327,376,000 gallons. In all fairness, what should they be doing with that volume? It’s not like they asked for or wanted a tsunami to strike.
They practiced extreme negligence building a nuclear power plant near the coast in a part of the world where major earthquakes are always going to happen. What they did was criminal. As for what to do with that nuclear waste, I guess they have no other choice. The author of this Forbes article thinks it's the best and safest thing to do:
Well, maybe Pearl Jam should stop wasting plastic then with them releasing a single for their new climate change-focused album with just an A-side.
For sure. And climate activist Neil Young needs to do the same. Several of his records have used an excessive amount resources over the last several years- mainly paper and paperboard, but one sided records as well. That contradiction has long puzzled me.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Gotta be hard on their backs to stand upright that way, LOL.
I'm not a die-hard vegan or vegetarian (though do lean that way), but do believe people (especially beefy Americans) eating less beef would be helpful to the planet. And an even bigger concern regarding methane (the main problem with cow farts) is the release of methane from melting polar ice in tundra. That's creating a feedback loop that will exacerbate global warming.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The United States climate envoy, John Kerry, on Tuesday warned that global warming was making the world a more dangerous place and posed risks to peace and security around the world.
Failing to address the threats of climate change is “marching forward to what is almost tantamount to a mutual suicide pact,” Mr. Kerry said in a session of the United Nations Security Council attended by presidents and prime ministers from several countries.
“We bury our heads in the sand at our own peril,” he went on. “It’s urgent to treat the climate crisis as the urgent security threat that it is.”
Climate change has been coming up in the Security Council for more than a decade, but the Tuesday meeting was notable for its stark contrast to the last four years, when the United States, under the presidency of Donald J. Trump, sought to block even general mentions of climate science in United Nations proceedings.
“Climate disruption is a crisis amplifier and multiplier,” the United Nations secretary general, António Guterres, told the Council.
Mr. Kerry noted the “inexcusable absence” of United States leadership on climate in the previous four years. As president, Mr. Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement, the global accord designed to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. President Biden began the process of rejoining as soon as he was sworn in.
The Security Council has the power to impose sanctions and authorize peacekeeping missions to countries, which is why countries argue about what it should and should not address.
Mr. Kerry’s remarks were part of a diplomatic squabble that broke out among powerful countries over whether climate change should even be discussed in the world body, which was designed to tackle war and peace.
Russia, India and China — all among the world’s biggest producers of greenhouse gas emissions — argued that climate change could be addressed in other ways. New global fault lines began to emerge.
India’s environment minister, Prakash Javdekar, dismissed the idea of climate change as a driver of conflict. China’s climate envoy, Xie Zhenhua, framed climate change as a development issue. Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vassily A. Nebenzia, waxed philosophical about rising temperatures. “Are they really the root causes of these conflicts?” he asked.
The session led to nothing concrete. But the fact that it happened at all, and that several presidents and prime ministers participated, sent a signal that climate change is becoming increasingly important among United Nations member states, particularly with the United States taking it on. “The Biden team’s emphasis on global warming has changed the incentive structure in the Council, and I think a lot of states are going to be flagging the issue this year,” said Richard Gowan, an analyst at the International Crisis Group.
Of the 21 countries where the United Nations currently deploys peacekeepers, 10 are ranked as most exposed to climate change, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, an independent research group.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, whose country serves as the rotating chair of the Security Council this month, opened the session by saying, “I know that there are people around the world who will say that this is all kind of green stuff from a bunch of tree-hugging tofu-munchers and not suited to international diplomacy and international politics.” He added: “I couldn’t disagree more profoundly.”
Britain hosts the next United Nations climate negotiations, to be held in November in Glasgow.
Big Setbacks Propel Oil Giants Toward a ‘Tipping Point’
A surprising mix of environmentalists, pension fund managers and big money investors have scored startling victories against oil and coal, opening new battle fronts in the climate fight.
Image
Activists outside an annual shareholder meeting of Royal Dutch Shell in Scheveningen, the Netherlands, in 2019.Credit...Piroschka Van De Wouw/Reuters
A nun, an environmental lawyer, pension fund executives, and the world’s largest asset manager. These were among the unusual collection of rebels who claimed a series of startling victories this week against some of the world’s biggest and most influential fossil fuel companies.
From Houston to The Hague, they fought their battles in shareholder meetings and courtrooms, opening surprising fronts in an accelerating effort to force the world’s coal, oil and gas companies to address their central role in the climate crisis. And even as they came with strikingly disparate points of view — corporate shareholders, children’s rights advocates, environmentalists, thousands of Dutch citizens — they delivered a common underlying message: The time to start retreating from the fossil fuel business is no longer in the future, but now.
“These companies are facing pressure from regulators, investors, and now the courts to up their game,” said Will Nichols, head of environmental research at Maplecroft, a risk analysis firm. “That’s a big chunk of society, and it’s not a great look to be pushing back against all of that.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The most dramatic turning point came in the Netherlands, where a court instructed Royal Dutch Shell, the largest private oil trader in the world and by far the largest company in the Netherlands itself, that it must sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions from all its global operations this decade. It was the first time a court ordered a private company to, in effect, change its business practice on climate grounds.
The symbolism was inescapable: The Netherlands, famously built on land reclaimed from the sea, faces the immediate threat from a warming climate caused by the burning of Shell’s own products — oil and gas.
In another example this week, at the annual shareholder meeting of Exxon Mobil, the biggest American oil company, the message was framed sharply in terms of profits: A tiny new hedge fund led an investor rebellion to diversify away from oil and gas — or risk hurting investors and the bottom line.
Chevron’s shareholders voted to tell the company to reduce not only its own emissions, but also, remarkably, the emissions produced by customers who burn its oil and gasoline. And in Australia, a judge warned the government that a proposed coal mine expansion, a project challenged by eight teenagers and an 86-year-old nun, would need to ensure that it wouldn’t harm the health of the country’s children.
ADVERTISEMENT
The timing was significant. This week scientists also concluded that, in the next five years, the average global temperature will at least temporarily spike beyond a dangerous threshold, climbing more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, warmer than in pre-industrial times. Avoiding that threshold is the main objective of the Paris Accord, the landmark global climate agreement among the nations of the world to fight climate change.
Of course, none of these actions represents an immediate threat to the fossil fuel industry. For a century and a half, the global economy has been fueled by oil and coal, and that won’t change immediately.
Nevertheless, rulings like the one in the Netherlands could be a harbinger for similar legal attacks against other fossil fuel companies and their investors, experts said. Kate Raworth, an economist at Oxford University, called Shell’s loss in court “a social tipping point for a fossil-fuel-free future.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Shell said it found the ruling, by a district court in The Hague, “disappointing” and intended to appeal. That process could take years to reach the country’s supreme court, delaying action but also drawing continued public attention.
Image
Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie, a Dutch environmental group, reacting to the Shell ruling in The Hague on Wednesday.Credit...Remko De Waal/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
If the ruling of the lower court stands, though, analysts said, Shell would most certainly have to reorient its business to reduce oil in its portfolio and halt its growth in liquefied natural gas, in which Shell is an industry leader. That is a matter of concern for the investors who have their money in the oil and gas reserves of companies like Shell, said Patrick Parenteau, a professor at Vermont Law School. “A decision telling a company, ‘You’ve got to get out of the oil business.’ For cautious individuals within the financial community, that’s got to cause them serious concerns.”
Dangerously for Shell, the national judiciary of the Netherlands in the past has shown itself to be among the most out-front on climate litigation. In 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ordered the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions because of a lawsuit filed by Urgenda, an environmental group. It was the first case in the world to force a national government to address climate change in order to uphold its human rights commitments.
That case, too, began in a district court in The Hague, before making its way up the judicial ladder. The lawsuit against Shell marked an escalation in that strategy.
Having sued the government and won, environmental advocates decided to take on one the country’s most influential companies. The case was brought in 2019 by Milieudefensie, the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth, as well as Greenpeace and 17,000 residents of the Netherlands. The complainants argued that the company has a legal duty to protect Dutch citizens from looming climate risks. The district court agreed.
“The consequences of this case for the fossil fuel industry will be systemic and immediate,” Tessa Khan, the lawyer who had sued the government on behalf of Urgenda, said on Twitter. She predicted that it would spur other cases and “escalate the perception of risk among investors.”
Shell had already begun to see the writing on the wall. It said earlier this year that global oil demand had likely reached a peak in 2019 and would slowly wane in the coming years.
And at least compared to some of its American peers, Shell had set relatively more ambitious climate targets. It had already promised to reduce the carbon intensity of its operations, which means that it could still continue to expand oil and production, but with lower emissions for every barrel it produced.
The district court on Wednesday instructed the company to cut its absolute emissions by 45 percent by 2030, relative to its 2019 levels. The ruling applies to Shell’s global operations. But, that said, even if it is upheld on appeal, enforcing it, say, in Nigeria, where Shell is the biggest oil producer, could prove to be “impractical,” said Biraj Borkhataria, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, an investment bank.
“However,” he said separately, in a note to clients on Thursday, “it is another example of society asking more from oil companies.”
The Shell ruling is particularly notable because private companies have been targets of climate litigation in the United States and elsewhere, but courts have rarely ruled against them.
Image
Protests against BlackRock, the giant asset manager, in Manhattan on Tuesday.Credit...Carlo Allegri/Reuters
The Dutch case opens a potentially new front, emboldening climate advocates to pursue more cases in a wider variety of countries, particularly where national laws enshrine the right to a clean environment. Several European and Latin American courts, including in the Netherlands, have interpreted their national laws in this way.
A farmer in Peru is suing a German energy giant over the effects of global warming on a glacier in his country. About 20 American cities, counties and states have sued the fossil fuel industry since 2017, seeking damages for the local costs of climate change.
Governments are also on the hook.
Germany’s highest court recently told the government to tighten its climate targets because they did not go far enough to ensure that future generations would be protected.
In the Australian case, eight teenagers, joined by Brigid Arthur, the nun, went to court to stop the government from expanding an enormous coal mine called Whitehaven. The court on Thursday stopped short of issuing an injunction against the mine, as the plaintiffs had sought.
But in ordering the government to take “reasonable care to avoid personal injury to the children,” it recognized climate change as an “intergenerational crime,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University and a lawyer who represents several U.S. cities and states suing fossil fuel companies.
“The actions we take today with respect to climate change can consign our children, our children’s children, and other future generations to a world that is fundamentally livable or a world that is not,” he said. “Courts recognize that.”
The most closely watched case in the United States, filed on behalf of young people against the United States government, seeks to establish a constitutional right to a sound environment. After recent setbacks in the federal courts, a federal judge has ordered the parties to enter settlement discussions.
The actions against Chevron and Exxon are notable because they reveal the extent to which shareholders are quickly awakening to the risk that their investments if energy companies don’t dramatically start changing their business models.
A significant chunk of shareholders demonstrated that they were increasingly distrustful that the companies could deliver the financial performance they expected without diversifying away from oil and gas.
Exxon this week lost a battle against a small new hedge fund, Engine No. 1, which rallied big investors like Blackrock and the New York state pension fund to force the company to change course. The hedge fund won at least two seats on Exxon’s 12-member board.
Tensie Whelan, director of the New York University Stern Center for Sustainable Business, called it “a pivotal moment for board accountability.” Activist shareholders have traditionally taken on company executives over financial issues, not social issues like climate change, she said. “Shareholders are deeply concerned about the financial risks posed by climate change and increasingly willing to hold the board to account,” Ms. Whelan said.
Stanley Reed and John Schwartz contributed reporting.
Somini Sengupta is an international climate correspondent. She has also covered the Middle East, West Africa and South Asia for The Times and received the 2003 George Polk Award for her work in Congo, Liberia and other conflict zones. @SominiSengupta • Facebook
Sign up for Climate Fwd: Newsletter
Our latest insights about climate change, with answers to your questions and tips on how to help.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So I would love to own an electric pick up. Love the concept. I don't have a place to plug in though. I live in a very unique area where plugging in to my place is impossible. I am hoping for something in Bidens infrastructure plan to address this.
So I would love to own an electric pick up. Love the concept. I don't have a place to plug in though. I live in a very unique area where plugging in to my place is impossible. I am hoping for something in Bidens infrastructure plan to address this.
supposed to have charging stations included.
Tesla has bought space at regional chain grocery stores, midwest is Meijer.
Meijer themselves , store near me just built a gas station on the property and included 10ish charging stations there. What I dont know is cost if any...
Something that simply MUST be addressed is how highway construction/upkeep with be funded as more and more E vehicles run the road. Some sort of usage tax to supplement fuel tax loss...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So I would love to own an electric pick up. Love the concept. I don't have a place to plug in though. I live in a very unique area where plugging in to my place is impossible. I am hoping for something in Bidens infrastructure plan to address this.
supposed to have charging stations included.
Tesla has bought space at regional chain grocery stores, midwest is Meijer.
Meijer themselves , store near me just built a gas station on the property and included 10ish charging stations there. What I dont know is cost if any...
Something that simply MUST be addressed is how highway construction/upkeep with be funded as more and more E vehicles run the road. Some sort of usage tax to supplement fuel tax loss...
The fuel tax has always been bullshit so why stop now, lol?
Tolls, road taxes, fuel taxes and lotto have always been a source of questioning. But I will agree that the tax must be transferred over. Charge for every fill up?
So I would love to own an electric pick up. Love the concept. I don't have a place to plug in though. I live in a very unique area where plugging in to my place is impossible. I am hoping for something in Bidens infrastructure plan to address this.
supposed to have charging stations included.
Tesla has bought space at regional chain grocery stores, midwest is Meijer.
Meijer themselves , store near me just built a gas station on the property and included 10ish charging stations there. What I dont know is cost if any...
Something that simply MUST be addressed is how highway construction/upkeep with be funded as more and more E vehicles run the road. Some sort of usage tax to supplement fuel tax loss...
Is there not a charge at a charging station for electric cars? Is tax not added they way it is at the gas station? I would think the tax would just transfer from gas to electric that way.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
So I would love to own an electric pick up. Love the concept. I don't have a place to plug in though. I live in a very unique area where plugging in to my place is impossible. I am hoping for something in Bidens infrastructure plan to address this.
supposed to have charging stations included.
Tesla has bought space at regional chain grocery stores, midwest is Meijer.
Meijer themselves , store near me just built a gas station on the property and included 10ish charging stations there. What I dont know is cost if any...
Something that simply MUST be addressed is how highway construction/upkeep with be funded as more and more E vehicles run the road. Some sort of usage tax to supplement fuel tax loss...
Is there not a charge at a charging station for electric cars? Is tax not added they way it is at the gas station? I would think the tax would just transfer from gas to electric that way.
not haveing an EV I have no idea on cost to charge. With more car companies seeming to go all in on EV, fuel taxes will naturally go down.
and yes fuel taxes are factored into the price at the pump
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So I would love to own an electric pick up. Love the concept. I don't have a place to plug in though. I live in a very unique area where plugging in to my place is impossible. I am hoping for something in Bidens infrastructure plan to address this.
supposed to have charging stations included.
Tesla has bought space at regional chain grocery stores, midwest is Meijer.
Meijer themselves , store near me just built a gas station on the property and included 10ish charging stations there. What I dont know is cost if any...
Something that simply MUST be addressed is how highway construction/upkeep with be funded as more and more E vehicles run the road. Some sort of usage tax to supplement fuel tax loss...
Is there not a charge at a charging station for electric cars? Is tax not added they way it is at the gas station? I would think the tax would just transfer from gas to electric that way.
not haveing an EV I have no idea on cost to charge. With more car companies seeming to go all in on EV, fuel taxes will naturally go down.
and yes fuel taxes are factored into the price at the pump
If you start taxing electric cars at the pump like ICE are then it takes away some incentive to go electric…
So I would love to own an electric pick up. Love the concept. I don't have a place to plug in though. I live in a very unique area where plugging in to my place is impossible. I am hoping for something in Bidens infrastructure plan to address this.
supposed to have charging stations included.
Tesla has bought space at regional chain grocery stores, midwest is Meijer.
Meijer themselves , store near me just built a gas station on the property and included 10ish charging stations there. What I dont know is cost if any...
Something that simply MUST be addressed is how highway construction/upkeep with be funded as more and more E vehicles run the road. Some sort of usage tax to supplement fuel tax loss...
Is there not a charge at a charging station for electric cars? Is tax not added they way it is at the gas station? I would think the tax would just transfer from gas to electric that way.
not haveing an EV I have no idea on cost to charge. With more car companies seeming to go all in on EV, fuel taxes will naturally go down.
and yes fuel taxes are factored into the price at the pump
If you start taxing electric cars at the pump like ICE are then it takes away some incentive to go electric…
there has to be something to pay into for maintaining and upgrading our roads and bridges....
the incentive to ev is the environment not avoiding fuel taxes
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So I would love to own an electric pick up. Love the concept. I don't have a place to plug in though. I live in a very unique area where plugging in to my place is impossible. I am hoping for something in Bidens infrastructure plan to address this.
supposed to have charging stations included.
Tesla has bought space at regional chain grocery stores, midwest is Meijer.
Meijer themselves , store near me just built a gas station on the property and included 10ish charging stations there. What I dont know is cost if any...
Something that simply MUST be addressed is how highway construction/upkeep with be funded as more and more E vehicles run the road. Some sort of usage tax to supplement fuel tax loss...
Is there not a charge at a charging station for electric cars? Is tax not added they way it is at the gas station? I would think the tax would just transfer from gas to electric that way.
not haveing an EV I have no idea on cost to charge. With more car companies seeming to go all in on EV, fuel taxes will naturally go down.
and yes fuel taxes are factored into the price at the pump
If you start taxing electric cars at the pump like ICE are then it takes away some incentive to go electric…
there has to be something to pay into for maintaining and upgrading our roads and bridges....
the incentive to ev is the environment not avoiding fuel taxes
I guess it would be a good time for governments to plan for that eventually…here in Canada they take any of the 1000 other taxes we have and use that for roads…lol.
quite honestly, the way Michigan roads are and roads are here…it appears the taxes for roads are not helping…
So I would love to own an electric pick up. Love the concept. I don't have a place to plug in though. I live in a very unique area where plugging in to my place is impossible. I am hoping for something in Bidens infrastructure plan to address this.
supposed to have charging stations included.
Tesla has bought space at regional chain grocery stores, midwest is Meijer.
Meijer themselves , store near me just built a gas station on the property and included 10ish charging stations there. What I dont know is cost if any...
Something that simply MUST be addressed is how highway construction/upkeep with be funded as more and more E vehicles run the road. Some sort of usage tax to supplement fuel tax loss...
Is there not a charge at a charging station for electric cars? Is tax not added they way it is at the gas station? I would think the tax would just transfer from gas to electric that way.
not haveing an EV I have no idea on cost to charge. With more car companies seeming to go all in on EV, fuel taxes will naturally go down.
and yes fuel taxes are factored into the price at the pump
If you start taxing electric cars at the pump like ICE are then it takes away some incentive to go electric…
there has to be something to pay into for maintaining and upgrading our roads and bridges....
the incentive to ev is the environment not avoiding fuel taxes
I guess it would be a good time for governments to plan for that eventually…here in Canada they take any of the 1000 other taxes we have and use that for roads…lol.
quite honestly, the way Michigan roads are and roads are here…it appears the taxes for roads are not helping…
michigan pulled part of those taxes to use for school funding....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I know local weather ≠ global climate but this is a big state:
Last measurable rain here was April 25th.
Rain totals for the state were very much below normal.
Temps well above normal here, today was our third day in a row here with triple digits.
Reservoirs are frightening low. This is Lake Oroville on June 1, 2021 and we likely won't see rain again for at least 3 and as much as up to 5 months from now:
Current California drought map:
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I remind myself often that living in fear is no way to live, but I know it's going to be hard for me to live by that this year. No doubt for others out here as well.
Stay safe, Hedo!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
So I would love to own an electric pick up. Love the concept. I don't have a place to plug in though. I live in a very unique area where plugging in to my place is impossible. I am hoping for something in Bidens infrastructure plan to address this.
supposed to have charging stations included.
Tesla has bought space at regional chain grocery stores, midwest is Meijer.
Meijer themselves , store near me just built a gas station on the property and included 10ish charging stations there. What I dont know is cost if any...
Something that simply MUST be addressed is how highway construction/upkeep with be funded as more and more E vehicles run the road. Some sort of usage tax to supplement fuel tax loss...
Is there not a charge at a charging station for electric cars? Is tax not added they way it is at the gas station? I would think the tax would just transfer from gas to electric that way.
not haveing an EV I have no idea on cost to charge. With more car companies seeming to go all in on EV, fuel taxes will naturally go down.
and yes fuel taxes are factored into the price at the pump
If you start taxing electric cars at the pump like ICE are then it takes away some incentive to go electric…
there has to be something to pay into for maintaining and upgrading our roads and bridges....
the incentive to ev is the environment not avoiding fuel taxes
I guess it would be a good time for governments to plan for that eventually…here in Canada they take any of the 1000 other taxes we have and use that for roads…lol.
quite honestly, the way Michigan roads are and roads are here…it appears the taxes for roads are not helping…
michigan pulled part of those taxes to use for school funding....
governments never seemingly have enough…governments need to make better choices…but they won’t…
Hoover dam has always been a measuring stick for me. The desert keeps growing in populations, sure but the water level keeps going down. The water level has gone down significantly since my visit in 2003.
They say it's a 20 year drought. It hasn't gone up slightly since 2013.
If you can, google when the spillways were actually used. I don't think that will ever happen again...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
Yes, I may have been too generous!
For sure. And climate activist Neil Young needs to do the same. Several of his records have used an excessive amount resources over the last several years- mainly paper and paperboard, but one sided records as well. That contradiction has long puzzled me.
Laughed my ass off!
If mining lithium and making large batteries is the right way and doesn't cause even more harm to the environment then I would be ok with that.
Climate andEnvironment
Big Setbacks Propel Oil Giants Toward a ‘Tipping Point’
A surprising mix of environmentalists, pension fund managers and big money investors have scored startling victories against oil and coal, opening new battle fronts in the climate fight.
By Somini Sengupta
A nun, an environmental lawyer, pension fund executives, and the world’s largest asset manager. These were among the unusual collection of rebels who claimed a series of startling victories this week against some of the world’s biggest and most influential fossil fuel companies.
From Houston to The Hague, they fought their battles in shareholder meetings and courtrooms, opening surprising fronts in an accelerating effort to force the world’s coal, oil and gas companies to address their central role in the climate crisis. And even as they came with strikingly disparate points of view — corporate shareholders, children’s rights advocates, environmentalists, thousands of Dutch citizens — they delivered a common underlying message: The time to start retreating from the fossil fuel business is no longer in the future, but now.
“These companies are facing pressure from regulators, investors, and now the courts to up their game,” said Will Nichols, head of environmental research at Maplecroft, a risk analysis firm. “That’s a big chunk of society, and it’s not a great look to be pushing back against all of that.”
The most dramatic turning point came in the Netherlands, where a court instructed Royal Dutch Shell, the largest private oil trader in the world and by far the largest company in the Netherlands itself, that it must sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions from all its global operations this decade. It was the first time a court ordered a private company to, in effect, change its business practice on climate grounds.
The symbolism was inescapable: The Netherlands, famously built on land reclaimed from the sea, faces the immediate threat from a warming climate caused by the burning of Shell’s own products — oil and gas.
In another example this week, at the annual shareholder meeting of Exxon Mobil, the biggest American oil company, the message was framed sharply in terms of profits: A tiny new hedge fund led an investor rebellion to diversify away from oil and gas — or risk hurting investors and the bottom line.
Chevron’s shareholders voted to tell the company to reduce not only its own emissions, but also, remarkably, the emissions produced by customers who burn its oil and gasoline. And in Australia, a judge warned the government that a proposed coal mine expansion, a project challenged by eight teenagers and an 86-year-old nun, would need to ensure that it wouldn’t harm the health of the country’s children.
The timing was significant. This week scientists also concluded that, in the next five years, the average global temperature will at least temporarily spike beyond a dangerous threshold, climbing more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, warmer than in pre-industrial times. Avoiding that threshold is the main objective of the Paris Accord, the landmark global climate agreement among the nations of the world to fight climate change.
Of course, none of these actions represents an immediate threat to the fossil fuel industry. For a century and a half, the global economy has been fueled by oil and coal, and that won’t change immediately.
Nevertheless, rulings like the one in the Netherlands could be a harbinger for similar legal attacks against other fossil fuel companies and their investors, experts said. Kate Raworth, an economist at Oxford University, called Shell’s loss in court “a social tipping point for a fossil-fuel-free future.”
Shell said it found the ruling, by a district court in The Hague, “disappointing” and intended to appeal. That process could take years to reach the country’s supreme court, delaying action but also drawing continued public attention.
If the ruling of the lower court stands, though, analysts said, Shell would most certainly have to reorient its business to reduce oil in its portfolio and halt its growth in liquefied natural gas, in which Shell is an industry leader. That is a matter of concern for the investors who have their money in the oil and gas reserves of companies like Shell, said Patrick Parenteau, a professor at Vermont Law School. “A decision telling a company, ‘You’ve got to get out of the oil business.’ For cautious individuals within the financial community, that’s got to cause them serious concerns.”
Dangerously for Shell, the national judiciary of the Netherlands in the past has shown itself to be among the most out-front on climate litigation. In 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ordered the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions because of a lawsuit filed by Urgenda, an environmental group. It was the first case in the world to force a national government to address climate change in order to uphold its human rights commitments.
That case, too, began in a district court in The Hague, before making its way up the judicial ladder. The lawsuit against Shell marked an escalation in that strategy.
Having sued the government and won, environmental advocates decided to take on one the country’s most influential companies. The case was brought in 2019 by Milieudefensie, the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth, as well as Greenpeace and 17,000 residents of the Netherlands. The complainants argued that the company has a legal duty to protect Dutch citizens from looming climate risks. The district court agreed.
“The consequences of this case for the fossil fuel industry will be systemic and immediate,” Tessa Khan, the lawyer who had sued the government on behalf of Urgenda, said on Twitter. She predicted that it would spur other cases and “escalate the perception of risk among investors.”
Shell had already begun to see the writing on the wall. It said earlier this year that global oil demand had likely reached a peak in 2019 and would slowly wane in the coming years.
And at least compared to some of its American peers, Shell had set relatively more ambitious climate targets. It had already promised to reduce the carbon intensity of its operations, which means that it could still continue to expand oil and production, but with lower emissions for every barrel it produced.
The district court on Wednesday instructed the company to cut its absolute emissions by 45 percent by 2030, relative to its 2019 levels. The ruling applies to Shell’s global operations. But, that said, even if it is upheld on appeal, enforcing it, say, in Nigeria, where Shell is the biggest oil producer, could prove to be “impractical,” said Biraj Borkhataria, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, an investment bank.
“However,” he said separately, in a note to clients on Thursday, “it is another example of society asking more from oil companies.”
The Shell ruling is particularly notable because private companies have been targets of climate litigation in the United States and elsewhere, but courts have rarely ruled against them.
The Dutch case opens a potentially new front, emboldening climate advocates to pursue more cases in a wider variety of countries, particularly where national laws enshrine the right to a clean environment. Several European and Latin American courts, including in the Netherlands, have interpreted their national laws in this way.
A farmer in Peru is suing a German energy giant over the effects of global warming on a glacier in his country. About 20 American cities, counties and states have sued the fossil fuel industry since 2017, seeking damages for the local costs of climate change.
Governments are also on the hook.
Germany’s highest court recently told the government to tighten its climate targets because they did not go far enough to ensure that future generations would be protected.
In the Australian case, eight teenagers, joined by Brigid Arthur, the nun, went to court to stop the government from expanding an enormous coal mine called Whitehaven. The court on Thursday stopped short of issuing an injunction against the mine, as the plaintiffs had sought.
But in ordering the government to take “reasonable care to avoid personal injury to the children,” it recognized climate change as an “intergenerational crime,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University and a lawyer who represents several U.S. cities and states suing fossil fuel companies.
“The actions we take today with respect to climate change can consign our children, our children’s children, and other future generations to a world that is fundamentally livable or a world that is not,” he said. “Courts recognize that.”
The most closely watched case in the United States, filed on behalf of young people against the United States government, seeks to establish a constitutional right to a sound environment. After recent setbacks in the federal courts, a federal judge has ordered the parties to enter settlement discussions.
The actions against Chevron and Exxon are notable because they reveal the extent to which shareholders are quickly awakening to the risk that their investments if energy companies don’t dramatically start changing their business models.
A significant chunk of shareholders demonstrated that they were increasingly distrustful that the companies could deliver the financial performance they expected without diversifying away from oil and gas.
Exxon this week lost a battle against a small new hedge fund, Engine No. 1, which rallied big investors like Blackrock and the New York state pension fund to force the company to change course. The hedge fund won at least two seats on Exxon’s 12-member board.
Tensie Whelan, director of the New York University Stern Center for Sustainable Business, called it “a pivotal moment for board accountability.” Activist shareholders have traditionally taken on company executives over financial issues, not social issues like climate change, she said. “Shareholders are deeply concerned about the financial risks posed by climate change and increasingly willing to hold the board to account,” Ms. Whelan said.
Stanley Reed and John Schwartz contributed reporting.
Somini Sengupta is an international climate correspondent. She has also covered the Middle East, West Africa and South Asia for The Times and received the 2003 George Polk Award for her work in Congo, Liberia and other conflict zones. @SominiSengupta • Facebook
Sign up for Climate Fwd: Newsletter
Our latest insights about climate change, with answers to your questions and tips on how to help.
Sign UpNot today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Tolls, road taxes, fuel taxes and lotto have always been a source of questioning. But I will agree that the tax must be transferred over. Charge for every fill up?
Is there not a charge at a charging station for electric cars? Is tax not added they way it is at the gas station? I would think the tax would just transfer from gas to electric that way.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
quite honestly, the way Michigan roads are and roads are here…it appears the taxes for roads are not helping…
michigan pulled part of those taxes to use for school funding....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Hoover dam has always been a measuring stick for me. The desert keeps growing in populations, sure but the water level keeps going down. The water level has gone down significantly since my visit in 2003.
They say it's a 20 year drought. It hasn't gone up slightly since 2013.
If you can, google when the spillways were actually used. I don't think that will ever happen again...
damn science.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14