Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a game theoretic perspective - fossil fuels will be depleted. Even if the US reduced its consumption to zero, other countries, as independent players that want to maximize their benefit will be glad to take over and enjoy the effects of reduced demand and price. This means that there are two ways to deal with it: 1. Force all countries to reduce use. To make this really worldwide, this can only worked by force,…
Please expand on #3, as I’m sure you’re aware that’s very much the opposite of what’s commonly said!
Is Norway the New East India Company?
91–100 of 172 posts
Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?
#92There are so many logical flaws (and bad English) here that it’s hard to know where to begin. The analogy with opium is perhaps the only sensible one. Norway, however, is the world’s cleanest and most ethical producer of opium (oil). Given relatively fixed demand, who do you want as a producer?
Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?
#93Norway is a tiny country, they are largely irrelevant as far as their consumption habits go regarding climate change at large. They are not even a particularly large exporter of oil, outside of top 10 I think. The other countries mentioned are much bigger, not to mention that Nigeria is going to see massive population growth this century. You don't want a country that's projected to have 800 million people to get add…
Norway is the 13th biggest oil producer in the world, and outside the Middle East the 1st per capita. If you were looking for changes from the first world, you'd start there. I agree that non-first world countries are the where you'll see the most growth in oil consumption.
Given that we are speaking about a global scale event both "outside the Middle East" and especially "per capita" doesn't matter.
Sure it's the 13th biggest oil producer, sure its wealth comes from Oil and Gas but it does try to reduce the impact by trying to reduce the long term global Oil consumption. Do they maybe sometimes also follow other interest, maybe? But does it nullify the point that it tries to long term reduce global Oil consumption? Not really.
Furthermore and most important Norway stopping Oil and Gas production would not help. You need to reduce the demand first, or else, with rising prices Oil production in likely more problematic countries with likely more environmental damage would largely increase. Leading to a situation where maybe we short term have slightly less Oil usage due to higher prices, but in total a higher climate and environmental damage in the long term.
It also would make Western countries more dependent on non Western countries, which is not a climate aspect but still not grate.
Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
What can I read to understand how dealing with climate change won't be uncomfortably expensive?
What are you reading that suggests that ignoring climate change is going to cost less than dealing with it? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15453-z > A strategy that informs on countries’ potential losses due to lack of climate action may facilitate global climate governance. Here, we quantify a distribution of mitigation effort whereby each country is economically better off than under current climate ple…
[deleted]
Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is going to make that Ammonia fertilizer without functional industry and oil ? You need oil to produce gaseous hydrogen for the process.
You absolutely don’t need oil to make that. In fact usually it’s made with natural gas. But it’s easy to make hydrogen using water and renewable electricity. That’s what fuels almost all hydrogen vehicles. The university of Minnesota has had a pilot plant for wind to ammonia for over a decade now.
AFAIK China is the world's largest producer of Ammonia (32%. on checking wikipedia).
"Most of the ammonia is still coal-fed. China currently accounts for 95% of global ammonia capacity based on coal feedstock. In view of China’s ample coal reserves, coal gasification technologies have been further developed and are now used extensively. Coal-based ammonia capacity represents 86% of total Chinese ammonia capacity"
https://www.fertilizer.org/member/Download.aspx?PUBKEY=51f32...
Sure things are changing recently. A few coal-fed ammonia plants have been shutdown. But change is going to take time.
PS: Natural gas still is a heavy CO2 emitter - it doesn't make things all that better.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-a...
Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Norway is the 13th biggest oil producer in the world, and outside the Middle East the 1st per capita. If you were looking for changes from the first world, you'd start there. I agree that non-first world countries are the where you'll see the most growth in oil consumption.
> Norway is the 13th biggest oil producer in the world So, not in the top-10 even, exactly as the parent noted. And even if they were in, say, fifth place, such a ranking would tell us nothing about their impact, without knowing the distribution. In a top-heavy distribution, for example, if the top 1 makes 10,000 tons and top 5 makes 100 tons for example, it would still be as if the fifth largest produce doesn't matt…
> Why would "per capita" production have any relevance at all?
It's incredibly relevant.
First, without it you have no good measuring stick. It just all depends on the unit (state, member state, country, nation, union, OPEC) you choose for measurement.
Second, and more significantly, changes are more feasible with smaller populations. It's easier for Dublin to make a change than Ireland, and easier for Ireland, than the EU, and easier for the EU than the world.
To answer your earlier point, Norway is ~2.5% of global production. Texas is ~2%.
Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?
#97The United States is the world's largest producer. Canada is about fourth. Norway is about 11th. The United Kingdom is about 17th. The "Western world" accounts for a bit over 25% of the world's total production. If they all banded together to stop domestic oil production, that could have a big impact. But maybe other countries would just increase production? And maybe higher prices would spur more exploration? I don'…
From a game theoretic perspective - fossil fuels will be depleted. Even if the US reduced its consumption to zero, other countries, as independent players that want to maximize their benefit will be glad to take over and enjoy the effects of reduced demand and price. This means that there are two ways to deal with it: 1. Force all countries to reduce use. To make this really worldwide, this can only worked by force,…
I don't think even my great grandchildren would see the end of oil if we were to allow consumption to continue as it is today. There is an immense amount of reserves in the world.
That being said, there is the option 4 which the EU and US are talking about right now: economic punishment. Adding a "you don't have a carbon tax" levy on imports is a good way to motivate other countries to adopt technologies and ways of thinking that the rich countries of the world are pioneering for high quality but low carbon lifestyles.
Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?
#98I think getting off of fossil fuels should be a worldwide priority, and expanding fossil fuel exploration is a bad way to spend our time and effort as a species. But I don't understand this line: > 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. My un…
I think what you're missing is that oil extraction doesn't happen in a vacuum. The externalities of extracting oil from the arctic circle would be massively detrimental to the local environment. Not to mention the fact that any accidental oil spill or a well blowout would wreck havoc on the biodiversity and local species in the region mostly because according to the consensus opinion of many scientists, "we do not ha…
Ahh, this makes sense for why we wouldn't want to drill in the arctic, and I hadn't seen these arguments before, so thank you.
The article was very unclear about this - it implied fossil fuel exploration in the arctic is bad because the arctic is "most sensitive to climate change", but what it really should have said is "least able to deal with the environmental damage that inevitably accompanies drilling".
Am I still correct that as far as climate change affecting the arctic, burning one barrel of oil extracted from the arctic is the same as burning one barrel of oil extracted from (e.g.) the middle east?
Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you cope with food prices rising 10x in cost ? And the famines ? And the breakdown of law and order accompanied with the failure of most industry and the military. ? Please propose a solution along with your oil-ban utopia.
It's not a proposal, it's a thought exercise. But nobody's actually talking about a 100% ban. They're talking about incentives so that people choose an electric car when they buy a new one. And some higher taxes on the use of fossil fuels. And maybe eventually banning new fossil fuel-powered passenger vehicles. If it's anything like Australia, the agricultural industry would be exempt from such taxes. And presumably…
[deleted]
Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Norway is the 13th biggest oil producer in the world, and outside the Middle East the 1st per capita. If you were looking for changes from the first world, you'd start there. I agree that non-first world countries are the where you'll see the most growth in oil consumption.
Given that we are speaking about a global scale event both "outside the Middle East" and especially "per capita" doesn't matter. Sure it's the 13th biggest oil producer, sure its wealth comes from Oil and Gas but it does try to reduce the impact by trying to reduce the long term global Oil consumption. Do they maybe sometimes also follow other interest, maybe? But does it nullify the point that it tries to long term…
I think you are ignoring some realities if you expect change from the Middle East.
The same with expecting the low-per capita producers to change first.