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

31–40 of 191 posts

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

#31

Post by legitster »

Deprecate9151 wrote: post #22
legitster wrote: post #10

Are there now grounds to start shutting down existing oil fields? Something like 20% of the government budget comes from oil revenue, and the entire pension system (to my understanding) comes from oil funds.

It does not seem so, the artcile indicates the court focused on procedural issues related to the impact assessment required for the permits to build the new oil locations. The issues seems to be focused on the fact they weren't done, or were incomplete. I would imagine only pump locations with similar deficiencies would be in trouble.

> combustion emissions [from] petroleum extraction are such a significant and particularly characteristic consequence of such projects that they must clearly be considered indirect climate impacts within the meaning of the (EU) Project Directive

It didn't seem particular to the locations. Under this ruling, if the oil gets shipped to India and burned there they would now need to include it in the local impact assessment.

Maybe they just need to resubmit with a new impact assessment? But it does seem like the precedent they are trying to set is to reject all projects based on emissions.

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

#32

Post by diob »

voisin wrote: post #8
xenospn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norwegian GDP just took a hit

It boggles my mind that we allow GDP to not account for externalities to the environment. Like burning a wick, we cheer the flame with no consideration for the dynamite at the other end.

Reminds me of the mindset of the species in Pandora's Star by Peter F. Hamilton. They basically accepted that they would die fast due to toxins / radiation / disasters for "progress" / "efficiency", and instead just focused on trucking forward and breeding like mad.

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

#33

Post by ImJamal »

iknowstuff wrote: post #25
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.

Norway has the most heat pumps per capita and coal is 3% of their energy supply, so what prompted this comment?

What does that have to do with outsourcing to China and others?

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

#34

Post by madsbuch »

pretendgeneer wrote: post #23
Luc wrote: post #15

Isn't Greenpeace's ideology aligned with degrowth nowadays? I remember reading how they were against carbon capture (and, of course, geo-engineering).

Being against Carbon Capture and geo-engineering is just following the science. Carbon capture has constantly been shown to just not work at any scale. and geo-engineering causes so many extra problems and will absolutely lead to termination shock at some point.

can you make a scientific argument that carbon capture and geo engineering will not work at scale.

if not, then you are just littering with words.

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

#35

Post by newsclues »

pretendgeneer wrote: post #23
Luc wrote: post #15

Isn't Greenpeace's ideology aligned with degrowth nowadays? I remember reading how they were against carbon capture (and, of course, geo-engineering).

Being against Carbon Capture and geo-engineering is just following the science. Carbon capture has constantly been shown to just not work at any scale. and geo-engineering causes so many extra problems and will absolutely lead to termination shock at some point.

You understand “following the science” arguments are stupid right?

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

#36

Post by hutzlibu »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #12
bethekind wrote: post #6

Is this really a win? You need a strong economy to shift to a Green future. Norway was a small country before oil and gas, now they've made the best use of it out of any country in the world. Shouldnt they keep their foot on the pedal a little longer? Making new battery technology isn't cheap.

If a house was on fire, what would you consider a win to put it out? Or would you do everything possible to put it out? As the climate continues to rapidly change, the tolerance for extraordinary measures would rise I would imagine (especially amongst youth cohorts who will inherit the cleanup over the next ~100 years). Shareholder value had a cost (industrialization in general [1]), and now it must be paid back. [1]…

"Shareholder value had a cost, and now it must be paid back"

The problem is, it is voluntarily.

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

#37

Post by yongjik »

brutusborn wrote: post #27
toomuchtodo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a house was on fire, what would you consider a win to put it out? Or would you do everything possible to put it out? As the climate continues to rapidly change, the tolerance for extraordinary measures would rise I would imagine (especially amongst youth cohorts who will inherit the cleanup over the next ~100 years). Shareholder value had a cost (industrialization in general [1]), and now it must be paid back. [1]…

Bad analogy. If your house is on fire, there is no opportunity cost to putting it out and there is no uncertainty. You have nothing to lose. If an asteroid was headed for earth you would be on the money, but climate change isn’t like that. It is a relatively gradual change with a lot of uncertainty about the final magnitudes of warming and the actual risk involved. Bad policy to reduce emissions have opportunity cost…

The way I understand it, the "uncertainty" about global warming as of 2024 is the same kind of uncertainty as whether an alcoholic with liver cancer can live three or six more months if he continues ignoring his doctor's advice.

I'm open to discussions about different approaches and their relative merits, but we're beyond the point where "we don't know how bad it will get" is a valid argument for anything.

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

#38

Post by [deleted] »

pretendgeneer wrote: post #23
Luc wrote: post #15

Isn't Greenpeace's ideology aligned with degrowth nowadays? I remember reading how they were against carbon capture (and, of course, geo-engineering).

Being against Carbon Capture and geo-engineering is just following the science. Carbon capture has constantly been shown to just not work at any scale. and geo-engineering causes so many extra problems and will absolutely lead to termination shock at some point.

[deleted]

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

#39

Post by dools »

legitster wrote: post #10

Are there now grounds to start shutting down existing oil fields? Something like 20% of the government budget comes from oil revenue, and the entire pension system (to my understanding) comes from oil funds.

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.

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

#40

Post by IshKebab »

Luc wrote: post #15

Isn't Greenpeace's ideology aligned with degrowth nowadays? I remember reading how they were against carbon capture (and, of course, geo-engineering).

I have no idea what Greenpeace's position on carbon capture is, but it's definitely isn't anti-growth to oppose carbon capture.

And when I say "carbon capture" I of course mean "pinning our hopes on carbon capture". If actual, working, viable carbon capture existed then nobody would be against doing it, but that's a pipe dream. It's always going to be more economic to not burn stuff than to burn it and then unburn it.

Kind of like carbon credits. If they were real they'd be a pretty decent idea, but they're basically full scam.

Post reply on HN