Interesting: Shell won its court case against the imposition of an order to reduce its emissions by 45% in part because:
The court agreed that if western firms pivot away from gas too quickly, net impact would be *bad* for the planet if their customers fill that gap with coal.
2
This is an argument the centre-left has long been making against the most vociferously anti-fossil-fuels left.
Basically that if you crack down on any and all fossil fuels, you’re making the perfect (only renewables) the enemy of the good (gas vs coal).
Now used in court.
3
(I tend to think it’s a good argument)
Save this thread — create a free accountSave this thread