Live data from Hacker News

Is Norway the New East India Company?

branko2f7.substack.com

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?

#81
post #70

The United States is the world's largest producer. Canada is about fourth. Norway is about 11th. The United Kingdom is about 17th. The "Western world" accounts for a bit over 25% of the world's total production. If they all banded together to stop domestic oil production, that could have a big impact. But maybe other countries would just increase production? And maybe higher prices would spur more exploration? I don'…

From a game theoretic perspective - fossil fuels will be depleted. Even if the US reduced its consumption to zero, other countries, as independent players that want to maximize their benefit will be glad to take over and enjoy the effects of reduced demand and price. This means that there are two ways to deal with it: 1. Force all countries to reduce use. To make this really worldwide, this can only worked by force,…

Please expand on #3, as I’m sure you’re aware that’s very much the opposite of what’s commonly said!

Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?

#82
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would food costs increase 10x? It’s not particularly hard to make ammonia fertilizer with renewables. Ammonia is made using hydrogen already (not fossil fuels directly, as is mistakenly believed by many), it’s just that usually that comes from natural gas. The price of ammonia might increase a bit in the near term as we make it with clean hydrogen, but it wouldn’t increase food prices 10x. Secondly, electric trac…

Who is going to make that Ammonia fertilizer without functional industry and oil ? You need oil to produce gaseous hydrogen for the process.

You absolutely don’t need oil to make that. In fact usually it’s made with natural gas. But it’s easy to make hydrogen using water and renewable electricity. That’s what fuels almost all hydrogen vehicles.

The university of Minnesota has had a pilot plant for wind to ammonia for over a decade now.

Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?

#83
post #45
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you cope with food prices rising 10x in cost ? And the famines ? And the breakdown of law and order accompanied with the failure of most industry and the military. ? Please propose a solution along with your oil-ban utopia.

What makes you think that a sub-25% reduction in oil production would raise food prices by 10x?

A sub-25 reduction over several decades might be doable. But we will need to invent brand-new industrial processes and change world-wide practices. Because modern Agricultural Industry is deeply tied to Oil today and that dependence is barely reducing.

Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?

#84
post #13

Norway is perhaps the best run petro state in the history of the world. To avoid Dutch Disease, whereby an economy becomes dependent on a particular commodity, Norway long ago decided to invest its considerable oil wealth in assets located outside of Norway, building a massive sovereign wealth fund that will provide income to Norwegians long after the oil is all gone. Compare this situation to Nigeria, whose similarl…

> Someone has to produce oil and gas. It might as well be... Drill baby drill

[deleted]

Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?

#85
post #44

If they want to make the biggest impact they should still sell the oil but invest in technology that might mitigate climate change. Playing defense when your overall impact on climate change is so small is a poor choice.

Norway is absolutely shifting away from fossil fuels themselves for domestic use. They're the world leader in electric cars, for example. The thrust of the article is that somehow they should change worldwide oil production (which they have little control over) rather than domestic oil use (which they are working on with relative success). Simply put, the writer is either completely mad or a cynical shill of some sor…

>They're the world leader in electric cars, for example.

There are about 5 million Norwegians, and 9 million people in New Jersey.

Would anyone care if 1/2 of New Jersey “was the world leader” in electric vehicles, or would you consider that some side effect of other variables?

“Smaller rich country has new vehicles that work well in short ranges” doesn’t really have the same ring to it.

Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?

#86

Is it just me or is whole "Is Norway the New East India Company?" a absurdly extrema leap of logic? I mean the East India Company caused (as far as I can tell) a extrema degree of damage of which the echos still noticeable affect all of us today and will so in the future, it might even have lead one of the foundation stones which might start WW3 (if a WW3 starts in the not to long future involving China as a major ag…

"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...

Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?

#87

Is it just me or is whole "Is Norway the New East India Company?" a absurdly extrema leap of logic? I mean the East India Company caused (as far as I can tell) a extrema degree of damage of which the echos still noticeable affect all of us today and will so in the future, it might even have lead one of the foundation stones which might start WW3 (if a WW3 starts in the not to long future involving China as a major ag…

The analogy is not perfect: it doesn't look like Norway is going to start a war to push its product. But I get the comparison: Norway looks pretty hypocritical here to me.

Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?

#88

Is it just me or is whole "Is Norway the New East India Company?" a absurdly extrema leap of logic? I mean the East India Company caused (as far as I can tell) a extrema degree of damage of which the echos still noticeable affect all of us today and will so in the future, it might even have lead one of the foundation stones which might start WW3 (if a WW3 starts in the not to long future involving China as a major ag…

> I mean the East India Company caused (as far as I can tell) a extrema degree of damage of which the echos still noticeable affect all of us today and will so in the future,

That's because you fail to mention the climate catastrophe which causes an extreme degree of damage[0] and will so in the future[1].

[0]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7eyn8/five-million-people-d...

[1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbwpdb/the-climate-change-pa...

Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?

#89
post #32

This seems like an exciting new phase of climate change denial. Mostly it's the same as one of the previous stages: "pretend dealing with climate change will cost everyone lots of money to put them off doing so" but I like the references to the East India Company. Very worldly and vaguely progressive sounding so ideal to disguise arguments that amount to "dealing with climate change is too expensive lets not bother".…

What can I read to understand how dealing with climate change won't be uncomfortably expensive?

What are you reading that suggests that ignoring climate change is going to cost less than dealing with it?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15453-z

> A strategy that informs on countries’ potential losses due to lack of climate action may facilitate global climate governance. Here, we quantify a distribution of mitigation effort whereby each country is economically better off than under current climate pledges. This effort-sharing optimizing approach applied to a 1.5 °C and 2 °C global warming threshold suggests self-preservation emissions trajectories to inform NDCs enhancement and long-term strategies. Results show that following the current emissions reduction efforts, the whole world would experience a washout of benefit, amounting to almost 126.68–616.12 trillion dollars until 2100 compared to 1.5 °C or well below 2 °C commensurate action. If countries are even unable to implement their current NDCs, the whole world would lose more benefit, almost 149.78–791.98 trillion dollars until 2100. On the contrary, all countries will be able to have a significant positive cumulative net income before 2100 if they follow the self-preservation strategy.

Re: Is Norway the New East India Company?

#90

The United States is the world's largest producer. Canada is about fourth. Norway is about 11th. The United Kingdom is about 17th. The "Western world" accounts for a bit over 25% of the world's total production. If they all banded together to stop domestic oil production, that could have a big impact. But maybe other countries would just increase production? And maybe higher prices would spur more exploration? I don'…

> And maybe higher prices would spur more exploration?

Absent a global ban of hydrocarbon production and use, which would need to be implemented by every country through universal local enforcement, our only chance to reduce global carbon production is by making hydrocarbons uneconomical to produce and uneconomical to use. You are right, unilaterally cutting production in one region would only move production to another region, and global consumers will always use the cheapest energy source that they can get access to. In less-developed countries, there will be little that governments can do to prevent their citizens from burning hydrocarbons if hydrocarbons remain the cheapest form of energy available.

The most effective policies will be those policies that individual countries can implement to impact the economics of hydrocarbon production and use within their borders, and globally. Carbon taxes, for example, that incentivize investment in renewable energy sources and storage and discourage the burning of hydrocarbons. Border taxes that impose penalties on imports from countries that rely too heavily on hydrocarbons in manufacturing or generally within their economies. Infrastructure investments in electricity transmission that link low-cost renewable electricity sources with large electricity markets. Heavy restrictions on the manufacturing and sale of internal combustion engines, and the banning of internal combustion engines in consumer vehicles. Research and development focused on new low-carbon technologies that compete favorably on cost with carbon-heavy production processes, and subsidies to encourage their wide adoption whey they reach near-parity in terms of cost. Foreign aid and technology transfer that work to establish low-cost low-carbon industries in less-developed countries, and which displace local high-carbon industries via price competition.

There are policies that will make hydrocarbons too expensive to use for most purposes. Many of these policies have been tried to some extent, but there has never been a committed and concerted effort to implement all of them. Political focus should be on implementing these kinds of policies, which will actually be effective, unlike the outright banning of hydrocarbon production.

Post reply on HN