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.

Aiden, it is not proof. It might well be that global warming has peaked.
If the current cycle is 600 years long then in 50 to 100 years we will
know, but the next cycle could be 1000 years so the low point could
be 500 years away.
The co2 rose because the warming earth grew more plants.
That complies with the observed warming precedes co2.
Anyway check in 300 years and see if the Thames Ice Festivals have been reintroduced.
Because the warming is the result of three independent cycles each
cycle may be different in length.
A Fourier Transform has to be used to detect the cycle and with only
three cycles with solid dates there
is not enough data to be certain.
Watch this space.

Shadow Minister,
I guess all those options are available to Shell.
As they have already set up a group in the company to study how to
exit the oil industry, they may find it better to hurry on with that
already made decision.
Whatever they do other than appeal it will have a major effect on the
oil industry.
I think the Australian decision was to do with Bass Strait gas, if I remember correctly.
If this practise becomes widespread the government will have to intervene.
Imagine a ruling that oil companies here had to cut their output by
even such a small amount as 25% there would be queues miles long.
However we have seen mad decisions previously.

I did a search on Duck go with "court cases to restrict oil and gas companies"
and got a large number of reports.
The result of the Dutch case is not clear whether it means all Shell
companies or just the one in Holland.
However it does mean a cut of 45%.
If the overseas Shell companies are involved because it is one company
then it would only mean other companies would take up the slack as
I don't think the refinery in Melbourne or Brisbane are Shell owned.
It would just mean Shell service station would cut back by 45%.

However all major oil companies have such cases in process in many
countries including Australia.

If I was a CEO of an electricity generator company with similar case
being lost I would stand in front of the judge call my company and
tell them to close all generators and tell the judge we have complied
and to use the stairs on his way home.
A fantasy of course. Hmmm.