Is Norway the New East India Company?

> 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.

I believe this is the most egregious charge in the article, which turns out to be true

https://europeangreens.eu/news/norway-opens-arctic-more-dril...

I 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 understanding is that the fossil fuels that may be extracted from the arctic circle would be exported and processed elsewhere. The arctic circle is not going to be more affected by climate change just because the fossil fuels causing climate change came from under the arctic circle, right? Or am I missing something here?

> This article is so quick to blame a national government when the problem is squarely on oil and gas companies.

Is this the first time you've heard of Norway? It's one and the same. Statoil is majority owned by the Norwegian government.

"If we want to really confront –as opposed to just talking—climate change we should first, be rid of extreme hypocrisy (as this one), and second, design policies that would be acceptable to the population."

I don't really understand the hypocrisy argument. Would it be preferable if Norway continued to produce oil while not doing any work towards climate change? The current oil situation in Norway is a huge political topic and several of the more left wing parties are for stopping oil production - but the population and political system as a whole isn't ready for it. It seems that the current compromise is investing in green energy while making the transition towards non-fossil fuel based economy in the future. The Norwegian population and political system isn't a monolith and the hypocrisy argument just doesn't make sense to me considering different factions promote the different actions.

A bit OT but I've had some discussions with people who seem to care more about perceived hypocrisy and double standards than they care about the actual outcomes of actions. It's morally just if a business ruins the environment or lives of people if they believe that they are in the right about doing it. On the other hand they are morally unjust if they see the issues they are causing and take steps to minimize the externalities. I've chalked this up to a more deontological instead of consequentialist moral stance but I still find it a bit confusing.

Dealing with climate change will cost money. The article is suggesting that if climate change activists want to be successful, they need to acknowledge that and start talking about cost-benefit trade-offs. The argument is, explicitly, that this is a precondition for effective political activism. If you don't want to do that, and if you want to kid yourself that transitioning to a carbon-free economy can be done without spending money, fine, but there's no need to misrepresent the original argument.