Norwegian youth win climate court case against the Norwegian State(greenpeace.org)
greenpeace.org
Norwegian youth win climate court case against the Norwegian State
https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/64831/environmental-youth-groups-win-climate-court-case-against-norwegian-state/
190 comments
Natur og Ungdom is a youth group so I don't know why you say youth aren't involved.
Yes sorry you're right, I don't know what I was looking at. Members of that group are 13-25.
> new oil field
I was surprised because I assumed Norway wouldn’t open new oil fields. I’d say it’s “interesting,” but what I actually mean isn’t publishable.
I was surprised because I assumed Norway wouldn’t open new oil fields. I’d say it’s “interesting,” but what I actually mean isn’t publishable.
Hot take, but I feel like Norway gets greenwashed a lot as better than everywhere else, when they are basically a northern Saudi Arabia in terms of exports with over 70% of their exports being oil and gas.
Greenwashed a lot better? A lot better than whom? Which countries are more deserving of Norway's perceived status as one of the greenest nations?
Anywhere that does not export huge amounts of oil and gas.
Really depends on what you mean by green, but here's one methodology: https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epi
So 20th, not bad but not the best. Some surprising countries before it, such as Australia. And UK number 2. This does seem to back up the OP.
Norway is a beautiful modern liberal democracy, Saudi Arabia is a theocratic desert dictatorship hellhole.
Having been to both countries I fully agree.
However the GP had a point in that the public image of Norway is hydro power and 90% EVs nowadays. The fact that they are a major oil and gas exporter is not as widespread.
Is it more immoral to export oil and gas than to actually burn it? Norway is hydro power and a lot of EVs.
The age old question of the ethical heroin dealer.
Does not selling to the local school while riding an electric scooter make it alright?
Does not selling to the local school while riding an electric scooter make it alright?
Comparing oil to heroin is beyond stupid. It's an essential good responsible for 30% of the world's energy needs. If oil disappeared from the earth tomorrow, entire nations would grind to a halt and millions would die.
I'm sorry, are you unaware of the medical uses for the opium poppy and the millions that would die | experience great pain without it?
It's not an exact analgy, sure .. but to describe it as "beyond stupid" is certainly less than bright.
It's not an exact analgy, sure .. but to describe it as "beyond stupid" is certainly less than bright.
Opium does not save lives, it's a painkiller. And it is not the same at all. If millions would die if people stopped selling medical opium, I am sure you would argue it unethical to stop production of it before there was anything to replace it.
I would say a better analogy is selling alcohol to an alcoholic because you can't just cut off the supply right away because they could die from the abstinence symptoms. You need to get them off their dependency slowly. In this case, you need to decrease their dependency on oil and gas slowly and replace it with clean alternatives, which are currently way too expensive for the developing world.
Countries would literally go to war tomorrow if they lost their supply of oil and gas.
I would say a better analogy is selling alcohol to an alcoholic because you can't just cut off the supply right away because they could die from the abstinence symptoms. You need to get them off their dependency slowly. In this case, you need to decrease their dependency on oil and gas slowly and replace it with clean alternatives, which are currently way too expensive for the developing world.
Countries would literally go to war tomorrow if they lost their supply of oil and gas.
Smug westerners love to say that stuff, and yet people in Saudi Arabia are much happier than Norwegians. The rate of suicide is double in Norway what it is in Saudi Arabia. I guess there's more to a country and people's worth than their willingness to fly LGBT flags?
Saudi Arabia age distribution got absolutely nothing to do with it obviously. Nor does the taboo on suicide can possibly lead to suicide being reported as accidents...
Why wouldnt Norway open new oil fields?
"you obviously have to assess the impact of burning the oil."
It's not at all obvious.
1) If we assess all the indirect negative impacts that happen in remote places, nothing will ever be done. Should a factory making phones assess the DALY lost by drivers who get into accidents because of distracted driving?
2) Also, if we are going to assess hypothetical impacts of burning oil, why not assess the positive impacts? This oil could be used to build wind turbines, or to deliver food to a famine-impacted areas, or to raise living standards in the developing world. Generally oil is energy and energy is a precursor to GDP and high living standards.
The end result on not developing European (or US) energy reserves is that Europe is going to buy energy from dictators all over the world. Frankly it's one of these cases where I switch to my cynical mode "I hope there's enough civilization left for my lifetime, cause if you are THAT dumb, you deserve to be defeated."
It's not at all obvious.
1) If we assess all the indirect negative impacts that happen in remote places, nothing will ever be done. Should a factory making phones assess the DALY lost by drivers who get into accidents because of distracted driving?
2) Also, if we are going to assess hypothetical impacts of burning oil, why not assess the positive impacts? This oil could be used to build wind turbines, or to deliver food to a famine-impacted areas, or to raise living standards in the developing world. Generally oil is energy and energy is a precursor to GDP and high living standards.
The end result on not developing European (or US) energy reserves is that Europe is going to buy energy from dictators all over the world. Frankly it's one of these cases where I switch to my cynical mode "I hope there's enough civilization left for my lifetime, cause if you are THAT dumb, you deserve to be defeated."
1) If we assess all the indirect negative impacts that happen in remote places, nothing will ever be done. Should a factory making phones assess the DALY lost by drivers who get into accidents because of distracted driving?
IMO they really should!
2) Also, if we are going to assess hypothetical impacts of burning oil, why not assess the positive impacts? This oil could be used to build wind turbines, or to deliver food to a famine-impacted areas, or to raise living standards in the developing world. Generally oil is energy and energy is a precursor to GDP and high living standards.
And that's what a comprehensive assessment will include. Both positive and negative arguments. But you can't cherry-pick the ones you like. That would invalidate the results.
IMO they really should!
2) Also, if we are going to assess hypothetical impacts of burning oil, why not assess the positive impacts? This oil could be used to build wind turbines, or to deliver food to a famine-impacted areas, or to raise living standards in the developing world. Generally oil is energy and energy is a precursor to GDP and high living standards.
And that's what a comprehensive assessment will include. Both positive and negative arguments. But you can't cherry-pick the ones you like. That would invalidate the results.
Why do you think nothing will be done? You aren't required to stop a project just because you've identified a single negative impact. If you can't trust your government to make good decisions even when presented with all the information, then you need a new government.
To answer your questions, yes anybody involved with making phones should be fully aware of their negative effects, and yes an environmental impact assessment should assess all environmental impacts, including positive ones.
To answer your questions, yes anybody involved with making phones should be fully aware of their negative effects, and yes an environmental impact assessment should assess all environmental impacts, including positive ones.
Related: https://apnews.com/article/youth-climate-lawsuit-montana-sup... ("AP: Montana Supreme Court upholds landmark climate ruling that said emissions can’t be ignored")
Isn't Greenpeace's ideology aligned with degrowth nowadays? I remember reading how they were against carbon capture (and, of course, geo-engineering).
Being against Carbon Capture and geo-engineering is just following the science.
Carbon capture has constantly been shown to just not work at any scale. and geo-engineering causes so many extra problems and will absolutely lead to termination shock at some point.
Carbon capture has constantly been shown to just not work at any scale. and geo-engineering causes so many extra problems and will absolutely lead to termination shock at some point.
> geo-engineering causes so many extra problems and will absolutely lead to termination shock at some point.
This doesn't sound like a terribly scientific assessment.
Climate change is either an environmental disaster and geoengineering would be a huge risk - or climate change is an existential threat to humanity in which case we have nothing to lose. Which is it?
This doesn't sound like a terribly scientific assessment.
Climate change is either an environmental disaster and geoengineering would be a huge risk - or climate change is an existential threat to humanity in which case we have nothing to lose. Which is it?
>existential threat to humanity in which case we have nothing to lose
Being under threat doesn't justify making things worst. I know I'll die some day but that's not a reason to be suicidal.
Being under threat doesn't justify making things worst. I know I'll die some day but that's not a reason to be suicidal.
Existential threat means things can’t get worse (you just stop existing).
Ignoring the potential of geoengineering implies you are sure that we have a better solution which will work. I hope we don’t have to use geoengineering but I am certain the status quo of hoping renewables and batteries in the 1st world will save us is not going to work.
Ignoring the potential of geoengineering implies you are sure that we have a better solution which will work. I hope we don’t have to use geoengineering but I am certain the status quo of hoping renewables and batteries in the 1st world will save us is not going to work.
Threat is not certainty. If somebody is out there to kill you, you are under an existential threat, until they are caught. It's not a reason to start playing Russian roulette, saying "I'm already in danger, cannot get worse than that!"
The same logic applies to shutting down oil and gas production: if we are not certain, then why risk the downsides?
I’m not saying this is a good way to think, just that it shows the fault in your logic.
I’m not saying this is a good way to think, just that it shows the fault in your logic.
>The same logic applies to shutting down oil and gas production: if we are not certain, then why risk the downsides?
You are conflating the cost of not extracting a fraction of a fraction of current production capacity with the risk ending human existence through changing systems we do not have anything close to a full understanding of nor precise control over.
Degrees of risk matter, in fact they are the whole point of GPs logic.
You are conflating the cost of not extracting a fraction of a fraction of current production capacity with the risk ending human existence through changing systems we do not have anything close to a full understanding of nor precise control over.
Degrees of risk matter, in fact they are the whole point of GPs logic.
I’m not conflating them, I’m trying to elicit someone to _compare_ them so we can discuss reflexively rejecting certain solutions.
If you don’t have some measure of cost / benefits / risks, how can you reject a potential solution outright?
The answer is you can’t, so if you are doing so your reflex is based on emotion rather than reason.
If you don’t have some measure of cost / benefits / risks, how can you reject a potential solution outright?
The answer is you can’t, so if you are doing so your reflex is based on emotion rather than reason.
I was not commenting on any measures intended to stop/reverse the climate change. (I don't have enough knowledge to various probabilities).
I was just exposing a flaw in _your_ logic :-) You said:
> Existential threat means things can’t get worse
And I disagree, things can get a lot worse. You know, like replacing a threat with certainty...
I was just exposing a flaw in _your_ logic :-) You said:
> Existential threat means things can’t get worse
And I disagree, things can get a lot worse. You know, like replacing a threat with certainty...
Climate change can be an existential threat to humanity and Geo-Engineering can make it worse at the same time.
How can something be worse than an existential threat?
If you knew you were going to die next week, what's to stop you from picking up smoking right now?
The truth is we don't need geoengineering because the truth is that it's not an existential threat for humanity, it's just the future is going to suck really hard for a lot of people if we don't get off our our collective asses.
Going around moaning "we're all doomed and there's no use trying" is exactly the opposite of what we need right now.
If you knew you were going to die next week, what's to stop you from picking up smoking right now?
The truth is we don't need geoengineering because the truth is that it's not an existential threat for humanity, it's just the future is going to suck really hard for a lot of people if we don't get off our our collective asses.
Going around moaning "we're all doomed and there's no use trying" is exactly the opposite of what we need right now.
There can be multiple existential threats at a time. And on top of that, there can be actions that also increase the chances of succumbing to said existential threat.
Look at it this way. Someone who is bitten by a rattlesnake is at risk of dying (an existential threat). Certain medical care, like giving the patient Advil or any other form of blood thinning pain killers could actually end up making matters worse which in turn could increase the chances of the patient dying.
No one here is saying we’re all doomed and there’s no use in trying. What they are doing is pointing out that carbon capture and geo-engineering may not be the most fitting solutions to this existential threat, and that these solutions could even potentially make matters worse.
>“How can something be worse than an existential threat?”
If something you do makes your chances of surviving an existential threat worse, the consequences of your actions could make the initial existential threat harder to manage and in turn make it more likely to succumb to said threat.
Look at it this way. Someone who is bitten by a rattlesnake is at risk of dying (an existential threat). Certain medical care, like giving the patient Advil or any other form of blood thinning pain killers could actually end up making matters worse which in turn could increase the chances of the patient dying.
No one here is saying we’re all doomed and there’s no use in trying. What they are doing is pointing out that carbon capture and geo-engineering may not be the most fitting solutions to this existential threat, and that these solutions could even potentially make matters worse.
>“How can something be worse than an existential threat?”
If something you do makes your chances of surviving an existential threat worse, the consequences of your actions could make the initial existential threat harder to manage and in turn make it more likely to succumb to said threat.
Carbon capture is being successfully used all around the world. It’s in its infancy, but so were solar panels decades ago, and we didn’t give up on them.
We don’t have enough data on geoengineering to judge yet, there is no real science to follow.
Also I don’t understand this attitude of rejecting potential solutions outright. Science doesn’t “prove” things, we can’t ‘follow’ it due to the problem of induction. So we should stay open minded and support all potential solutions, not just those we like best.
We don’t have enough data on geoengineering to judge yet, there is no real science to follow.
Also I don’t understand this attitude of rejecting potential solutions outright. Science doesn’t “prove” things, we can’t ‘follow’ it due to the problem of induction. So we should stay open minded and support all potential solutions, not just those we like best.
The closest we have are emissions reductions on power generation and other highly polluting facilities. Carbon capture of CO2 from the atmosphere is not being used successfully, anywhere. There are plenty of feel good articles about trials and test sites and experimental facilities, none of which are within multiple orders of magnitude of being capable of scaled out to the amounts needed. They all require such vast amounts of electricity that it would be better using that electricity to not emit the carbon in the first place. There are no technologies on the horizon that could even put a dent in our current yearly emissions, let alone clean up past excess. Yet it is used time and time again to sell carbon neutral plans and policies to the public, which will never reach their targets.
Saying CCS isn’t currently successful is like saying utility grade solar wasn’t successful in the 70s. We’re on the start of an exponential curve and the tech will only get better.
I don’t understand why people think this is “used” to sell carbon neutral plans: why wouldn’t you count carbon sequestered using CCS? It’s no different to assuming batteries will get a lot cheaper: it’s not a certainty but it’s heading in the right direction.
Let’s put it this way: if we could use CCS to produce carbon neutral power from natural gas, would you reflexively oppose it? Or would you be thankful that we now have another carbon neutral power source?
I don’t understand why people think this is “used” to sell carbon neutral plans: why wouldn’t you count carbon sequestered using CCS? It’s no different to assuming batteries will get a lot cheaper: it’s not a certainty but it’s heading in the right direction.
Let’s put it this way: if we could use CCS to produce carbon neutral power from natural gas, would you reflexively oppose it? Or would you be thankful that we now have another carbon neutral power source?
I separate emissions reductions tech, such as fitted to power stations, from atmospheric carbon capture. Filtering emissions at source makes sense, and is nothing new. Lets do more of that and better, and I will have no problem with carbon neutral natural gas power if someone can get that to work. Trying to suck carbon out of the atmosphere though is a fools errand, and I do reflexively oppose that, because it has always been lies and propaganda. Large chunks of climate policy assume magic will happen, because technology will save us. But math and physics disagree.
What’s the maths and physics that make it impossible?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’m interested in the limits.
I still think reflexively opposing a potential solution is stupid. Skepticism is healthy, automatic rejection is a waste. I wholeheartedly agree politicians spout a lot of nonsense, and that the solutions are closer than we think, we just need to get the bad policy out of the way.
I still think reflexively opposing a potential solution is stupid. Skepticism is healthy, automatic rejection is a waste. I wholeheartedly agree politicians spout a lot of nonsense, and that the solutions are closer than we think, we just need to get the bad policy out of the way.
> Carbon capture is being successfully used all around the world.
[Citation needed]
[Citation needed]
If I must spoon feed you…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carbon_capture_and_s...
What is currently the largest carbon dioxide sequestration operation in the world is pretty much a running joke, not the least for being some years past the initial starting date, accounting for a tiny tiny fraction of the CO2 emitted by the larger gas project, and essentially being little more than a distraction from ongoing CO2 from oil and gas operations as usual.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon_Carbon_Dioxide_Inject...
Chevron are not "trying to help", they're actively engaged in smoke and mirrors.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon_Carbon_Dioxide_Inject...
Chevron are not "trying to help", they're actively engaged in smoke and mirrors.
I hate Gorgon too, they tarnished the name of CCS for commercial gain. Their system is throttled for economic reasons though, not technological. Even worse: the government funded it!
If the Australian Government held their feet to the fire they would have sequestered the promised amount. However they didn’t, and Chevron has no incentive to fix it properly.
If the Australian Government held their feet to the fire they would have sequestered the promised amount. However they didn’t, and Chevron has no incentive to fix it properly.
You must.
That list is a bunch of pilot projects and commitments AFAICT. One of the projects is burning methane from oil production to produce hydrogen to recapture carbon. That’s not really gonna save the world.
I couldn’t find much evidence in there that carbon capture is being done at scale or in a way that isn’t using energy in ways that it would be more efficient to just not do it, since it is pulling from a grid that is partially carbon powered.
That list is a bunch of pilot projects and commitments AFAICT. One of the projects is burning methane from oil production to produce hydrogen to recapture carbon. That’s not really gonna save the world.
I couldn’t find much evidence in there that carbon capture is being done at scale or in a way that isn’t using energy in ways that it would be more efficient to just not do it, since it is pulling from a grid that is partially carbon powered.
So your criteria for success is to ‘save the world.’
How about we aim for ‘reduce emissions’ or ‘develop solutions’? Or even better ‘stop opposing people who are trying to help’?
All tech starts at small scales. Yours is an absurd rebuttal.
How about we aim for ‘reduce emissions’ or ‘develop solutions’? Or even better ‘stop opposing people who are trying to help’?
All tech starts at small scales. Yours is an absurd rebuttal.
Ok, take out the save the world comment.
Can you point to a promising project from the link you posted? Like I said, it lists a lot of funding, but not a lot of actual carbon sequestration.
Your rebuttal doesn’t actually provide evidence that carbon sequestration is a technology that is on its way to working on the small scale. All of those projects are sequestering carbon by consuming massive amounts of energy from sources that are partially or completely carbon powered.
Can you point to a promising project from the link you posted? Like I said, it lists a lot of funding, but not a lot of actual carbon sequestration.
Your rebuttal doesn’t actually provide evidence that carbon sequestration is a technology that is on its way to working on the small scale. All of those projects are sequestering carbon by consuming massive amounts of energy from sources that are partially or completely carbon powered.
It’s early stage tech, they’re all promising in that _they are trying to develop tech to help_. How can I prove a developing tech will scale? How can you prove it won’t? It started at 0 and is now at millions of tonnes scale. If that isn’t good enough progress then I have nothing for you.
Imagine using the same logic in the 80s “solar panels produce hardly any power and use lots of fossil fuels for production, why are we wasting resources developing them?”
Or the internet in the 90s “it will have less impact than the fax machine.”
It’s just emotional nonsense. We should support the people working on solutions, not complain from the sidelines.
Imagine using the same logic in the 80s “solar panels produce hardly any power and use lots of fossil fuels for production, why are we wasting resources developing them?”
Or the internet in the 90s “it will have less impact than the fax machine.”
It’s just emotional nonsense. We should support the people working on solutions, not complain from the sidelines.
All I’m asking for is a specific project that looks promising instead of a Wikipedia page that is mostly a list of available funding.
If you actually did the work, you would not have shared a list of prototypes, failed projects, and disappointments.
Do you want me to complain that I had to spoon-feed you that?
Do you want me to complain that I had to spoon-feed you that?
Without a massive amount of renewable energy we won’t be able use CCS at scale.
Why not? If we burn gas using CCS and develop a lot of nuclear, we wouldn’t even need renewable energy. I’m not saying it’s bad, just that it’s not essential (and may actually be a distraction in e.g. Germany where it has displaced nuclear development and resulted in coal plants being reopened).
I should have said "clean energy", you are obviously right about nuclear power.
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/dynamic/ren...
The rich love using future carbon capture to justify present day inaction.
The rich love using future carbon capture to justify present day inaction.
Ideologues won’t accept it because they are waiting for a technology solution and these are the best they’ve seen offered so far. Their optimism is predicated on market driven technology solutions saving us quickly enough. Negativity toward their favorite technology solutions is interpreted as pessimism toward their ideology.
[deleted]
Trying to capture carbon out of the air makes zero sense besides as anti climate change propaganda. Why wouldn't you capture the carbon at the source of the emission where it is much more concentrated? I'll tell you why, because then the cost is born by the emitter but they'd rather shift that cost onto society as a whole.
can you make a scientific argument that carbon capture and geo engineering will not work at scale.
if not, then you are just littering with words.
if not, then you are just littering with words.
It takes orders of magnitude more power to capture the carbon from the atmosphere than was gained putting it there in the first place.
It requires sucking in and processing inconceivable quantities of air requiring inconceivable amounts of land for the facilities, because the carbon we need to capture has been released and distributed into the earths atmosphere.
The engineering required to scale out any existing or envisioned technology to put a meaningful dent just on our yearly emissions is more than simply replacing the worlds energy production with zero emissions generation and storage.
It requires sucking in and processing inconceivable quantities of air requiring inconceivable amounts of land for the facilities, because the carbon we need to capture has been released and distributed into the earths atmosphere.
The engineering required to scale out any existing or envisioned technology to put a meaningful dent just on our yearly emissions is more than simply replacing the worlds energy production with zero emissions generation and storage.
Whether you can conceive the amounts of air and energy it requires is not really scientific arguments.
A scientific argument transcends personal beliefs.
You might believe that such a feat is inconceivable, but lets agree not to pollute the language any more by using the word "scientific" when we mean "believe".
A scientific argument transcends personal beliefs.
You might believe that such a feat is inconceivable, but lets agree not to pollute the language any more by using the word "scientific" when we mean "believe".
Carbon capture technologies produce more carbon emissions than they can capture if you account for the resource use for production and construction. Even when they do slightly better than breaking even the margin is so low that scaling it up is not a meaningful contribution relative to the amount of emissions we would need to counteract. This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Geo engineering to the degree necessary to revert climate change is bad sci-fi, not science, no matter what billionaires selling personal EVs are telling you.
On the other hand we know that we are seeing an immense problem of overproduction which is incentivized by the economic system and impossible to tackle by blaming consumers for bad choices and asking the industry nicely to reduce waste or letting them get away with greenwashing by planting trees and raising honey bees. We could change that but it would require significant market intervention, which we (most Western nations at least) have been ideologically opposed to for decades.
Geo engineering to the degree necessary to revert climate change is bad sci-fi, not science, no matter what billionaires selling personal EVs are telling you.
On the other hand we know that we are seeing an immense problem of overproduction which is incentivized by the economic system and impossible to tackle by blaming consumers for bad choices and asking the industry nicely to reduce waste or letting them get away with greenwashing by planting trees and raising honey bees. We could change that but it would require significant market intervention, which we (most Western nations at least) have been ideologically opposed to for decades.
> Carbon capture technologies produce more carbon emissions than they can capture
No, this statement only work under a certain set of assumptions (eg. source of energy).
As I wrote to the sibling comment: Let's not mix up beliefs and scientific reasoning.
No, this statement only work under a certain set of assumptions (eg. source of energy).
As I wrote to the sibling comment: Let's not mix up beliefs and scientific reasoning.
You understand “following the science” arguments are stupid right?
It isn't if you aren't a scientist in that field. As you're not qualified to do otherwise.
As a physicist in quantum sensing. I follow the science (opinion) of climate scientists as they're the experts of that field. And that opinion is constantly evolving, but I follow that.
Anything else is just being an armchair scientist.
As a physicist in quantum sensing. I follow the science (opinion) of climate scientists as they're the experts of that field. And that opinion is constantly evolving, but I follow that.
Anything else is just being an armchair scientist.
That's called gatekeeping. Wonderful opinions can come for anyone.
A scientist is someone who found someone to pay them. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ignoring ideas unless they came from a brand is the opposite of science. Then you drop your brand (physicist) and expect others to judge your opinion as more important. It didn't work. As a senior physicist in quantum sensing I'm invalidating your brand.
A scientist is someone who found someone to pay them. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ignoring ideas unless they came from a brand is the opposite of science. Then you drop your brand (physicist) and expect others to judge your opinion as more important. It didn't work. As a senior physicist in quantum sensing I'm invalidating your brand.
Wonderful opinions can come from anyone.
Are these scientifically founded opinions. Not necessarily, hence why "following the science" is valid if you are following experts in their field.
If you're a software consultant, would you take on the opinions from a marketing client on the best algorithm to implement for their solution? Probably not.
If someone put in the effort and time to throughly research the topic and draw an opinion from that. Regardless of their title or their funding, then why would you discount it?
Are these scientifically founded opinions. Not necessarily, hence why "following the science" is valid if you are following experts in their field.
If you're a software consultant, would you take on the opinions from a marketing client on the best algorithm to implement for their solution? Probably not.
If someone put in the effort and time to throughly research the topic and draw an opinion from that. Regardless of their title or their funding, then why would you discount it?
You would be silly not to take a better algorithm. It doesn't matter if it came from sales, a student or a homemaker.
If you can't judge something on it's merits and must rely on other signals then you end up judging the envelope and not the message.
If you can't judge something on it's merits and must rely on other signals then you end up judging the envelope and not the message.
If it was a better algorithm - then of couse. You wouldn't be a very good software engineer (or scientist) if you couldn't recognise that.
This has veered off from my original point. In that saying "follow the science" is not a issue - there is nothing wrong with following the opinion of experts in their field.
This has veered off from my original point. In that saying "follow the science" is not a issue - there is nothing wrong with following the opinion of experts in their field.
Surely a physicist is best placed to ‘Nullius in Verba’ and to do his own research.
Climate models are fundamentally physical simulations after all…
Climate models are fundamentally physical, but I don't have the insight in the field to have the deep insight to make qualified opinions.
I could after significant research as suggested. But that is a significant endeavour, hence following the opinion of the field is typically sufficient.
It's like a fronted developer making comments on kernel development and vice versa. It's both fundamentally code, but different fields.
I could after significant research as suggested. But that is a significant endeavour, hence following the opinion of the field is typically sufficient.
It's like a fronted developer making comments on kernel development and vice versa. It's both fundamentally code, but different fields.
I think if you’ve looked at numerical models then you have enough knowledge to at least judge the underlying assumptions: boundary conditions, numerical stability, discretisation methods, validation methods and results.
In the same way that I can verify a SAT solution, I don’t need to know how to code a sat solver.
Unfortunately there are fundamental disagreements about most of the critical parts of climate science, so going by the opinion of the field isn’t foolproof (who to choose? How to choose?). Many fields have had false consensus beliefs before, and most of their problems weren’t 1000th the difficulty of climate modelling.
In the same way that I can verify a SAT solution, I don’t need to know how to code a sat solver.
Unfortunately there are fundamental disagreements about most of the critical parts of climate science, so going by the opinion of the field isn’t foolproof (who to choose? How to choose?). Many fields have had false consensus beliefs before, and most of their problems weren’t 1000th the difficulty of climate modelling.
Biological systems play a huge role in the climate too so its not purely physical simulation.
This is true, but there are no biological simulations in the mainstream models, just various correction factors with their own uncertainty. I wish they had biological data because then we would have more domains in which to measure their accuracy.
What none!?
This has been a long standing criticism of climate change models and I had expected it to be a major focus of research.
This has been a long standing criticism of climate change models and I had expected it to be a major focus of research.
Everything is fundamentally physics.
No. Why?
It’s a process not an end state.
“Follow science” and ‘follow “the” science’ are two different things, and we just need to go back in history to understand that humans did some horrible stuff because of “the” science.
“Follow science” and ‘follow “the” science’ are two different things, and we just need to go back in history to understand that humans did some horrible stuff because of “the” science.
Hm.. I don’t see that distinction in this case.
To me when they say they “follow the science” it does not imply an end state. To me it only implies “everything we know so far”.
I am sure that if scientific results showed the opposite of their current idea, they would once again update their view.
To me when they say they “follow the science” it does not imply an end state. To me it only implies “everything we know so far”.
I am sure that if scientific results showed the opposite of their current idea, they would once again update their view.
Your intuition of scientists updating views is wrong, see Kuhns scientific revolutions for more examples. Scientists generally stick to preconceived notions long after there is data to refute them.
E.g. heliocentrism, germ theory, cigarettes being unhealthy, lobotomies being optimal
E.g. heliocentrism, germ theory, cigarettes being unhealthy, lobotomies being optimal
Because science just updates our beliefs, it doesn’t produce ‘truths’ that we can follow. See the Problem of Induction or the Duhem–Quine thesis.
What do you think truth is other than confident beliefs?
Nothing can produce "truths". If you want absolute truths, pick a holy text and decide for yourself what absolute truth you can pin on it.
Nothing can produce "truths". If you want absolute truths, pick a holy text and decide for yourself what absolute truth you can pin on it.
You summarised my point nicely.
What we call ‘truth’ is just the beliefs we think are most accurate. ‘Just follow the science’ is silly because it essentially means following beliefs on faith without questioning whether they are the best theory. In many cases the better theory goes against the consensus.
E.g. mothers who ‘just followed the science’ and took Thalidomide caused their children untold suffering. They could have been skeptical but instead they had faith in science, which was unfortunately done badly.
What we call ‘truth’ is just the beliefs we think are most accurate. ‘Just follow the science’ is silly because it essentially means following beliefs on faith without questioning whether they are the best theory. In many cases the better theory goes against the consensus.
E.g. mothers who ‘just followed the science’ and took Thalidomide caused their children untold suffering. They could have been skeptical but instead they had faith in science, which was unfortunately done badly.
>Isn't Greenpeace's ideology
The only thing that's ideological is advocating for a technology that uses virtually as much energy to put carbon back into the ground than the carbon yielded in the first place, when the alternative is to simply not take it out of the ground to begin with.
Carbon capture is like trying to cool your room by leaving the fridge door open or running on the treadmill while eating fast food. Trying to delegitimize efforts just by labelling them 'degrowth' as if that is an actual argument, needs to stop. It's the pro-growth cult that causes us to constantly have to invent solutions for problems that we could avoid in the first place.
The only thing that's ideological is advocating for a technology that uses virtually as much energy to put carbon back into the ground than the carbon yielded in the first place, when the alternative is to simply not take it out of the ground to begin with.
Carbon capture is like trying to cool your room by leaving the fridge door open or running on the treadmill while eating fast food. Trying to delegitimize efforts just by labelling them 'degrowth' as if that is an actual argument, needs to stop. It's the pro-growth cult that causes us to constantly have to invent solutions for problems that we could avoid in the first place.
I have no idea what Greenpeace's position on carbon capture is, but it's definitely isn't anti-growth to oppose carbon capture.
And when I say "carbon capture" I of course mean "pinning our hopes on carbon capture". If actual, working, viable carbon capture existed then nobody would be against doing it, but that's a pipe dream. It's always going to be more economic to not burn stuff than to burn it and then unburn it.
Kind of like carbon credits. If they were real they'd be a pretty decent idea, but they're basically full scam.
And when I say "carbon capture" I of course mean "pinning our hopes on carbon capture". If actual, working, viable carbon capture existed then nobody would be against doing it, but that's a pipe dream. It's always going to be more economic to not burn stuff than to burn it and then unburn it.
Kind of like carbon credits. If they were real they'd be a pretty decent idea, but they're basically full scam.
Well, one more condition is needed: scalable. An actual, working, viable carbon capture exists: growing trees and then cutting down and carbonizing them. Unfortunately, this does not scale to offset enough of CO2 in time.
[deleted]
Are there now grounds to start shutting down existing oil fields?
Something like 20% of the government budget comes from oil revenue, and the entire pension system (to my understanding) comes from oil funds.
Something like 20% of the government budget comes from oil revenue, and the entire pension system (to my understanding) comes from oil funds.
It does not seem so, the artcile indicates the court focused on procedural issues related to the impact assessment required for the permits to build the new oil locations. The issues seems to be focused on the fact they weren't done, or were incomplete. I would imagine only pump locations with similar deficiencies would be in trouble.
> combustion emissions [from] petroleum extraction are such a significant and particularly characteristic consequence of such projects that they must clearly be considered indirect climate impacts within the meaning of the (EU) Project Directive
It didn't seem particular to the locations. Under this ruling, if the oil gets shipped to India and burned there they would now need to include it in the local impact assessment.
Maybe they just need to resubmit with a new impact assessment? But it does seem like the precedent they are trying to set is to reject all projects based on emissions.
It didn't seem particular to the locations. Under this ruling, if the oil gets shipped to India and burned there they would now need to include it in the local impact assessment.
Maybe they just need to resubmit with a new impact assessment? But it does seem like the precedent they are trying to set is to reject all projects based on emissions.
[deleted]
It may functionally stop all new projects (although I doubt that it will get that far).
I don't see anything implying that existing projects approved under the old framework would need to be re-assessed and shutdown though. That was my main point.
I don't see anything implying that existing projects approved under the old framework would need to be re-assessed and shutdown though. That was my main point.
If there is legal precedent that carbon emissions from sovereign oil sources potentially violate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, there's no reason to believe there would not immediately be new cases opened up against existing projects on the same grounds.
They could open the cases, but this decision hinged on the permitting process not following the law that it needed to consider emissions, which the Rights of the Chile was a component of.
It is not a given the reasoning used in this decision could be used for oil and gas projects that followed a proper permit process at the time they were granted. There is more reason to believe this case would NOT apply in that situation.
It is not a given the reasoning used in this decision could be used for oil and gas projects that followed a proper permit process at the time they were granted. There is more reason to believe this case would NOT apply in that situation.
I can’t speak intelligently about the relationship between the pension fund and the wealth fund (it is complicated), but I think you overestimate the share of upcoming revenue from oil over the on-going benefit from operating a fund that is betting on sustainable solutions. Someone smarter than me should correct the record here.
However, the key information here is neither side of that contradiction, but that Norway has found a very large deposit of Phosphorous. Until now, Marocco has the largest reserves (by so much it’s actually daunting, confusing really, how they didn’t end up like the Saudi Arabia of bird poop, which is essential for growing food, so a tad more essential than burning donuts).
Norway seem keen to leverage that the way they leveraged fossil fuels, so I’d expect that fund to grow bigger, faster, and without the discomfort of selling something that could, and most likely will, end up drowning Norwegian towns.
However, the key information here is neither side of that contradiction, but that Norway has found a very large deposit of Phosphorous. Until now, Marocco has the largest reserves (by so much it’s actually daunting, confusing really, how they didn’t end up like the Saudi Arabia of bird poop, which is essential for growing food, so a tad more essential than burning donuts).
Norway seem keen to leverage that the way they leveraged fossil fuels, so I’d expect that fund to grow bigger, faster, and without the discomfort of selling something that could, and most likely will, end up drowning Norwegian towns.
Its funny how things always seem to be set up like that...
Oh, sure, you want the state to stop doing bad environmental things? Well, ok, as long as you pay for it!
Oh, sure, you want the state to stop doing bad environmental things? Well, ok, as long as you pay for it!
Norway issue their own currency, so 100% of their budget comes from money they spend into existence.
Oil has an impact on their ability to import, and on their ability to meet their own energy requirements.
Oil has an impact on their ability to import, and on their ability to meet their own energy requirements.
that's not exactly correct given the inflationary nature of printing to "spend into existence." History is filled with crumbled societies printing their own money as mention.
All spending creates new money and all taxation destroys it (at the federal level). Where else does money come from if not the government?
that's a big question, however at a first order, its arguable that no "new" money is necessary. Wealth (not money) is created out of human effort, i.e. labor.
I'm not an expert on the Norwegian court system, but they seem to have a Supreme Court, so I assume this can be appealed. And, since it's a completely novel[1] ruling, and the state has a large amount of money they could receive if this were overturned, I expect it will be appealed.
[1] "Novel" meaning "without precedent in Norwegian rulings". I did not mean "without foundation" or "unreasonable".
[1] "Novel" meaning "without precedent in Norwegian rulings". I did not mean "without foundation" or "unreasonable".
Seems to be District Court. Seems to be somewhat similar to Finnish system. Where district court basically deliver most random and weird decisions. Then they generally get appealed to court of appeals. Which is more logical place. Likely this will be overturned there. And then end in supreme court...
It was Oslo Tingrett, This is the lowest level ordinary court (there are 23 of them), above is the Lagmannsrett (6 of them) with handles appeals from the Tingrett. Above the Lagmannsrett is the Høyesterett (High Court) which again handles appeals from lower courts. As far as I know cases cannot be brought directly in the high court but must progress through the lower courts first.
Both tingrett and lagmannsrett are district courts in the sense that the cover specific geographical areas (kretser, circuits).
https://www.domstol.no/no/om-rettssystemet/de-alminnelige-do...
Both tingrett and lagmannsrett are district courts in the sense that the cover specific geographical areas (kretser, circuits).
https://www.domstol.no/no/om-rettssystemet/de-alminnelige-do...
> rendering the approvals of three oil and gas fields in the North Sea invalid
Norwegian GDP just took a hit
It boggles my mind that we allow GDP to not account for externalities to the environment. Like burning a wick, we cheer the flame with no consideration for the dynamite at the other end.
For a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.
If we're going to include negative externalities then someone has to figure out all the positive ones too. The economic upside of cheap energy isn't being accounted for in the price either, because low prices tautologically can't capture high value per unit and flows on to people further down the value chain.
The challenge of doing so is insurmountable, that way is the madness of centralised planning.
The challenge of doing so is insurmountable, that way is the madness of centralised planning.
The first order negative impact of burning fossil fuels is stuff like pollution, global warming etc. This is not accounted for by the price of these fuels.
The first order positive impacts of burning fossil fuels are accounted for in the price of the fuels. That's what people are paying for. I need to drive a car, here is some money for oil.
What you are apparently talking about are the second order positive impact of fossil fuels. Some upside due to living in an environment of abundant cheap energy. I think you will have to argue more that these second order effects are comparable in size to the first order effects.
The first order positive impacts of burning fossil fuels are accounted for in the price of the fuels. That's what people are paying for. I need to drive a car, here is some money for oil.
What you are apparently talking about are the second order positive impact of fossil fuels. Some upside due to living in an environment of abundant cheap energy. I think you will have to argue more that these second order effects are comparable in size to the first order effects.
Which reminds me; who are these people who are being hit by the pollution and aren't using fossil fuels? They aren't people in Norway; they're all living a lavish lifestyle full of stuff created with fossil fuels. That isn't a real externality. To a first approximation we're already paying for a large chunk of the price for the pollution generated on our behalf.
PostScript Whoever it is would be much better off getting more access to fossil fuels than having access curtailed. China did not become a wealthy industrial powerhouse with environmentalist policies. The argument that negative externalities are a problem is silly; clearly curtailing fossil fuel access is more damaging. Sucks to be Africa or wherever with spotty oil infrastructure and access. Whether it is technically an externality or not, it is clear that unaffected third parties would benefit from more oil, not less.
The externalities are clearly not being accounted for properly/are not net negative when curtailing a thing causes living standards overall to drop.
PostScript Whoever it is would be much better off getting more access to fossil fuels than having access curtailed. China did not become a wealthy industrial powerhouse with environmentalist policies. The argument that negative externalities are a problem is silly; clearly curtailing fossil fuel access is more damaging. Sucks to be Africa or wherever with spotty oil infrastructure and access. Whether it is technically an externality or not, it is clear that unaffected third parties would benefit from more oil, not less.
The externalities are clearly not being accounted for properly/are not net negative when curtailing a thing causes living standards overall to drop.
Global warming is a second order effect of abundant CO2 production.
Why does your second order effect count, but not readily available sterile hospital materials made of petroleum?
Why does your second order effect count, but not readily available sterile hospital materials made of petroleum?
We are counting orders of economic effects, not orders of physical effects.
Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 and other chemicals into the air. Many of the other chemicals directly harm your health when you breath them in, so thatthis air pollution, which is a first order physical effect, is also a first order economic effect.
On the other hand, excess CO2 in the atmosphere, another first order physical effect, has no economic impacts. Breathing in an extra 50ppm of CO2 has little impact on us, perhaps a bit to plants. So the first order physical effect of excess CO2 is not an economic effect. But second order physical effect of excess CO2 is increased atmospheric temperature, which again on its has very little economic impact. Its really the third order physical effects of CO2 (higher variability in rains and seasons, storms, melting glaciers) where we really see the economic impacts (failed crops, destruction of property and human life etc). All of these things cause large direct economic damage, so that is your first order negative economic effect of fossil fuels.
Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 and other chemicals into the air. Many of the other chemicals directly harm your health when you breath them in, so thatthis air pollution, which is a first order physical effect, is also a first order economic effect.
On the other hand, excess CO2 in the atmosphere, another first order physical effect, has no economic impacts. Breathing in an extra 50ppm of CO2 has little impact on us, perhaps a bit to plants. So the first order physical effect of excess CO2 is not an economic effect. But second order physical effect of excess CO2 is increased atmospheric temperature, which again on its has very little economic impact. Its really the third order physical effects of CO2 (higher variability in rains and seasons, storms, melting glaciers) where we really see the economic impacts (failed crops, destruction of property and human life etc). All of these things cause large direct economic damage, so that is your first order negative economic effect of fossil fuels.
> economic upside of cheap energy isn't being accounted for
It is: we anticipate companies to operate “indefinitely,” which turns to a high market value. Banks sell that stock, pension funds store it, and their activity is accounted for.
What we don’t consider (in the GDP, company valuations, bank transactions, or any metric) is how the millions of people who will survive the first mass wet-bulb death event will react.
It is: we anticipate companies to operate “indefinitely,” which turns to a high market value. Banks sell that stock, pension funds store it, and their activity is accounted for.
What we don’t consider (in the GDP, company valuations, bank transactions, or any metric) is how the millions of people who will survive the first mass wet-bulb death event will react.
GDP is just a measure, and it doesn’t include externalities. Any state or person is free to make up their own metric that includes it. Call it GDP_E and put it in every government report!
Saying it should include externalities is like saying that the scales at the butchers should include nutrition information with weight: that would be cool but that’s not what scales/weight measures are for.
Saying it should include externalities is like saying that the scales at the butchers should include nutrition information with weight: that would be cool but that’s not what scales/weight measures are for.
Reminds me of the mindset of the species in Pandora's Star by Peter F. Hamilton. They basically accepted that they would die fast due to toxins / radiation / disasters for "progress" / "efficiency", and instead just focused on trucking forward and breeding like mad.
It's gross domestic product, not net.
The problem is that anytime someone attempts to quantify the cost of climate change, no one is happy with the numbers.
The problem is that anytime someone attempts to quantify the cost of climate change, no one is happy with the numbers.
The cost of oil production in Norway is high compared to most OPEC countries, so net production will mostly flat. They can just loosen their grip a bit. The GDP would drop for nothing.
A country like Norway, with one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world (significantly higher than even America's), is exactly the country that should be thinking about the environment before they think about economic development.
The environmental effects of stopping oil and gas production in Norway are not clear. Norway account for something like 2% of the worlds production. OPEC are already price fixing the market, and could (and propably would) easily replace Norways production. Some reports argue it will even increase emissions due to being replaced by less sustainable produciton.
The developing world is too dependent on oil and gas. Rapid degrowth in global oil and gas production would lead to mass hunger. It is only the developed world who can afford to stop using oil and gas at the moment. We have to replace the worlds energy needs with something else, before we take environmental choices to cut production. Third world countries suffer without cheap oil and gas.
The developing world is too dependent on oil and gas. Rapid degrowth in global oil and gas production would lead to mass hunger. It is only the developed world who can afford to stop using oil and gas at the moment. We have to replace the worlds energy needs with something else, before we take environmental choices to cut production. Third world countries suffer without cheap oil and gas.
> Rapid degrowth in global oil and gas production would lead to mass hunger.
Would it? Many farmers in developing countries don’t have tractors and don’t use fertilizer. Isn’t their food production less tied to fossil fuels?
Would it? Many farmers in developing countries don’t have tractors and don’t use fertilizer. Isn’t their food production less tied to fossil fuels?
I suppose that could be true. But even then they are hugely dependent on cheap energy for transportation and other parts of the value chain. You need a certain efficiency in food production to sustain huge populations like in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria. Removing their access to cheap energy would take a huge toll on their living standard and for sure cause more people to suffer.
I usually discover after years that these climate action movements were actually sponsored by Russia. It has already happened with the fracking. But then it's too late because they've already produced effects.
Can you link to some times this has happened in the past? I searched and found some opinion pieces and quotes, but no evidence yet.
Here you go, an ten years old article from the Guardian, a leftie news outlet that always supports climate action campaigns.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-s...
I remember the fracking hysteria quite well when it happened in Eastern Europe because I too fell for it, to then find out it was a Russian psyop.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/20/russias-quiet-war-again...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-s...
I remember the fracking hysteria quite well when it happened in Eastern Europe because I too fell for it, to then find out it was a Russian psyop.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/20/russias-quiet-war-again...
Yes I actually found that first one myself, you'll note that there is explicitly no evidence. "I have met allies who can report [...] He declined to give details [...] Nato's press office said the remarks were Rasmussen's personal views, not official policy [...] geology, rather than political concerns, was likely to be the main obstacle". So this guy says the environmental groups have been compromised, they say they haven't been, he declines to give even the vaguest semblance of evidence.
Your second article starts with the exact same quotes from the same guy. It at least tries to outline some circumstantial evidence, but the author doesn't seem to find it very convincing and I don't either.
There were a number of articles in 2014 spurred by a single quote from this one person, and absolutely nothing since then. I think the circumstantial evidence against these claims is equally strong: anti-fracking activism was increasing worldwide around this time, including in countries like South Africa and Tunisia that are not particularly hostile towards Russia. You can see a good list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking_by_country. Fracking is simply unpopular almost everywhere.
I don't doubt that Russia viewed fracking as an economic threat, but I will need even the tiniest bit of evidence before I seriously consider the possibility that actually fracking is very popular and people only protested because they were getting paid.
Your second article starts with the exact same quotes from the same guy. It at least tries to outline some circumstantial evidence, but the author doesn't seem to find it very convincing and I don't either.
There were a number of articles in 2014 spurred by a single quote from this one person, and absolutely nothing since then. I think the circumstantial evidence against these claims is equally strong: anti-fracking activism was increasing worldwide around this time, including in countries like South Africa and Tunisia that are not particularly hostile towards Russia. You can see a good list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking_by_country. Fracking is simply unpopular almost everywhere.
I don't doubt that Russia viewed fracking as an economic threat, but I will need even the tiniest bit of evidence before I seriously consider the possibility that actually fracking is very popular and people only protested because they were getting paid.
My initial point was that by the time you find the evidence, adversary goals are already accomplished. The author is quite credible after nearly ten years, given all the circumstances. Eastern Europe being organized against fracking when they can't even get their shit together in other matters? I believe all of this is the same psyops, only repackaged for a younger generation with a shorter attention span.
[deleted]
I would strongly support focusing on getting rid of wood / coal burning first instead of going for much more efficient gas.
An import tax on coal burning countries (especially China) would push the incentives in the right direction instead of outsourcing the climate externalities to them.
An import tax on coal burning countries (especially China) would push the incentives in the right direction instead of outsourcing the climate externalities to them.
You're in a thread about climate change. How is burning wood contributing to climate change? It's a renewable energy source on the scale of ~20 years, in contrast to digging up million year old fossil fuels. Many people around the world use local fallen trees on their property as their energy source, rather than decompose into the same carbon cycle. Would you rather them import fossil fuel natural gas right now? Areas have to do controlled burns of wood anyway to manage forest fires. You only want to prevent the cases where masses of forest is razed with no plan to regrow.
I feel like this is a case where urbanites with no idea how rural life works attempt to legislate their naivety onto others for the worse, like the rural firefighter responsibly managing their property and the forests of their state.
I feel like this is a case where urbanites with no idea how rural life works attempt to legislate their naivety onto others for the worse, like the rural firefighter responsibly managing their property and the forests of their state.
"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
There are many things you can say about china, but they do take climate change serious (maybe because they have already problems with desertification).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
There are many things you can say about china, but they do take climate change serious (maybe because they have already problems with desertification).
How can you say that when they are simultaneously radically increasing coal power generation, as highlighted in the article? It appears to me they have an "all of the above" strategy driven by their desire for prosperity.
Because their renewable sector is growing faster than everything else? And has 3x the size of the vastly more rich USA?
I did not say they are 100% green. They have real constraints, mainly yes, they need economic growth first - so they also build coal (only some countries do not build coal plants anymore).
I did not say they are 100% green. They have real constraints, mainly yes, they need economic growth first - so they also build coal (only some countries do not build coal plants anymore).
The data shows that one sector grows faster than the other. To conclude from this that they care about the climate is wishful thinking.
Also even you yourself claim
> they need economic growth first
Which weakens your point even further.
Moreover your claim of
> only some countries do not build coal plants anymore
is completely unsubstantiated.
Also even you yourself claim
> they need economic growth first
Which weakens your point even further.
Moreover your claim of
> only some countries do not build coal plants anymore
is completely unsubstantiated.
"> only some countries do not build coal plants anymore
is completely unsubstantiated. "
Germany opened its last new coal plant 3 years ago. In theory the last one, but soon the government will change and this likeley as well. And our eastern neighbors poland and co. certainly won't give up on coal anytime soon. So much for rich countries.
And china which is on average still poor, indeed invested more in coal than I was aware. But a coal tax specially for china seems rather geopolitical motivated to me.
is completely unsubstantiated. "
Germany opened its last new coal plant 3 years ago. In theory the last one, but soon the government will change and this likeley as well. And our eastern neighbors poland and co. certainly won't give up on coal anytime soon. So much for rich countries.
And china which is on average still poor, indeed invested more in coal than I was aware. But a coal tax specially for china seems rather geopolitical motivated to me.
You claimed "only some countries" which seems to claim that most of the 200-something countries in the world are building coal plants.
Now you say that you only think of Germany, Poland and China.
Now you say that you only think of Germany, Poland and China.
"most of the 200-something countries in the world are building coal plants."
They are. According to this only 56 countries currently do not plan to do so. And I think germany is included in that number - and I know for a fact, that this can change very quickly.
https://apnews.com/article/coal-climate-change-eliminate-ele...
They are. According to this only 56 countries currently do not plan to do so. And I think germany is included in that number - and I know for a fact, that this can change very quickly.
https://apnews.com/article/coal-climate-change-eliminate-ele...
Your link says:
> The United States committed Saturday to the idea of phasing out coal power plants, joining 56 other nations in kicking the coal habit.
This is completely different from what you claimed
> only 56 countries currently do not plan to do so
There is zero information about how many countries have any coal plants at all or how many are building new ones.
The only information in the quote is about phasing out.
> The United States committed Saturday to the idea of phasing out coal power plants, joining 56 other nations in kicking the coal habit.
This is completely different from what you claimed
> only 56 countries currently do not plan to do so
There is zero information about how many countries have any coal plants at all or how many are building new ones.
The only information in the quote is about phasing out.
My claim was and is, the majority of countries are still running coal, china is no exception there.
Only some rich countries decided to phase out. My source confirms it.
Do you have other sources?
Only some rich countries decided to phase out. My source confirms it.
Do you have other sources?
Your original claim:
> (only some countries do not build coal plants anymore).
This comment:
> My claim was and is, the majority of countries are still running coal, china is no exception there.
Can you spot the difference?
> (only some countries do not build coal plants anymore).
This comment:
> My claim was and is, the majority of countries are still running coal, china is no exception there.
Can you spot the difference?
Difference, but no contradiction. But I also fail to see deeper meaning in this exchange.
Indeed!
“ The International Energy Agency estimates that China more than doubled its solar generation capacity and added two-thirds to its wind generation capacity in 2023.”
https://archive.is/b0qif
“ The International Energy Agency estimates that China more than doubled its solar generation capacity and added two-thirds to its wind generation capacity in 2023.”
https://archive.is/b0qif
The tax you're describing sounds like it would be illegal under international law and tied up in courts for years if not decades. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea in principle, but I don't understand why you would have to do that first before taking much more achievable action. There are a lot of people working on this problem, we can focus on quite a bit at the same time.
Norway has the most heat pumps per capita and coal is 3% of their energy supply, so what prompted this comment?
What does that have to do with outsourcing to China and others?
there are millions and millions of people still living in rural villages. how dare they want electricity? they should be sacrificing their already meager quality of life to fix problems that Westerners are disproportionately responsible for, and subsidize profligate Western consumption.
[deleted]
Putin approves. Emissions will stay the same, but you'll by the oil from Russia.
Correct. Demand is all that matters. This BS is just supply side economics for liberals.
Decreasing the supply increases the price, so demand will decrease. Although it's hard to apply classical economics to the oil market when it's so far from a free market (OPEC etc.)
Cool cool will the youth also return the money in their oil pension funds?
Step one of securing a “pension” is making sure that the world is livable half a century from now. On that account their priorities are correct.
Their pension needs to be liquidated to pay for reparations and the externalities that oil production caused.
At least this is the Greenpeace standard for businesses.
At least this is the Greenpeace standard for businesses.
Okay then. Then that’s what their next plan of action is. I thought you were going for some kind of burn.
"We should improve society somewhat - Yet you participate in society. Curious!" revisited
The pension fund money is not real and will never be seen by the population, it is all controlled by private hedge funds.
Retirement age in Norway is 70... And there are some rumors about going to 72. Also there is talks of increasing taxes on the pensionsts... So what is the point of having a pensions fund if you are never going to retire...
Retirement age in Norway is 70... And there are some rumors about going to 72. Also there is talks of increasing taxes on the pensionsts... So what is the point of having a pensions fund if you are never going to retire...
There is no retirement age in Norway. You may start drawing your pension at the age of 62 (unless you haven't contributed enough) but you are not required or even expected to retire. The 70 year limit is the one beyond which your employer can force you to leave without cause.
The pension fund money is already partly used in the government budget. Neither is it at all controlled by private hedge funds.
Is this really a win?
You need a strong economy to shift to a Green future. Norway was a small country before oil and gas, now they've made the best use of it out of any country in the world.
Shouldnt they keep their foot on the pedal a little longer? Making new battery technology isn't cheap.
You need a strong economy to shift to a Green future. Norway was a small country before oil and gas, now they've made the best use of it out of any country in the world.
Shouldnt they keep their foot on the pedal a little longer? Making new battery technology isn't cheap.
If a house was on fire, what would you consider a win to put it out? Or would you do everything possible to put it out? As the climate continues to rapidly change, the tolerance for extraordinary measures would rise I would imagine (especially amongst youth cohorts who will inherit the cleanup over the next ~100 years).
Shareholder value had a cost (industrialization in general [1]), and now it must be paid back.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
Shareholder value had a cost (industrialization in general [1]), and now it must be paid back.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
Will climate change negatively affect Norway? Clearly there are big time losers with climate change, but is Norway's house really on fire? Or is it a house on the other side of town that is on fire and has little chance of impacting Norway's house?
Yes, climate change will negatively affect all countries. It might be possible for some countries to 'luck out' and gain productive land and improve agricultural yield. But all countries will suffer the global economic, humanitarian and military crisis.
"Shareholder value had a cost, and now it must be paid back"
The problem is, it is voluntarily.
The problem is, it is voluntarily.
Bad analogy. If your house is on fire, there is no opportunity cost to putting it out and there is no uncertainty. You have nothing to lose. If an asteroid was headed for earth you would be on the money, but climate change isn’t like that.
It is a relatively gradual change with a lot of uncertainty about the final magnitudes of warming and the actual risk involved. Bad policy to reduce emissions have opportunity costs. E.g. biofuels policy exacerbating starvation in the 3rd world. Read Bjorn Lomborg, he suggests the best policies as well as other problems we should prioritise above climate change. Then read Judith Curry to better understand the risks involved.
It’s not black and white and choosing solutions is hard but random countries turning off their fossil fuels is not an effective policy.
It is a relatively gradual change with a lot of uncertainty about the final magnitudes of warming and the actual risk involved. Bad policy to reduce emissions have opportunity costs. E.g. biofuels policy exacerbating starvation in the 3rd world. Read Bjorn Lomborg, he suggests the best policies as well as other problems we should prioritise above climate change. Then read Judith Curry to better understand the risks involved.
It’s not black and white and choosing solutions is hard but random countries turning off their fossil fuels is not an effective policy.
The way I understand it, the "uncertainty" about global warming as of 2024 is the same kind of uncertainty as whether an alcoholic with liver cancer can live three or six more months if he continues ignoring his doctor's advice.
I'm open to discussions about different approaches and their relative merits, but we're beyond the point where "we don't know how bad it will get" is a valid argument for anything.
I'm open to discussions about different approaches and their relative merits, but we're beyond the point where "we don't know how bad it will get" is a valid argument for anything.
If you don’t know how bad it will get, how can you balance the negatives of remediation?
For example, if the world was ending next year it might make sense to turn off all fossil fuels and eradicate most of the human population. But if it is only a few degrees per century we can consider… better options.
For example, if the world was ending next year it might make sense to turn off all fossil fuels and eradicate most of the human population. But if it is only a few degrees per century we can consider… better options.
Holy strawman, who said anything about eradicating most of humans?
Let me rephrase: realistically speaking, the things humanity will manage to do in the next 10 years will be such a lukewarm attempt that the chance we will "accidentally" overshoot and create more misery is close to zero.
Let me rephrase: realistically speaking, the things humanity will manage to do in the next 10 years will be such a lukewarm attempt that the chance we will "accidentally" overshoot and create more misery is close to zero.
Again, If you don’t know how bad it will get, how can you balance the negatives of remediation?
We already created misery via starvation due to biomass subsidies, what makes you think our future policies will be harmless?
Of course my example was absurd, but it illustrates the trade offs involved.
We already created misery via starvation due to biomass subsidies, what makes you think our future policies will be harmless?
Of course my example was absurd, but it illustrates the trade offs involved.
Fossil fuels will need to be left in the ground [1] [2], it's as simple as that. The value of those reserves and assets on books, if not naturally declining to zero, must be forced to zero. If nations or corporations act self interested and don't leave them in the ground [3], what do you expect to be done as the world burns? Nothing? That's not an option.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/climate-majority-of-fossil-f... ("The vast majority of the world’s known fossil fuel reserves must be kept in the ground to have even a 50% chance of keeping global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.")
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8 ("Parties to the 2015 Paris Agreement pledged to limit global warming to well below 2 °C and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C relative to pre-industrial times1. However, fossil fuels continue to dominate the global energy system and a sharp decline in their use must be realized to keep the temperature increase below 1.5 °C (refs. 2,3,4,5,6,7). Here we use a global energy systems model8 to assess the amount of fossil fuels that would need to be left in the ground, regionally and globally, to allow for a 50 per cent probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C. By 2050, we find that nearly 60 per cent of oil and fossil methane gas, and 90 per cent of coal must remain unextracted to keep within a 1.5 °C carbon budget. This is a large increase in the unextractable estimates for a 2 °C carbon budget9, particularly for oil, for which an additional 25 per cent of reserves must remain unextracted. Furthermore, we estimate that oil and gas production must decline globally by 3 per cent each year until 2050. This implies that most regions must reach peak production now or during the next decade, rendering many operational and planned fossil fuel projects unviable. We probably present an underestimate of the production changes required, because a greater than 50 per cent probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C requires more carbon to stay in the ground and because of uncertainties around the timely deployment of negative emission technologies at scale.")
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38506585 ("HN: Cop28 president says 'no science' behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels")
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/climate-majority-of-fossil-f... ("The vast majority of the world’s known fossil fuel reserves must be kept in the ground to have even a 50% chance of keeping global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.")
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8 ("Parties to the 2015 Paris Agreement pledged to limit global warming to well below 2 °C and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C relative to pre-industrial times1. However, fossil fuels continue to dominate the global energy system and a sharp decline in their use must be realized to keep the temperature increase below 1.5 °C (refs. 2,3,4,5,6,7). Here we use a global energy systems model8 to assess the amount of fossil fuels that would need to be left in the ground, regionally and globally, to allow for a 50 per cent probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C. By 2050, we find that nearly 60 per cent of oil and fossil methane gas, and 90 per cent of coal must remain unextracted to keep within a 1.5 °C carbon budget. This is a large increase in the unextractable estimates for a 2 °C carbon budget9, particularly for oil, for which an additional 25 per cent of reserves must remain unextracted. Furthermore, we estimate that oil and gas production must decline globally by 3 per cent each year until 2050. This implies that most regions must reach peak production now or during the next decade, rendering many operational and planned fossil fuel projects unviable. We probably present an underestimate of the production changes required, because a greater than 50 per cent probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C requires more carbon to stay in the ground and because of uncertainties around the timely deployment of negative emission technologies at scale.")
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38506585 ("HN: Cop28 president says 'no science' behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels")
It’s definitely not that simple. Ask yourself: why did the international committee use 2C as a limit? Why not 3C or 4C?
I suspect is is because it is based on politics and not science but I’m open to being corrected.
Also ask yourself: if fossil fuels are used to produce medicine and fertiliser with zero emissions, why would we want to stop producing them?
I suspect is is because it is based on politics and not science but I’m open to being corrected.
Also ask yourself: if fossil fuels are used to produce medicine and fertiliser with zero emissions, why would we want to stop producing them?
I don't mean to be rude, in the slightest, but your suspicions are based on nothing but your own opinion (unless you're a climate scientist) and I'm going to defer to subject matter experts. I'm not a scientist, but I listen to them [1] [2] [3]. Your submission history indicates a hint of climate denier [4] and your comment here [5] about carbon capture being in use at scale and successful is an outright falsehood (direct air capture is very expensive and in its infancy, and the cost of sequestering is not included in the cost of fuel consumed), so here we are. I am doing my best to argue in good faith.
> Also ask yourself: if fossil fuels are used to produce medicine and fertiliser with zero emissions, why would we want to stop producing them?
When you can prove this can be done, certainly, I'll agree with you. But there must be evidence, and it must be provided. Hope and misdirection is not a strategy.
[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima... ("Do scientists agree on climate change? Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here [next citation].")
[2] https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
[3] http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations... ("The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.")
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36307850
[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39047555
> Also ask yourself: if fossil fuels are used to produce medicine and fertiliser with zero emissions, why would we want to stop producing them?
When you can prove this can be done, certainly, I'll agree with you. But there must be evidence, and it must be provided. Hope and misdirection is not a strategy.
[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima... ("Do scientists agree on climate change? Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here [next citation].")
[2] https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
[3] http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations... ("The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.")
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36307850
[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39047555
I work with a few climate scientists so my opinions aren’t my own. I referenced 2 researchers above, what is wrong with their opinions?
[4] isn’t climate denial, it was an attempt to get some criticism of an interesting heterodox theory, and I found it! [5] CCS is being used at large scale on many projects. Maybe we have different definitions of “at scale” and “successful”
I don’t need to prove it can be done: we already produce these with emissions and we already have CCS to avoid these emissions, there is nothing technological stopping this except economics.
The consensus is that climate change is real and I agree wholeheartedly. What I disagree with is exaggerations of the negative outcomes and rejections of technological solutions based on politics rather than science. In this aspect you will find many conflicting opinions.
Also please answer my question about 2C. Asking this is what led me to realising how much of climate policy is based on convenient politics and not science.
[4] isn’t climate denial, it was an attempt to get some criticism of an interesting heterodox theory, and I found it! [5] CCS is being used at large scale on many projects. Maybe we have different definitions of “at scale” and “successful”
I don’t need to prove it can be done: we already produce these with emissions and we already have CCS to avoid these emissions, there is nothing technological stopping this except economics.
The consensus is that climate change is real and I agree wholeheartedly. What I disagree with is exaggerations of the negative outcomes and rejections of technological solutions based on politics rather than science. In this aspect you will find many conflicting opinions.
Also please answer my question about 2C. Asking this is what led me to realising how much of climate policy is based on convenient politics and not science.
> Also please answer my question about 2C. Asking this is what led me to realising how much of climate policy is based on convenient politics and not science.
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/whats-difference-betwee... ("Explainer: What's the difference between 1.5°C and 2°C of global warming?")
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-g... ("A Degree of Concern: Why Global Temperatures Matter")
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/1-5-or-2-degrees-... ("1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius of additional global warming: Does it make a difference?")
You keep saying climate policy is based on politics, but you are not providing any evidence of that. Please provide evidence of your assertion this is political. You argue that "there is nothing technological stopping this except economics"; that means it isn't feasible unless proven the economics will improve. A proof of concept does not guarantee scale.
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/whats-difference-betwee... ("Explainer: What's the difference between 1.5°C and 2°C of global warming?")
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-g... ("A Degree of Concern: Why Global Temperatures Matter")
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/1-5-or-2-degrees-... ("1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius of additional global warming: Does it make a difference?")
You keep saying climate policy is based on politics, but you are not providing any evidence of that. Please provide evidence of your assertion this is political. You argue that "there is nothing technological stopping this except economics"; that means it isn't feasible unless proven the economics will improve. A proof of concept does not guarantee scale.
My evidence is the lack of a basis for 2C and lack of a cogent plan to limit warming to 2C. I tried to find the basis and instead just found lots of IPCC discussions with no scientific basis.
That’s why I asked: you can find articles saying that a degree of difference is very important, but not the basis for why 2C is used.
If you are arguing that fossil fuels must be shut down immediately, you must have an understanding of why 2C is used, and the difference in harm between 2C and whatever we end up with if we keep emitting. If you are not aware of this science in these cases then you are basing your beliefs on politics.
That’s why I asked: you can find articles saying that a degree of difference is very important, but not the basis for why 2C is used.
If you are arguing that fossil fuels must be shut down immediately, you must have an understanding of why 2C is used, and the difference in harm between 2C and whatever we end up with if we keep emitting. If you are not aware of this science in these cases then you are basing your beliefs on politics.
Reading the article, none of that seems to be in scope for the decision. The decision seems to focus on the fact these new locations didn't adequately meet their existing impact analysis requirements in the first place, not that the impact was deemed unacceptable.
We already have a massive sovereign wealth fund built from investments seeded by oil income.
Last year, large phosphate deposits were found in Norway, effectively doubling the known world supply. Given a similar taxation model, we could keep growing the wealth fund even as we phase out the oil industry over time.
Though oil industry phase-out is not something with a political consensus behind it right now anyway. Labour and the conservatives tend to reach across the aisle on that topic.
Last year, large phosphate deposits were found in Norway, effectively doubling the known world supply. Given a similar taxation model, we could keep growing the wealth fund even as we phase out the oil industry over time.
Though oil industry phase-out is not something with a political consensus behind it right now anyway. Labour and the conservatives tend to reach across the aisle on that topic.
The court didn't say Norway can't drill anymore, just that when you're doing an environmental impact assessment of a new oil field (which is required in Norway) you obviously have to assess the impact of burning the oil. I don't think this is very controversial.