4 ms·

> rendering the approvals of three oil and gas fields in the North Sea invalid

• xenospn 3y ago
  Norwegian GDP just took a hit
  • voisin 3y ago
    It 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 ago
      For a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.
    • legitster 3y ago
      It'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 ago
      Reminds 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 ago
      GDP 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 ago
      If 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 ago
        The 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 ago
          Which 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 ago
      The 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 ago
    Whenever Green Peace is happy, GDP always suffers
    • Epa095 3y ago
      In 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 ago
    A 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 ago
      The 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 ago
          I 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.