You must log in or register to comment.

digitelle t1_j7vbl6l wrote

The board of directors will likely be fined far less than what they earned. Especially if politicians have anything to do with them.

Being paid off is much easier than waiting for approval and in many cases, far more affordable.

Unless shell is stripped of all their earnings from the last year… plus +10% in fines on top of it… we will see absolutely nothing happen but time being wasted.


could_use_a_snack t1_j7vdk9u wrote

IDK, this seems a little different. To me it looks like a way to get rid of the BOD and replace it with a more climate conscious group of leaders. This suit seems to be aiming at the current BOD personally, and is being brought by investors. I don't think it's looking to punish the company directly but to eliminate the current leadership.


gustav_mannerheim t1_j7wc2fi wrote

What I find interesting about this is that the argument seems to be that the BOD is breaking their duty to the investors by ignoring the economy inevitably ditching fossil fuels. The board has over prioritized short term profits and upset its own investors who want their investment to stay competitive in the future. It doesn't even seem to be a climate focused argument.


could_use_a_snack t1_j7weupc wrote

That's what it seems like to me too. If they don't start dealing with how they are affecting the environment, the company is going to tank really soon. So get with it BOD or get out. Times are changing and you need to adapt.


Maleficent-Coat-7633 t1_j7wmvul wrote

I see the logic. "We want our money, but we need to be alive to actually spend it"


could_use_a_snack t1_j7wqw4o wrote

Also the company needs to survive to keep the money rolling in. If shareholders start demanding that companies "go green" or at least greener, to stay relevant that is at least going in the right direction.


Maleficent-Coat-7633 t1_j7wsyub wrote

No reason they can't invest that oil money into renewables after all.


Batsonworkshop t1_j7wv70m wrote

The only renewable worth a damn is nuclear. And a petroleum company is highly unlikely to invest the sums of money needed to build nuclear plants that effectively kill the primary industry of the petroleum companies.


Maleficent-Coat-7633 t1_j7y9931 wrote

Actually nuclear is not renewable. Uranium is finite, it merely buys us time. Also a lot of renewable power systems are actually quite viable. A combination of wind, hydro, and solar can do a lot with a decent energy storage system. Combine that with things like tidal and you would be surprised how much you can get.

Besides, the oil companies are playing chicken with the goddamn apocalypse. My opinions on what should be done with their CEOs are best left unstated. Suffice it to say I consider them Hostis Humani Generis. Those who have a basic understanding of Latin should know just how damning an accusation that phrase is.


PyroTech11 t1_j7ybqtw wrote

Also if the world is going green and nobody is buying oil why are we invested in a company making only oil


Chadasaurus t1_j7ygzj3 wrote

Currently the world is buying ~100 million barrels of oil per day. So people are definitely still buying oil and will be for the foreseeable future.


PyroTech11 t1_j7yh3e1 wrote

I know but the trend is slowly going towards renewables on the developed world at least. So to only focus on oil would be a short term goal which is not what investors would want


Superamdyn t1_j7yypq8 wrote

Even the optimistic forecasts of BEV adoption only show 10-15% of vehicles on the road being BEV by 2035.


Maleficent-Coat-7633 t1_j7yzm3q wrote

The trouble is that oil companies don't seem to think of anything but short term.


PyroTech11 t1_j7zrx9x wrote

Which is why their being sued by investors, literally what the article is about


Superamdyn t1_j82ovgs wrote

The majority of their investors are not suing them.


tadpole511 t1_j7wsa8k wrote

The government successfully started prosecuting mafia members for tax fraud. Perhaps a more circuitous route will be successful in here too. It's still a path to more renewable energy, even if it's about profits. Isn't that one of the whole capitalist arguments anyway--sway the market using money? They used it as an excuse to keep producing oil and gas, and now it's being used against them.

Ninja edit: I'm not saying that they actually care about green energy. I'm positive it's about money. But it's still a win for green energy and climate causes if they win/enact changes.


Batsonworkshop t1_j7wviza wrote

The capitalist argument is not to forth the sway of the market with money from the top - it's that the consumers money sways thenl market. If consumers what ev, renewable energies, etc, they will buy them. If they are readily available and not being purchased it's largely because the market does not want them and/or they are not market viable.


digitelle t1_j7vzgna wrote

I really hope so! It would be good of for a change this is bullshit that has gone to far.


BluezamEDH t1_j83c8fn wrote

In theory it's nice. However upon reading the article you see that the party that filed the lawsuit has 12 million shares of 7 billion total.

That's about 0.17%. Less than 1/500.

While I think it's a good initiative, I doubt it'll do much.


JooosephNthomas t1_j7vcnin wrote

It will look good in the headlines. So there is the perception of things changing hahaha.


digitelle t1_j7vzlzg wrote

It’s true, it’s pretty easy to lie to the general public with politics controls our access to information.

Lets just not hope for the book 1984 to become entirely true.


Xavier9756 t1_j7w5qre wrote

It’s always funny hearing people talk about 1984. Because the man would very much hate the kinds of people that use 1984 has a tentpole in their arguments.


Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j7wfah4 wrote

What's more, 1984 is no longer possible. Our access to information is too great for censorship to ever be effective to that extent.

Information manipulation is still possible, but Brave New World is a much more likely future dystopia, if we're deciding between them


[deleted] t1_j7y5vdh wrote

I find that information manipulation is not only happening right now but can get in my opinion a million times worse in the future. Access to information is great but what if most of that information is wrong.

In my opinion we don't live in the information age we live in the misinformation age.


jseah t1_j7ycnew wrote

Or cyberpunk 2077...


Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j7zgb2p wrote

That is also a possibility, but I think it's less likely to be honest. There have been a lot of times in history where corporations gain a lot of power, but they're pretty much always broken up and crushed after a while. The power of corporations tends to crumble very quickly when the government goes after them


FireDangle t1_j7wu1gp wrote

it sets a precedent. the fact that they are personally being sued is actually a big deal.

and also, the whole mindset of "nothing works so its a waste of time" is a cop out.


Vinstaal0 t1_j7ybomj wrote

Law suits like this need to happen so we can use the outcome in the future.

Fines are often capped here in EU laws and not income based. Even if they where then there are tons of ways to split part of the income of the board of directors so it would seem like they wouldn’t earn as much.


gophergun t1_j7ypw32 wrote

Why would they be fined? Also, approval for what?


Superamdyn t1_j7yy8xe wrote

Unless the BOD has contravened some legislation there won’t be any fines. This is an activist group representing 0.17% of shareholders (12 million of 7 billion according to the article). The board is elected by shareholders and if >99% are not participating in this lawsuit… I doubt that anything much comes of it - again unless something was contravened. If shareholders do not like the direction - they already have a mechanism to change that - they elect a new board.


hoodratchic t1_j7wqctc wrote

It's a start? Why do negative in /uplifting news?


DievBomD t1_j7viyfr wrote

A spokesperson from Shell said they “do not accept ClientEarth’s allegations”.
“Our directors have complied with their legal duties and have, at all times, acted in the best interests of the company.”

Says nothing about the World, but does mention the Companies best interests. Hmm profits?


Top-Philosophy-5791 t1_j7vo2nc wrote

Murderers act in their best interest, doesn’t make it right. These psychopaths need new laws against them. Their company profits do not have greater importance than the planet and everything that lives on it.


epelle9 t1_j7yeq9v wrote

Yeah, that’s actually what the lawsuit was about.

It wasn’t about them hurting the environment, but about them hurting investors’ profits.

By hurting the environment and not investing in green energy they are getting huge short term gains (which are reflected on their bonuses), but they hurt the long term profits of the company as a green energy strategy is now more profitable for the long term.

And thats why they might even win, not because they are damaging the world, but because they are hurting stockholder profits while doing so.


Nowhereman123 t1_j7x8efc wrote

"We may have irreversibly destroyed the climate, but look on the bright side! We created a lot of value for our shareholders!"


Anoscetia t1_j7y847d wrote

I'm pretty sure companies do not have any duty to the world at large codified in law besides profit maximization for shareholders and not breaking existing environmental and safety regulations, so besides a tiny PR hit this is going nowhere.


DievBomD t1_j7y8s32 wrote

They have no duty to the world.. the point being they knew what's happening and have known for years, but kept the companies best interest at heart.

Did you think I didnt understand that part? I dont understand your reply.


ErrantsFeral t1_j7w3kl9 wrote

Yes, all of that. This is the corporate bottom line, as usual. Profit protection. I don't think things will change unless there are meaningful, deterrent consequences, and for corporations that translates to financial consequences.

One excuse that corporations use to skirt the law is "complied with their legal duties". That's always so infuriating. That is a core problem, the legislative framework that allows loopholes and get out of jail free cards. That needs serious change.


gophergun t1_j7yq61u wrote

The legal basis of the suit has nothing to do with the World and everything to do with profits. It's reasonable to respond to what's relevant to the thing being discussed.


Historical_Boat_871 t1_j7vg9ha wrote

Ugh. I live in the Alps. We have had such warm days during winter. Shit is fucked and we need to start having real consequences


weneedhugs t1_j7wpcr1 wrote

Wait climate change wasn’t supposed to affect poor countries only? /s


Newfishtanker t1_j7vcqt6 wrote

Business Judgement Rule. Like it or not, the BJR immunity is a virtually impenetrable shield. This case will get tossed unfortunately


Can_of_Sounds t1_j7vbk2k wrote

I hope this is the kind of lawsuit that ends with 'throw them in the snake pit'.


thecwestions t1_j7w9pq4 wrote

Please do BP next, and then all the rest.

We can't let the fossil fuel industry control the fate of our climate as well as our pocketbooks.


Extinguish89 t1_j7whjvi wrote

Be nice but shell and BP control the politicians too


Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j7wpur9 wrote

If that was true, renewables wouldn't be one of the biggest growth sectors.

They have influence, but they don't have control.


Extinguish89 t1_j7y6j95 wrote

Still require fossil fuels to make to renewables. Shell and BP are the conglomerates. And what's going to happen to them in this lawsuit? A fine they'll easily pay it off and likely nothing will happen.


Batsonworkshop t1_j7ww3uq wrote

What do you heat your house with snd what powers your transport. Genuinely interested.

Over half the modern world would not be possible without petroleum byproducts. Unless you want to go back to living like it's the early 1800s, killing the global petroleum industry will literally kill over 1/3rd the worlds population in less than 2 generations.


RelationIn t1_j7x3nuo wrote

Solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear are all options here.


Batsonworkshop t1_j7x49jq wrote

Solar and wind produce massive amounts of pollutants to produce with a large quantity of nn-recyclable materials when they meet their wnd of life.

Absolutely agree on hydro, but it requires a very specific geography to implement. Where applicable, it should absolutely be used.

Im not anti-solar and wind but it has significant limitations and isn't nearly as "green" as people try to push it as being.


vietboi2999 t1_j7vz49i wrote



HuskyLeafGaming1 t1_j7wkqv1 wrote

Nothing will come of this lawsuit, be realistic here.


TheRealMicrowaveSafe t1_j7wgocd wrote

Oh boy! We're all gonna fuckin die but at least these people will have a tiny bit less money first!


Superamdyn t1_j7xtbh9 wrote

According to the article “The legal claim also has the backing of institutional investors and pension funds who together own over 12 million of Shell’s 7 billion shares” - that’s hardly any. In essence the majority of Shell’s investors are not included. One can also assume that since the board was elected by their investors, the majority of investors are happy with the directions unless proved otherwise !


Delicious-Phase608 t1_j7wdzh6 wrote

All negative comments will be removed? More like opinions against the narrative will be!


doginasweater39 t1_j7wkxbf wrote

HELL YESS!!!!!! I am fucking HERE FOR IT!!!!!!!


853lovsouthie t1_j7wqj67 wrote

I would like them held responsible just like big tobacco and big pharma


AutoModerator t1_j7uz1c1 wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


timlest t1_j7w232w wrote

No pee pole, no mun nee !!


Commercial-Break1877 t1_j8jpbfb wrote

I'd f#ck them up final fantasy 7 style and plant a homemade bomb at one of their refineries. Of course I'd only target their control stations, as if the tanks blew up then I'd be as bad as them. I could also find a way to make a reactive additive, which would make the oil unusable.


thepeopleschoice666 t1_j7xmraa wrote

Have you even heard of the petro-dollar? If you think it's just a "Shell" thing to not care about climate, think again. It's a politics thing. The US economy would simply collapse if all the world started decreasing their fuel use.


Vinstaal0 t1_j7ycdda wrote

Which I wouldn’t care as much if the US economy would “collapse”. Restarting it would probably be better for everybody and there is chance it wouldn’t even hurt the average American besides maybe the gas going up, but it would still be cheaper than here in The Netherlands.


thepeopleschoice666 t1_j7zexyr wrote

There's a lot of say that US and co. (including Russia, Iran, China) make a lot of money off of wars related to oil... etc. Can't verify or deny that. Just food for thought.


SizzlerWA t1_j7y7ikq wrote

Yeah, this feels silly to me. They should be protected by their employer unless they actually did something criminal. Otherwise what’s the point of incorporating?

What’s next if this is allowed to progress?

I’m in favor of addressing climate change even if it costs $, but this is an unfair personal attack if you ask me. The end does not justify the means here.


epelle9 t1_j7yf6cw wrote

You got this whole lawsuit wrong.

They aren’t suing them for hurting the environment, they are auing them for putting short term profits (which result in bonuses for the board) instead of investing in renewable energies that are now better investment for long term profits and survival of those corporations.

This isn’t about reducing profits to improve climate change, but its actually about them reducing corporate profits to worsen climate change (and improve their personal profit).

The board has a legal duty to handle the risks that come (to the company) from overuse of oil, and they failed that duty because they increased the long term risks to the company’s bottom line by overusing oil for increased bonuses.


SizzlerWA t1_j82bdgh wrote

I appreciate what you’re saying, and thanks for the analysis, I think it’s fair.

I just don’t condone doing an end run around the legal shields that corporations provide, otherwise everyday employees could be sued for their involvement in non-criminal work outcomes that people disagree with.


Hamonte t1_j7w7ybs wrote

Plenty of data that shows there's no emergency.


Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j7wpok9 wrote

Just checking, wanting to make sure you're not seriously saying that climate change isn't an emergency? Please say I have misinterpreted this? Because almost all the data we have on the subject suggests it is an emergency that we need to do as much as we can to revert, to prevent millions (or even billions) of deaths.


mcnello t1_j7vzu4d wrote

This is retarded. It makes equally as much sense to sue everyone who fills up their car with gasoline.


Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j7wflgo wrote

By that logic, someone who chucks an empty can on the floor should get the same sentencing as someone that dumps a 100-ton trash heap in a public place


mcnello t1_j7ww81n wrote

Agreed. That logic is pretty retarded. Selling oil is criminal but buying oil isn't criminal? What a fucking double standard.


Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j7wxkro wrote

Once a crime gets small enough, it isn't prosecuted. It is criminal, but it's a fucking tiny crime. It's like taking pebbles from a beach, or littering.

Only problem is - everyone does it.

On the other hand: shell/BP/large companies aren't taking one pebble from a beach, they are taking the entire beach. Which is 100% prosecutable.


mcnello t1_j7wysw8 wrote

So let's ban oil and watch how fast the world crumbles apart.


Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j7x105w wrote

Hah, no. We're going to be sensible about it. Right now coal is collapsing, oil is stagnating, gas is slightly growing, and renewables are beginning to accelerate through the roof.

You'll notice that's in order of CO2 emissions. Highest emissions = lowest growth.

So. We're just going to keep investing in renewables and nuclear. Coal will disappear first, that's already happening. Oil will follow quite quickly after. Nuclear and renewables will replace them, there won't be any energy cuts - after all the government will be in charge of all this and the economy is always their #1 priority.

Bans won't be necessary. Oil and coal are already more expensive than renewables - they're being outcompeted.

Gas will follow after that. It'll take a while, much longer than oil or coal, but it will happen.

Coal's use to make steel is already being phased out. We'll probably continue using oil, but only to make plastic. And actually there's already a lot of well-funded research being done on how to replace that, at least partially.

So don't worry - civilisation can do just fine without oil. A lot of people are working hard on it right now.


mcnello t1_j7x1h9c wrote

But if it's illegal why aren't we banning it?


Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j7x73vf wrote

Because politics and the economy are relevant.

The objective of government should be to improve the lives of their citizens. Instantly banning oil would not do that. So instead, we started investing into things that could replace oil.

Reality isn't simple. But complicated solutions are still solutions. And fossil fuels will be replaced.


mcnello t1_j7y48lo wrote

I have absolutely nothing with getting away from oil. But you literally just said "we should fine oil companies for selling oil" and "we can't ban oil because we need it". See the contradiction? Also, I'm not sure what the crime is. Don't you think we should actually have a statute that we follow, instead of fine companies based on how we feel on Thursday? Rule of law seems to be an importantt concept.


Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j7zghea wrote

There is no contradiction. The real world is complicated, and some crimes are necessary.