14 ms·
Norwegian youth win climate court case against the Norwegian State
- toomuchtodo 3y agoRelated: https://apnews.com/article/youth-climate-lawsuit-montana-supreme-court-7a40821843d5dffca98ec83e2d11c4b4 https://apnews.com/article/youth-climate-lawsuit-montana-sup... ("AP: Montana Supreme Court upholds landmark climate ruling that said emissions can’t be ignored")
- Gys 3y ago> rendering the approvals of three oil and gas fields in the North Sea invalid
- xenospn 3y agoNorwegian GDP just took a hit
- voisin 3y agoIt boggles my mind that we allow GDP to not account for externalities to the environment. Like burning a wick, we cheer the flame with no consideration for the dynamite at the other end.
- nathancahill 3y agoFor a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.
- legitster 3y agoIt's gross domestic product, not net. The problem is that anytime someone attempts to quantify the cost of climate change, no one is happy with the numbers.
- diob 3y agoReminds me of the mindset of the species in Pandora's Star by Peter F. Hamilton. They basically accepted that they would die fast due to toxins / radiation / disasters for "progress" / "efficiency", and instead just focused on trucking forward and breeding like mad.
- brutusborn 3y agoGDP is just a measure, and it doesn’t include externalities. Any state or person is free to make up their own metric that includes it. Call it GDP_E and put it in every government report! Saying it should include externalities is like saying that the scales at the butchers should include nutrition information with weight: that would be cool but that’s not what scales/weight measures are for.
- roenxi 3y agoIf we're going to include negative externalities then someone has to figure out all the positive ones too. The economic upside of cheap energy isn't being accounted for in the price either, because low prices tautologically can't capture high value per unit and flows on to people further down the value chain. The challenge of doing so is insurmountable, that way is the madness of centralised planning.
- abdullahkhalids 3y agoThe first order negative impact of burning fossil fuels is stuff like pollution, global warming etc. This is not accounted for by the price of these fuels. The first order positive impacts of burning fossil fuels are accounted for in the price of the fuels. That's what people are paying for. I need to drive a car, here is some money for oil. What you are apparently talking about are the second order positive impact of fossil fuels. Some upside due to living in an environment of abundant cheap energy. I think you will have to argue more that these second order effects are comparable in size to the first order effects.
- roenxi 3y agoWhich reminds me; who are these people who are being hit by the pollution and aren't using fossil fuels? They aren't people in Norway; they're all living a lavish lifestyle full of stuff created with fossil fuels. That isn't a real externality. To a first approximation we're already paying for a large chunk of the price for the pollution generated on our behalf. PostScript Whoever it is would be much better off getting more access to fossil fuels than having access curtailed. China did not become a wealthy industrial powerhouse with environmentalist policies. The argument that negative externalities are a problem is silly; clearly curtailing fossil fuel access is more damaging. Sucks to be Africa or wherever with spotty oil infrastructure and access. Whether it is technically an externality or not, it is clear that unaffected third parties would benefit from more oil, not less. The externalities are clearly not being accounted for properly/are not net negative when curtailing a thing causes living standards overall to drop.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
- Aunche 3y agoThe cost of oil production in Norway is high compared to most OPEC countries, so net production will mostly flat. They can just loosen their grip a bit. The GDP would drop for nothing.
- bethekind 3y agoWhenever Green Peace is happy, GDP always suffers
- Epa095 3y agoIn general short term goals (like current GDP) often takes a hit when long term goals (like the cost of the externalities) gets added to the mix. But you can't just max out that credit card all the time you know.
- elil17 3y agoA country like Norway, with one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world (significantly higher than even America's), is exactly the country that should be thinking about the environment before they think about economic development.
- tordrt 3y agoThe environmental effects of stopping oil and gas production in Norway are not clear. Norway account for something like 2% of the worlds production. OPEC are already price fixing the market, and could (and propably would) easily replace Norways production. Some reports argue it will even increase emissions due to being replaced by less sustainable produciton. The developing world is too dependent on oil and gas. Rapid degrowth in global oil and gas production would lead to mass hunger. It is only the developed world who can afford to stop using oil and gas at the moment. We have to replace the worlds energy needs with something else, before we take environmental choices to cut production. Third world countries suffer without cheap oil and gas.
- elil17 3y ago> Rapid degrowth in global oil and gas production would lead to mass hunger. Would it? Many farmers in developing countries don’t have tractors and don’t use fertilizer. Isn’t their food production less tied to fossil fuels?
- tordrt 3y agoI suppose that could be true. But even then they are hugely dependent on cheap energy for transportation and other parts of the value chain. You need a certain efficiency in food production to sustain huge populations like in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria. Removing their access to cheap energy would take a huge toll on their living standard and for sure cause more people to suffer.
- spraveenitpro 3y ago[dead]
- bethekind 3y agoIs this really a win? You need a strong economy to shift to a Green future. Norway was a small country before oil and gas, now they've made the best use of it out of any country in the world. Shouldnt they keep their foot on the pedal a little longer? Making new battery technology isn't cheap.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoIf a house was on fire, what would you consider a win to put it out? Or would you do everything possible to put it out? As the climate continues to rapidly change, the tolerance for extraordinary measures would rise I would imagine (especially amongst youth cohorts who will inherit the cleanup over the next ~100 years). Shareholder value had a cost (industrialization in general [1]), and now it must be paid back. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
- brutusborn 3y agoBad analogy. If your house is on fire, there is no opportunity cost to putting it out and there is no uncertainty. You have nothing to lose. If an asteroid was headed for earth you would be on the money, but climate change isn’t like that. It is a relatively gradual change with a lot of uncertainty about the final magnitudes of warming and the actual risk involved. Bad policy to reduce emissions have opportunity costs. E.g. biofuels policy exacerbating starvation in the 3rd world. Read Bjorn Lomborg, he suggests the best policies as well as other problems we should prioritise above climate change. Then read Judith Curry to better understand the risks involved. It’s not black and white and choosing solutions is hard but random countries turning off their fossil fuels is not an effective policy.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoFossil fuels will need to be left in the ground [1] [2], it's as simple as that. The value of those reserves and assets on books, if not naturally declining to zero, must be forced to zero. If nations or corporations act self interested and don't leave them in the ground [3], what do you expect to be done as the world burns? Nothing? That's not an option. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/climate-majority-of-fossil-fuels-need-to-stay-underground-study-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/climate-majority-of-fossil-f... ("The vast majority of the world’s known fossil fuel reserves must be kept in the ground to have even a 50% chance of keeping global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.") [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8 ("Parties to the 2015 Paris Agreement pledged to limit global warming to well below 2 °C and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C relative to pre-industrial times1. However, fossil fuels continue to dominate the global energy system and a sharp decline in their use must be realized to keep the temperature increase below 1.5 °C (refs. 2,3,4,5,6,7). Here we use a global energy systems model8 to assess the amount of fossil fuels that would need to be left in the ground, regionally and globally, to allow for a 50 per cent probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C. By 2050, we find that nearly 60 per cent of oil and fossil methane gas, and 90 per cent of coal must remain unextracted to keep within a 1.5 °C carbon budget. This is a large increase in the unextractable estimates for a 2 °C carbon budget9, particularly for oil, for which an additional 25 per cent of reserves must remain unextracted. Furthermore, we estimate that oil and gas production must decline globally by 3 per cent each year until 2050. This implies that most regions must reach peak production now or during the next decade, rendering many operational and planned fossil fuel projects unviable. We probably present an underestimate of the production changes required, because a greater than 50 per cent probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C requires more carbon to stay in the ground and because of uncertainties around the timely deployment of negative emission technologies at scale.") [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38506585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38506585 ("HN: Cop28 president says 'no science' behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels")
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoI'm not an expert on the Norwegian court system, but they seem to have a Supreme Court, so I assume this can be appealed. And, since it's a completely novel[1] ruling, and the state has a large amount of money they could receive if this were overturned, I expect it will be appealed. [1] "Novel" meaning "without precedent in Norwegian rulings". I did not mean "without foundation" or "unreasonable".
- Ekaros 3y agoSeems to be District Court. Seems to be somewhat similar to Finnish system. Where district court basically deliver most random and weird decisions. Then they generally get appealed to court of appeals. Which is more logical place. Likely this will be overturned there. And then end in supreme court...
- kwhitefoot 3y agoIt was Oslo Tingrett, This is the lowest level ordinary court (there are 23 of them), above is the Lagmannsrett (6 of them) with handles appeals from the Tingrett. Above the Lagmannsrett is the Høyesterett (High Court) which again handles appeals from lower courts. As far as I know cases cannot be brought directly in the high court but must progress through the lower courts first. Both tingrett and lagmannsrett are district courts in the sense that the cover specific geographical areas (kretser, circuits). https://www.domstol.no/no/om-rettssystemet/de-alminnelige-domstolene/ https://www.domstol.no/no/om-rettssystemet/de-alminnelige-do...
- legitster 3y agoAre there now grounds to start shutting down existing oil fields? Something like 20% of the government budget comes from oil revenue, and the entire pension system (to my understanding) comes from oil funds.
- HPsquared 3y agoAnd what about the sovereign wealth fund? That money came from historical fossil fuel extraction, after all.
- mthoms 3y agoWhat about it?
- beepbooptheory 3y agoIts funny how things always seem to be set up like that... Oh, sure, you want the state to stop doing bad environmental things? Well, ok, as long as you pay for it!
- Deprecate9151 3y agoIt does not seem so, the artcile indicates the court focused on procedural issues related to the impact assessment required for the permits to build the new oil locations. The issues seems to be focused on the fact they weren't done, or were incomplete. I would imagine only pump locations with similar deficiencies would be in trouble.
- legitster 3y ago> combustion emissions [from] petroleum extraction are such a significant and particularly characteristic consequence of such projects that they must clearly be considered indirect climate impacts within the meaning of the (EU) Project Directive It didn't seem particular to the locations. Under this ruling, if the oil gets shipped to India and burned there they would now need to include it in the local impact assessment. Maybe they just need to resubmit with a new impact assessment? But it does seem like the precedent they are trying to set is to reject all projects based on emissions.
- Luc 3y agoIsn't Greenpeace's ideology aligned with degrowth nowadays? I remember reading how they were against carbon capture (and, of course, geo-engineering).
- pretendgeneer 3y agoBeing against Carbon Capture and geo-engineering is just following the science. Carbon capture has constantly been shown to just not work at any scale. and geo-engineering causes so many extra problems and will absolutely lead to termination shock at some point.
- madsbuch 3y agocan you make a scientific argument that carbon capture and geo engineering will not work at scale. if not, then you are just littering with words.
- hnbad 3y agoCarbon capture technologies produce more carbon emissions than they can capture if you account for the resource use for production and construction. Even when they do slightly better than breaking even the margin is so low that scaling it up is not a meaningful contribution relative to the amount of emissions we would need to counteract. This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Geo engineering to the degree necessary to revert climate change is bad sci-fi, not science, no matter what billionaires selling personal EVs are telling you. On the other hand we know that we are seeing an immense problem of overproduction which is incentivized by the economic system and impossible to tackle by blaming consumers for bad choices and asking the industry nicely to reduce waste or letting them get away with greenwashing by planting trees and raising honey bees. We could change that but it would require significant market intervention, which we (most Western nations at least) have been ideologically opposed to for decades.
- madsbuch 3y ago> Carbon capture technologies produce more carbon emissions than they can capture No, this statement only work under a certain set of assumptions (eg. source of energy). As I wrote to the sibling comment: Let's not mix up beliefs and scientific reasoning.
- onyxringer 3y agoPutin approves. Emissions will stay the same, but you'll by the oil from Russia.
- fallingknife 3y agoCorrect. Demand is all that matters. This BS is just supply side economics for liberals.
- pxeger1 3y agoDecreasing the supply increases the price, so demand will decrease. Although it's hard to apply classical economics to the oil market when it's so far from a free market (OPEC etc.)
- 545342dd 3y ago[flagged]
- xiphias2 3y agoI would strongly support focusing on getting rid of wood / coal burning first instead of going for much more efficient gas. An import tax on coal burning countries (especially China) would push the incentives in the right direction instead of outsourcing the climate externalities to them.
- iknowstuff 3y agoNorway has the most heat pumps per capita and coal is 3% of their energy supply, so what prompted this comment?
- ImJamal 3y agoWhat does that have to do with outsourcing to China and others?
- hutzlibu 3y ago"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China There are many things you can say about china, but they do take climate change serious (maybe because they have already problems with desertification).
- jahnu 3y agoIndeed! “ The International Energy Agency estimates that China more than doubled its solar generation capacity and added two-thirds to its wind generation capacity in 2023.” https://archive.is/b0qif https://archive.is/b0qif
- hcurtiss 3y agoHow can you say that when they are simultaneously radically increasing coal power generation, as highlighted in the article? It appears to me they have an "all of the above" strategy driven by their desire for prosperity.
- 545342dd 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sepisoad 3y ago[flagged]
- whatever1 3y agoCool cool will the youth also return the money in their oil pension funds?
- avgcorrection 3y agoStep one of securing a “pension” is making sure that the world is livable half a century from now. On that account their priorities are correct.
- whatever1 3y agoTheir pension needs to be liquidated to pay for reparations and the externalities that oil production caused. At least this is the Greenpeace standard for businesses.
- avgcorrection 3y agoOkay then. Then that’s what their next plan of action is. I thought you were going for some kind of burn.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago"We should improve society somewhat - Yet you participate in society. Curious!" revisited
- thendrill 3y agoThe pension fund money is not real and will never be seen by the population, it is all controlled by private hedge funds. Retirement age in Norway is 70... And there are some rumors about going to 72. Also there is talks of increasing taxes on the pensionsts... So what is the point of having a pensions fund if you are never going to retire...
- kwhitefoot 3y agoThere is no retirement age in Norway. You may start drawing your pension at the age of 62 (unless you haven't contributed enough) but you are not required or even expected to retire. The 70 year limit is the one beyond which your employer can force you to leave without cause.
- burkaman 3y agoTitle is a little misleading (for me at least), this is not one of the many cases where a group of young people sued their government for a broad violation of their rights. This is a more narrow case where the plaintiffs said the government is supposed to consider emissions impact when approving oil and gas projects, and did not. There aren't really any youth directly involved. The court didn't say Norway can't drill anymore, just that when you're doing an environmental impact assessment of a new oil field (which is required in Norway) you obviously have to assess the impact of burning the oil. I don't think this is very controversial.
- downWidOutaFite 3y agoNatur og Ungdom is a youth group so I don't know why you say youth aren't involved.
- burkaman 3y agoYes sorry you're right, I don't know what I was looking at. Members of that group are 13-25.
- bertil 3y ago> new oil field I was surprised because I assumed Norway wouldn’t open new oil fields. I’d say it’s “interesting,” but what I actually mean isn’t publishable.
- frank_bb 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- petre 3y agoI usually discover after years that these climate action movements were actually sponsored by Russia. It has already happened with the fracking. But then it's too late because they've already produced effects.
- burkaman 3y agoCan you link to some times this has happened in the past? I searched and found some opinion pieces and quotes, but no evidence yet.
- petre 3y agoHere you go, an ten years old article from the Guardian, a leftie news outlet that always supports climate action campaigns. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-s... I remember the fracking hysteria quite well when it happened in Eastern Europe because I too fell for it, to then find out it was a Russian psyop. https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/20/russias-quiet-war-against-european-fracking https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/20/russias-quiet-war-again...
- burkaman 3y agoYes I actually found that first one myself, you'll note that there is explicitly no evidence. "I have met allies who can report [...] He declined to give details [...] Nato's press office said the remarks were Rasmussen's personal views, not official policy [...] geology, rather than political concerns, was likely to be the main obstacle". So this guy says the environmental groups have been compromised, they say they haven't been, he declines to give even the vaguest semblance of evidence. Your second article starts with the exact same quotes from the same guy. It at least tries to outline some circumstantial evidence, but the author doesn't seem to find it very convincing and I don't either. There were a number of articles in 2014 spurred by a single quote from this one person, and absolutely nothing since then. I think the circumstantial evidence against these claims is equally strong: anti-fracking activism was increasing worldwide around this time, including in countries like South Africa and Tunisia that are not particularly hostile towards Russia. You can see a good list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking_by_country. Fracking is simply unpopular almost everywhere. I don't doubt that Russia viewed fracking as an economic threat, but I will need even the tiniest bit of evidence before I seriously consider the possibility that actually fracking is very popular and people only protested because they were getting paid.