If they were hypocritical, they wouldn't even be researching, subsidising or adopting fossil-fuel replacements.
They know they are rich enough to subsidise greener technology, so they do that.
What would you prefer? Every other alternative would be worse.
If Norway stopped selling oil, the oil price would presumably rise or more gains would accrue to OPEC nations. And quite frankly, I'd rather Norway were to be getting the money than that money landing in the bank accounts of OPEC nations.
If Norway continued to sell oil and stopped campaigning or subsidising for fossil fuel replacements, well, that's just worse all round.
Right now, what Norway is doing, is the better than the alternatives, unless you think they should spend even more in research and subsidies for fossil fuel replacements.
The "Ethical Oil" and the "Someone Else Will Do It If We Don't" arguments combined! Norway is deeply hypocritical because it needs to balance between a highly eco-friendly chunk of its population and those that run the oil and gas ministries and industry. It also has a major geopolitical issue in that if it tried to stop oil and gas exports it would be rapidly "regime changed" given the threat to European economies (especially the gas exports), a situation even more central now with Europe cutting itself off from cheap Russian gas. Norway is in NATO, which means that EU/US troops have easy and ongoing access,
A nitpick of the lede: the first Opium war lead to the cessation of the Island of Hong Kong.
I'd say it's a bit hypocritical, but not necessarily virtue signalling. The Norwegians is selling a harmful product, no disputes there. But they *did* use the profits to demonstrate that it can be done to change their own society.
Virtue signalling would be the Norwegians sell the oil, say that oil's bad, but do nothing substantial, a bit like Canada (where I'm from).
I think I might tolerate the Norwegian hypocrasy better if they use the profits to help developing countries to grow their economy while minimizing their dependency on fossil fuels.
I had to make an account to comment on this one but it deserves not much more of my time, so this text wont hold up to the articles standards.
Would you call a weapons manufacturer hypcritical if they promote safe and responsible gun ownership to reduce unnecessary death?
This company does produce weapons that will get used in homocides, yes, but are they now obliged to fix that or stop the selling?
Of course you would deny all that.
This is why I call this article one sided garbage. Literally. Because the consumpion side is entirely missing. Instead it bridges to a lesson for climate change activists about economic growth.
Of course it is possible to use fossil fuels in a sustainable way but does norway have the means to enforce this? Even on the secondary market?
Is the weapons manufacturer in a similar position and responsible for misconduct?
You could only speek of hipocricy if there was a clear contradiction between the norwegian stance towards climate protection and norwegian actions. Simply associating the export of oil/gas with unresponsible usage is to simple and then concluding hipocracy off that is cheap.
In defense of the country of my grandparents: Norway has one of the best developed public transportation systems in the world. It is not unusual to see bus or train service even in some of the most remote parts of the country. Bike paths and walking paths are everywhere and are well used. They have abundant hydroelectric and wind power and do not burn coal or gas or oil to any extent to generate electricity. Their houses are well insulated and often use electricity for heating. And the article makes a false comparison. Opium is physically addictive where oil and gas consumption are not. Plus oil and gas are used to make plastics and other useful chemicals that would be hard to replace without generating even more CO2.
Oil and gas are pretty much addictive for economies. The infrastructure needed for them stays for decades and is very hard to replace. And what is even more addictive is the income that comes with producing it.
Norwegian hydro-electric plants produce electricity cheaply and abundantly. What are other countries--the flat ones--supposed to do? Windmills and solar panels cannot power industrial plants, and they also pollute and degrade environment. Oil and gas may not be fossil fuels.
"when they come to policies that need to be implemented, from taxes on airplane fuel, to taxes on gas (which provoked the Gilets Jaunes movement in France), they face popular resistance"
Would that still be true if the tax was paid as a dividend to the citizens?
No one will accept a decrease in their living standards willingly, no one ever votes to have their goodies taken away (except for some reason the welfare state in the west). Only disaster will result in a change of habits.
"The popular resistance is due to the unwillingness of almost anyone in the world to accept lower income."
Climate politics in one sentence. There is a clear - if unspoken - global consensus. People are not going to pay today to mitigate climate change tomorrow. Not a dollar.
Hypocritical is the word the whole world is based on. Norway is just an excellent example of that. Think bigger. The “conspiracy theories” are actually merely pale versions of the real conspiracies that are real.
I don't think it's hypocritical.
If they were hypocritical, they wouldn't even be researching, subsidising or adopting fossil-fuel replacements.
They know they are rich enough to subsidise greener technology, so they do that.
What would you prefer? Every other alternative would be worse.
If Norway stopped selling oil, the oil price would presumably rise or more gains would accrue to OPEC nations. And quite frankly, I'd rather Norway were to be getting the money than that money landing in the bank accounts of OPEC nations.
If Norway continued to sell oil and stopped campaigning or subsidising for fossil fuel replacements, well, that's just worse all round.
Right now, what Norway is doing, is the better than the alternatives, unless you think they should spend even more in research and subsidies for fossil fuel replacements.
Broadly agree
The "Ethical Oil" and the "Someone Else Will Do It If We Don't" arguments combined! Norway is deeply hypocritical because it needs to balance between a highly eco-friendly chunk of its population and those that run the oil and gas ministries and industry. It also has a major geopolitical issue in that if it tried to stop oil and gas exports it would be rapidly "regime changed" given the threat to European economies (especially the gas exports), a situation even more central now with Europe cutting itself off from cheap Russian gas. Norway is in NATO, which means that EU/US troops have easy and ongoing access,
Inspires plots for several TV dramas ...
But, if Norwegians decided to leave to escape the hypocrisy, where would they go?
Great insights with strong arguments.
A nitpick of the lede: the first Opium war lead to the cessation of the Island of Hong Kong.
I'd say it's a bit hypocritical, but not necessarily virtue signalling. The Norwegians is selling a harmful product, no disputes there. But they *did* use the profits to demonstrate that it can be done to change their own society.
Virtue signalling would be the Norwegians sell the oil, say that oil's bad, but do nothing substantial, a bit like Canada (where I'm from).
I think I might tolerate the Norwegian hypocrasy better if they use the profits to help developing countries to grow their economy while minimizing their dependency on fossil fuels.
There is an excellent Norwegian drama series that address this issue. It’s called Occupied and it’s on Netflix
I had to make an account to comment on this one but it deserves not much more of my time, so this text wont hold up to the articles standards.
Would you call a weapons manufacturer hypcritical if they promote safe and responsible gun ownership to reduce unnecessary death?
This company does produce weapons that will get used in homocides, yes, but are they now obliged to fix that or stop the selling?
Of course you would deny all that.
This is why I call this article one sided garbage. Literally. Because the consumpion side is entirely missing. Instead it bridges to a lesson for climate change activists about economic growth.
Of course it is possible to use fossil fuels in a sustainable way but does norway have the means to enforce this? Even on the secondary market?
Is the weapons manufacturer in a similar position and responsible for misconduct?
You could only speek of hipocricy if there was a clear contradiction between the norwegian stance towards climate protection and norwegian actions. Simply associating the export of oil/gas with unresponsible usage is to simple and then concluding hipocracy off that is cheap.
In defense of the country of my grandparents: Norway has one of the best developed public transportation systems in the world. It is not unusual to see bus or train service even in some of the most remote parts of the country. Bike paths and walking paths are everywhere and are well used. They have abundant hydroelectric and wind power and do not burn coal or gas or oil to any extent to generate electricity. Their houses are well insulated and often use electricity for heating. And the article makes a false comparison. Opium is physically addictive where oil and gas consumption are not. Plus oil and gas are used to make plastics and other useful chemicals that would be hard to replace without generating even more CO2.
Oil and gas are pretty much addictive for economies. The infrastructure needed for them stays for decades and is very hard to replace. And what is even more addictive is the income that comes with producing it.
I think the Norwegians are looking to the 22nd and 23rd centuries when the arctic ocean will be warm enough for cruise ships and tourism.
Norwegian hydro-electric plants produce electricity cheaply and abundantly. What are other countries--the flat ones--supposed to do? Windmills and solar panels cannot power industrial plants, and they also pollute and degrade environment. Oil and gas may not be fossil fuels.
"when they come to policies that need to be implemented, from taxes on airplane fuel, to taxes on gas (which provoked the Gilets Jaunes movement in France), they face popular resistance"
Would that still be true if the tax was paid as a dividend to the citizens?
No one will accept a decrease in their living standards willingly, no one ever votes to have their goodies taken away (except for some reason the welfare state in the west). Only disaster will result in a change of habits.
The point is its all about money. Nobody truthfully care.
《There was a lot that the company wanted to buy from China (porcelain, tea) but nothing to sell.》
Was Adam Smith thus wrong in his assumption that we all have a propensity to truck and barter?
Does that wrong assumption underlie the rest of your argument?
Why do you have to violently coerce so many of us into truck and barter?
"The popular resistance is due to the unwillingness of almost anyone in the world to accept lower income."
Climate politics in one sentence. There is a clear - if unspoken - global consensus. People are not going to pay today to mitigate climate change tomorrow. Not a dollar.
False dilemma, since we can print money faster than prices rise?
Hypocritical is the word the whole world is based on. Norway is just an excellent example of that. Think bigger. The “conspiracy theories” are actually merely pale versions of the real conspiracies that are real.
https://www.vox.com/22256192/norway-oil-gas-investments-fossil-fuel