Archives quotidiennes :

better to know...?, climate-debate

Green Grifters: Another elite-laden conference demonstrates the staggering hypocrisy of climate-change activism

by H. Mac Donald, Nov 12, 2024 in /CityJournal

The latest global climate conference opened Monday in Azerbaijan. The timing is excellent. Any doubt regarding the wisdom of the next Trump administration’s likely pullout from such meetings should be dispelled by the conference photos alone. Here are tens of thousands of well fed, well-dressed members of the global elite—activists, employees of lavishly funded NGOs, armies of government bureaucrats, hundreds of heads of state—who have all travelled via jet and private plane to this remote corner of the Earth and who expect that every minute of their day will be supported by abundant, magically available energy. None has sacrificed a single personal comfort to save the planet. They assume that their smartphones will draw on an invisible web of transmitters and that they will be able to search the Internet and run AI queries at will, notwithstanding that doing so requires voracious energy use from a growing archipelago of server farms. They expect their PowerPoints to be well lit and their conference and hotel rooms to be heated or air conditioned as needed. They’re never without their bottled water, which is carried thousands of miles by carbon-emitting trucks and planes and kept sterile by plastic containers whose manufacture requires petrochemicals and plenty of energy. They do not wait on the sun to shine or the wind to blow to light their rooms, run their elevators, or power up their devices; they want energy now and without interruption.

You don’t have to be a “climate denier” to see that climate-change politics have become the largest global grift in history, one that grows in proportion with each new conference. It was just a matter of time before Third World basket-case countries exploited the First World’s virtue signaling. This year’s UNFCC COP 29 conference in Azerbaijan (COP stands for Conference of the Parties) features the demand that developed countries fork over billions, if not trillions, more dollars to the Global South, ostensibly to help it adjust to climate change. Those billions will follow all previous foreign aid into the same sinkhole of corruption and incompetence.

…

better to know...?

Hague court denies claim for reduction in Shell’s CO2 emissions

by The Hague, 12 November 2024, in deRechtspraak

The Hague Court of Appeal today handed down its judgment in the appeal proceedings between Milieudefensie and Shell. At issue in the appeal was whether Shell must have reduced its CO2 emissions by 45% in 2030 compared to 2019. The court of appeal ruled that Shell is obliged to reduce its CO₂ emissions, but that it was unable to determine which percentage should apply. The court of appeal therefore rejected the claims of Milieudefensie.

According to Milieudefensie, Shell is acting unlawfully. Milieudefensie is of the opinion that under the social standard of care, Shell is obliged to reduce its CO2 emissions. Milieudefensie and several other environmental organisations submitted a claim for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% in 2030 compared to 2019. This includes Shell’s own CO2 emissions as well as those of its suppliers and customers, known as scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions.

The Hague District Court upheld the claim of Milieudefensie, after which Shell lodged an appeal. The Stichting Milieu en Mens joined as a party in the proceedings before the court of appeal on the side of Shell.

In today’s judgment, the court of appeal held that Shell has an obligation towards citizens to limit its CO2 emissions. This obligation is based on the human right to protection against dangerous climate change. It is first and foremost up to governments to ensure the protection of human rights, but indirectly those rights also have a bearing on the social standard of care which companies like Shell must observe. In its assessment of whether Shell is acting unlawfully, the court of appeal therefore took as a starting point that citizens also have a right vis-à-vis Shell to protection from dangerous climate change.

Nevertheless, the court of appeal denied the claims of Milieudefensie because the court was unable to establish that the social standard of care entails an obligation for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%, or some other percentage. There is currently insufficient consensus in climate science on a specific reduction percentage to which an individual company like Shell should adhere. Moreover, Shell is already working to reduce its own scope 1 and 2 emissions. Lastly, the court of appeal is of the opinion that an obligation for Shell to reduce CO2 emissions caused by buyers of Shell products, scope 3 emissions, by a particular percentage would be ineffective in this case. Shell could meet that obligation by ceasing to trade in the fuels it purchases from third parties. Other companies would then take over that trade. This would consequently not result in a reduction in CO2 emissions.

In conclusion, The Hague Court of Appeal overturned the district court’s judgment and denied the claims of Milieudefensie. An appeal in cassation against this ruling may be brought before the Dutch Supreme Court.

Also here

Climate Litigation: The Dutch Case and a Pattern of Vexatious Lawsuits