An utterly crushing day for Big Oil

I wish we could just have a global carbon price instead of all these piecemeal judgements. Start it at $50/tonne, tariff anyone who doesn't apply it, and increase it until global CO2 emissions reach a target level.

Chevron thing was meaningless. The Shell decision is material, but subject to appeal [1]. The ExxonMobil vote is permanent and unprecedented. (It was also initiated by a hedge fund.)<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wsj.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;shell-ordered-by-dutch-court-to-cut-carbon-emissions-11622038961" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wsj.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;shell-ordered-by-dutch-court-to...</a>

I wonder, is it really &quot;crushing&quot; them or is it saving them from themselves? It could be either.<p>It depends on the balance between writing off old investments before their time (purely economically speaking) and avoiding new investments that would never deliver positive returns anyway as the age of fossil fuel comes to an end.<p>In fact, this is a question that doesn&#x27;t just affect the oil majors. The cost of our entire entire energy transition very much depends on timing.<p>I think what makes this politically difficult is that these costs are directly caused by political decisions whereas the cost of global warming is less easily distingushable from a natural disaster.

One of the top comments<p>&gt; Correct me if I&#x27;m wrong but the oil companies do not burn their own oil, so they are not the emitters. They sell the oil to their customers (i.e. all of us), and they (we) burn it. Why are the producers blamed for all the emissions? Because it&#x27;s easy to point a finger at them?<p>That is some galaxy brain logic, impressive.

Its a shame that we rely on the markets to enforce what should be enforced by the UN.<p>Climate change is a global problem that capitalism is responsible largely for, asking capitalism to solve it is unrealistic at best.

Not so sure this move to EVs is the best thing going forward, unless we really solve the power&#x2F;energy distribution thing, that is.<p>Yes, we might partially solve the power generation issue as solar cells are getting cheaper, we get better at reining in wind-power costs, maybe even getting back to nuclear etc, but imo getting that power from point A (generation site) to points B to Z (consumers) reliably and in abundance is a not-solved problem.<p>Case in point me, as I’m writing this comment. I’ve decided to spend the middle of this week at my parents’ house in the East-European countryside doing wfh (I’ve got the vaccine and I finally feel safe about seeing them in direct contact) but I just had to turn off the light in my room just now because it was flickering. Judging by what I can read on the local FB group this is a usual thing. My parents live 30-40 km away from the country’s only nuclear plant, so while power generation is not an issue reliable power distribution is indeed a big issue.<p>While this may be anecdotal I venture to say that this example is not singular, that is if you go outside the big populous cities (where, I agree, while still present this sort of issue is less prevalent).<p>I’m also curious about who’s going to pay fir building that reliable power-distribution network we will need? The car companies aren’t going to do it, neither the big oil majors.

If any of this actually sticks.<p>I can see the judgment against shell going through appeals processes for decades, during which it’ll be business as usual. If the appeals don’t look to be going well, they’ll replace the government and the judiciary as necessary, and will try again.<p>Chevron and Exxon, the proof will be in the pudding, but it just smells like so much greenwashing right now.

Lol good luck, shareholders&#x2F;executives don&#x27;t care because tomorrow everyone&#x27;s going to use their cars, have their goods shipped by tankers and Tweet on their plastic covered phones.<p>Everyone in society decides whether or not a business&#x2F;industry succeeds or fails. Not a Twitter mob.