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

71–80 of 191 posts

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

#71

Post by roenxi »

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.

If we're going to include negative externalities then someone has to figure out all the positive ones too. The economic upside of cheap energy isn't being accounted for in the price either, because low prices tautologically can't capture high value per unit and flows on to people further down the value chain.

The challenge of doing so is insurmountable, that way is the madness of centralised planning.

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

#72

Post by downWidOutaFite »

burkaman wrote: post #56

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…

Natur og Ungdom is a youth group so I don't know why you say youth aren't involved.

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

#73

Post by brutusborn »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #60
brutusborn wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (d…

I work with a few climate scientists so my opinions aren’t my own. I referenced 2 researchers above, what is wrong with their opinions?

[4] isn’t climate denial, it was an attempt to get some criticism of an interesting heterodox theory, and I found it! [5] CCS is being used at large scale on many projects. Maybe we have different definitions of “at scale” and “successful”

I don’t need to prove it can be done: we already produce these with emissions and we already have CCS to avoid these emissions, there is nothing technological stopping this except economics.

The consensus is that climate change is real and I agree wholeheartedly. What I disagree with is exaggerations of the negative outcomes and rejections of technological solutions based on politics rather than science. In this aspect you will find many conflicting opinions.

Also please answer my question about 2C. Asking this is what led me to realising how much of climate policy is based on convenient politics and not science.

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

#74

Post by elil17 »

xenospn wrote: post #5
Gys wrote: post #3

> rendering the approvals of three oil and gas fields in the North Sea invalid

Norwegian GDP just took a hit

A country like Norway, with one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world (significantly higher than even America's), is exactly the country that should be thinking about the environment before they think about economic development.

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

#75

Post by Deprecate9151 »

legitster wrote: post #63
Deprecate9151 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They could open the cases, but this decision hinged on the permitting process not following the law that it needed to consider emissions, which the Rights of the Chile was a component of.

It is not a given the reasoning used in this decision could be used for oil and gas projects that followed a proper permit process at the time they were granted. There is more reason to believe this case would NOT apply in that situation.

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

#76

Post by toomuchtodo »

brutusborn wrote: post #73
toomuchtodo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (d…

I work with a few climate scientists so my opinions aren’t my own. I referenced 2 researchers above, what is wrong with their opinions? [4] isn’t climate denial, it was an attempt to get some criticism of an interesting heterodox theory, and I found it! [5] CCS is being used at large scale on many projects. Maybe we have different definitions of “at scale” and “successful” I don’t need to prove it can be done: we alr…

> Also please answer my question about 2C. Asking this is what led me to realising how much of climate policy is based on convenient politics and not science.

https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/whats-difference-betwee... ("Explainer: What's the difference between 1.5°C and 2°C of global warming?")

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-g... ("A Degree of Concern: Why Global Temperatures Matter")

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/1-5-or-2-degrees-... ("1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius of additional global warming: Does it make a difference?")

You keep saying climate policy is based on politics, but you are not providing any evidence of that. Please provide evidence of your assertion this is political. You argue that "there is nothing technological stopping this except economics"; that means it isn't feasible unless proven the economics will improve. A proof of concept does not guarantee scale.

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

#77

Post by mthoms »

HPsquared wrote: post #28
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.

And what about the sovereign wealth fund? That money came from historical fossil fuel extraction, after all.

What about it?

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

#78

Post by downWidOutaFite »

brutusborn wrote: post #51
was_a_dev wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Everything is fundamentally physics.

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

#79

Post by IlliOnato »

brutusborn wrote: post #65
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Threat is not certainty. If somebody is out there to kill you, you are under an existential threat, until they are caught. It's not a reason to start playing Russian roulette, saying "I'm already in danger, cannot get worse than that!"
Post reply on HN