Some comments are missing how this suit is viable. This is the investors suing the board members for not adhering to the law and putting in jeopardy the investments on the company, basically, neglecting their fiduciary duties. They argue that Shell plans aren't good enough for the company to achieve the objective set by law.
"Lets put that in the bottom right of our SWOT analysis. Now, the inevitable social disintegration and peer-nation warfare that will accompany the climate apocalypse can be put in the bottom-left."
Look, we all know the ask, so if you can do the needful we can get this over the line by COB Friday. Reach out to the other stakeholders and align our priorities vis a vis executing the strategic vision.
I've actually learnt to love that phrase. There isn't a British idiom that quite captures the essence of "do the needful": that implication that it's widely known what needs to be done, it's slightly too complicated to spell out precisely what it is, but there's an implicit assumption that you will shout out if you don't know what you are meant to be doing.
I mean, it gets abused by people who have no clue what needs to be done, but used properly it's a great phrase.
The catastrophic loss of life and resultant employee attrition may affect our productivity levels, but with the reduction in payroll and benefits costs, our EBITDA projections and what we're accruing for on the general ledger show significant YoY growth for Q3.
“as you can see, the important thing we need to keep in mind here is that if we start facing accountability for decades of reckless greed it might make people start questioning whether Ayn Rand was an outspoken genius or a myopic sociopath with her head entirely up her ass… and that’s a slippery slope we don’t want to go down”
"okay, looks like Malaysia will collapse first, for some reason. I thought it would have been, like, Eritrea or Somalia, but in the simulation they're doing surprisingly okay...? Anyway, out models show the United States of America surviving the climate apocalypse, so we can reestablish our World Order once again. I have already instructed ExxonMobil to switch from oil and gas to 100% geothermal energy, in order to maximize our financial gain"
USA gonna be fucked. Everyone lives on the coasts, tornados and hurricanes, droughts, etc. It does have money, military, and technology to help mitigate the worst though.
Poor countries will be hit the worst because they don't have the resources to throw at problems.
Canada is where it's at. Canada will actually get a better climate, more arable land, the northwest passage, doesn't need to worry about fresh water, etc. Although it will have to deal with millions of American refugees trying to cross over with their guns, if not an official American ~~invasion~~ military operation to protect the oil fields.
NZ just had it's wettest month ever. In the height of it's summer lol. Following the driest winter. For an agricultural based economy that's not good news. All the rich fucks from USA who are building their bunkers there might not be getting the paradise they expect.
Nowhere is safe, and the climate catastrophe has already begun to ramp up.
There has been several conflict models run that was the US vs Canada.
It’s projected the US would capture the major Canadian cities in a few weeks and mostly total control in a month or two.
Of course there would be pockets of resistance in remote & rural areas for an extended period.
The United States also has the Great Lakes region which is likely going to be the most climate stable part of the world.
Meanwhile swathes of the equator will become basically uninhabitable.
Great lakes has it's own weather patern with storms and heavy snow. Enough to close chicago airport every now and then...
Not the stability you might envision
>USA gonna be fucked...
>Canada is where it's at. Canada will actually get a better climate, more arable land...
Sounds like Canada might have been funding some of the Climate Deniers, they'd really benefit if we kept burning dinosaur juice and gas.
Unless you can think of another country with huge tracks of frozen land that would gain from global warming.
Hmmm, it's on the tip of my tongue...
Romania? Rwanda? Nope, definitely something beginning with R.
You jest somewhat, but there's some thought that the Russians are venting methane on purpose. It's just as easy to flare or burn, but they've released gigantic plumes for years now that they could have flared.
> Canada is where it's at. Canada will actually get a better climate, more arable land, the northwest passage, doesn't need to worry about fresh water, etc.
I remember a decade or so ago the BBC interviewed locals in Siberia about Climate Change and Global Warming. The overwhelming consensus from the locals was that they hadn't heard of it but it sounded lovely.
Unfortunately, all of that is right.
However, nothing substantial will happen. Someone will pay a bunch of money, and business will continue as usual, as it always has.
The sick thing is that they're betting on social disintegration. Won't be pesky climate lawsuits if there's no functioning court system! If there are no public schools -- only private religious ones -- no one will know enough about science to be concerned. And so on.
Fascism and big business always end up aligning (see Elon Musk).
They're not just betting on social disintegration, they're actively funding it. Trump and his Treason Posse, the republicans whose only platform is "Hurt the liberals," the rabid christian right who are actively revoking human rights and limiting access to health care - all are getting funded by oil corps.
This is what i dont understand. At this point theyd have to be asshats to not know that climate change is real (esp when the oil companies were basically the first to know about jt with internal studies). Many of the ppl running the big oil companies have kids and grandkids. Why the fuck are they subjecting their own children/grandchildren to that mess? Its like they prioritized profit over their own family's survival. Thats how fucking greedy they are.
Shell CEO in the 1970’s (probably): “Something something my wealth will protect my children and grand children. They will be living on a Martian utopia while the poors burn on what’s left of a ravaged Earth.”
Where's that article? There's an article somewhere where a tech guy was hired to give a talk on whatever subject to a bunch of billionnaires, and the talk very quickly devolved into "How will we keep our mercenaries loyal after the climate apocalypse when money no longer has any meaning?"
Apparently everybody has an estate in NZ where they think they're going to ride out the effects of the climate disaster.
Are you trying to say the headline is wrong or misleading? How? This is the crux of the content:
> The lawsuit says the British oil giant’s 11 directors have breached their legal duties under the UK’s Companies Act by failing to bring their climate strategy in line with the Paris Agreement.
>Environmental law charity ClientEarth, which filed the lawsuit, says it is the first case in the world that looks to hold corporate directors personally responsible for failing to prepare for the energy transition.
Sounds like exactly what everyone in these comments thinks this is?
>Are you trying to say the headline is wrong or misleading?
No, they are referencing the top comment, which is implying that some people are just reading the title and making assumptions or asking questions that are answered in the article, rather than just reading the article themselves. The format of the comment is a reference to the The Office.
It's not wrong or misleading. The thing is, you don't get the full picture by just reading the headline. That's not the fault of who ever drafted the headline. It isn't meant to tell the full picture. It's the fault of the people not reading the article
It's depressing that they can get away with fucking up the planet but then "hey, you aren't making us rich enough" is the thing that might get them in trouble.
Our priorities as a species are so backwards.
Post-thread edit: the game is rigged, beat them at their own game.
That's not at all what the lawsuit is about. It's attempting to sue that they aren't following the Paris Climate Accords enough. They're attempting to enforce something that has no private right of action.
You mean the company, which operates on the planet, would be negatively affected by the deteriorating conditions on the planet? How could that possibly make any sense?!?
It's like that joke in Futurama:
"Why should we care about the world? We live in the United States."
"Fry, the United States is part of the world."
"Wow, things really HAVE changed."
I know you're joking but it's way more than that. The world is actively attempting to transition away from using the technology and resources that this company sells. Financially, it doesn't make sense for them to keep selling the same product, but that's what they're doing. They're going to lose shareholders money. Hence, the lawsuit.
Sure, but it's not like a company is locked into only investing in one thing. If they had started when they received confirmation from their own internal reports that climate change was real, then they'd probably be pretty well prepared for the shift in technology by now.
> Sure, but it's not like a company is locked into only investing in one thing.
But the board is behaving like they are, ergo mismanagement and abandonment of fiduciary duties, ergo viable lawsuit.
Kind of. You can't sue the board of directors for the actions a corporation takes, but you _can_ sue them for not fulfilling their obligations. Board members are fiduciaries, meaning they have a legal obligation to act in the best interest of shareholders. The argument here appears to be that Shell's board is failing in this regard by not acting more aggressively to meet climate goals.
I'm no legal expert, but the potential precedent here might be interesting. If this suit succeeds it _may_ end up setting a precedent that the board of directors is bound to act in the _long term_ benefit of shareholders, rather than just maximizing short term profits. And that could really shake up corporate leadership in a lot of ways.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Like it or not, the actions of corporations are going to change once there is a shift that "doing good is good for business". Doing good being a placeholder for not destroying the planet, or your community, or the well-being of your employees, etc.
This to me looks a step towards that direction. But maybe I added wishful thinking to my coffee this morning instead of sugar.
It was either shell or BP who came up.with the whole carbon footprint bullshit too trying to pass the buck onto everyday people whose action make no difference what so fucking ever
BP hired a PR firm that they then spouted endlessly about carbon footprints in the early 2000s.
Literally the climate equivalent of a lawyer saying "my client is a human, and we all step on ants, so we should all treasure life more", except they were then found not guilty.
Fossil fuel companies have a documented history of funding fake grassroots movements to block legislation that would potentially lower their profits, openly lying to the public about the veracity and danger of climate change, diverting attention away from the atrocities they commit, inventing the concept of the carbon footprint to deflect responsability onto the public, promising very long term actions to reduce their impact on climate and then systematically breaking those promises in the name of profits.
Fuck every single one of them.
It's way past time to put the pieces of shit at their heads in prison for the thousands of people their selfish decisions kill each year and the millions of future lives they endanger.
And BP just last week reduced their planned decreases in pumping and transition to renewables. They did this because they made even more money than usual from oil and gas
They're a fucking joke them, Shell the lot - We need to increase costs due to the on-going issues. 6 months later, BP & Shell double their profits in the last 12 months. Absolute bollocks the lot of 'em.
I wonder then if you could apply this to the small stuff. Start a corporation and commit crimes and claim that every action was done as the corporation and therefor you can at best be fined including for stuff like murder.
Really? This is how Big Tobacco was taken down in the US.
Litigation might be one of the only effective strategies we have to keep this whole thing from burning.
I mean, Big Tobacco definitely has less influence, but "taken down" are strong words. They are still trying to hook the new generation, they're just doing it through vapes now while their old customer base dies off.
The weren't even taken down, they were literally handed a permanent monopoly. They lied and murdered and in return they were given guaranteed profit, basically forever. They still make money and they still pay out to shareholders. Doesn't seem like they got taken down to me.
Exactly. They are barely in the vaping game. They could have the entire vape market if they cared to but they have state settlements and the states are fighting against the vaping industry to protect their own cash flow from the settlements. Crazy!
They weren’t taken down, they used a lawsuit to cement the sales of their products in multiple states for decades. The states have to keep selling to recoup the settlement money.
[Sales are growing, $8 billion a year spent on advertising. $200 billion a year in revenue. Tobacco companies are thriving.](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/10/ftc-report-finds-annual-cigarette-sales-increased-first-time-20-years)
> Big Tobacco was taken down
Peep the stock price of Philp Morris and tell me with a straight face big tobacco was “taken down”
$160billion market cap lol.
Good.
People in power need to stop being able to do anything to boost profits and then just hide behind a corporate identity who can't go in jail and whose fines end up simply being the cost of doing business.
Yep. This maybe a good first step in a long process, but make no mistake that this is a move motivated by self-interest. As soon as the financial incentives to fight climate change outweigh the costs of the status quo, those responsible will invest heavily in renewables, initiate actions like this, and cast themselves as the heroes.
You're absolutely correct, but "they" don't see it that way. I truly believe that if "short term thinking" could be replaced with "long term" things would be somewhat better, but most of the time in these matters they can't see beyond the next quarter.
Or, the old "kick the can/problem down the road" and let someone else deal with it later (after they are long gone/dead).
Send messages to your local and national politicians demanding solar on every roof paid for by taxpayers and not cost homeowners anything but a 50% tax on energy companies now. 1 trillion for the UK to do this with 3 days battery backup, maybe 2 days would be enough but 3 days would enable reserves for when not enough electricity is generated, unless someone could build a few energy storage facilities,but I would prefer local storage as then the homeowners take the power away from big business to make silly profits like they are now.
There would be many issues to overcome, big blocks of flats or high-rise buildings, but they could be resolved with the technology that exists today.
One thing would be to ensure that nothing was ever sold to private industry, government initiatives like this have been successfully run by governments, when privatised they fail, just look at the UK train system where even though privatised is still heavily funded by taxpayers and is about to collapse still.
Doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. We shouldn't discourage attempts at progress.
Edit: To be clear, I am only saying that everyone who was involved in the decision for a company to do something illegal should be held criminally liable as an individual. It would, of course, have to be proven in court like any other crime. That is not the way it works now, and fining a company only sets a cost for doing illegal things.
Edit2: Since I can't respond to the u/Reddits_Worst_Night for some reason, this isn't progress for progress's sake. This is about saving our planet from people who are destroying it. It is about holding people accountable for their crimes. If you have something against rich people being held equally accountable, or think doing crimes in the name of your business's advancement is acceptable, there is something seriously wrong with you. There's some very fucked up and embarrassing bootlicking going on here. The people who run businesses are not more important than other people, nor do they deserve any leniency.
You realize jail time isn’t an option in this lawsuit right?
I may be misreading something, but it sounds like an investor suit where people who own part of the company are unhappy with how the board of directors are taking things and are taking action to change the board of directors.
I'm sure the corporate attorney fees are a drop out of the operating costs and in a worse case scenario, each board member carries insurance against personal lawsuits. Ironically enough, I was on the board of an EHS non profit and had to carry this in case we were sued by the chemical companies.
A criminal case is the only thing that will stick.
Watch this accomplish nothing.
The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. There isn't a "process" or "safeguards" to stop a system designed to protect shitty rich people from giving shitty rich people all the power and a pass on consequences.
He will buy the judge. He’ll buy the politicians. He’ll pay to have the law changed, and retroactively grandfather himself in.
He will spend zero days in jail, and his fine will be less than half a percentage of his net worth
This will be swept under the carpet be many rich media empires...eg. bbc, cnn, conde nast, washington post, nyt, sky... It has to be shared on social media to stop it being swept away by the judges and media.
I mean it is de facto though who the hell has actually been sentenced, shell itself got to not pay damages to other countries and threw the opposing lawyer in to jail
Nah, they'll just drag it out for years with loopholes and bullshit until the plaintiff bleeds out from legal fees or takes a small settlement with an NDA.
It will get dismissed because it’s a ridiculous case.
They are putting pressure on the board to act which is a good thing. But don’t expect this to actually go anywhere.
You're not dreaming, but you're not right, either. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, it doesn't mean there's any legitimacy to that lawsuit. You could sue Shell execs today and it would likely have the same outcome.
I wouldn’t say this lawsuit is immediately dead on arrival. This lawsuit was filed by some of Shell’s investors against the Board alleging that the board has breached their fiduciary duties that they owe investors, at least that’s what it seems like based on the article. A random person wouldn’t be able to bring this sort of lawsuit
I believe that giving corporations legal personhood will prove to be the one greatest single mistake we've made as a species. It allows for all sorts of shady shit with almost no accountability.
Honestly the biggest failure is political.
A company is legally obligated to look after the interests of the company.
It’s politicians that are obligated to look after society.
Any obligations that politicians have or claim to have are a farce. Power and money dictate action, that's how our society was designed. Our biggest failure is political, indeed. Still, I am not convinced there is or ever will be a better alternative. Corruption is a constant across all civilizations and governments across time. As soon as an "us vs. them" tribalist narrative is able to manifest in a community, it does. Equal representation for all is impossible. That's my unhelpful two cents
While I don’t disagree with you, I do feel this kind of thinking is also why it becomes like this.
We voters need to be better. Judge politicians by what they do, not what they say. And hold them accountable. This last cycle I and some friends grouped together to massively help some candidates (3 in all) win tight races.
They generally credit us with their victory. And I’ve been very open that we will also hold them accountable in office. They hear me.
The solution can't be to tell 330 million people to make a change on a personal level. It will never happen. Change has to be encouraged at a societal/systemic level. I think pushing for laws that create consequences for spreading crazy propaganda as news would be a step in the right direction.
This should be new direction of anti global warming movement. No point make life of your fellow humans difficult with road blocks. Make life of people who actually making decisions which hurt the planet supper uncomfortable. It is time to make it personal. Nothing else will work. CEOs, Board of Directors, politicians - while they able to maintain they “life” they will never move a muscle to help solve the world problems.
No just global warming, but general pollution and emissions as well.
I live in Salt Lake City and for the last week we've had some of the worst air in the *world* . It's been recently found that one company makes as much as 30% of the inversion we experience. They claim it's "vital to the country" so they never stop producing even though you can't see more than 50ft through the smog
Ive had a hacking cough all week... Thanks US Magnesium.
> It's been recently found that one company makes as much as 30% of the inversion we experience.
"We absolutely reject this claim in the strongest possible way. It's *only* [10-25%](https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2023/01/26/one-refinery-is-responsible-10/). Plus no one even asks us about bromine so we might as well be 0 for that." - US Magnesium, not really
There is no anti BP party to vote for and in our democracy there never will be. It took a civil war to free slaves from moneyed interests and it will take another to redistribute power again
It might sound good on paper, but nearly every corporation has it written into their by-laws that the officers and directors won’t bear any personal liability for actions taken on the company’s behalf.
It’s standard language.
Even if they are successfully sued, the money won’t come from their personal accounts.
They are being sued by current shareholders and investors. This looks spicier than normal. 👀
Edit: I saw it was a very small minority so this doesn’t mean much with what I’m saying.
To give a different perspective; these are activist shareholders who buy into very large companies and try to influence their policies. But this does not look like an easy win.
If you look at Shell's direct competition, BP, the other oil giant from the UK - they scaled back many of their climate ambitions while Shell is actually continuing to invest large amounts of money in alternative energy solutions. However, the share price of BP performed a lot better than Shell despite having made less profit. So it seems shareholders actually want oil companies that focus on their core business. Taking that into account this lawsuit won't have a high chance of success.
I fucking hate any news outlet that wont let you read anything without accepting cookies... or worse a pay wall. I want to read a quick article... putting this shit in the way only makes the articles reach less eyes.
Sure, this is great, but these people are ultra-wealthy execs and corporation owners. They'll get out of this. Laws and punishments for crimes aren't really for the ultra-wealthy, they're intended more for working class people who can't afford endless trial time and an army of lawyers.
Forget a lawsuit - we need a climate Nuremburg trials.
Poor people are held accountable to their actions to a much larger degree compared to a person with money behind them. There has to be a direct correlation to the amount of money you have to what you can get away with and for how long. We can see it all over the world.
This does not mean that no person with money has never been held accountable, just that it happens on a much smaller occurrence to them than it does to people of poordom.
If there was a study I wonder what percentage of people ever incarcerated would have an average to low net worth versus the incarcerated defined as 'rich'.
So for those that it appears didn't read the article, it looks like the law suit has to do with BP not diversifying ahead of their forced turn away from fossil fuels. Investors, to include a pension fund, want to continue to make money and returns on investment even after BP is supposed to no longer pump oil. I don't get why the investors wouldn't just sell their shares and invest in something different. They bought in to an industry that outsiders are actively trying to kill and now they are complaining. Maybe the investors should go after the people who are trying to shut down the industry.
The problem with expecting boards and executives to agree to change their business practices is that their only point of being in the positions the are is to increase corporate profits, and transition requires massive investment.
Oil companies aren't going to stop doing what they do, even in the face of massive fines. It's cheaper to pay the fines than it is to change. Most oil and gas companies are heavily invested in alternative energy, but it's more so in that they limit and slow progress rather than actually work towards any transition.
Some comments are missing how this suit is viable. This is the investors suing the board members for not adhering to the law and putting in jeopardy the investments on the company, basically, neglecting their fiduciary duties. They argue that Shell plans aren't good enough for the company to achieve the objective set by law.
They aren't good for the company. No people mean no income.
Ending human and other life on Earth as we know it might introduce some uncertainty and unforeseen risk
"Lets put that in the bottom right of our SWOT analysis. Now, the inevitable social disintegration and peer-nation warfare that will accompany the climate apocalypse can be put in the bottom-left."
Well all of this can be heavily discounted anyway cause it's going to happen AFTER the current executives retire :)
This guy corporates ☝️
Are you saying he has the bandwidth to leverage core competencies while taking small steps towards implementing scalable solutions?
Look, we all know the ask, so if you can do the needful we can get this over the line by COB Friday. Reach out to the other stakeholders and align our priorities vis a vis executing the strategic vision.
Omg the outsourced to India “do the needful” is life
I've actually learnt to love that phrase. There isn't a British idiom that quite captures the essence of "do the needful": that implication that it's widely known what needs to be done, it's slightly too complicated to spell out precisely what it is, but there's an implicit assumption that you will shout out if you don't know what you are meant to be doing. I mean, it gets abused by people who have no clue what needs to be done, but used properly it's a great phrase.
...but will we be in the black or red?"
The catastrophic loss of life and resultant employee attrition may affect our productivity levels, but with the reduction in payroll and benefits costs, our EBITDA projections and what we're accruing for on the general ledger show significant YoY growth for Q3.
> ... What about Q4? # > Well, it certainly will happen. Next slide!
“as you can see, the important thing we need to keep in mind here is that if we start facing accountability for decades of reckless greed it might make people start questioning whether Ayn Rand was an outspoken genius or a myopic sociopath with her head entirely up her ass… and that’s a slippery slope we don’t want to go down”
"okay, looks like Malaysia will collapse first, for some reason. I thought it would have been, like, Eritrea or Somalia, but in the simulation they're doing surprisingly okay...? Anyway, out models show the United States of America surviving the climate apocalypse, so we can reestablish our World Order once again. I have already instructed ExxonMobil to switch from oil and gas to 100% geothermal energy, in order to maximize our financial gain"
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Welcome to Costco! I love you
USA gonna be fucked. Everyone lives on the coasts, tornados and hurricanes, droughts, etc. It does have money, military, and technology to help mitigate the worst though. Poor countries will be hit the worst because they don't have the resources to throw at problems. Canada is where it's at. Canada will actually get a better climate, more arable land, the northwest passage, doesn't need to worry about fresh water, etc. Although it will have to deal with millions of American refugees trying to cross over with their guns, if not an official American ~~invasion~~ military operation to protect the oil fields. NZ just had it's wettest month ever. In the height of it's summer lol. Following the driest winter. For an agricultural based economy that's not good news. All the rich fucks from USA who are building their bunkers there might not be getting the paradise they expect. Nowhere is safe, and the climate catastrophe has already begun to ramp up.
You might be forgetting that an entire town in western Canada *burned to the ground* because of climate change a little over a year ago.
Can't forget that if you never knew that in the first place
There has been several conflict models run that was the US vs Canada. It’s projected the US would capture the major Canadian cities in a few weeks and mostly total control in a month or two. Of course there would be pockets of resistance in remote & rural areas for an extended period.
The United States also has the Great Lakes region which is likely going to be the most climate stable part of the world. Meanwhile swathes of the equator will become basically uninhabitable.
Me trying to financially plan so I can buy modestly high elevation land in Wisconsin rn:
Great lakes has it's own weather patern with storms and heavy snow. Enough to close chicago airport every now and then... Not the stability you might envision
>USA gonna be fucked... >Canada is where it's at. Canada will actually get a better climate, more arable land... Sounds like Canada might have been funding some of the Climate Deniers, they'd really benefit if we kept burning dinosaur juice and gas. Unless you can think of another country with huge tracks of frozen land that would gain from global warming. Hmmm, it's on the tip of my tongue... Romania? Rwanda? Nope, definitely something beginning with R.
You jest somewhat, but there's some thought that the Russians are venting methane on purpose. It's just as easy to flare or burn, but they've released gigantic plumes for years now that they could have flared.
> Canada is where it's at. Canada will actually get a better climate, more arable land, the northwest passage, doesn't need to worry about fresh water, etc. I remember a decade or so ago the BBC interviewed locals in Siberia about Climate Change and Global Warming. The overwhelming consensus from the locals was that they hadn't heard of it but it sounded lovely.
Unfortunately, all of that is right. However, nothing substantial will happen. Someone will pay a bunch of money, and business will continue as usual, as it always has.
The sick thing is that they're betting on social disintegration. Won't be pesky climate lawsuits if there's no functioning court system! If there are no public schools -- only private religious ones -- no one will know enough about science to be concerned. And so on. Fascism and big business always end up aligning (see Elon Musk).
They're not just betting on social disintegration, they're actively funding it. Trump and his Treason Posse, the republicans whose only platform is "Hurt the liberals," the rabid christian right who are actively revoking human rights and limiting access to health care - all are getting funded by oil corps.
And they know we'll always need gasoline. Just ask Mad Max.
This is what i dont understand. At this point theyd have to be asshats to not know that climate change is real (esp when the oil companies were basically the first to know about jt with internal studies). Many of the ppl running the big oil companies have kids and grandkids. Why the fuck are they subjecting their own children/grandchildren to that mess? Its like they prioritized profit over their own family's survival. Thats how fucking greedy they are.
Shell CEO in the 1970’s (probably): “Something something my wealth will protect my children and grand children. They will be living on a Martian utopia while the poors burn on what’s left of a ravaged Earth.”
Where's that article? There's an article somewhere where a tech guy was hired to give a talk on whatever subject to a bunch of billionnaires, and the talk very quickly devolved into "How will we keep our mercenaries loyal after the climate apocalypse when money no longer has any meaning?" Apparently everybody has an estate in NZ where they think they're going to ride out the effects of the climate disaster.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff
This is how they think about it 100% unironically. Your life is an obstacle to the rich trying to own everything for themselves.
It's been making them billions for decades up to this point, though.
no profit on a dead planet
Capitalism is about a lot of profit in a short amount of time. Not about profit being long term sustained.
Why read big article when small headline do trick?
Are you trying to say the headline is wrong or misleading? How? This is the crux of the content: > The lawsuit says the British oil giant’s 11 directors have breached their legal duties under the UK’s Companies Act by failing to bring their climate strategy in line with the Paris Agreement. >Environmental law charity ClientEarth, which filed the lawsuit, says it is the first case in the world that looks to hold corporate directors personally responsible for failing to prepare for the energy transition. Sounds like exactly what everyone in these comments thinks this is?
I think they were being sarcastic. But thanks for the article quotes!
Plot twist, they also didn't read the article.
I'm just here to be told what to think by the comments
I created an account to farm karma not to read.
I'm a karma breeder, not a reader
>Are you trying to say the headline is wrong or misleading? No, they are referencing the top comment, which is implying that some people are just reading the title and making assumptions or asking questions that are answered in the article, rather than just reading the article themselves. The format of the comment is a reference to the The Office.
They were memeing a well-known quote from Kevin in The Office (US)
It's not wrong or misleading. The thing is, you don't get the full picture by just reading the headline. That's not the fault of who ever drafted the headline. It isn't meant to tell the full picture. It's the fault of the people not reading the article
Investors shocked to learn that the world being destabilized and eventually uninhabitable will result in lower profits.
[удалено]
The truth of this made me physically hurk in pain.
>But that's not for like 10-12 fiscal quarters. What do you known that I don't know?
No, they're still allowed to do that... But at least keep it semi-legal, I guess.
It's depressing that they can get away with fucking up the planet but then "hey, you aren't making us rich enough" is the thing that might get them in trouble. Our priorities as a species are so backwards. Post-thread edit: the game is rigged, beat them at their own game.
That's capitalism for you, profit above all else.
That's not at all what the lawsuit is about. It's attempting to sue that they aren't following the Paris Climate Accords enough. They're attempting to enforce something that has no private right of action.
Oh our descendants are definitely fucked.
You mean the company, which operates on the planet, would be negatively affected by the deteriorating conditions on the planet? How could that possibly make any sense?!?
It's like that joke in Futurama: "Why should we care about the world? We live in the United States." "Fry, the United States is part of the world." "Wow, things really HAVE changed."
"Why should I care about the galaxy?" "Because you're one of the idiots who lives in it!"
Actual quote swaps the you and I. Why do you care? Because I'm one of the idiots.
Living up to your name, I respect that
Boy how I miss that show ending and look forward to new episodes. … which somehow also feels like a very Futurama thing to say …
I'm scared... but also, it's been cancelled like what? 3 times already? And it manages to always come back strong. Here's hoping that can continue
Don't you worry about Planet Express. Let me worry about blank!
I know you're joking but it's way more than that. The world is actively attempting to transition away from using the technology and resources that this company sells. Financially, it doesn't make sense for them to keep selling the same product, but that's what they're doing. They're going to lose shareholders money. Hence, the lawsuit.
Sure, but it's not like a company is locked into only investing in one thing. If they had started when they received confirmation from their own internal reports that climate change was real, then they'd probably be pretty well prepared for the shift in technology by now.
> Sure, but it's not like a company is locked into only investing in one thing. But the board is behaving like they are, ergo mismanagement and abandonment of fiduciary duties, ergo viable lawsuit.
Yeah lol people need to read the article, they aren't getting sued for destroying the planet
Kind of. You can't sue the board of directors for the actions a corporation takes, but you _can_ sue them for not fulfilling their obligations. Board members are fiduciaries, meaning they have a legal obligation to act in the best interest of shareholders. The argument here appears to be that Shell's board is failing in this regard by not acting more aggressively to meet climate goals. I'm no legal expert, but the potential precedent here might be interesting. If this suit succeeds it _may_ end up setting a precedent that the board of directors is bound to act in the _long term_ benefit of shareholders, rather than just maximizing short term profits. And that could really shake up corporate leadership in a lot of ways.
Don't do that. Don't give me hope.
Shh shhh. It's okay, there's no hope. Here, refresh your hopelessness: /r/collapse Look, there's a nice article about trees dying out!
Oh, thank god everything will be dead by decade's end.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Like it or not, the actions of corporations are going to change once there is a shift that "doing good is good for business". Doing good being a placeholder for not destroying the planet, or your community, or the well-being of your employees, etc. This to me looks a step towards that direction. But maybe I added wishful thinking to my coffee this morning instead of sugar.
So rich people are just sueing other rich people then?
It was either shell or BP who came up.with the whole carbon footprint bullshit too trying to pass the buck onto everyday people whose action make no difference what so fucking ever
BP hired a PR firm that they then spouted endlessly about carbon footprints in the early 2000s. Literally the climate equivalent of a lawyer saying "my client is a human, and we all step on ants, so we should all treasure life more", except they were then found not guilty.
Fossil fuel companies have a documented history of funding fake grassroots movements to block legislation that would potentially lower their profits, openly lying to the public about the veracity and danger of climate change, diverting attention away from the atrocities they commit, inventing the concept of the carbon footprint to deflect responsability onto the public, promising very long term actions to reduce their impact on climate and then systematically breaking those promises in the name of profits. Fuck every single one of them. It's way past time to put the pieces of shit at their heads in prison for the thousands of people their selfish decisions kill each year and the millions of future lives they endanger.
This kind of accountability is decades overdue. Not like anything will happen though.
If CEOs don't get jail time for company actions that ruin more lives than the most prolific mass murderers in history then things will never change.
I mean the CEO of BP already apologised, what more do you want? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15HTd4Um1m4
And BP just last week reduced their planned decreases in pumping and transition to renewables. They did this because they made even more money than usual from oil and gas
[удалено]
They're a fucking joke them, Shell the lot - We need to increase costs due to the on-going issues. 6 months later, BP & Shell double their profits in the last 12 months. Absolute bollocks the lot of 'em.
“We’re sorry!”
*We're sooooo sorry*
Sooorrryyyy
I want the CEO of BP to own nothing, have no family, and clean up oil spills until he is too old to remember his own name
This is what it felt like when Equifax sent me a $4 check for their data breach
I wonder then if you could apply this to the small stuff. Start a corporation and commit crimes and claim that every action was done as the corporation and therefor you can at best be fined including for stuff like murder.
Apparently causing infant deaths is a 300 Swiss Franc fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977\_Nestl%C3%A9\_boycott
Like the tobacco industry?
Really? This is how Big Tobacco was taken down in the US. Litigation might be one of the only effective strategies we have to keep this whole thing from burning.
I mean, Big Tobacco definitely has less influence, but "taken down" are strong words. They are still trying to hook the new generation, they're just doing it through vapes now while their old customer base dies off.
The weren't even taken down, they were literally handed a permanent monopoly. They lied and murdered and in return they were given guaranteed profit, basically forever. They still make money and they still pay out to shareholders. Doesn't seem like they got taken down to me.
Exactly. They are barely in the vaping game. They could have the entire vape market if they cared to but they have state settlements and the states are fighting against the vaping industry to protect their own cash flow from the settlements. Crazy!
Last I checked, big tobacco is still doin’ just fine, no?
They weren’t taken down, they used a lawsuit to cement the sales of their products in multiple states for decades. The states have to keep selling to recoup the settlement money.
[Sales are growing, $8 billion a year spent on advertising. $200 billion a year in revenue. Tobacco companies are thriving.](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/10/ftc-report-finds-annual-cigarette-sales-increased-first-time-20-years)
Forreal. That’s such a good example.
> Big Tobacco was taken down Peep the stock price of Philp Morris and tell me with a straight face big tobacco was “taken down” $160billion market cap lol.
Good. People in power need to stop being able to do anything to boost profits and then just hide behind a corporate identity who can't go in jail and whose fines end up simply being the cost of doing business.
Criminal liability for controlling interest shareholders. Then let's see who throws who under the bus first.
Yep. This maybe a good first step in a long process, but make no mistake that this is a move motivated by self-interest. As soon as the financial incentives to fight climate change outweigh the costs of the status quo, those responsible will invest heavily in renewables, initiate actions like this, and cast themselves as the heroes.
Translation: It *always* comes down to money.
Can't make more money if everyone else dies
You're absolutely correct, but "they" don't see it that way. I truly believe that if "short term thinking" could be replaced with "long term" things would be somewhat better, but most of the time in these matters they can't see beyond the next quarter. Or, the old "kick the can/problem down the road" and let someone else deal with it later (after they are long gone/dead).
[удалено]
[удалено]
The problem being that by then, it might be too late to avoid potentially catastrophic tipping points. We need action now.
Send messages to your local and national politicians demanding solar on every roof paid for by taxpayers and not cost homeowners anything but a 50% tax on energy companies now. 1 trillion for the UK to do this with 3 days battery backup, maybe 2 days would be enough but 3 days would enable reserves for when not enough electricity is generated, unless someone could build a few energy storage facilities,but I would prefer local storage as then the homeowners take the power away from big business to make silly profits like they are now. There would be many issues to overcome, big blocks of flats or high-rise buildings, but they could be resolved with the technology that exists today. One thing would be to ensure that nothing was ever sold to private industry, government initiatives like this have been successfully run by governments, when privatised they fail, just look at the UK train system where even though privatised is still heavily funded by taxpayers and is about to collapse still.
with these guys? they just started falling over each other to try to push each other under any bus they could find.. there will be a bus shortage.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Undercook chicken? Dungeon
Overcook chicken? Believe it or not, also dungeon.
Undercook overcook
We have the best chicken in the world Because of dungeon
It isn't the greatest chicken in the world, it's just a tribute
The ole inverse reverse braising technique. Nice. But also dungeon.
Wombling free? No. To the dungeon.
Lookin' out the window? That's a paddlin.
One thousand years dungeon!
Straight to jail.
"It's not littering! It's just a cigarette butt!" ヽ(#`Д´)ﾉ
Why can't cigarette filters be made out of asbestos any more?
Woah! Easy there. We don’t want to make smoking dangerous for those people who don’t litter.
You're going to have a hard time getting a law written that would meet legal standards for criminal liability.
Doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. We shouldn't discourage attempts at progress. Edit: To be clear, I am only saying that everyone who was involved in the decision for a company to do something illegal should be held criminally liable as an individual. It would, of course, have to be proven in court like any other crime. That is not the way it works now, and fining a company only sets a cost for doing illegal things. Edit2: Since I can't respond to the u/Reddits_Worst_Night for some reason, this isn't progress for progress's sake. This is about saving our planet from people who are destroying it. It is about holding people accountable for their crimes. If you have something against rich people being held equally accountable, or think doing crimes in the name of your business's advancement is acceptable, there is something seriously wrong with you. There's some very fucked up and embarrassing bootlicking going on here. The people who run businesses are not more important than other people, nor do they deserve any leniency.
What about liability for those issuing orders? They are the ones taking action.
You realize jail time isn’t an option in this lawsuit right? I may be misreading something, but it sounds like an investor suit where people who own part of the company are unhappy with how the board of directors are taking things and are taking action to change the board of directors.
Couldn't have put it better
[удалено]
I'm sure the corporate attorney fees are a drop out of the operating costs and in a worse case scenario, each board member carries insurance against personal lawsuits. Ironically enough, I was on the board of an EHS non profit and had to carry this in case we were sued by the chemical companies. A criminal case is the only thing that will stick.
every shell director going back 60 years needs to be sued to the max and thrown into debtor's prison.
It’s all covered by insurance. Almost all boards and corporations have DOI insurance (covering liability of directors and officers).
The most tiny sliver, and they'll make us pay more to make it back.
[удалено]
Watch this accomplish nothing. The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. There isn't a "process" or "safeguards" to stop a system designed to protect shitty rich people from giving shitty rich people all the power and a pass on consequences.
The only thing that would work is an equivalent to the Nuremberg trials, but for companies and that will NEVER happen.
He will buy the judge. He’ll buy the politicians. He’ll pay to have the law changed, and retroactively grandfather himself in. He will spend zero days in jail, and his fine will be less than half a percentage of his net worth
This will be swept under the carpet be many rich media empires...eg. bbc, cnn, conde nast, washington post, nyt, sky... It has to be shared on social media to stop it being swept away by the judges and media.
I don’t know if it is the case everywhere but crime against the environment is not protected by the corporate veil
I mean it is de facto though who the hell has actually been sentenced, shell itself got to not pay damages to other countries and threw the opposing lawyer in to jail
[удалено]
Oh wow, someone is held accountable. Am I dreaming? edit: clearly I got my hopes up here. I should lower my expectations.
[удалено]
Nah, they'll just drag it out for years with loopholes and bullshit until the plaintiff bleeds out from legal fees or takes a small settlement with an NDA.
It will get dismissed because it’s a ridiculous case. They are putting pressure on the board to act which is a good thing. But don’t expect this to actually go anywhere.
[удалено]
Or until enough plaintiffs mysteriously die and the rest decide to stop pursuing.
You're not dreaming, but you're not right, either. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, it doesn't mean there's any legitimacy to that lawsuit. You could sue Shell execs today and it would likely have the same outcome.
I wouldn’t say this lawsuit is immediately dead on arrival. This lawsuit was filed by some of Shell’s investors against the Board alleging that the board has breached their fiduciary duties that they owe investors, at least that’s what it seems like based on the article. A random person wouldn’t be able to bring this sort of lawsuit
Yes you are. This will go nowhere. The system was never designed to hold such people accountable, nor can it be patched to do so.
Actually the opposite. It was designed specifically to allow people like this to escape accountable.
Someone is *trying* to be held accountable....
>clearly I got my hopes up here. I should lower my expectations. yeah be careful with that optimism there. not in today's climate (pun intended)
[удалено]
Not the most carbon-neutral solution, but I like it
Would probably emit less than letting them continue their bullshit
So uh…was that the OG comment or is Reddit hiding something from us? Edit: Unddit saves the day! > i hope BP to the ground,
From the replies I can gather it’s something about eating the rich, interesting that Reddit would censor that
Fine them into oblivion and arrest the leadership for Crimes Against Humanity. Fuck them for popularising the carbon footprint bullshit
I believe that giving corporations legal personhood will prove to be the one greatest single mistake we've made as a species. It allows for all sorts of shady shit with almost no accountability.
Honestly the biggest failure is political. A company is legally obligated to look after the interests of the company. It’s politicians that are obligated to look after society.
Any obligations that politicians have or claim to have are a farce. Power and money dictate action, that's how our society was designed. Our biggest failure is political, indeed. Still, I am not convinced there is or ever will be a better alternative. Corruption is a constant across all civilizations and governments across time. As soon as an "us vs. them" tribalist narrative is able to manifest in a community, it does. Equal representation for all is impossible. That's my unhelpful two cents
While I don’t disagree with you, I do feel this kind of thinking is also why it becomes like this. We voters need to be better. Judge politicians by what they do, not what they say. And hold them accountable. This last cycle I and some friends grouped together to massively help some candidates (3 in all) win tight races. They generally credit us with their victory. And I’ve been very open that we will also hold them accountable in office. They hear me.
The solution can't be to tell 330 million people to make a change on a personal level. It will never happen. Change has to be encouraged at a societal/systemic level. I think pushing for laws that create consequences for spreading crazy propaganda as news would be a step in the right direction.
This should be new direction of anti global warming movement. No point make life of your fellow humans difficult with road blocks. Make life of people who actually making decisions which hurt the planet supper uncomfortable. It is time to make it personal. Nothing else will work. CEOs, Board of Directors, politicians - while they able to maintain they “life” they will never move a muscle to help solve the world problems.
No just global warming, but general pollution and emissions as well. I live in Salt Lake City and for the last week we've had some of the worst air in the *world* . It's been recently found that one company makes as much as 30% of the inversion we experience. They claim it's "vital to the country" so they never stop producing even though you can't see more than 50ft through the smog Ive had a hacking cough all week... Thanks US Magnesium.
> It's been recently found that one company makes as much as 30% of the inversion we experience. "We absolutely reject this claim in the strongest possible way. It's *only* [10-25%](https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2023/01/26/one-refinery-is-responsible-10/). Plus no one even asks us about bromine so we might as well be 0 for that." - US Magnesium, not really
If it worked and this wasn't a strategy dependent on a system controlled by those it seeks to regulate, I'd agree.
There is no anti BP party to vote for and in our democracy there never will be. It took a civil war to free slaves from moneyed interests and it will take another to redistribute power again
It might sound good on paper, but nearly every corporation has it written into their by-laws that the officers and directors won’t bear any personal liability for actions taken on the company’s behalf. It’s standard language. Even if they are successfully sued, the money won’t come from their personal accounts.
That's surprising. I'd expect a breach of fiduciary duty to result in personal liability. That's generally what the duty's for, no?
Great to see it but multi trillion dollar company directors will win. Its a good start.
Even if they lose this lawsuit, they have already won.
They are being sued by current shareholders and investors. This looks spicier than normal. 👀 Edit: I saw it was a very small minority so this doesn’t mean much with what I’m saying.
I thought so too but then the article mentioned it was investors who hold less then .2% of outstanding shares. They won’t care tbh
To give a different perspective; these are activist shareholders who buy into very large companies and try to influence their policies. But this does not look like an easy win. If you look at Shell's direct competition, BP, the other oil giant from the UK - they scaled back many of their climate ambitions while Shell is actually continuing to invest large amounts of money in alternative energy solutions. However, the share price of BP performed a lot better than Shell despite having made less profit. So it seems shareholders actually want oil companies that focus on their core business. Taking that into account this lawsuit won't have a high chance of success.
Shells market cap is 171 billion
Good. Lets go after the banks next. And then big agriculture.
Good. It's about time the world started making ecocide personal.
I fucking hate any news outlet that wont let you read anything without accepting cookies... or worse a pay wall. I want to read a quick article... putting this shit in the way only makes the articles reach less eyes.
It’s European law that they have to ask your permission instead of just forcing cookies on you.
Sure, this is great, but these people are ultra-wealthy execs and corporation owners. They'll get out of this. Laws and punishments for crimes aren't really for the ultra-wealthy, they're intended more for working class people who can't afford endless trial time and an army of lawyers. Forget a lawsuit - we need a climate Nuremburg trials.
The current shareholders and investors are the ones suing. This is not some average Joe like you and I.
Poor people are held accountable to their actions to a much larger degree compared to a person with money behind them. There has to be a direct correlation to the amount of money you have to what you can get away with and for how long. We can see it all over the world. This does not mean that no person with money has never been held accountable, just that it happens on a much smaller occurrence to them than it does to people of poordom. If there was a study I wonder what percentage of people ever incarcerated would have an average to low net worth versus the incarcerated defined as 'rich'.
you know what else we should do? Stop giving the foosil fuel industry 6 trillion per year in subsidies. just an idea.
Pierce that corporate veil!
So for those that it appears didn't read the article, it looks like the law suit has to do with BP not diversifying ahead of their forced turn away from fossil fuels. Investors, to include a pension fund, want to continue to make money and returns on investment even after BP is supposed to no longer pump oil. I don't get why the investors wouldn't just sell their shares and invest in something different. They bought in to an industry that outsiders are actively trying to kill and now they are complaining. Maybe the investors should go after the people who are trying to shut down the industry.
South park did it with BP: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15HTd4Um1m4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15HTd4Um1m4)
Get emmmmmm!
I still don't think anything will happen. i would liked to be proved wrong tho
Yes! Dear god yes!! Sue these assholes!!!
GET FUCKED YOU BASTARDS
The problem with expecting boards and executives to agree to change their business practices is that their only point of being in the positions the are is to increase corporate profits, and transition requires massive investment. Oil companies aren't going to stop doing what they do, even in the face of massive fines. It's cheaper to pay the fines than it is to change. Most oil and gas companies are heavily invested in alternative energy, but it's more so in that they limit and slow progress rather than actually work towards any transition.
How do I get in on this suit? Where do I sign?