Re: Tackling the Climate Emergency:Economic and judicial instruments
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2021 10:21 pm
Open to critical enquiry
https://scrutable.science/
The company exists for whatever its shareholders want. Employees have a fiduciary duty towards the shareholders, which means they must act in good faith. They cannot use the company to pursue their own objectives or the objectives of anyone else (not even a subset of the shareholders). If the shareholders decide that the company should pursue some objective other than making money, as long as that objective was legal, then the employees would be just as bound to attempt to achive it as they more typically are to make money.Boustrophedon wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:29 amThere has long been a principle in American if not UK law as well, that a corporation or company only exists to the benefit of the shareholders. If an executive of that corporation knowingly takes the firm in a direction that is going to cause the shareholders a loss, then he is doing something illegal.
Yes, I agree that expecting corporations or consumers to change their behaviour at a personal loss without any other incentive would be fruitless. IME the people pushing individualist solutions to environmental crises tend to be people with something to sell, be it greenwashed bioenergy or a bamboo toothbrush.Boustrophedon wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:29 amThere has long been a principle in American if not UK law as well, that a corporation or company only exists to the benefit of the shareholders. If an executive of that corporation knowingly takes the firm in a direction that is going to cause the shareholders a loss, then he is doing something illegal. I ANAL*
This has been used as a partial defence of the actions of companies over tobacco, asbestos, lead in petrol and a whole host of other detrimental products. Big companies are essentially psychopathic.
That's Vanguard and Blackrock voting for climate activists to control ExxonMobil, in whom they own shares. The future is now.The key to Engine No. 1’s success was the support of investment funds and pension funds that held significant stakes in ExxonMobil. Vanguard, the largest shareholder of ExxonMobil, confirmed in a post-election statement that it had voted for Goff and Hietala, but not Karsner and Runevad. Separately, Blackrock confirmed that it had cast its 6.7% shareholding in support of Goff, Hietala and Karsner.
Well, Shell is one of the Seven Sisters and they've already lost a case on the following grounds. Climate change is a human rights issue. People have a right to live on a planet where the land and sea aren't regularly on fire, and that right has been agreed to by most world governments (and the UN is looking into strengthening language on environmental rights). The link between fossil companies' activities and climate change can be attributed robustly using science.Boustrophedon wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:29 amSo suing the "Seven Sisters" is totally without merit, the oil companies existed to extract and sell oil, what else did we expect them to do? Why would we expect them to do otherwise but to lie and hide the evidence, while we consume their product in ever greater amounts?
Sort of, but if they were electric limos and SUVs powered by a decarbonised grid "our way of life" would be less of an issue, climate-wise. The current struggle around climate change is one manifestation of various other struggles, from 'the many vs. the few' to 'science vs. b.llsh.t' to 'today vs. tomorrow' etc., and most politicians are routinely on the wrong side of all of them.Boustrophedon wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:29 amIt's total hypocrisy for fancy lawyers and politicians driving big limos and SUVs to try to suggest that somehow it's all the fault of big oil whilst continuing to drive their gas guzzlers. It's the fault of our way of life and exploitation as an instrument of business to generate wealth.
And Oxfam is warning that focusing on this type of offsetting could threaten global food supplies.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:35 amThe current wildfires in the US are burning trees companies like BP and Microsoft bought to "offset" their carbon emissions https://www.ft.com/content/3f89c759-eb9 ... af1ec5aa23
There's no substitute for actually reducing emissions, and we really need to be getting on with it. Too many countries' and corporations' plans depend on this kind of "offsetting".
Nafkote Dabi, climate policy lead at Oxfam and co-author of the report, explained: “It is difficult to tell how much land would be required, as governments have not been transparent about how they plan to meet their net-zero commitments. But many countries and companies are talking about afforestation and reforestation, and the first question is: where is this land going to come from?”...
The report also found that two of the most commonly used offsetting measures, reforestation and the planting of new forests, were among the worst at putting food security at risk.
Indeed - hadn't seen that report, thanks.Fishnut wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:33 pmAnd Oxfam is warning that focusing on this type of offsetting could threaten global food supplies.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:35 amThe current wildfires in the US are burning trees companies like BP and Microsoft bought to "offset" their carbon emissions https://www.ft.com/content/3f89c759-eb9 ... af1ec5aa23
There's no substitute for actually reducing emissions, and we really need to be getting on with it. Too many countries' and corporations' plans depend on this kind of "offsetting".
Nafkote Dabi, climate policy lead at Oxfam and co-author of the report, explained: “It is difficult to tell how much land would be required, as governments have not been transparent about how they plan to meet their net-zero commitments. But many countries and companies are talking about afforestation and reforestation, and the first question is: where is this land going to come from?”...
The report also found that two of the most commonly used offsetting measures, reforestation and the planting of new forests, were among the worst at putting food security at risk.
It probably is necessary for him to do that. His job is to try to reach a consensus on an outcome before the conference starts. So the most important diplomacy and negotiation is happening now. The big wigs can sort out the final points when they actually meet.Fishnut wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 8:14 amCOP26 President Alok "We all have a role to play" Sharma flew to 30 countries in the last 7 months. Words fail me.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... since-2019Employees at the government department responsible for tackling climate change have taken 612 domestic flights since June 2019, when the UK signed the net zero emissions target into law, figures show.
Of the total flights taken – which are single journeys and do not include travel to Northern Ireland – by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), 34 of them were by government ministers.
The BEIS figures come from a freedom of information request by the office of Kerry McCarthy, the Labour MP for Bristol East and shadow minister for green transport. They show that in the six months after the 2050 net zero target was signed into law on 27 June 2019, the department took 395 domestic flights, while in 2020 the figure was 210. So far this year, the department has taken seven domestic flights.
Some environmental campaigners are making the same point https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... eed-to-actWoodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 8:33 amDiplomats are exempt from the quarantine rules. I assume he’s covered by that.
As for the conference, it’s a trade off. Of course he could do all the diplomacy from a room in London. But IMHO there would be a risk that conference would have a less ambitious outcome.
Fair enough if you think that no one should be allowed to use air travel. But if you accept that it’s acceptable for some people then it seems to me that he should be included in those for whom it’s acceptable to fly.
They do seem to have flown a lot less within the UK. But I doubt very much that the 612 domestic flights were all to the Hebrides, Isles of Scilly or other similar locations. Civil servants should be travelling by train.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 10:12 amEven worse, because alternatives exist:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... since-2019Employees at the government department responsible for tackling climate change have taken 612 domestic flights since June 2019, when the UK signed the net zero emissions target into law, figures show.
Of the total flights taken – which are single journeys and do not include travel to Northern Ireland – by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), 34 of them were by government ministers.
The BEIS figures come from a freedom of information request by the office of Kerry McCarthy, the Labour MP for Bristol East and shadow minister for green transport. They show that in the six months after the 2050 net zero target was signed into law on 27 June 2019, the department took 395 domestic flights, while in 2020 the figure was 210. So far this year, the department has taken seven domestic flights.
There's no excuse for this. Flights within GB mainland should be banned (except where medically necessary).
He is, the article I originally linked to said,Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 8:33 amDiplomats are exempt from the quarantine rules. I assume he’s covered by that.
But I have to ask why - are crown servants somehow immune to catching and transmitting covid?Sharma did not have to isolate after any of the journeys, despite six being on the government’s “red list” for travel as he was exempt as a “crown servant”.
Of course they aren't immune.Fishnut wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 10:46 amHe is, the article I originally linked to said,Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 8:33 amDiplomats are exempt from the quarantine rules. I assume he’s covered by that.But I have to ask why - are crown servants somehow immune to catching and transmitting covid?Sharma did not have to isolate after any of the journeys, despite six being on the government’s “red list” for travel as he was exempt as a “crown servant”.
I disagree, I suggest that at this stage the issue is whether its worth attempting to get a better outcome, and whether flying will help that attempt. Even if the conference produces only toothless soundbites an attempt may have been worth it anyway.Fishnut wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 10:46 amAs to whether you think his travel is worthwhile I guess the only way to tell will be when COP26 takes place. If it actually produces results that will make governments commit to, and achieve, worthwhile reductions in CO2 emissions then I will happily concede that it was worthwhile. But if, as I fear, it will produce a load of impressively-sounding but ultimately toothless soundbites then I will maintain my condemnation.
Or is that legal principle a myth, as argued here for example?Boustrophedon wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 12:29 amThere has long been a principle in American if not UK law as well, that a corporation or company only exists to the benefit of the shareholders. If an executive of that corporation knowingly takes the firm in a direction that is going to cause the shareholders a loss, then he is doing something illegal. I ANAL*
This has been used as a partial defence of the actions of companies over tobacco, asbestos, lead in petrol and a whole host of other detrimental products. Big companies are essentially psychopathic.
So suing the "Seven Sisters" is totally without merit, the oil companies existed to extract and sell oil, what else did we expect them to do? Why would we expect them to do otherwise but to lie and hide the evidence, while we consume their product in ever greater amounts?
It's total hypocrisy for fancy lawyers and politicians driving big limos and SUVs to try to suggest that somehow it's all the fault of big oil whilst continuing to drive their gas guzzlers. It's the fault of our way of life and exploitation as an instrument of business to generate wealth.
* I am not a lawyer either.
As some may have spotted, I'm fairly left-of-centre politically. Nevertheless, this is a climate emergency, with less than a decade left on a ticking clock to achieve something in some sense transformative: we either have to change how society and its economy functions, or change how it interacts with fossil hydrocarbons and land use. I reckon slapping a carbon tax on top of what's already going on is much simpler and quicker than trying to make the world a generally nicer place - by all means that should still be an urgent priority, but teh climates are even urgenterer.The reality is that as far as the climate is concerned, we don’t have the luxury of time. We’re already at the scene in Apollo 13 where the NASA guy slaps down a bunch of junk on the table, and the people in the room have to figure out how to save the astronauts using only what is in front of them.
In other words, given the ticking clock, the only option we have as a species is path dependent on the choices we’ve already made. Britain and the world’s economic status-quo in 2050 is going to look, for better or worse, a lot more like it does today than a fully automated luxury communism utopia.
So our only option, like it or not, is to tackle climate change within the context of the current status quo. In other words, the only tool we have available to fight climate change is capitalism.
There’s lots of different ways that carbon taxes would work. A simple version would involve an extra tax on fossil fuels.Fishnut wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 12:40 amI know this is a very basic question, but how does a carbon tax actually work? Speaking from a place of complete ignorance on the subject my fear is that the costs will simply be passed on directly to the consumer rather than them forcing companies to change their practices, which would hurt already economically-disadvantaged people the most.