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

51–60 of 191 posts

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

#51

Post by brutusborn »

was_a_dev wrote: post #49
newsclues wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It isn't if you aren't a scientist in that field. As you're not qualified to do otherwise. As a physicist in quantum sensing. I follow the science (opinion) of climate scientists as they're the experts of that field. And that opinion is constantly evolving, but I follow that. Anything else is just being an armchair scientist.

Surely a physicist is best placed to ‘Nullius in Verba’ and to do his own research. Climate models are fundamentally physical simulations after all…

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

#52

Post by Deprecate9151 »

legitster wrote: post #31
Deprecate9151 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 assessm…

It may functionally stop all new projects (although I doubt that it will get that far).

I don't see anything implying that existing projects approved under the old framework would need to be re-assessed and shutdown though. That was my main point.

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

#54

Post by brutusborn »

yongjik wrote: post #37
brutusborn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you don’t know how bad it will get, how can you balance the negatives of remediation?

For example, if the world was ending next year it might make sense to turn off all fossil fuels and eradicate most of the human population. But if it is only a few degrees per century we can consider… better options.

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

#55

Post by avgcorrection »

whatever1 wrote: post #45

Cool cool will the youth also return the money in their oil pension funds?

Step one of securing a “pension” is making sure that the world is livable half a century from now. On that account their priorities are correct.

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

#56

Post by burkaman »

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 anymore, just that when you're doing an environmental impact assessment of a new oil field (which is required in Norway) you obviously have to assess the impact of burning the oil. I don't think this is very controversial.

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

#57

Post by brutusborn »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #29
brutusborn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Fossil fuels will need to be left in the ground [1] [2], it's as simple as that. The value of those reserves and assets on books, if not naturally declining to zero, must be forced to zero. If nations or corporations act self interested and don't leave them in the ground [3], what do you expect to be done as the world burns? Nothing? That's not an option. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/climate-majority-of-fossil…

It’s definitely not that simple. Ask yourself: why did the international committee use 2C as a limit? Why not 3C or 4C?

I suspect is is because it is based on politics and not science but I’m open to being corrected.

Also ask yourself: if fossil fuels are used to produce medicine and fertiliser with zero emissions, why would we want to stop producing them?

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

#58

Post by barbazoo »

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.

https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/dynamic/ren...

The rich love using future carbon capture to justify present day inaction.

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

#59

Post by barbazoo »

brutusborn wrote: post #46
pretendgeneer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Carbon capture is being successfully used all around the world. It’s in its infancy, but so were solar panels decades ago, and we didn’t give up on them. We don’t have enough data on geoengineering to judge yet, there is no real science to follow. Also I don’t understand this attitude of rejecting potential solutions outright. Science doesn’t “prove” things, we can’t ‘follow’ it due to the problem of induction. So we…

Without a massive amount of renewable energy we won’t be able use CCS at scale.

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

#60

Post by toomuchtodo »

brutusborn wrote: post #57
toomuchtodo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fossil fuels will need to be left in the ground [1] [2], it's as simple as that. The value of those reserves and assets on books, if not naturally declining to zero, must be forced to zero. If nations or corporations act self interested and don't leave them in the ground [3], what do you expect to be done as the world burns? Nothing? That's not an option. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/climate-majority-of-fossil…

It’s definitely not that simple. Ask yourself: why did the international committee use 2C as a limit? Why not 3C or 4C? I suspect is is because it is based on politics and not science but I’m open to being corrected. Also ask yourself: if fossil fuels are used to produce medicine and fertiliser with zero emissions, why would we want to stop producing them?

I don't mean to be rude, in the slightest, but your suspicions are based on nothing but your own opinion (unless you're a climate scientist) and I'm going to defer to subject matter experts. I'm not a scientist, but I listen to them [1] [2] [3]. Your submission history indicates a hint of climate denier [4] and your comment here [5] about carbon capture being in use at scale and successful is an outright falsehood (direct air capture is very expensive and in its infancy, and the cost of sequestering is not included in the cost of fuel consumed), so here we are. I am doing my best to argue in good faith.

> Also ask yourself: if fossil fuels are used to produce medicine and fertiliser with zero emissions, why would we want to stop producing them?

When you can prove this can be done, certainly, I'll agree with you. But there must be evidence, and it must be provided. Hope and misdirection is not a strategy.

[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima... ("Do scientists agree on climate change? Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here [next citation].")

[2] https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[3] http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations... ("The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.")

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36307850

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39047555

Post reply on HN