Not really, its considering the global effects of your actions.
The video you link e.g is titled "‘If I Don’t Steal [Your Home] Someone Else Will’ Israeli Settler Justifies Forcible Takeover".
But there are some major differences between that and my arguments mainly I consider realistic consequences of blindly changing the (not so perfect) status quo by reducing Oil production in Norway, while the argument in the video creates a hypothetical in normal situations completely unlikely scenario. Furthermore in the video, it's used to justify something which is normally considered a crime and where you force someone else. While here it's neither about a crime nor about forcing anyone (selling Oil is not a crime and not causing climate change, burning it does. And no one is forced to buy the Oil.), if anything Norway tries to convince people to buy less Oil in total on the long term as far as I known.
And sure there are similarities no one will reduce Oil production (implicitly causing Oil usage) if everyone always argues that then other will increase Oil production.
Or that would be the case if we move it in a hypothetical scenario where everyone would argue that way. But in reality we are in a different scenario where some parties don't use such arguments but base their decisions on completely different factors, which makes it predetermined how they would act in the hypothetical scenario in turn nullifying the idea that everyone is shifting blame onto everyone else, making this a very different situation then the ones you refer to.
And yes, you know try to extend it to the settler arguing that the Israeli governments action are predetermined and as such it's the same. And indeed there is a argument to be made to blame the Israeli government and not the specific settler(s), but you then can blame the settler not for settling but for supporting evilish decisions of their government.
But at this point we side-tracked the discussion to a degree which kills is.
The point I want to make is that there is a major difference between considering likely outcomes of actions and trying to choose the best action in your power (or in this case Norway power) and creating hypothetical scenarios to justify something which in your own moral system is normally considered a crime.
Sure this approaches might sometimes look similar in their outcomes but their are very different in their approach and philosophy.
E.g. in one case you satisfy demand while trying to not increase demand with to low prices while trying to reduce demand in in turn then reduce production in the same degree. I.e. something which iff done right would be generally considered good. While on the other hand you hypocritically try to find excuses for your actions (hypocritically because the person using the argument would probably not fine with their house being stolen).