Dutch Court Of Appeal seems to have acknowledged that the consumption of oil is driven by consumers demanding cheap fuel, that they are not force fed product by devilish oil companies

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

In  Shell, M&M and Milieudefensie et al. the Dutch Court Of Appeal held:

At 7.99 : It is therefore too easy to say that Shell has no influence on scope 3 emissions (ie demand for oil and gas products) even though Shell’s power in this regard may be somewhat limited.

At 7.106 :There may be a causal relationship between a production limitation and emission reduction...... but (Milieudefensie et al,the respondents)have failed to put forward sufficient grounds to (demonstrate) that in this case a causal relationship (also) exists between  a sales limitation and emission reduction.

At 7.108) Shell could reduce its fossil fuel sales while Shell Trading continues to offer its services to the market. A party that would sell fossil fuels in Shell’s place would not need to have the logistical and financial capabilities of Shell Trading. If necessary, this party could purchase these services from Shell Trading or other service providers.

7.110  It has not been established in the present proceedings that downsizing the resale activities of Shell Trading will lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions. 

Milieudefensie argued instead that Shell was guilty of impossing the use of fossil fuels by provding a cheaper product that "sustainable altrenatives" cannot compete with [see 7.59].

 The above taken together suggests that the Dutch Court Of Appeal  recognises tha the consumption of oil and gas is driven by demand from ordinary consumers, and not, as many in the climate change business insist, "imposed" on users by oil company executives

END 

SEE ALSO 

Friday, July 28, 2023

Shell may exit Singapore, Singapore Strait Times blames "challenges to the global petroleum industry" - Shell however has announced swing back to oil and gas, Shell's review of business in Singapore probably due to Singapore Government wanting to kill its refining ,petrochem industries to pursue renewables, save the planet

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

Strait Times Ovais Subhani says:

Shell’s decision in June (2023) to assess the viability of its plants on Pulau Bukom and Jurong Island says more about the challenges to the global petroleum industry than the future of Asia’s fifth-largest refining hub.

The “strategic review” announced by the London-based energy giant has sparked talk that the company may sell its plants or decommission them if a suitable buyer cannot be found.

Shell however, in June this year, under the leadership of new CEO  Wael Sawan announced a shift back to oil, and away from renewables.  It would want to stay, not leave , Singapore.

It does therefore  appear that Shell is being forced to review its business in Singapore given the Singapore Government's apparent policy of killing its  refining ,petrochem industries to save the planet.

TO BE READ WITH 

Friday, February 23, 2018

Singapore wants to kill its refining ,petrochem industries to save the planet: New carbon tax will kill a pillar of the economy, Singapore seems set to repeat the Lim Chong Yah " high wages shock therapy" experiment of the 1980s

EDITED ON 16 JUNE  2023

Singapore's domestic exports of oil last year firmed by 52.4 percent in nominal terms.

by Ganesh Sahathevan

There is nothing that needs to be added to the Strait Times story below , but readers are reminded that Singapore's contribution to world carbon dioxide emissions are probably negative,given its size (or rather lack thereof) and the fact of the yearly "haze" from Indonesia and Malaysia.

As to the effect of climate change on Singapore, one would think that a country that boasts of its ability to reclaim land from the sea would understand that reclamation is not without its own inherent
problems,that are of more immediate danger.

Meanwhile, Singapore's PAP seems to have forgotten that it relies on the very industries it wants to punish. On the other hand, this is a tax,it goes to government, government gains, but why this desperate measure? 

Readers might recall that Singapore experimented with a similar policy of restructuring the economy by force in the 1980s,  with disastrous results. 

That was of course the high wages policy, which reared its head again in 2012, and was quickly decapitated by Lee Kuan Yew. AsiaTimes.com.sg reported in 2012:

PM Lee rejected Prof Lim Chong Yah's "shock therapy" idea, explaining that it was better to apply sustainable measures.
Mr Lee was responding for the first time to the recent proposal for "shock therapy" by the well-known economist and former chairman of the National Wages Council, Professor Lim Chong Yah, to raise wages of the lowest-income workers by 50 per cent over three years.

Mr Lee said: "I appreciate his good intentions, I share his concerns over this group of workers. But I do not agree with his drastic approach because the only realistic way to move is step by step, with wages and productivity going up in tandem...as fast as we can, as fast as it's possible."
Mr Lee disagreed with the proposal, pointing to the 1980s when Singapore pushed up wages sharply and had "room" to do so. He said: "But even then, we ran into problems."

Mr Lee explained that in the 1980s, Singapore's economy was growing rapidly at 8 to 10 per cent a year. It also helped that the country's only competition then came from the "three little dragons" - South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan. China and India were not on the scene, he added.
And during that period, the labour market was tight as multinational companies such as Philips entered the labour market, creating thousands of jobs.

He said: "In 1985, when the winds changed, when the conditions turned difficult, we plunged into a very deep recession...We had to cut wages sharply...so that the economy could recover."


Left unsaid is the fact that the architect of the 1980s wage increase was the same Lim Chong Yah .

END

$5 per tonne carbon tax 'fair' for 

firms: Masagos

A carbon tax is a common tool used to control the amount of earth-warming greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. PHOTO: ST FILE

PUBLISHED

 FEB 23, 2018, 5:00 AM SGT

FACEBOOKTWITTEREMAIL

Amount as a start will give big emitters time to 'adjust and get used to compliance regime'

Samantha Boh

 

Getting large carbon emitters to pay $5 for every tonne of greenhouse gases they generate is a "fair" way to start a compliance regime, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli said yesterday.

From next year till 2023, all facilities producing 25,000 tonnes or more of greenhouse gas emissions a year will be taxed $5 per tonne of emissions - significantly lower than the $10 to $20 per tonne envisioned last year.

However, the Government will review the tax rate in 2023, and eventually increase the carbon tax to between $10 and $15 per tonne by 2030.

Mr Masagos called the starting $5 per tonne a "fair amount", which gives the affected 30 to 40 companies - which contribute 80 per cent of Singapore's greenhouse gas emissions - time to "adjust and also get used to the compliance regime".

He said: "They will need time to change their processes and improve their emissions."

He added that the transition period will allow the affected companies - mainly from the petroleum refining, chemicals and semiconductor sectors - to be better placed to comply with the higher tax rates to be imposed by 2030.

Mr Masagos was speaking on the sidelines of a visit to Bukit View Secondary School, where he launched a new green classroom comprising various eco-friendly features, including a green wall - covered in plants - and motion-activated fans.

A carbon tax is a common tool used to control the amount of earth-warming greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

About 67 countries and jurisdictions, including China, the European Union and Japan, have implemented or announced plans to implement such a scheme. They aim to encourage companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency.

Households here could see their total electricity and gas expenses increase by 1 per cent on average due to the carbon tax, which will be offset by additional Utilities-Save rebates.

Asked how companies can be made accountable, Mr Masagos said it is necessary to pass a carbon tax Act which will require companies to submit data on their greenhouse gas emissions, and which will impose stricter requirements on large emitters such as an audit report that confirms their data.

"By doing so we will have a better grasp of how much each of these industries and companies emit and, therefore, have an idea of how we can then nudge (them) to do better," he said.

The Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources said there are no plans to make individual company emissions data public.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on February 23, 2018, with the headline '$5 per tonne carbon tax 'fair' for firms: Masagos'. Print Edition | Subscribe