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

171–180 of 191 posts

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

#171

Post by graemep »

brutusborn wrote: post #146
graemep wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biological systems play a huge role in the climate too so its not purely physical simulation.

This is true, but there are no biological simulations in the mainstream models, just various correction factors with their own uncertainty. I wish they had biological data because then we would have more domains in which to measure their accuracy.

What none!?

This has been a long standing criticism of climate change models and I had expected it to be a major focus of research.

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

#172

Post by burkaman »

petre wrote: post #157
burkaman wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here you go, an ten years old article from the Guardian, a leftie news outlet that always supports climate action campaigns. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-s... I remember the fracking hysteria quite well when it happened in Eastern Europe because I too fell for it, to then find out it was a Russian psyop. https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/20/russias-quiet-war-again...

Yes I actually found that first one myself, you'll note that there is explicitly no evidence. "I have met allies who can report [...] He declined to give details [...] Nato's press office said the remarks were Rasmussen's personal views, not official policy [...] geology, rather than political concerns, was likely to be the main obstacle". So this guy says the environmental groups have been compromised, they say they haven't been, he declines to give even the vaguest semblance of evidence.

Your second article starts with the exact same quotes from the same guy. It at least tries to outline some circumstantial evidence, but the author doesn't seem to find it very convincing and I don't either.

There were a number of articles in 2014 spurred by a single quote from this one person, and absolutely nothing since then. I think the circumstantial evidence against these claims is equally strong: anti-fracking activism was increasing worldwide around this time, including in countries like South Africa and Tunisia that are not particularly hostile towards Russia. You can see a good list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking_by_country. Fracking is simply unpopular almost everywhere.

I don't doubt that Russia viewed fracking as an economic threat, but I will need even the tiniest bit of evidence before I seriously consider the possibility that actually fracking is very popular and people only protested because they were getting paid.

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

#173

Post by fellin »

hutzlibu wrote: post #167
fellin wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claimed "only some countries" which seems to claim that most of the 200-something countries in the world are building coal plants. Now you say that you only think of Germany, Poland and China.

"most of the 200-something countries in the world are building coal plants." They are. According to this only 56 countries currently do not plan to do so. And I think germany is included in that number - and I know for a fact, that this can change very quickly. https://apnews.com/article/coal-climate-change-eliminate-ele...

Your link says:

> The United States committed Saturday to the idea of phasing out coal power plants, joining 56 other nations in kicking the coal habit.

This is completely different from what you claimed

> only 56 countries currently do not plan to do so

There is zero information about how many countries have any coal plants at all or how many are building new ones.

The only information in the quote is about phasing out.

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

#174

Post by burkaman »

sershe wrote: post #161
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…

"you obviously have to assess the impact of burning the oil." It's not at all obvious. 1) If we assess all the indirect negative impacts that happen in remote places, nothing will ever be done. Should a factory making phones assess the DALY lost by drivers who get into accidents because of distracted driving? 2) Also, if we are going to assess hypothetical impacts of burning oil, why not assess the positive impacts?…

Why do you think nothing will be done? You aren't required to stop a project just because you've identified a single negative impact. If you can't trust your government to make good decisions even when presented with all the information, then you need a new government.

To answer your questions, yes anybody involved with making phones should be fully aware of their negative effects, and yes an environmental impact assessment should assess all environmental impacts, including positive ones.

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

#175

Post by elil17 »

tordrt wrote: post #127
elil17 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. Rapi…

> 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?

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

#176

Post by hutzlibu »

fellin wrote: post #173
hutzlibu wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"most of the 200-something countries in the world are building coal plants." They are. According to this only 56 countries currently do not plan to do so. And I think germany is included in that number - and I know for a fact, that this can change very quickly. https://apnews.com/article/coal-climate-change-eliminate-ele...

Your link says: > The United States committed Saturday to the idea of phasing out coal power plants, joining 56 other nations in kicking the coal habit. This is completely different from what you claimed > only 56 countries currently do not plan to do so There is zero information about how many countries have any coal plants at all or how many are building new ones. The only information in the quote is about phasing…

My claim was and is, the majority of countries are still running coal, china is no exception there.

Only some rich countries decided to phase out. My source confirms it.

Do you have other sources?

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

#177

Post by tordrt »

elil17 wrote: post #175
tordrt wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Rapi…

> 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?

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.

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

#178

Post by tordrt »

defrost wrote: post #151
Invictus0 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing oil to heroin is beyond stupid. It's an essential good responsible for 30% of the world's energy needs. If oil disappeared from the earth tomorrow, entire nations would grind to a halt and millions would die.

I'm sorry, are you unaware of the medical uses for the opium poppy and the millions that would die | experience great pain without it? It's not an exact analgy, sure .. but to describe it as "beyond stupid" is certainly less than bright.

Opium does not save lives, it's a painkiller. And it is not the same at all. If millions would die if people stopped selling medical opium, I am sure you would argue it unethical to stop production of it before there was anything to replace it.

I would say a better analogy is selling alcohol to an alcoholic because you can't just cut off the supply right away because they could die from the abstinence symptoms. You need to get them off their dependency slowly. In this case, you need to decrease their dependency on oil and gas slowly and replace it with clean alternatives, which are currently way too expensive for the developing world.

Countries would literally go to war tomorrow if they lost their supply of oil and gas.

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

#179

Post by abdullahkhalids »

zmgsabst wrote: post #114
abdullahkhalids wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

We are counting orders of economic effects, not orders of physical effects.

Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 and other chemicals into the air. Many of the other chemicals directly harm your health when you breath them in, so thatthis air pollution, which is a first order physical effect, is also a first order economic effect.

On the other hand, excess CO2 in the atmosphere, another first order physical effect, has no economic impacts. Breathing in an extra 50ppm of CO2 has little impact on us, perhaps a bit to plants. So the first order physical effect of excess CO2 is not an economic effect. But second order physical effect of excess CO2 is increased atmospheric temperature, which again on its has very little economic impact. Its really the third order physical effects of CO2 (higher variability in rains and seasons, storms, melting glaciers) where we really see the economic impacts (failed crops, destruction of property and human life etc). All of these things cause large direct economic damage, so that is your first order negative economic effect of fossil fuels.

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

#180

Post by fellin »

hutzlibu wrote: post #176
fellin wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link says: > The United States committed Saturday to the idea of phasing out coal power plants, joining 56 other nations in kicking the coal habit. This is completely different from what you claimed > only 56 countries currently do not plan to do so There is zero information about how many countries have any coal plants at all or how many are building new ones. The only information in the quote is about phasing…

My claim was and is, the majority of countries are still running coal, china is no exception there. Only some rich countries decided to phase out. My source confirms it. Do you have other sources?

Your original claim:

> (only some countries do not build coal plants anymore).

This comment:

> My claim was and is, the majority of countries are still running coal, china is no exception there.

Can you spot the difference?

Post reply on HN