6 ms·
If this is said about Europe's largest oil producer (between Nigeria and Kuwait in world stats), there's something wrong with energy production accounting.
by zurn 12y ago
If this is said about Europe's largest oil producer (between Nigeria and Kuwait in world stats), there's something wrong with energy production accounting.
- Dylan16807 12y agoWhy do you say that? Shouldn't the burden go on the consumer?
- zurn 12y agoNo, placing the burden on the individual consumers doesn't work. "Tragedy of the commons" type problems are generally solvable only by organized collective decisionmaking. Irrespective of that, discounting oil production from "share of renewables in energy production" is just nonsensical.
- bidatzi 12y agoSo do we have to tally Saudi oil pollution on the exporting country instead of those that actually use it?
- zurn 12y agoI'm not sure which point you're responding to. Regarding accounting re. renewables share in energy production, yes, I think their oil exports should be taken into account, and we should say that Saudis aren't model citizens of renewable energy production. Regarding political responsibility, I think we should definitely hold producers responsible as well. We can't burn all the oil that's still in the ground without devastating climate effects, and it's in every nation's interest to reduce oil production and consumption in an orderly but swift fashion. EDIT: responding here as I can't reply below anymore. This discussion was about energy PRODUCTION, you are below talking about energy CONSUMPTION. US oil imports should indeed count as energy production in the exporting country. Re electricty production - this subthread was about general energy production, not electricity!
- bidatzi 12y agoLet's see, the US imports 30-40% of the oil it consumes. Should that oil be accounted as used by the exporters? Norway uses no fossil fuels for its electricity production. Norway happens to export a lot of oil. How does the second statement negate the first one?
- ptaipale 12y agoLast year that was only 27 %, btw. (If "oil" means "crude oil and petroleum products").
- bidatzi 12y agoAbout your edit: fair enough, if you are talking about primary energy production. I understood what the figure provided in the first comment was referring to (electricity production/consumption) and was addressing that. In the end, I think the fact that they produce all of their electricity from hydro is a fantastic achievement. That you (and many others, including a lot of people in Norway) would like them to stop pumping oil from the North Sea is (for me) a different issue. I don't think Norway producing less oil would reduce global oil consumption. FWIW, they produce about half of what they did in the early '00s.
- Dylan16807 12y agoTragedy of the commons can happen no matter who you blame. It takes a government-level mandate to pay for cleanup. I think it's simplest to force the consumer to pay. > Irrespective of that, discounting oil production from "share of renewables in energy production" is just nonsensical. I disagree. There are other things you can do with oil, and it doesn't pollute anything sitting in a tank. It's the energy production that matters.
- ende 12y agoIf you're fortunate to have a ton of renewables and petros, the renewables typically don't travel well so you use those domestically and sell the petros on the global market.
- bidatzi 12y agoThat figure (98%) is about electricity production, not total energy used by the country.
- fsloth 12y agoNot necessarily. Norway has lots of hydro power. As energy producers go, Norway is not comparable to other oil producers from internal economic point of view as they've extensively rigged their economy not to implode from the "resource curse" .
- Dewie 12y agoThe meaning is clear enough: 98% of its renewable energy that Norway itself uses is from renewables. And "energy" probably means electricity grid. It was probably very clear to you too, but you'd rather feign obtuseness in order to make a point.