3 ms·

I largely agree with you, but you have to consider the flip side: if Norway won't supply oil, countries won't just switch to green alternatives. They will be fo

I largely agree with you, but you have to consider the flip side: if Norway won't supply oil, countries won't just switch to green alternatives. They will be forced to go elsewhere because there just aren't any viable alternatives at the scale of global transportation. Whether they go to dirtier fuels, go to more dangerous regimes for their oil, or just straight up go to war, it's a big risk for the entire world. We've only recently found out from Kido Koichi's diary that oil was one of the primary reasons Japan began to encroach outward and the oil embargo was the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. I'll admit that argument doesn't sit right with me on a personal level, but on the scale of geopolitics the stakes are just that high. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, died last time the US cut off oil supplies to a major country.

freehunter 8y ago
But if Country A doesn't supply weapons to Country B, someone else will. Maybe someone who will sell them a nuke. Or chemical weapons. Or maybe Country B goes to their last resort and builds a dirty bomb to fight Country C instead of civilized bombs and tanks. There's a game theory discussion to be had about negotiating with terrorists, but at the end of the day that oil is still getting burned and the damage is still being done.
- A2017U1 8y ago
  Governments don't have an urgent pressing need to purchase the shiniest new weapons though, the comparison isn't valid. They do urgently need oil to stay in power, plenty have been thrown out over far less. If hypothetically the world's biggest oil exporters stopped overnight there'd be widespread geopolitical instability/war within a month after reserves are gone.
nothrabannosir 8y ago
Purely regarding the market dynamics: one supplier exiting means immediately higher prices. Even if everyone finds an alternative from a vendor with less scruples, it will be more expensive and therefore incentivise investment in alternatives across the board. Fair is fair: This argument works better for sane markets than for tortured oligopolies like oil. But, at its core, morally if nothing else, this is the principle. And this is why that “if I don’t do it someone else will” argument never is a strong one. Norway can’t hide their oily fingerprints in green washed gloves.

freehunter 8y ago

But if Country A doesn't supply weapons to Country B, someone else will. Maybe someone who will sell them a nuke. Or chemical weapons. Or maybe Country B goes to their last resort and builds a dirty bomb to fight Country C instead of civilized bombs and tanks. There's a game theory discussion to be had about negotiating with terrorists, but at the end of the day that oil is still getting burned and the damage is still being done.

A2017U1 8y ago
Governments don't have an urgent pressing need to purchase the shiniest new weapons though, the comparison isn't valid. They do urgently need oil to stay in power, plenty have been thrown out over far less. If hypothetically the world's biggest oil exporters stopped overnight there'd be widespread geopolitical instability/war within a month after reserves are gone.

nothrabannosir 8y ago

Purely regarding the market dynamics: one supplier exiting means immediately higher prices. Even if everyone finds an alternative from a vendor with less scruples, it will be more expensive and therefore incentivise investment in alternatives across the board. Fair is fair: This argument works better for sane markets than for tortured oligopolies like oil. But, at its core, morally if nothing else, this is the principle. And this is why that “if I don’t do it someone else will” argument never is a strong one. Norway can’t hide their oily fingerprints in green washed gloves.