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

181–190 of 191 posts

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

#181

Post by hutzlibu »

fellin wrote: post #180
hutzlibu wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Difference, but no contradiction. But I also fail to see deeper meaning in this exchange.

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

#182

Post by petre »

burkaman wrote: post #172
petre wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My initial point was that by the time you find the evidence, adversary goals are already accomplished. The author is quite credible after nearly ten years, given all the circumstances. Eastern Europe being organized against fracking when they can't even get their shit together in other matters? I believe all of this is the same psyops, only repackaged for a younger generation with a shorter attention span.

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

#183

Post by burkaman »

petre wrote: post #182
burkaman wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My initial point was that by the time you find the evidence, adversary goals are already accomplished. The author is quite credible after nearly ten years, given all the circumstances. Eastern Europe being organized against fracking when they can't even get their shit together in other matters? I believe all of this is the same psyops, only repackaged for a younger generation with a shorter attention span.

But it's been almost 10 years since the claim and there is still no evidence. How long do we have to wait?

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

#184

Post by petre »

burkaman wrote: post #183
petre wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My initial point was that by the time you find the evidence, adversary goals are already accomplished. The author is quite credible after nearly ten years, given all the circumstances. Eastern Europe being organized against fracking when they can't even get their shit together in other matters? I believe all of this is the same psyops, only repackaged for a younger generation with a shorter attention span.

But it's been almost 10 years since the claim and there is still no evidence. How long do we have to wait?

The evidence is all there, you just refuse too see it as such.

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

#185

Post by supertimor »

legitster wrote: post #110
pretendgeneer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change can be an existential threat to humanity and Geo-Engineering can make it worse at the same time.

How can something be worse than an existential threat? If you knew you were going to die next week, what's to stop you from picking up smoking right now? The truth is we don't need geoengineering because the truth is that it's not an existential threat for humanity, it's just the future is going to suck really hard for a lot of people if we don't get off our our collective asses. Going around moaning "we're all doome…

There can be multiple existential threats at a time. And on top of that, there can be actions that also increase the chances of succumbing to said existential threat.

Look at it this way. Someone who is bitten by a rattlesnake is at risk of dying (an existential threat). Certain medical care, like giving the patient Advil or any other form of blood thinning pain killers could actually end up making matters worse which in turn could increase the chances of the patient dying.

No one here is saying we’re all doomed and there’s no use in trying. What they are doing is pointing out that carbon capture and geo-engineering may not be the most fitting solutions to this existential threat, and that these solutions could even potentially make matters worse.

>“How can something be worse than an existential threat?”

If something you do makes your chances of surviving an existential threat worse, the consequences of your actions could make the initial existential threat harder to manage and in turn make it more likely to succumb to said threat.

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

#186

Post by sershe »

M95D wrote: post #170
sershe wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?…

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? IMO they really should! 2) Also, if we are going to assess hypothetical impacts of burning oil, why not assess the positive impacts? This oil could be used to build wind turbines, or to deliver fo…

"And that's what a comprehensive assessment will include"

Do you have evidence of this? A typical assessment of impacts, especially any environmental assessment I have ever heard of, only focuses on the negatives.

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

#187

Post by dools »

abfan1127 wrote: post #90
dools wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway issue their own currency, so 100% of their budget comes from money they spend into existence. Oil has an impact on their ability to import, and on their ability to meet their own energy requirements.

that's not exactly correct given the inflationary nature of printing to "spend into existence." History is filled with crumbled societies printing their own money as mention.

All spending creates new money and all taxation destroys it (at the federal level). Where else does money come from if not the government?

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

#188

Post by dools »

tordrt wrote: post #122
dools wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway issue their own currency, so 100% of their budget comes from money they spend into existence. Oil has an impact on their ability to import, and on their ability to meet their own energy requirements.

What do you mean by spend into existence? If they collect much more money in taxes and investments than they spend (which they ary), are they then really spending anything into existence?

Do you know of any entity other than the Norwegian government who issues NKR?

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

#189

Post by M95D »

sershe wrote: post #186
M95D wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? IMO they really should! 2) Also, if we are going to assess hypothetical impacts of burning oil, why not assess the positive impacts? This oil could be used to build wind turbines, or to deliver fo…

"And that's what a comprehensive assessment will include" Do you have evidence of this? A typical assessment of impacts, especially any environmental assessment I have ever heard of, only focuses on the negatives.

> only focuses on the negatives

You are probably right.

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

#190

Post by bertil »

brutusborn wrote: post #132
bertil wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Carbon capture is being successfully used all around the world. [Citation needed]

If I must spoon feed you… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carbon_capture_and_s...

If you actually did the work, you would not have shared a list of prototypes, failed projects, and disappointments.

Do you want me to complain that I had to spoon-feed you that?

Post reply on HN