5 ms·

Norway is a tiny country, they are largely irrelevant as far as their consumption habits go regarding climate change at large. They are not even a particularly

Norway is a tiny country, they are largely irrelevant as far as their consumption habits go regarding climate change at large. They are not even a particularly large exporter of oil, outside of top 10 I think. The other countries mentioned are much bigger, not to mention that Nigeria is going to see massive population growth this century. You don't want a country that's projected to have 800 million people to get addicted to fossil fuels. The main point of the article is right of course, the way it's communicated is terrible.

paulddraper 5y ago
Norway is the 13th biggest oil producer in the world, and outside the Middle East the 1st per capita. If you were looking for changes from the first world, you'd start there. I agree that non-first world countries are the where you'll see the most growth in oil consumption.
- varjag 5y ago
  Per capita is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. If one cared about actual pollution contribution they'd write in Russia or the United States.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Norway is the 13th biggest oil producer in the world So, not in the top-10 even, exactly as the parent noted. And even if they were in, say, fifth place, such a ranking would tell us nothing about their impact, without knowing the distribution. In a top-heavy distribution, for example, if the top 1 makes 10,000 tons and top 5 makes 100 tons for example, it would still be as if the fifth largest produce doesn't matter at all, impact-wise. >and outside the Middle East the 1st per capita. Why would "per capita" production have any relevance at all?
  - paulddraper 5y ago
    > Why would "per capita" production have any relevance at all? It's incredibly relevant. First, without it you have no good measuring stick. It just all depends on the unit (state, member state, country, nation, union, OPEC) you choose for measurement. Second, and more significantly, changes are more feasible with smaller populations. It's easier for Dublin to make a change than Ireland, and easier for Ireland, than the EU, and easier for the EU than the world. To answer your earlier point, Norway is ~2.5% of global production. Texas is ~2%.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      >First, without it you have no good measuring stick. When it comes to climate change impact the measuring stick is "barrels of oil produced". Per capita doesn't come into play at all.
- dathinab 5y ago
  Given that we are speaking about a global scale event both "outside the Middle East" and especially "per capita" doesn't matter. Sure it's the 13th biggest oil producer, sure its wealth comes from Oil and Gas but it does try to reduce the impact by trying to reduce the long term global Oil consumption. Do they maybe sometimes also follow other interest, maybe? But does it nullify the point that it tries to long term reduce global Oil consumption? Not really. Furthermore and most important Norway stopping Oil and Gas production would not help. You need to reduce the demand first, or else, with rising prices Oil production in likely more problematic countries with likely more environmental damage would largely increase. Leading to a situation where maybe we short term have slightly less Oil usage due to higher prices, but in total a higher climate and environmental damage in the long term. It also would make Western countries more dependent on non Western countries, which is not a climate aspect but still not grate.
  - paulddraper 5y ago
    I think you are ignoring some realities if you expect change from the Middle East. The same with expecting the low-per capita producers to change first.
    - dathinab 5y ago
      > [..] if you expect change from the Middle East. That the point, that's why Norway reducing Oil production will make no difference. > The same with expecting the low-per capita producers to change first. But what matters is not Oil production (as we can't expect major improvements here due to the point above) but consumption and Norway does invest a lot into improving this internally and externally. And while I don't have any stats I would not be surprised if the per-capita Oil consumption is pretty good on a global ranking. I mean the fact that Norway not only internally but also externally tries to improve the situation around Oil consumption show that they are not Hypocritical but instead try to balance differently problems in a reasonable way. Sure maybe not perfect, but nothing is really perfect.
dsign 5y ago
> You don't want a country that's projected to have 800 million people to get addicted to fossil fuels. I had to look this out, and it checks [1][2]. Of course, as with any forecast, anything can happen. I hope this turns out to be a bad forecast. Right now, Africa is in need of a lot of things, but this wouldn't be one of those. --- [1] https://www.populationpyramid.net/nigeria/2100/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/nigeria/2100/ [2] https://theconversation.com/why-nigeria-cant-fix-its-development-agenda-and-where-the-solutions-lie-123638 https://theconversation.com/why-nigeria-cant-fix-its-develop...

paulddraper 5y ago

Norway is the 13th biggest oil producer in the world, and outside the Middle East the 1st per capita. If you were looking for changes from the first world, you'd start there. I agree that non-first world countries are the where you'll see the most growth in oil consumption.

varjag 5y ago
Per capita is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. If one cared about actual pollution contribution they'd write in Russia or the United States.
coldtea 5y ago
>Norway is the 13th biggest oil producer in the world So, not in the top-10 even, exactly as the parent noted. And even if they were in, say, fifth place, such a ranking would tell us nothing about their impact, without knowing the distribution. In a top-heavy distribution, for example, if the top 1 makes 10,000 tons and top 5 makes 100 tons for example, it would still be as if the fifth largest produce doesn't matter at all, impact-wise. >and outside the Middle East the 1st per capita. Why would "per capita" production have any relevance at all?
- paulddraper 5y ago
  > Why would "per capita" production have any relevance at all? It's incredibly relevant. First, without it you have no good measuring stick. It just all depends on the unit (state, member state, country, nation, union, OPEC) you choose for measurement. Second, and more significantly, changes are more feasible with smaller populations. It's easier for Dublin to make a change than Ireland, and easier for Ireland, than the EU, and easier for the EU than the world. To answer your earlier point, Norway is ~2.5% of global production. Texas is ~2%.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >First, without it you have no good measuring stick. When it comes to climate change impact the measuring stick is "barrels of oil produced". Per capita doesn't come into play at all.
dathinab 5y ago
Given that we are speaking about a global scale event both "outside the Middle East" and especially "per capita" doesn't matter. Sure it's the 13th biggest oil producer, sure its wealth comes from Oil and Gas but it does try to reduce the impact by trying to reduce the long term global Oil consumption. Do they maybe sometimes also follow other interest, maybe? But does it nullify the point that it tries to long term reduce global Oil consumption? Not really. Furthermore and most important Norway stopping Oil and Gas production would not help. You need to reduce the demand first, or else, with rising prices Oil production in likely more problematic countries with likely more environmental damage would largely increase. Leading to a situation where maybe we short term have slightly less Oil usage due to higher prices, but in total a higher climate and environmental damage in the long term. It also would make Western countries more dependent on non Western countries, which is not a climate aspect but still not grate.
- paulddraper 5y ago
  I think you are ignoring some realities if you expect change from the Middle East. The same with expecting the low-per capita producers to change first.
  - dathinab 5y ago
    > [..] if you expect change from the Middle East. That the point, that's why Norway reducing Oil production will make no difference. > The same with expecting the low-per capita producers to change first. But what matters is not Oil production (as we can't expect major improvements here due to the point above) but consumption and Norway does invest a lot into improving this internally and externally. And while I don't have any stats I would not be surprised if the per-capita Oil consumption is pretty good on a global ranking. I mean the fact that Norway not only internally but also externally tries to improve the situation around Oil consumption show that they are not Hypocritical but instead try to balance differently problems in a reasonable way. Sure maybe not perfect, but nothing is really perfect.

dsign 5y ago

> You don't want a country that's projected to have 800 million people to get addicted to fossil fuels. I had to look this out, and it checks [1][2]. Of course, as with any forecast, anything can happen. I hope this turns out to be a bad forecast. Right now, Africa is in need of a lot of things, but this wouldn't be one of those. --- [1] https://www.populationpyramid.net/nigeria/2100/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/nigeria/2100/ [2] https://theconversation.com/why-nigeria-cant-fix-its-development-agenda-and-where-the-solutions-lie-123638 https://theconversation.com/why-nigeria-cant-fix-its-develop...