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

61–70 of 191 posts

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

#61

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

legitster wrote: post #47
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.

> geo-engineering causes so many extra problems and will absolutely lead to termination shock at some point. This doesn't sound like a terribly scientific assessment. Climate change is either an environmental disaster and geoengineering would be a huge risk - or climate change is an existential threat to humanity in which case we have nothing to lose. Which is it?

>existential threat to humanity in which case we have nothing to lose

Being under threat doesn't justify making things worst. I know I'll die some day but that's not a reason to be suicidal.

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

#62

Post by brutusborn »

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.

GDP is just a measure, and it doesn’t include externalities. Any state or person is free to make up their own metric that includes it. Call it GDP_E and put it in every government report!

Saying it should include externalities is like saying that the scales at the butchers should include nutrition information with weight: that would be cool but that’s not what scales/weight measures are for.

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

#63

Post by legitster »

Deprecate9151 wrote: post #52
legitster wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If there is legal precedent that carbon emissions from sovereign oil sources potentially violate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, there's no reason to believe there would not immediately be new cases opened up against existing projects on the same grounds.

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

#65

Post by brutusborn »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #61
legitster wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> geo-engineering causes so many extra problems and will absolutely lead to termination shock at some point. This doesn't sound like a terribly scientific assessment. Climate change is either an environmental disaster and geoengineering would be a huge risk - or climate change is an existential threat to humanity in which case we have nothing to lose. Which is it?

>existential threat to humanity in which case we have nothing to lose Being under threat doesn't justify making things worst. I know I'll die some day but that's not a reason to be suicidal.

Existential threat means things can’t get worse (you just stop existing).

Ignoring the potential of geoengineering implies you are sure that we have a better solution which will work. I hope we don’t have to use geoengineering but I am certain the status quo of hoping renewables and batteries in the 1st world will save us is not going to work.

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

#66

Post by jahnu »

hutzlibu wrote: post #48
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.

"China is the world's leader in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over triple the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China There are many things you can say about china, but they do take climate change serious (maybe…

Indeed!

“ The International Energy Agency estimates that China more than doubled its solar generation capacity and added two-thirds to its wind generation capacity in 2023.”

https://archive.is/b0qif

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

#67

Post by brutusborn »

barbazoo wrote: post #59
brutusborn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not? If we burn gas using CCS and develop a lot of nuclear, we wouldn’t even need renewable energy. I’m not saying it’s bad, just that it’s not essential (and may actually be a distraction in e.g. Germany where it has displaced nuclear development and resulted in coal plants being reopened).

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

#69

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#70

Post by Barrin92 »

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).

>Isn't Greenpeace's ideology

The only thing that's ideological is advocating for a technology that uses virtually as much energy to put carbon back into the ground than the carbon yielded in the first place, when the alternative is to simply not take it out of the ground to begin with.

Carbon capture is like trying to cool your room by leaving the fridge door open or running on the treadmill while eating fast food. Trying to delegitimize efforts just by labelling them 'degrowth' as if that is an actual argument, needs to stop. It's the pro-growth cult that causes us to constantly have to invent solutions for problems that we could avoid in the first place.

Post reply on HN