A Dutch appeals court on Tuesday overturned a landmark ruling that ordered energy company Shell to cut its carbon emissions by net 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, while saying that “protection against dangerous climate change is a human right.”

The decision was a defeat for the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups, which had hailed the original 2021 ruling as a victory for the climate. Tuesday’s civil ruling can be appealed to the Dutch Supreme Court.

“This hurts,” Friends of the Earth director in the Netherlands Donald Pols said. “At the same time, we see that this case has ensured that major polluters are not immune and has further stimulated the debate about their responsibility in combating dangerous climate change. That is why we continue to tackle major polluters, such as Shell.”

Outside court, Pols said the fight against climate change “is a marathon, not a sprint, and the race has just begun.”

The ruling upholding Shell’s appeal came as a 12-day U.N. climate conference was entering its second day in Azerbaijan where countries are discussing how to fund cutting planet-warming emissions and adapt to ever-increasing weather extremes.

It marked a stinging defeat for climate activists after several courtroom victories. A court in The Hague in 2015 ordered the government to cut emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 from benchmark 1990 levels. The Dutch Supreme Court upheld the ruling five years ago.

Earlier this year, a U.N. tribunal on maritime law said that countries are legally required to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found that carbon emissions qualify as marine pollution and said that countries must take steps to mitigate and adapt to their adverse effects.

And in April, Europe’s highest human rights court ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In December the top U.N. legal body, the International Court of Justice, is holding public hearings on climate change after the world body requested a nonbinding advisory opinion on “the obligations of States in respect of climate change.” Dozens of countries are set to present arguments at two weeks of hearings.

In a written summary of Tuesday’s ruling, the court said that Shell has a duty of care to limit its emissions, but it annulled the lower court’s decision because it was “unable to establish that the social standard of care entails an obligation for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%, or some other percentage.

“There is currently insufficient consensus in climate science on a specific reduction percentage to which an individual company like Shell should adhere.”

Shell has emitted 36,528 million tons of carbon dioxide, or CO2, since 1854, which is 2.1% of global emissions, according to an April report by the Carbon Majors Database.

Presiding Judge Carla Joustra said that Shell already has targets for climate-warming carbon emissions that are in line with demands of Friends of the Earth — both for what it directly produces and for emissions produced by energy the company purchase from others.

The court then ruled that “for Shell to reduce CO2 emissions caused by buyers of Shell products ... by a particular percentage would be ineffective in this case. Shell could meet that obligation by ceasing to trade in the fuels it purchases from third parties. Other companies would then take over that trade.”

Joustra said that, “The court’s final judgment is that Friends of the Earth’s claims cannot be granted. The court therefore annuls the district court’s judgment.”

Climate activists sitting outside on the courthouse steps hugged, and some appeared close to tears after the decision.

“To be honest I was just really disappointed,” Neele Boelens said. I was almost crying. I was in there in the court and it was just like... At first it looked really good for us but then it just went down hill.”

Shell, meanwhile, welcomed the ruling.

The U.S. government and TikTok will go head-to-head in federal court on Monday as oral arguments begin in a consequential legal case that will determine if – or how — a popular social media platform used by nearly half of all Americans will continue to operate in the country.

Attorneys for the two sides will appear before a panel of judges at the federal appeals court in Washington. TikTok and its China-based parent company, ByteDance, are challenging a U.S. law that requires them to break ties or face a ban in the U.S. by mid-January. The legal battle is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, was a culmination of a years-long saga in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat due to its connections to China. But TikTok argues the law runs afoul of the First Amendment while other opponents claim it mirrors crackdowns sometimes seen in authoritarian countries abroad.

In court documents submitted over the summer, the Justice Department emphasized the government’s two primary concerns. First, TikTok collects vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Second, the U.S. says the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect.

TikTok has repeatedly said it does not share U.S. user data with the Chinese government and that concerns the government has raised have never been substantiated. In court documents, attorneys for both TikTok and its parent company have argued that members of Congress sought to punish the platform based on propaganda they perceived to be on TikTok. The companies also claimed divestment is not possible and that the app would have to shut down by Jan. 19 if the courts don’t step in to block the law.

“Even if divestiture were feasible, TikTok in the United States would still be reduced to a shell of its former self, stripped of the innovative and expressive technology that tailors content to each user,” the companies said in a legal brief filed in June. “It would also become an island, preventing Americans from exchanging views with the global TikTok community.”

Opponents of the law stress a ban would also cause disruptions in the world of marketing, retail and in the lives of many different content creators, some of whom also sued the government in May. TikTok is covering the legal costs for that lawsuit, which the court has consolidated with the company’s complaint and another filed on behalf of conservative creators who work with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc.

Though the government’s primary reasoning for the law is public, significant portions of its court filings include classified information that has been redacted and hidden from public view. The companies have asked the court to reject the secret filings or appoint a district judge who can ferret through the material, which the government has opposed because it will cause a delay in the case. If admitted into the court, legal experts say those secret filings could make it nearly impossible to know some of the factors that could play a part in the eventual ruling.

In one of the redacted statements submitted in late July, the Justice Department claimed TikTok took direction from the Chinese government about content on its platform, without disclosing additional details about when or why those incidents occurred. Casey Blackburn, a senior U.S. intelligence official, wrote in a legal statement that ByteDance and TikTok “have taken action in response” to Chinese government demands “to censor content outside of China.” Though the intelligence community had “no information” that this has happened on the platform operated by TikTok in the U.S., Blackburn said there is a risk it “may” occur.

In a separate document submitted to court, the DOJ said the U.S. is “not required to wait until its foreign adversary takes specific detrimental actions before responding to such a threat.”

The companies, however, argue the government could have taken a more tailored approach to resolve its concerns.

During high-stakes negotiations with the Biden administration more than two years ago, TikTok presented the government with a draft 90-page agreement that allows a third party to monitor the platform’s algorithm, content moderation practices and other programming. TikTok says it has spent more than $2 billion to voluntarily implement some of these measures, which include storing U.S. user data on servers controlled by the tech giant Oracle. But it said a deal was not reached because government officials essentially walked away from the negotiating table in August 2022.

Justice officials have argued complying with the draft agreement is impossible, or would require extensive resources, due to the size and the technical complexity of TikTok. The Justice Department also said the only thing that would resolve the government’s concerns is severing the ties between TikTok and ByteDance given the porous relationship between the Chinese government and Chinese companies.

But some observers have wondered whether such a move would accelerate the so-called “decoupling” between the U.S. and its strategic rival at a time when other China-founded companies, such as Shein and Temu, are also making a big splash in the West. Last week, the Biden administration proposed rules that would crack down on duty-free products being shipped directly from China.

For its part, ByteDance has publicly said TikTok is not up for sale. But that has not stopped some investors, including former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, from announcing bids to purchase the platform. However, even if such a sale would occur, it would most likely be devoid of TikTok’s coveted algorithm, leaving a big question mark on whether the platform would be capable of serving up the type of personally tailored videos that users have come to expect.

It’s a showdown between the world’s richest man and a Brazilian Supreme Court justice.

The justice, Alexandre de Moraes, has threatened to suspend social media giant X nationwide if its billionaire owner Elon Musk doesn’t swiftly comply with one of his orders. Musk has responded with insults, including calling de Moraes a “tyrant” and “a dictator.”

It is the latest chapter in the monthslong feud between the two men over free speech, far-right accounts and misinformation. Many in Brazil are waiting and watching to see if either man will blink.
What is the basis for de Moraes’ threat?

Earlier this month, X removed its legal representative from Brazil on the grounds that de Moraes had threatened her with arrest. On Wednesday night at 8:07 p.m. local time (7:07 p.m. Eastern Standard Time), de Moraes gave the platform 24 hours to appoint a new representative, or face a shutdown until his order is met.

De Moraes’ order is based on Brazilian law requiring foreign companies to have legal representation to operate in the country, according to the Supreme Court’s press office. This ensures someone can be notified of legal decisions and is qualified to take any requisite action.

X’s refusal to appoint a legal representative would be particularly problematic ahead of Brazil’s October municipal elections, with a churn of fake news expected, said Luca Belli, coordinator of the Technology and Society Center at the Getulio Vargas Foundation, a university in Rio de Janeiro. Takedown orders are common during campaigns, and not having someone to receive legal notices would make timely compliance impossible.

De Moraes would first notify the nation’s telecommunications regulator, Anatel, who would then instruct operators — including Musk’s own Starlink internet service provider — to suspend users’ access to X. That includes preventing the resolution of X’s website — the term for conversion of a domain name to an IP address — and blocking access to the IP address of X’s servers from inside Brazilian territory, according to Belli.

Given that operators are aware of the widely publicized standoff and their obligation to comply with an order from de Moraes, plus the fact doing so isn’t complicated, X could be offline in Brazil as early as 12 hours after receiving their instructions, Belli said.

Since X is widely accessed via mobile phones, de Moraes is also likely to notify major app stores to stop offering X in Brazil, said Affonso Souza. Another possible — but highly controversial — step would be prohibiting access with virtual private networks ( VPNs) and imposing fines on those who use them to access X, he added.

Introducing the ultimate user-friendly cooking companion by Ramen Monster.
Guaranteed durable and reliable, each of our induction ranges are expertly crafted to meet rigorous testing and performance standards.

KEY FEATURES

– Our Instant Ramen Cooker adjusts instantly to voltage fluctuations and automatically shuts off.
– Seamlessly adjusts and recognizes pans without losing connection as you lift or tilt from the surface during cooking.
– Premium tempered glass top is thicker than similar models on the market and is reinforced for extra durability.

If you do not agree to these terms of use, please do not use the site. We reserve the right, at our discretion, to change, modify, add, or remove portions of these terms at any time.

We strive to keep our processing activities with respect to your personal data as limited as possible. Your personal data will be retained only for as long as we need it to fulfill the purpose for which we have collected it and, if applicable, as long as required by statutory retention requirements. In case of consent, your personal data will be at the latest deleted without undue delay after the withdrawal of such consent.

Boeing will plead guilty to a criminal fraud charge stemming from two crashes of 737 Max jetliners that killed 346 people, the Justice Department said late Sunday, after the government determined the company violated an agreement that had protected it from prosecution for more than three years.

Federal prosecutors gave Boeing the choice last week of entering a guilty plea and paying a fine as part of its sentence or facing a trial on the felony criminal charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Prosecutors accused the American aerospace giant of deceiving regulators who approved the airplane and pilot-training requirements for it.

The plea deal, which still must receive the approval of a federal judge to take effect, calls for Boeing to pay an additional $243.6 million fine. That was the same amount it paid under the 2021 settlement that the Justice Department said the company breached. An independent monitor would be named to oversee Boeing’s safety and quality procedures for three years. The deal also requires Boeing to invest at least $455 million in its compliance and safety programs.

The plea deal covers only wrongdoing by Boeing before the crashes in Indonesia and in Ethiopia, which killed all 346 passengers and crew members aboard two new Max jets. It does not give Boeing immunity for other incidents, including a panel that blew off a Max jetliner during an Alaska Airlines flight over Oregon in January, a Justice Department official said.

The deal also does not cover any current or former Boeing officials, only the corporation. In a statement, Boeing confirmed it had reached the deal with the Justice Department but had no further comment.

In a filing Sunday night, the Justice Department said it expected to submit the written plea agreement with a U.S. District Court in Texas by July 19. Lawyers for some of the relatives of those who died in the two crashes have said they will ask the judge to reject the agreement.

President Joe Biden slapped major new tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, advanced batteries, solar cells, steel, aluminum and medical equipment on Tuesday, taking potshots at Donald Trump along the way as he embraced a strategy that’s increasing friction between the world’s two largest economies.

The Democratic president said that Chinese government subsidies ensure the nation’s companies don’t have to turn a profit, giving them an unfair advantage in global trade.

“American workers can outwork and outcompete anyone as long as the competition is fair,” Biden said in the White House Rose Garden. “But for too long, it hasn’t been fair. For years, the Chinese government has poured state money into Chinese companies ... it’s not competition, it’s cheating.”

The tariffs come in the middle of a heated campaign between Biden and Trump, his Republican predecessor, to show who’s tougher on China. In a nod to the presidential campaign, Biden recognized lawmakers from Michigan in his remarks and spoke about workers in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all battleground states in November’s election.

Asked to respond to Trump’s comments that China was eating America’s lunch, Biden said of his rival, “He’s been feeding them a long time.” The Democrat said Trump had failed to crack down on Chinese trade abuses as he had pledged he would do during his presidency.

Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign’s press secretary, called the new tariffs a “weak and futile attempt” to distract from Biden’s own support for EVs in the United States, which Trump says will lead to layoffs at auto factories.

The Chinese government was quick to push back against the tariffs, saying they “will seriously affect the atmosphere of bilateral cooperation.” The foreign ministry used the word “bullying.”

The tariffs are unlikely to have a broad inflationary impact in the short term because of how they’re structured, some not to take effect until 2026, but there could be price increases in the meantime for EV batteries, solar and some other specific items.

A court in the Russian city of St. Petersburg has ordered the seizing of assets of Germany’s Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank in the country, the Russia state news agency Tass says. The order is in response to a lawsuit over the planned construction of a liquefied natural gas terminal in the Baltic Sea.

The banks were among the guarantors in the contract for building a gas processing plant by a multinational construction firm, Renaissance Heavy Industries, and German company Linde. But the project was cancelled after Western sanctions, with the banks withdrawing their guarantees.

The cancellation came at the request of RusChemAlliance, a subsidiary of Russian gas giant Gazprom and the operator of the project, German news agency dpa reported.

RusChemAlliance paid advances to Linde for the building of the plant. The company is claiming about 238.61 million euros ($260 million) against Deutsche Bank and 94.92 million euros ($103 million) against Commerzbank, according to dpa.

In a statement Deutsche Bank said that it has made a provision for approximately 260 million euros ($283 million) under an indemnification agreement.

It also said that it would need to assess the immediate operational impact in Russia and see how the claim will be viewed by the the Russian courts. Western nations have imposed a wide range of sanctions against Russia over Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine two years ago.