9 ms·
Yes, it counts the extraction, and export is through gas pipes, it does not pollute. Besides, extraction pollutes very little, too.
by erikbye 7y ago
Yes, 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.