously, were you able to actually type that with a straight face?
The thing about the US-American right wing is that compared to the right wing in other countries the US-American right wing is aligned with Fascist movements elsewhere. What you in the US call a 'left wing' is the vanilla right-wing in other countries. What you call the 'extreme radical left wing' is the centre right in other countries. America has no actual 'left wing' as the rest of the known universe defines it. The best you can do is cough up a few centre left-ish social democrats like Sanders and AOC. Whenever any of you American right-wing-nuts opens your mouth on Fox, One America News Network or NewsMax and calls Hillary Clinton a 'radical leftist' the entire rest of the planet laughs it's collective ass off. The most amusing thing about these networks like Fox, One America News Network and NewsMax is watching who their legion of pundits calls a 'leftist', 'extreme-leftist', 'extreme-radical-leftist', 'communist', 'socialist' and 'Marxist' whenever they open their mouths because they haven't a clue what those words mean. My favourite so far is 'trained Marxist'. So, apparently, there a Marxist training camp somewhere that trains 'Marxist Ninja Commandos'. It would therefore seem a matter of extreme urgency that the Republican party set up an academy to produce 'Trained Ninja Wing-Nut Commandos'. I don't think these remote courses in wing-nuttery offered by Fox, One America News Network and NewsMax are quite enough anymore. With the looming threat of 'trained Marxists' amateur hour is over!! The GOP needs regiments upon regiments of diploma carrying formally trained wing-nut commandos to remain competitive.
Re: Activists? (Score:3)
The thing about the US-American right wing is that compared to the right wing in other countries the US-American right wing is aligned with Fascist movements elsewhere. What you in the US call a 'left wing' is the vanilla right-wing in other countries. What you call the 'extreme radical left wing' is the centre right in other countries. America has no actual 'left wing' as the rest of the known universe defines it. The best you can do is cough up a few centre left-ish social democrats like Sanders and AOC. Whenever any of you American right-wing-nuts opens your mouth on Fox, One America News Network or NewsMax and calls Hillary Clinton a 'radical leftist' the entire rest of the planet laughs it's collective ass off. The most amusing thing about these networks like Fox, One America News Network and NewsMax is watching who their legion of pundits calls a 'leftist', 'extreme-leftist', 'extreme-radical-leftist', 'communist', 'socialist' and 'Marxist' whenever they open their mouths because they haven't a clue what those words mean. My favourite so far is 'trained Marxist'. So, apparently, there a Marxist training camp somewhere that trains 'Marxist Ninja Commandos'. It would therefore seem a matter of extreme urgency that the Republican party set up an academy to produce 'Trained Ninja Wing-Nut Commandos'. I don't think these remote courses in wing-nuttery offered by Fox, One America News Network and NewsMax are quite enough anymore. With the looming threat of 'trained Marxists' amateur hour is over!! The GOP needs regiments upon regiments of diploma carrying formally trained wing-nut commandos to remain competitive.
This. You know how Americans like watching videoclips of people falling over, having accidents, doing stupid things, etc.? The rest of the civilised world watches US politics & news for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks very much - you have certainly exposed the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Now I know to ignore the rest of what you said.
Please, educate me. What exactly is it that I have no idea about?
Re:Activists? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Activists? (Score:4, Insightful)
you're exactly correct, but Slashdot is unironically unaware of how right-wing and deluded they are. If you come here to talk about RAM hardware specs, this is your fam. If you want to talk about politics, life, sexuality, money...keep it moving :)
What really amuses me is that those same US right-wingers venerate Christ who was a literal socialist who wanted to help the poor, free the slaves, eliminate inequality, re-integrate outcasts into society, create universal peace and who preached that a camel has an better chance of getting through the eye of a needle than social elites have to enter the kingdom of God.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of a few social issues or media has a right wing bias. That's why you see so much howling about the media having a left-wing bias. It's projection.
Slashdoters are unable to GROK this comment. The IQ requirement is too high
Re: (Score:2)
In this case though the language is accurate and answers the question. Conservatism is about preserving traditional ideas and ways, and as it happens many of those ideas and ways trash the environment.
Re: (Score:3)
but people who are actively destroying the environment are conservatives
They're sometimes activists, too. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If if you have to reach back to awards granted by the East German government, you're pretty much identifying the exception that proves the rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I got a lot of environmentalism growing up from my Republican parents and grandparents and other Republican relatives. They just didn't call it "environmentalism". They called it "ain't no one gonna drill for oil on my land, dammit!", and "it's a shame there's so much litter", and "don't cut down too many trees, it's bad for the land", and so forth. Caring for the natural world used to be a conservative value, it was only those liberal money grubbers who wanted to strip mine and clear cut. But along the
Re: (Score:2)
"activist" can denote a person or persons who want Immediate and, therefore, disruptive change.
"conservative" can denote a person or persons who want a slow/steady and, therefore, non-disruptive change.
This is taught in the USA Government schools in the area of Civics.
Re: Activists? (Score:2)
And now you have explained the joke, and you didnâ(TM)t even get it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Activists? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The socialist/anarchist movement in the US is essentially dead and unrelated to the current "liberal" label. Sure, there are a few socialists and anarchists around but not enough to make a movement, and they don't even like each other. I do know that there's a current talking point on the far right to label everybody on the left as socialist, marxist, anarchist, anythingist, because scaring the voter base is a good way to get more votes on your side.
Re: (Score:2)
just wondering why people who are trying to conserve the environment in a state that is fit for human life are activists, but people who are actively destroying the environment are conservatives.
The question of activist vs non-activist is about motivations more than actions.
In this context, people who are putting non-business concerns ahead of making money are activists, because businesses exist to make money (within the bounds of the law; organizations that don't care about the law don't need government charters and go by other names).
If the people trying to influence Exxon in environmental directions are doing it because they think Exxon's business will do better if it acts in a more environm
Re: (Score:2)
It is likely that all of this bickering, whining, and consternation is moot. MIT has partnered with Commonwealth Fusion Systems to develop a Tokamak type reactor which is based upon new superconductors allowing extremely strong magnetic fields to exist in the reactor. This means that the size of the reactor can be reduced and the efficiency GREATLY increased. If they succeed, the world will have abundant non-polluting energy. The researchers say that their numbers are good. Should know results of the pr
Re: (Score:2)
Why was this modded flamebait? Who finds the reporting of factual information from a reputable source so inflammatory?
Re: (Score:2)
Activitsts get on boards all the time. Normally they're non-political activists, meaning they're activists upset that the stock isn't as high as they like and then the generate a media campaign to get themselves on the board. I assume here that you mean "political activists", and presumably with an outlook that you disagree with? Of course, climate change shouldn't even be a political issue, but like so many things it is (including what "law and order" means, or whether people should have enough to eat, a
Re: (Score:3)
This actually makes far more sense than using the courts to punish a company following government regulations. Taking ownership of a company and changing its direction is a great but ultimately sane way to do it. As would be forcing the government to improve regulations.
Is this based on the constitution? (Score:2)
In germany they made a similar verdict several weeks ago using high ranked paragraphs from the constitution that tend not to be used outside of emergencies and that the parliament cannot deflect without super-majority. Is this one of these cases?
Re:Is this based on the constitution? (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems that the science is compelling enough to get important rulings now. It took a while but I'm glad this new legal avenue has opened up.
Re: Is this based on the constitution? (Score:2)
Game theory says forcing somthing like this on individual companies through national courts is a terrible fucking idea ... unless they aim to reduce emissions by cratering the Dutch economy.
This should be done through the EU and using taxes and subsidies, not capricious justice which will just make companies flee the Netherlands.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it affects all the other companies operating in the EU too, because they are not notice how that if they don't do basically the same thing they can be sued and forced to.
Game theory says? (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think that "Royal Dutch Shell" is going to flee the Netherlands?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Shell will be afraid of fines and run away.
And leave all those lucrative natural gas deposits in the area.
Yeah, ... no.
Re: (Score:2)
These legal battles are a bet that Shell can't (or won't) sell off their assets to foreign business and cash out shareholders, freeing up their capital to be used on something outside of the Dutch economy.
If you turn up the heat on a business too quickly they can liquidate and hop away. But incremental changes usually trap business people susceptible to the sunk cost fallacy. Ultimately there is enough banking and regulation around a publicly traded company that escape from the government regulators is perh
Re: Is this based on the constitution? (Score:2)
Haha import taxes ... courts are willing to slaughter our economy but neither the courts nor the government will slaughter the sacred cow of globalization.
The only way to make cross border deals for emissions is through multilateral agreements. Absent that there is nothing which can be done, free trade must be guarded from the protectionist barbarians, There Is No Alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
So your main hope is that we have a downfall-of-civilization event which will spawn wars that kill millions of people?
I don't think you are doing "hope" right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that the science is compelling enough to get important rulings now. It took a while but I'm glad this new legal avenue has opened up.
TFA wasn't clear what the legal basis for the ruling was. Normally, you lose a case if you broke a law. What law did Shell break?
I'm also curious about something I hear conflated. Are we talking about the emissions generated by Shell itself in the process of producing products (e.g. CO2 emitted at refineries or by driving tankers around) or the CO2 produced by burning the fuel Shell produced and sold to other parties? Anyone know?
Re: (Score:2)
That's now how civil law works. You lose if you caused someone else a loss or harm. In this case both the loss and the harm are pretty clear.
Re: (Score:3)
Good science is reproducible from first principles. I should be able to take another's experiment and run it myself, and thus disprove or confirm the results.
Religion is a system of beliefs that must be taken as a whole and rarely can anything consistent be reproduced from the Byzantine set of proposition that often have no internal consistency. It's for people who wish to be subjects of another's rule. Every "truth" must be determined by an appeal to authority and cannot be confirmed by independent means.
N
Re: (Score:2)
Stop selling petrol in the Neatherlands (Score:2)
Re:Stop selling petrol in the Neatherlands (Score:4, Interesting)
As part of its strategy Shell could invest in charging infrastructure. Shift its business model from fossil fuels to electricity supply. It has the capital to build the generation too, and the know how from off-shore oil extraction. The Dutch have some great offshore wind resources.
Vehicle charging could be a great new source of revenue for many businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stop selling petrol in the Neatherlands (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Shell Recharge App or Zap-Map will cut through the PR Fluff and you can see the actual locations of their chargers.
The BP-Pulse App or Zap-Map will do the same for BP
As for only having one charger at each site... There are various reasons for this. For BP, this is down to them buying an existing network. The same goes to a lesser extent for Shell but I do know that a recently built petrol station near me has the infrastructure already in place to put 10 150kW chargers i.e. and additional NINE as the mar
Re: (Score:2)
I'm free to choose which forecourt I get my petrol from, yet I need a seperate app/login/payment scheme for most of the charging netwo
Re: (Score:2)
This will come when the charging companies implement ISO 15118. Fastned already do this at some sites as to Tesla. The VIN is transmitted to the charger and that identifies you to the company and your account. Plug and charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says that they aren't already doing this? I use the 'Shell Recharge' network pretty regularly. BP is also expanding its charging network rapidly.
The nearest 50kW DC charger to me is a BP Pulse network charger. (1.2miles away)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stop selling petrol in the Neatherlands (Score:2)
Which is why I and many others who live near the border get our fuel there. Itâ(TM)s worth the trip.
Re: (Score:2)
" Travel is for fucking idiots, because sitting in. a plane or train or car is a waste of your life."
Real wasters do cruise-ships, they just sit on a boat and drink.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that would have much impact... the nordic countries are ahead of us on vehicle electrification.
They probably should think about moving their HQ (and it's massive tax revenue) to a country with less restrictions, though.
Re: (Score:2)
"That will cut down on emissions."
Hardly, no such country exists.
The green-washing dream has to become reality. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to revive the old canard that the energy return on investment (EROI) for wind and solar is less than 1.0? Because if that's your argument, you will lose after a 2-minute survey of the available literature.
Re: (Score:2)
...the Netherlands has the lowest Renewables in the EU ... Sweden produces more then 50% of it's energy needs from renewables ...
Just because Shell can't do it does not mean it's not doable or not economical - it has been shown to be both in many places
Re: (Score:2)
"Shell, also known as Royal Dutch Shell, is at least partially owned by the Dutch government. The government can tell Shell to do whatever it wants, it's all taxpayer money anyway, and the Dutch are very happy paying more taxes... right?"
No, the Brits will have to pay more for their electricity, all wind and solar from Shell.
Also, most of it is in Scotland, so after independence they'll have to pay more anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact solar and wind haven't been profitable
It's not "haven't been profitable". It's "haven't been profitable enough".
They made money. They wanted to make a higher rate of return by exploiting unpriced externalities.
Netherlands is going to go broke (Score:2)
Between stuff like this, the NOx emission limits and the standard European demographic problems things the Dutch economy is going to crash and burn. Greece of the North. The smart and industrious fractions of the population will flee to a less suicidal jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Netherlands is going to go broke (Score:5, Insightful)
Or back in reality, they will building up industries and expertise of how to solve real world problems and will then get large international business as the "experts in their field."
Something which has already happened when it comes to shipping, water management, and farming.
There are movers and followers, and the first mover often has risk, but also has the opportunity for great reward.
Or what? (Score:2)
What happens if they don't make it? They get banned from selling a drop of product in the Netherlands? Does a single judge have so much authority there? So if they know they are not going to make it, they just plan to move out over the next 9 years - no more investment in the country's infrastructure or its maintenance, just milk it till it dies or 2030 rolls around?
Re: (Score:2)
..they are headquartered in The Netherlands, so they can be (most llikely) fined severely
Theoretically they could be shut down, split up or many other things but it is unlikely ...
Re: (Score:2)
Does a single judge have so much authority there?
Yes. But Shell is absolutely going to bring this case to the Court of Appeals, and whoever loses the appeal will 100% certain go to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands and try for cassation.
So if they know they are not going to make it, they just plan to move out over the next 9 years -
Unlikely, since that would be illegal, leading to some very hefty fines and even jailtime for those deciding to ignore the verdict. And while they can, of course, leave the country, it seems VERY unlikely they can just pack up and take their refineries with them.
Oh I like it and hate it (Score:4, Insightful)
While I appreciate that companies are finally getting taken to task on externalising their environmental damage in the name of profits, I absolutely do not support the idea that a company can be held liable when they are following the environmental regulations of the country they operate in.
Screw Shell for being a dirty oil company. Screw the courts even more for thinking they run the country. If you want to punish a company prove how they failed to meet the regulations imposed on them and if they don't get punished then sue the government to uphold the regulations.
Activist bullshit needs to stop, and I highly suspect this will get swatted down on appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
courts do not run the country. The right wing government does. All the courts did was uphold the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Centre Right led coalition government ...
Re: (Score:2)
All the courts did was uphold the law.
Not really. The case rested on tort law as an affect on people and also human rights. The basis for the tort claim was the Paris agreement to which Shell as a private company is not a signatory and has no obligations to meet. It's a governments role to meet the obligations and the government through their regulation can choose how to divide pollution up as they want.
Now if the people were suing the government they may have a case, but make no mistake this will quickly get thrown out on appeal (especially in
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely do not support the idea that a company can be held liable when they are following the environmental regulations of the country they operate in.
This has nothing to do with environmental regulations though. The outcome is based on the fact that RDS is violation articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR. The case argues that there is need for non-state action in reducing CO2 output, to prevent irreperable harm caused by climate change, and that by not reducing CO2, Shell is thus causing incredible harm and violating the human rights of every person in the world.
This is basically a carry-over from a recent court case against the Dutch Government which was ruled
Re: (Score:2)
Except it is, because the basis for the cited action was referenced to the paris climate agreement, an agreement to which Shell is not a signatory and to which the government is wholly responsible to meet, and the government has the right to divide up emissions.
This will get overturned very quickly on standing since it's ultimately the government's job to ensure human rights are upheld through regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of appeal to authority doesn't tend to work very well in court. The most famous example would be soldiers who commit war crimes and claim they were only following orders. Tobacco companies too, the law said their products were fine but they knew that they were not.
Also you have to keep in mind that these companies often lobby intensively to water down any regulations. It's important that citizens can fight back against that via the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
What do I have to do with my comment about the ruling and how it is applied? Do you have a point, or are you just putting words in a box and hitting submit for giggles?
Why are they appealing? (Score:2)
"We're investing billions of dollars! We're actively doing our best!" Okay, so what do you care if they've moved the timeline up on you? Either you're not investing as much as you say you are, or you're going to meet this target if you're really trying.
At this point, it's a bit baffling why companies insist on being behind the times instead of at the forefront. Like, if you're investing in all this stuff, you're still actually pretty early to market. Go hard; it's obvious to see which way the wind is blowin
Political, legally baseless, complete overreach (Score:2)
From the WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/s... [wsj.com]
"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.
The court didn’t stipulate how the ordered reductions should be met, or how it might monitor or enforce its ruling."
So, the court found them
Re: (Score:2)
No. Nobody is being ordered to reduce their personal emissions. This verdict applies to Shell, and to Shell only.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Nobody is being ordered to reduce their personal emissions. This verdict applies to Shell, and to Shell only.
You are correct, I am misreading it.
But how do you hold Shell accountable for the "emissions of the company’s suppliers and customers."
Suppliers could be providers of anything at all, from drilling rigs to toilet paper.
Oil is a global market, so customers could be anything, including the US Military.
None of these actors owe Dutch Shell an accounting for their actions
Re: (Score:2)
It said its ruling covered the emissions of the company’s own operations and also those of its suppliers and customers.
I'm one of those customers as I use Shell gasoline exclusively. What does the court expect Shell to do about its customers? Force me to switch to Esso (Exxon)?
I could do that, but I'd rather continue to support Shell while they appeal. If they lose I will be happy to ditch anything Dutch.
Corporate Restructuring (Score:2)
They'll comply with the court order by creating whatever subsidiaries and spinoffs are needed and transferring the requisite assets and businesses to those in exchange for ownership shares.
Will this cut include ... (Score:2)
... the emissions of downstream customers? If so, then I can consider my carbon emission obligations to be taken care of by Shell when I jump in my petrol burning shitbox?
Re: (Score:2)
The court is saying so, yes. The CO2 emissions of the products they sell is also included.
The obvious problem with this is that, as was mentioned above, Shell will simply divest itself of high-carbon properties and exit the country. Or worst, if somehow that can't be done, it will just outright sell them to a Chinese or other foreign firm that isn't subject to this court order.
This is inevitable. Because it's like a court ordering a gun manufacturer to only sell guns that can't kill anything. Kind of an oxy
No. This is a meaningless measure (Score:2)
It refers only tho the emissions of their OPERATIONS.
It would surprise me if these operations emissions amounted to more than about 5% (10% at most) of the downstream emissions from the use of their product.
So, let's say, a 45% reduction of 5% of the total emissions the company extracts from the ground and enables means a 2.25% reduction of emissions.
That's why I say this is m
Fantastic news! (Score:2)
At last, the Double Dutch sandwich will be useful to the world!
Re: Predictable outcome... (Score:2)
Re: Predictable outcome... (Score:2)
Carbon border tax never ever.
Just a bunch of EU parliamentarians wasting their time without a clue how the world works.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure beats unemployment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a hostile takeover when leftists, under guise of 'climatechange' (AKA global warming), can dictate policy.
It is an indication that the state is a corrupt entity.
If anthropogenic global warming is an item for discussion, so is the 'fixing' of global warming.
It is a hostile takeover when rightists, under guise of 'supply side economics' (AKA trickle down economics, AKA sparrows and the horse turd economics), can dictate policy.
It is an indication that the state is an obsolete entity.
Global warming is caused by Humans, it is a detriment to all life on this planet and it needs 'fixing'.
Re: implications (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
...citizens have every right to sue a corporation for doing this.
Well, yes you have a right to sue but you should only win if there was a clearly written law (known to all in advance) being broken. I can sue you because I don't like the color you dyed your hair but I shouldn't win.
Up to now, selling fossil fuels hasn't been a crime and has been considered perfectly legal. If we want to stop Shell from doing that, the fair way in a functioning democracy is to change the rules first. Did the Dutch do that? I honestly don't know and am really curious about it.
Re: implications (Score:2)
Shell harms many many people by all the toxic chemicals they emit. Itâ(TM)s not only about CO2 but also nitrogen compounds, fine dust and many other toxins. Our governments havenâ(TM)t done much about that since the mid-nineties or so, and if the judge hadnâ(TM)t decided what she did that would have been the status quo until far into the 2020s. Now Shell finally has to take their responsibility serious and do something about it.
Re: (Score:2)
In a functioning democracy citizens get to vote on things and the elected parties decide what is good for them or not. If a bunch of plaintiffs and judges bypass these institutions to make up their own rule systems I think the correct term might be "judacracy".
Re: (Score:2)
Overheard in the 19th century:
It is a hostile takeover when leftists, under guise of 'civilrights' (AKA freedom), can dictate policy.
It is an indication that the state is an obsolete entity.
If slavery is an item for discussion, so is the 'fixing' of slavery.
Don't just bitch about government overreach - if you have something to discuss, let's discuss it. What do you propose we do to stop spewing pollutants into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, you don't WANT discussion.
We've had a century of discussion. We're done with that now.
Re: (Score:2)
It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks and become one with all the people.
-- Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Ethics for Tomorrow"
Re: (Score:3)
Good to know that chickenshit anonymous coward is advocating for the genocide of black people in the US in a comment attached to a news story about a European court compelling a European company to take substantive action on reducing emissions.
And I'll bet you can't figure out why everyone you talk to except your carefully curated facebook groups thinks you're batshit fucking crazy and don't want to have anything to do with you. Here's a tip: your next step is to bitch and cry about "cancel culture".
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's weird too... and would rather think the right course of action would have been environmental activists suing governments to enforce them to curtail companies by demanding law that make the companies adhere to the implementation of the Paris agreements. Not activists suing companies directly.
However, it seems greenhouse gas emissions is the new tobacco smoke. It's now considered so harmful (and in violation of human rights laws) companies should limit their exhaust directly, no matter the respon