Where does this leave other companies? If shell can be held liable for carbon emissions, then surely other companies/individuals can be held liable as well?
Was it ok, from a legal or societal perspective, for these manufacturers to mount a disinformation program, in favor of their products, while knowingly causing direct harm to their customers? How does the fact that other companies will (potentially) step in and do the same thing change the situation?
CO2 emissions have massive externalities and the more we force companies to bear those costs (be it via court judgements, carbon taxes, or a CO2 credits market) the more they will adjust their behaviour.
In this case, you need viable alternatives.
When one cartel dies, there isn't immediately a beneficial alternative.
Much like in this case - if Shell leaves, there is nothing that automatically means the new actor who fills that role will offer hydrogen, solar, etc. Least friction means the new actor will just be another petroleum company.
Viable alternatives need to be in place and/or ready to immediately deploy, I think was OP's point.
Additionally, these lawsuits raise the cost of being in the oil business compared to renewables. So the "new actor" is much more likely to be a renewable company, simply due to the fact that investors do not like regulatory uncertainty.
It is worth mentioning that the oil industry is now in support of a carbon tax. On paper, this sounds good. But what really is going on is that they realize that the writing is on the wall and that after decades of opposing a carbon tax, their best chance of survival moving forward is to try to move the conversation away from regulations and towards "free market solutions". But this is cynical for a few reasons, the primary one being that it is much easier to convince a future Republican administration to retroactively lower the carbon tax (under the guise of "job creation" or some other nonsense) than it would be to repeal strict environmental regulations. And the other primary reason is that a carbon tax essentially "kicks the can down the road", i.e. it doesn't actually solve climate change or prevent the fossil fuel industry from continuing to do business as usual. It just makes the price of fossil fuel based products a little higher. Where as a regulatory approach would likely significantly hinder the companies ability to operate and likely significantly reduce the size and scope of the fossil fuel market
This is important, because in the next few years we are likely going to see the oil companies try to get a "seat at the negotiating table" so to speak. So these lawsuits are important because it puts these companies on the defensive, and potentially cuts them off at the knees, hindering their ability to water down future climate change legislation.
Emission Trading Schemes put friction on another petroleum company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_tradin...
Perhaps some people agree with the tool now, but wait until you see how they use it later. Eventually, you will get someone with the power who will use it for something you disagree with, in a big way.
I know corporations are people in the US but since when do they have a private live?
And i guess it's already illegal to harm others by polluting the environment in most juristictions.
If a company knowingly cause harm to third parties they must be sanctioned.
Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.