The recent court decisions in Holland and Australia look like being
the leaders of a flood of Findings by Judges that companies have
placed people at risk because their CO2 emissions are causing problems
for some or all people by means of global warming.
In the Royal Dutch Shell case it must reduce its sale of petrol etc.
Shell argued that their customers would simply buy it elsewhere.
I am not sure whether Shell has to reduce its sales world wide or
just in Holland.
However there is no definitive proof that CO2 is causing global warming.
If the judge could not provide that evidence can his decision be enforced ?

Hell's bells! What a lunatic asylum the world has become. Politicians, judges - all wackjobs. The general population - too stupid and weak to stand up to them.

Dear Bazz,

I doubt of this Dutch decision could be
enforced globally - we can't expect governments
and companies to change course because of a
single ruling by a Dutch district court.

The only place where this may have an effect in
in the Netherlands where other cases may follow
by putting additional pressures on politicians
and businesses to organise for a more rapid
low-carbon transition. However, for a case to be
brought successfully the emissions must be
sufficiently large and responsibility must be
sufficiently clear.

It also may take years for appeals to be concluded.

Bazz,
>However there is no definitive proof that CO2 is causing global warming.

We know global warming is occurring.
We know the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 50% since preindustrial times.
And we know how CO2 causes warming.

How is that not definitive proof?

Foxy, whether the court's decision can be enforced globally might
depend on the company structure and whether it is on local share exchanges.
Not sure, but I think Shell like Philips has one company structure
with local management boards. The judge could rule that Royal Dutch
Shell can direct the local companies to adopt the courts decision.
Keep watch.

Aiden, no it is not definitive proof. You are, like many, believe that
the science is settled. There is plenty of scientific opinion that
it is not settled. Even the IPCC is using weasel words.
What is the phrase, "probability".
Anyway there has never been an answer to why is it that temperature
rises first then followed by co2 increase ?

Anyway the temperature rose from the late 18th century to a likely
peak around 2000 right on schedule.
Could it just possibly be the SUN ?

Foxy,

Shell has a number of options

1 appeal the decision
2 Move Shell HQ to another country
3 Spilt off its oil production to another company in another country
4 sell the oil assets to a 3rd party.

etc, none of which will reduce oil consumption one jot.