Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

digitelle t1_j7vbl6l wrote

The board of directors will likely be fined far less than what they earned. Especially if politicians have anything to do with them.

Being paid off is much easier than waiting for approval and in many cases, far more affordable.

Unless shell is stripped of all their earnings from the last year… plus +10% in fines on top of it… we will see absolutely nothing happen but time being wasted.

350

could_use_a_snack t1_j7vdk9u wrote

IDK, this seems a little different. To me it looks like a way to get rid of the BOD and replace it with a more climate conscious group of leaders. This suit seems to be aiming at the current BOD personally, and is being brought by investors. I don't think it's looking to punish the company directly but to eliminate the current leadership.

103

gustav_mannerheim t1_j7wc2fi wrote

What I find interesting about this is that the argument seems to be that the BOD is breaking their duty to the investors by ignoring the economy inevitably ditching fossil fuels. The board has over prioritized short term profits and upset its own investors who want their investment to stay competitive in the future. It doesn't even seem to be a climate focused argument.

56

could_use_a_snack t1_j7weupc wrote

That's what it seems like to me too. If they don't start dealing with how they are affecting the environment, the company is going to tank really soon. So get with it BOD or get out. Times are changing and you need to adapt.

31

Maleficent-Coat-7633 t1_j7wmvul wrote

I see the logic. "We want our money, but we need to be alive to actually spend it"

16

could_use_a_snack t1_j7wqw4o wrote

Also the company needs to survive to keep the money rolling in. If shareholders start demanding that companies "go green" or at least greener, to stay relevant that is at least going in the right direction.

12

Maleficent-Coat-7633 t1_j7wsyub wrote

No reason they can't invest that oil money into renewables after all.

4

Batsonworkshop t1_j7wv70m wrote

The only renewable worth a damn is nuclear. And a petroleum company is highly unlikely to invest the sums of money needed to build nuclear plants that effectively kill the primary industry of the petroleum companies.

−2

Maleficent-Coat-7633 t1_j7y9931 wrote

Actually nuclear is not renewable. Uranium is finite, it merely buys us time. Also a lot of renewable power systems are actually quite viable. A combination of wind, hydro, and solar can do a lot with a decent energy storage system. Combine that with things like tidal and you would be surprised how much you can get.

Besides, the oil companies are playing chicken with the goddamn apocalypse. My opinions on what should be done with their CEOs are best left unstated. Suffice it to say I consider them Hostis Humani Generis. Those who have a basic understanding of Latin should know just how damning an accusation that phrase is.

4

PyroTech11 t1_j7ybqtw wrote

Also if the world is going green and nobody is buying oil why are we invested in a company making only oil

4

Chadasaurus t1_j7ygzj3 wrote

Currently the world is buying ~100 million barrels of oil per day. So people are definitely still buying oil and will be for the foreseeable future.

2

PyroTech11 t1_j7yh3e1 wrote

I know but the trend is slowly going towards renewables on the developed world at least. So to only focus on oil would be a short term goal which is not what investors would want

2

Superamdyn t1_j7yypq8 wrote

Even the optimistic forecasts of BEV adoption only show 10-15% of vehicles on the road being BEV by 2035.

1

Maleficent-Coat-7633 t1_j7yzm3q wrote

The trouble is that oil companies don't seem to think of anything but short term.

1

PyroTech11 t1_j7zrx9x wrote

Which is why their being sued by investors, literally what the article is about

1

Superamdyn t1_j82ovgs wrote

The majority of their investors are not suing them.

1

tadpole511 t1_j7wsa8k wrote

The government successfully started prosecuting mafia members for tax fraud. Perhaps a more circuitous route will be successful in here too. It's still a path to more renewable energy, even if it's about profits. Isn't that one of the whole capitalist arguments anyway--sway the market using money? They used it as an excuse to keep producing oil and gas, and now it's being used against them.

Ninja edit: I'm not saying that they actually care about green energy. I'm positive it's about money. But it's still a win for green energy and climate causes if they win/enact changes.

12

Batsonworkshop t1_j7wviza wrote

The capitalist argument is not to forth the sway of the market with money from the top - it's that the consumers money sways thenl market. If consumers what ev, renewable energies, etc, they will buy them. If they are readily available and not being purchased it's largely because the market does not want them and/or they are not market viable.

3

digitelle t1_j7vzgna wrote

I really hope so! It would be good of for a change this is bullshit that has gone to far.

10

BluezamEDH t1_j83c8fn wrote

In theory it's nice. However upon reading the article you see that the party that filed the lawsuit has 12 million shares of 7 billion total.

That's about 0.17%. Less than 1/500.

While I think it's a good initiative, I doubt it'll do much.

1

JooosephNthomas t1_j7vcnin wrote

It will look good in the headlines. So there is the perception of things changing hahaha.

7

digitelle t1_j7vzlzg wrote

It’s true, it’s pretty easy to lie to the general public with politics controls our access to information.

Lets just not hope for the book 1984 to become entirely true.

2

Xavier9756 t1_j7w5qre wrote

It’s always funny hearing people talk about 1984. Because the man would very much hate the kinds of people that use 1984 has a tentpole in their arguments.

3

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j7wfah4 wrote

What's more, 1984 is no longer possible. Our access to information is too great for censorship to ever be effective to that extent.

Information manipulation is still possible, but Brave New World is a much more likely future dystopia, if we're deciding between them

1

[deleted] t1_j7y5vdh wrote

I find that information manipulation is not only happening right now but can get in my opinion a million times worse in the future. Access to information is great but what if most of that information is wrong.

In my opinion we don't live in the information age we live in the misinformation age.

3

jseah t1_j7ycnew wrote

Or cyberpunk 2077...

2

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_j7zgb2p wrote

That is also a possibility, but I think it's less likely to be honest. There have been a lot of times in history where corporations gain a lot of power, but they're pretty much always broken up and crushed after a while. The power of corporations tends to crumble very quickly when the government goes after them

1

FireDangle t1_j7wu1gp wrote

it sets a precedent. the fact that they are personally being sued is actually a big deal.

and also, the whole mindset of "nothing works so its a waste of time" is a cop out.

2

Vinstaal0 t1_j7ybomj wrote

Law suits like this need to happen so we can use the outcome in the future.

Fines are often capped here in EU laws and not income based. Even if they where then there are tons of ways to split part of the income of the board of directors so it would seem like they wouldn’t earn as much.

2

gophergun t1_j7ypw32 wrote

Why would they be fined? Also, approval for what?

1

Superamdyn t1_j7yy8xe wrote

Unless the BOD has contravened some legislation there won’t be any fines. This is an activist group representing 0.17% of shareholders (12 million of 7 billion according to the article). The board is elected by shareholders and if >99% are not participating in this lawsuit… I doubt that anything much comes of it - again unless something was contravened. If shareholders do not like the direction - they already have a mechanism to change that - they elect a new board.

1

hoodratchic t1_j7wqctc wrote

It's a start? Why do negative in /uplifting news?

0