3 ms·

This article is so quick to blame a national government when the problem is squarely on oil and gas companies. It's not like the oil and gas industries haven't

This article is so quick to blame a national government when the problem is squarely on oil and gas companies. It's not like the oil and gas industries haven't lobbied for decades to cover up climate change evidence so that the world would remain dependent on them. They are the ones who ensure that the biggest polluting nations enact any kind of significant climate change reform.

maCDzP 5y ago
If I am not mistaken the oil company in Norway - Statoil - is owned by the government. But I guess the argument regarding lobbying still holds.
- varjag 5y ago
  Equinor (formerly Statoil) is only one of operators, although all of them are taxed by the state. And while two thirds of Equinor's equity are held by the state, it's a public company. https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/facts/companies-production-licence/ https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/facts/companies-production-...
- teslafire124 5y ago
  The difference is that Norway is not replying to internal demand but external demand. They have reduced their own need for fossil fuels. The issue is that other countries are extremely dependent on fossil fuels due to before stated lobbying efforts. The bigger, wealthier countries do not take climate change seriously and continue to consume high amounts of fossil fuel. They need to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels.
paulddraper 5y ago
> This article is so quick to blame a national government when the problem is squarely on oil and gas companies. Is this the first time you've heard of Norway? It's one and the same. Statoil is majority owned by the Norwegian government.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Yeah, this is a big problem I have with a lot of left wing climate criticism: they blame capitalism for climate change as if nationalizing the industry would make any difference. If anything, having the companies be privately owned puts extra barriers between the companies and the regulators, reducing (in theory, at least) the odds of regulatory capture. (Which isn’t to say the right wing kind of ignoring or blatantly lying about climate change is better…)
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Pedantic note: nationalising an industry doesn't always affect the incentives that result from capitalism. Sometimes it does (because it has to deal with the externalities, so the government would lose out if it kept the industry behaving like that), but in cases where the harm is international and the benefit is national, the incentives are the same. (Yes, I understand that these particular incentives result from any situation of competition for resources, and aren't inherently related to the economic system. However, the point is more general.)

maCDzP 5y ago

If I am not mistaken the oil company in Norway - Statoil - is owned by the government. But I guess the argument regarding lobbying still holds.

varjag 5y ago
Equinor (formerly Statoil) is only one of operators, although all of them are taxed by the state. And while two thirds of Equinor's equity are held by the state, it's a public company. https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/facts/companies-production-licence/ https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/facts/companies-production-...
teslafire124 5y ago
The difference is that Norway is not replying to internal demand but external demand. They have reduced their own need for fossil fuels. The issue is that other countries are extremely dependent on fossil fuels due to before stated lobbying efforts. The bigger, wealthier countries do not take climate change seriously and continue to consume high amounts of fossil fuel. They need to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels.

paulddraper 5y ago

> This article is so quick to blame a national government when the problem is squarely on oil and gas companies. Is this the first time you've heard of Norway? It's one and the same. Statoil is majority owned by the Norwegian government.

Robotbeat 5y ago
Yeah, this is a big problem I have with a lot of left wing climate criticism: they blame capitalism for climate change as if nationalizing the industry would make any difference. If anything, having the companies be privately owned puts extra barriers between the companies and the regulators, reducing (in theory, at least) the odds of regulatory capture. (Which isn’t to say the right wing kind of ignoring or blatantly lying about climate change is better…)
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Pedantic note: nationalising an industry doesn't always affect the incentives that result from capitalism. Sometimes it does (because it has to deal with the externalities, so the government would lose out if it kept the industry behaving like that), but in cases where the harm is international and the benefit is national, the incentives are the same. (Yes, I understand that these particular incentives result from any situation of competition for resources, and aren't inherently related to the economic system. However, the point is more general.)