Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Norwegian youth win climate court case against the Norwegian State

greenpeace.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 191 posts

Re: Norwegian youth win climate court case against the Norwegian State

#111

Post by tordrt »

bertil wrote: post #94
burkaman wrote: post #56

Title 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…

> 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.

Why wouldnt Norway open new oil fields?

Re: Norwegian youth win climate court case against the Norwegian State

#112

Post by roenxi »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #98
roenxi wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 o…

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.

Re: Norwegian youth win climate court case against the Norwegian State

#114

Post by zmgsabst »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #98
roenxi wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 o…

Global warming is a second order effect of abundant CO2 production.

Why does your second order effect count, but not readily available sterile hospital materials made of petroleum?

Re: Norwegian youth win climate court case against the Norwegian State

#115

Post by codetrotter »

newsclues wrote: post #96
codetrotter wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Why?

It’s a process not an end state. “Follow science” and ‘follow “the” science’ are two different things, and we just need to go back in history to understand that humans did some horrible stuff because of “the” science.

Hm.. I don’t see that distinction in this case.

To me when they say they “follow the science” it does not imply an end state. To me it only implies “everything we know so far”.

I am sure that if scientific results showed the opposite of their current idea, they would once again update their view.

Re: Norwegian youth win climate court case against the Norwegian State

#116

Post by bllguo »

xiphias2 wrote: post #21

I 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.

there are millions and millions of people still living in rural villages. how dare they want electricity? they should be sacrificing their already meager quality of life to fix problems that Westerners are disproportionately responsible for, and subsidize profligate Western consumption.

Re: Norwegian youth win climate court case against the Norwegian State

#117

Post by Invictus0 »

belval wrote: post #108
bertil wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Hot take, but I feel like Norway gets greenwashed a lot as better than everywhere else, when they are basically a northern Saudi Arabia in terms of exports with over 70% of their exports being oil and gas.

Norway is a beautiful modern liberal democracy, Saudi Arabia is a theocratic desert dictatorship hellhole.

Re: Norwegian youth win climate court case against the Norwegian State

#118

Post by burkaman »

downWidOutaFite wrote: post #72
burkaman wrote: post #56

Title 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…

Natur og Ungdom is a youth group so I don't know why you say youth aren't involved.

Yes sorry you're right, I don't know what I was looking at. Members of that group are 13-25.

Re: Norwegian youth win climate court case against the Norwegian State

#119

Post by kwhitefoot »

Ekaros wrote: post #14
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #7

I'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".

Seems 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...

It 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-do...

Re: Norwegian youth win climate court case against the Norwegian State

#120

Post by burkaman »

petre wrote: post #113

I 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.

Can you link to some times this has happened in the past? I searched and found some opinion pieces and quotes, but no evidence yet.
Post reply on HN