4 ms·
Norway doesn't even make a dent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by
by erikbye 7y ago
Norway doesn't even make a dent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- glutamate 7y agoThat doesn't count the emissions from oil & gas extracted from Norwegian fields and exported.
- erikbye 7y agoYes, it counts the extraction, and export is through gas pipes, it does not pollute. Besides, extraction pollutes very little, too.
- glutamate 7y agoI'm sure those pipes are very efficient but burning the gas at the other end is what is killing the planet right now. My point is that Norway has a unique responsibility as a democratic nation with outsized oil revenue to take a global lead on climate change and I don't see that happening. Edit:let me say though that I am genuinely pleased Norway is investing in traffic safety as opposed to supersized aircraft carriers or weapons of mass destruction
- erikbye 7y agoNo, if not gas, it would be coal. Pollution would be magnitudes worse.
- alkonaut 7y agoIt doesn't count the emissions from burning the exported oil I think the argument is. You can argue that's the buyer's responsibility, and you can argue that it's the extractor's responsibility. Both arguments are valid. It's a mix of both I'd say: the extractor is making market prices lower than they would be if the oil had not been extracted.
- erikbye 7y agoThat is reasonable, yes. But my point is that, in this case, gas usage by the importer, results in lower emissions, not higher. Several of the current importers are on their way to phasing out coal, which would not be possible without gas.
- reallydontask 7y agoThis is true but to whom should we attribute the CO2, the user or the producer?
- erikbye 7y agoCertainly not the producer without taking into account that if the countries exported gas to didn't burn gas they'd burn coal.
- glutamate 7y agoCould they both share some responsibility?
- gjm11 7y agoWhen someone gets shot, usually you blame the shooter rather than the people who made the gun. Even if the gun is of the sort specifically designed for killing people. (As opposed to hunting animals or target-shooting for sport.) It seems like the same would go for CO2 emissions. There will probably always be uses for oil that are worth the cost in environmental damage, and if someone uses it for things that aren't then it's on them. Just as there will probably always be occasions where shooting people is at least defensible, and if someone uses a gun for murder then it's on them. (But if an oil company, or an oil-producing nation, goes out of its way to encourage irresponsible use of oil then I will happily blame them for it, just as I would blame a gun manufacturer that encouraged murder or gang violence -- or, more likely, war -- in order to boost sales.)
- glutamate 7y ago> When someone gets shot, usually you blame the shooter rather than the people who made the gun. When someone gets shot, I blame the legal system that makes it much too easy to access guns. And yes I also blame handgun manufacturers for their abrogation of responsibility.
- reallydontask 7y agoSo what about the CO2 produced in the manufacture of items? Against whom should be tally up the CO2, the user of the manufactured item or the producer of the manufactured item?
- jannes 7y agoThat's emissions, not export in the form of oil.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Kliment 7y agoNorway exports lots of oil that is burned in other countries, causing emissions there.