7 ms·

Is Norway the New East-India-Company?

52 points by solididiot 5y ago

josephcsible 5y ago
Strange to paint the East India Company as evil while simultaneously admitting it's the only reason that Hong Kong was ever liberated.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  I don't see it as strange at all. Hitler turned around Germany's economy in the 30's. Stalin liberated Eastern Europe from the genocidal Nazis. Nelson Mandela plotted terrorist attacks as a young activist. Good people (and organisations) do bad things, and bad people do good things. It doesn't change the fact that the British East India Company was rotten to the core, and the Opium Wars were absolutely abhorrent abuses of China's sovereignty and human rights.
  - gromitss 5y ago
  - ch_sm 5y ago
    > Hitler turned around Germany's economy in the 30's Sorry, I must comment on that, because this point is sometimes publicly repeated by politicians. It was mostly an expected recovery after the crash in 1929, combined with job programs that were planned before the Nazis, a secretly state-sponsored war economy, and various dubious methods (to say the least). see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Recovery_and_rearmament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Recove... for a summary.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      Thanks for that! I have a similar pet peeve when people talk about the economic performance of the CCP, so get where you're coming from completely. Truth be told, I don't know much about Nazi History at all. I just used Hitler as he's often held up as the paragon of evil, but even he helped some people.
- MisterSandman 5y ago
  How is it strange? EIC was very very bad for India, and very food for Hong Kong and the British Elite.
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  They never admit that? Easy to call something “strange” when the narrative is completely twisted by editorializing the original source.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Isn't that what this is saying? > the company decided to engage in a war to open Chinese ports. This was the origin of the infamous Opium War whose final outcome in 1842 was the opening of five Chinese “treaty ports”, cession of Hong Kong
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      No? In what world is that liberation?
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Because Hong Kong was mostly free (until last year) as a result of it, while the rest of China was ruled with an iron fist.
        wbsss4412 5y ago
        “Liberation” implies freeing someone(s) from a pre existing entity. So no matter what you think of the CCP today, the opium wars had nothing to do with liberation, it was just outright conquest. The CCP didn’t event exist until 1921, almost 75 years later. If anything, a direct line can be drawn from the carving up of China by European, and later Japanese powers, to the fall of the Qing, the Chinese civil war, and the rise of the CCP. What’s “strange” is interpreting dynastic greed and colonization as a good thing in 2021.
- lenkite 5y ago
  The East India Company grossly mismanaged India leading to the Indian Revolt in 1857 and the birth of a truly unified Indian Independence movement. If the Crown had directly managed India from the beginning, the UK may have looked rather different today.
  - manishsharan 5y ago
    Colonial repression and enslavement of a nation is not the same as "gross mismanagement".
unixhero 5y ago
No. This reads to me like oil envy.
slt2021 5y ago
one thing I agree is that to tackle climate change - rich countries must first start with themselves and reduce carbon emissions per capita. I see climate activists bash developing countries with large population for carbon emissions, yet when you account for per capita carbon output - turns out that carbon/capita of rich countries far exceeds that of developing/poor countries
- RF_Savage 5y ago
  Norway does have substantial subsidies for electric vehicles and other less co2 producing tech. Teslas are now the most sold car brand in Norway thanks to that and their cheap hydro power.
  - unixhero 5y ago
    Some of the oil operators are even subsidizing its own companies working on renewable technologies.
    - psd1 5y ago
      I suspect most oil companies are investing in post-fossil... to the end of future-proofing themselves; they have no interest in fossil fuels being supplanted any time soon. That would be to cede position to their replacements. So their investment will result in less public benefit than equivalent investment by players that aren't, uh, invested in fossil.
- trashtester 5y ago
  Every country seems to have some way to rationalize why they are more justified than the others, or at least that their contribution doesn't matter. For small countries (Norway, New-Zealand), the feeling may be that their contribution is just a drop in the ocean. For countries with victim complexes (China, Russia, the Middle East), they may feel that the West has exploited them for too long, and now it is their turn. For countries that are still objectively poor/-ish (India, much of Africa), they may feel they don't have the luxery of acting long term. And progressives (in the USA, Germany and much of the EU) may focus more on symbolic efforts ("renewable" power) while failing to start large scale activities that can realistically reduce emissions to levels that would be sustainable as world averages (either through having enough Nuclear power, or to make sure that there is enough energy storage capacity available that renewables can be depended upon). Meanwhile, nationalists (in all countries) may see it more as a zero-sum game, where the goal is to "win" over other countries, and they definitely do not want to sacrifice too much without an ensurance that "the other side" contributes at least as much. Furthermore, perceived (partly based on reality, partly based on conspiracy theories) hypocrisy from environmentalist leftists is used to downplay, doubt or even deny the reality of the threat. As long as everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else, while the world's carbon emissions continue to grow, we will not be able contain CO2 levels. Most likely, we _will_ suffer the consequences, and experience some global warming over the coming decades. Also, as usual, poor countries will suffer the most. That being said, 2 degrees of warming is much better than 6. Also, blaming everyone else will just serve to add hostility between groups on top of the warming, in ways that can lead to hostilities that may be even more dangerous than the warming itself. So for those that genuinely want to work towards a sustainable environment, I think we need to: - Look at what we can do ourselves, personally, within our political party and within our country, in that order, instead of just pointing fingers at the "Other" to take the attention away from our own contributions. Finger pointing just serves to make us feel good, but is not likely to change the minds of the "Other". - Promote a world view that is based on real mainstream science, rather than fringe scare-mongery, politically correct dogmas etc. Exaggerating predictions will just provide fuel to the deniers (ie the world will end by 2030), and even if some scare-mongering may mobilize some politically active youths, I believe the net effect will be to increase polarization which in turn causes inability to act. - In particular, fight dogmas that prevent initiatives that can realistically help, such dogmas surrounding nuclear power. Institutions that spread such dogmas need to be confronted, especially when they are on "our side" (since there is little we can do to affect the "other side") - Generally, stop fueling all sorts polarization. As individuals and organizations we may benefit from turning to the extremes of "our side" as it may make us seem extra virtous, while demonizing the "Other". But we need ot be mindful of the fact that participating in this, is to inflict harm on society and implicitly on the plant. Polarization, both within and between countries, serve to undermine objectivity, as ideas start to be seen in terms of ideology rather than science. - Instead, by trying to avoid partisanship and focus on the objectively most reliable science as well as policies that can be accepted by a wide, bi-partisan majority, we may help restore some trust in institutions in the general public.
mk81 5y ago
halpert 5y ago
Norway is not the EIC because they didn't enslave massive swaths of humans and start a war to sell oil, but Norway doesn't exactly have the moral high ground in the fight against climate change either.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  Norway did participate in the invasion of Libya to destroy their competition and continues to export capital at usury rates at gunpoint. Different, but not qualitatively.
  - unmole 5y ago
    > export capital at usury rates at gunpoint I'm sorry, what?
    - lucian1900 5y ago
      Poor countries are forced to take loans with usury rates, often from the likes of the IMF. Countries that refuse get propaganda, coups and invasions. It’s not just the US that does this. [edit] Libya was selling oil independently and offering loans with much better terms to other African countries.
      - unmole 5y ago
        > Poor countries are forced to take loans with usury rates, often from the likes of the IMF. IMF steps in when nobody else will lend to a country. The current concessional interest rate is zero.
        lucian1900 5y ago
        True, often other lenders with even worse rates and terms show up first. It’s how entire countries become owned by a few foreign companies. IMF loans primarily come with horrible terms: privatisation, deregulation and austerity. Same with EU funds. Poor countries have to choose between exploitation or aggression.
etrevino 5y ago
Leaving aside how ludicrous the comparison is to the East India Company (Norway isn't invading other countries to force them to consume oil, for instance), the author ignores or doesn't know that the oil profits are used to fund the country's sovereign wealth fund, which is one of the key ways that Norway grows its pension system-- it uses petroleum profits to invest internationally. In the long run then, reducing Norway's sales of petroleum increases their reliance on the global stock market, because they no longer have a backstop against a market downturn. It's even possible that halting Norwegian petrol production would cause that very market downturn! In addition, the need to support the petroleum industry encourages the development of other technical industries which also can bring in money.
- gausswho 5y ago
  Norway halting production for ecological reasons is the start of a fascinating plot in the Occupied TV series. It's got its moments.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  Pretty sure the author knows that, and he s making an argument ad absurdum, doesn't literally want norway to stop oil extraction. That said, i dont understand your point, does norway have some moral advantage vs other oil producing countries?
- samvega_ 5y ago
  One could draw a comparison between the US and the East India Company, in that they invade countries, overthrow governments and fuels civil wars in the Middle East and Africa (partly) in order to enforce US dollars as the de facto medium currency of international oil trade, and the subsequent funneling of oil profits into western financial assets and companies.
spiffistan 5y ago
It's not really worth bothering trying to convince any one country to reduce their oil production. The Saudis, Russians or Venezuelans could easily fill the supply gap, and the point is moot. Arguing for a worldwide reduction in supply is equally moot, not to mention politically hopeless. The best way is demand reduction, which won't happen overnight. Technology exchange and helping developing countries to build renewable energy and nuclear power plants seems to be, outside of geoengineering, the only viable way forward.
- vintermann 5y ago
  Whatever way you go about it, ultimately carbon has to be left in the ground. Norway's policy is to not leave anything in the ground. Even when you think maybe economic pressures will limit it, instead Norway subsidizes search for new fields. From the profit estimates of e.g. Johan Sverdrup, you can directly see that Norway thinks the world will NOT limit its oil consumption very much (and it will probably lobby against attempts to do so e.g. through coordinated carbon taxes). Our investments speak louder than words: we're betting on climate disaster. It's going to be hard to convince other countries to leave anything in the ground, if you can't even convince Norway.
aliswe 5y ago
> Moreover, the government has recently decided to expand exploration and production of gas and oil in one of the areas that the very same government acknowledges are most sensitive to climate change—the Arctic Circle. Does anyone have sources for this?
- NotAWorkNick 5y ago
  https://www.dw.com/en/norways-climate-hypocrisy-clean-at-home-dirty-in-the-arctic/a-40121909 https://www.dw.com/en/norways-climate-hypocrisy-clean-at-hom... https://www.arctictoday.com/norway-will-keep-exploring-for-oil-and-gas-new-center-left-government-says/ https://www.arctictoday.com/norway-will-keep-exploring-for-o... https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/norway/330163/norway-activists-take-fight-on-arctic-oil-drilling-to-european-court/ https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/norway/330163/norway-a... There ya go; 30 seconds on DDG, 3x varied sources (mops brow from the sweat of using the internet to search for something)
vintermann 5y ago
One important difference is that opium addiction in China hurt the addicts in China (and indirectly everyone else in China). Fossil fuel addiction through climate change hurts everyone. The merchants of the EIC stayed away from using opium themselves because being an opium addict is plainly pretty bad for you. Being a fossil fuel addict, though, can be very pleasant - ski trips to the Alps every month, fast cars, fresh produce flown in out of season etc. The costs will be carried mostly by other people.

52 points by solididiot 5y ago

Strange to paint the East India Company as evil while simultaneously admitting it's the only reason that Hong Kong was ever liberated.

AussieWog93 5y ago
I don't see it as strange at all. Hitler turned around Germany's economy in the 30's. Stalin liberated Eastern Europe from the genocidal Nazis. Nelson Mandela plotted terrorist attacks as a young activist. Good people (and organisations) do bad things, and bad people do good things. It doesn't change the fact that the British East India Company was rotten to the core, and the Opium Wars were absolutely abhorrent abuses of China's sovereignty and human rights.
- gromitss 5y ago
- ch_sm 5y ago
  > Hitler turned around Germany's economy in the 30's Sorry, I must comment on that, because this point is sometimes publicly repeated by politicians. It was mostly an expected recovery after the crash in 1929, combined with job programs that were planned before the Nazis, a secretly state-sponsored war economy, and various dubious methods (to say the least). see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Recovery_and_rearmament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Recove... for a summary.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    Thanks for that! I have a similar pet peeve when people talk about the economic performance of the CCP, so get where you're coming from completely. Truth be told, I don't know much about Nazi History at all. I just used Hitler as he's often held up as the paragon of evil, but even he helped some people.
MisterSandman 5y ago
How is it strange? EIC was very very bad for India, and very food for Hong Kong and the British Elite.
wbsss4412 5y ago
They never admit that? Easy to call something “strange” when the narrative is completely twisted by editorializing the original source.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Isn't that what this is saying? > the company decided to engage in a war to open Chinese ports. This was the origin of the infamous Opium War whose final outcome in 1842 was the opening of five Chinese “treaty ports”, cession of Hong Kong
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    No? In what world is that liberation?
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Because Hong Kong was mostly free (until last year) as a result of it, while the rest of China was ruled with an iron fist.
      - wbsss4412 5y ago
        “Liberation” implies freeing someone(s) from a pre existing entity. So no matter what you think of the CCP today, the opium wars had nothing to do with liberation, it was just outright conquest. The CCP didn’t event exist until 1921, almost 75 years later. If anything, a direct line can be drawn from the carving up of China by European, and later Japanese powers, to the fall of the Qing, the Chinese civil war, and the rise of the CCP. What’s “strange” is interpreting dynastic greed and colonization as a good thing in 2021.
lenkite 5y ago
The East India Company grossly mismanaged India leading to the Indian Revolt in 1857 and the birth of a truly unified Indian Independence movement. If the Crown had directly managed India from the beginning, the UK may have looked rather different today.
- manishsharan 5y ago
  Colonial repression and enslavement of a nation is not the same as "gross mismanagement".

unixhero 5y ago

No. This reads to me like oil envy.

slt2021 5y ago

one thing I agree is that to tackle climate change - rich countries must first start with themselves and reduce carbon emissions per capita. I see climate activists bash developing countries with large population for carbon emissions, yet when you account for per capita carbon output - turns out that carbon/capita of rich countries far exceeds that of developing/poor countries

RF_Savage 5y ago
Norway does have substantial subsidies for electric vehicles and other less co2 producing tech. Teslas are now the most sold car brand in Norway thanks to that and their cheap hydro power.
- unixhero 5y ago
  Some of the oil operators are even subsidizing its own companies working on renewable technologies.
  - psd1 5y ago
    I suspect most oil companies are investing in post-fossil... to the end of future-proofing themselves; they have no interest in fossil fuels being supplanted any time soon. That would be to cede position to their replacements. So their investment will result in less public benefit than equivalent investment by players that aren't, uh, invested in fossil.
trashtester 5y ago
Every country seems to have some way to rationalize why they are more justified than the others, or at least that their contribution doesn't matter. For small countries (Norway, New-Zealand), the feeling may be that their contribution is just a drop in the ocean. For countries with victim complexes (China, Russia, the Middle East), they may feel that the West has exploited them for too long, and now it is their turn. For countries that are still objectively poor/-ish (India, much of Africa), they may feel they don't have the luxery of acting long term. And progressives (in the USA, Germany and much of the EU) may focus more on symbolic efforts ("renewable" power) while failing to start large scale activities that can realistically reduce emissions to levels that would be sustainable as world averages (either through having enough Nuclear power, or to make sure that there is enough energy storage capacity available that renewables can be depended upon). Meanwhile, nationalists (in all countries) may see it more as a zero-sum game, where the goal is to "win" over other countries, and they definitely do not want to sacrifice too much without an ensurance that "the other side" contributes at least as much. Furthermore, perceived (partly based on reality, partly based on conspiracy theories) hypocrisy from environmentalist leftists is used to downplay, doubt or even deny the reality of the threat. As long as everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else, while the world's carbon emissions continue to grow, we will not be able contain CO2 levels. Most likely, we _will_ suffer the consequences, and experience some global warming over the coming decades. Also, as usual, poor countries will suffer the most. That being said, 2 degrees of warming is much better than 6. Also, blaming everyone else will just serve to add hostility between groups on top of the warming, in ways that can lead to hostilities that may be even more dangerous than the warming itself. So for those that genuinely want to work towards a sustainable environment, I think we need to: - Look at what we can do ourselves, personally, within our political party and within our country, in that order, instead of just pointing fingers at the "Other" to take the attention away from our own contributions. Finger pointing just serves to make us feel good, but is not likely to change the minds of the "Other". - Promote a world view that is based on real mainstream science, rather than fringe scare-mongery, politically correct dogmas etc. Exaggerating predictions will just provide fuel to the deniers (ie the world will end by 2030), and even if some scare-mongering may mobilize some politically active youths, I believe the net effect will be to increase polarization which in turn causes inability to act. - In particular, fight dogmas that prevent initiatives that can realistically help, such dogmas surrounding nuclear power. Institutions that spread such dogmas need to be confronted, especially when they are on "our side" (since there is little we can do to affect the "other side") - Generally, stop fueling all sorts polarization. As individuals and organizations we may benefit from turning to the extremes of "our side" as it may make us seem extra virtous, while demonizing the "Other". But we need ot be mindful of the fact that participating in this, is to inflict harm on society and implicitly on the plant. Polarization, both within and between countries, serve to undermine objectivity, as ideas start to be seen in terms of ideology rather than science. - Instead, by trying to avoid partisanship and focus on the objectively most reliable science as well as policies that can be accepted by a wide, bi-partisan majority, we may help restore some trust in institutions in the general public.

mk81 5y ago

halpert 5y ago

Norway is not the EIC because they didn't enslave massive swaths of humans and start a war to sell oil, but Norway doesn't exactly have the moral high ground in the fight against climate change either.

lucian1900 5y ago
Norway did participate in the invasion of Libya to destroy their competition and continues to export capital at usury rates at gunpoint. Different, but not qualitatively.
- unmole 5y ago
  > export capital at usury rates at gunpoint I'm sorry, what?
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    Poor countries are forced to take loans with usury rates, often from the likes of the IMF. Countries that refuse get propaganda, coups and invasions. It’s not just the US that does this. [edit] Libya was selling oil independently and offering loans with much better terms to other African countries.
    - unmole 5y ago
      > Poor countries are forced to take loans with usury rates, often from the likes of the IMF. IMF steps in when nobody else will lend to a country. The current concessional interest rate is zero.
      - lucian1900 5y ago
        True, often other lenders with even worse rates and terms show up first. It’s how entire countries become owned by a few foreign companies. IMF loans primarily come with horrible terms: privatisation, deregulation and austerity. Same with EU funds. Poor countries have to choose between exploitation or aggression.

etrevino 5y ago

Leaving aside how ludicrous the comparison is to the East India Company (Norway isn't invading other countries to force them to consume oil, for instance), the author ignores or doesn't know that the oil profits are used to fund the country's sovereign wealth fund, which is one of the key ways that Norway grows its pension system-- it uses petroleum profits to invest internationally. In the long run then, reducing Norway's sales of petroleum increases their reliance on the global stock market, because they no longer have a backstop against a market downturn. It's even possible that halting Norwegian petrol production would cause that very market downturn! In addition, the need to support the petroleum industry encourages the development of other technical industries which also can bring in money.

gausswho 5y ago
Norway halting production for ecological reasons is the start of a fascinating plot in the Occupied TV series. It's got its moments.
cblconfederate 5y ago
Pretty sure the author knows that, and he s making an argument ad absurdum, doesn't literally want norway to stop oil extraction. That said, i dont understand your point, does norway have some moral advantage vs other oil producing countries?
samvega_ 5y ago
One could draw a comparison between the US and the East India Company, in that they invade countries, overthrow governments and fuels civil wars in the Middle East and Africa (partly) in order to enforce US dollars as the de facto medium currency of international oil trade, and the subsequent funneling of oil profits into western financial assets and companies.

spiffistan 5y ago

It's not really worth bothering trying to convince any one country to reduce their oil production. The Saudis, Russians or Venezuelans could easily fill the supply gap, and the point is moot. Arguing for a worldwide reduction in supply is equally moot, not to mention politically hopeless. The best way is demand reduction, which won't happen overnight. Technology exchange and helping developing countries to build renewable energy and nuclear power plants seems to be, outside of geoengineering, the only viable way forward.

vintermann 5y ago
Whatever way you go about it, ultimately carbon has to be left in the ground. Norway's policy is to not leave anything in the ground. Even when you think maybe economic pressures will limit it, instead Norway subsidizes search for new fields. From the profit estimates of e.g. Johan Sverdrup, you can directly see that Norway thinks the world will NOT limit its oil consumption very much (and it will probably lobby against attempts to do so e.g. through coordinated carbon taxes). Our investments speak louder than words: we're betting on climate disaster. It's going to be hard to convince other countries to leave anything in the ground, if you can't even convince Norway.

aliswe 5y ago

> Moreover, the government has recently decided to expand exploration and production of gas and oil in one of the areas that the very same government acknowledges are most sensitive to climate change—the Arctic Circle. Does anyone have sources for this?

NotAWorkNick 5y ago
https://www.dw.com/en/norways-climate-hypocrisy-clean-at-home-dirty-in-the-arctic/a-40121909 https://www.dw.com/en/norways-climate-hypocrisy-clean-at-hom... https://www.arctictoday.com/norway-will-keep-exploring-for-oil-and-gas-new-center-left-government-says/ https://www.arctictoday.com/norway-will-keep-exploring-for-o... https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/norway/330163/norway-activists-take-fight-on-arctic-oil-drilling-to-european-court/ https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/norway/330163/norway-a... There ya go; 30 seconds on DDG, 3x varied sources (mops brow from the sweat of using the internet to search for something)

vintermann 5y ago

One important difference is that opium addiction in China hurt the addicts in China (and indirectly everyone else in China). Fossil fuel addiction through climate change hurts everyone. The merchants of the EIC stayed away from using opium themselves because being an opium addict is plainly pretty bad for you. Being a fossil fuel addict, though, can be very pleasant - ski trips to the Alps every month, fast cars, fresh produce flown in out of season etc. The costs will be carried mostly by other people.