Hacker News Reader

Comment by zidel | Hacker News Reader

The requirement is for the government to produce an impact statement (including carbon emissions in foreign countries and emissions from e.g. combustion) as part of the plan for development and operations that is presented to parliament for approval. This follows from the Supreme Court decision in 2020.

There is also a temporary injunction on further developments and decisions related to these three oil fields until the validity of the plan has been decided.

The District Court ruling was appealed by the government yesterday.

Edit:

Machine translated judgement: https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-sweden-stateless/2...

Court documents (mostly in Norwegian, some witness presentations in English): https://www.greenpeace.org/norway/dokumenter-fra-oslo-tingre...

View on HN

One of the richest countries is considering leaving oil, and by association, money in the ground.

If only they could make a deal with Canada to swap these oil fields for leaving tar sands in the ground, that would be even better.

Lots of countries are going to have to make this selfless decision if we're going to get a handle on climate change. I don't want to guess what the odds of that are.

Technology is probably still our best hope.

It's bullshit. Us(Norway) not pumping oil doesn't change anything. The problem isn't pumping, the problem is burning. We need to reduce the demand, not the supply. Reducing supply from Norway just causes other suppliers to scale up and the end result is exactly the same. Until they run out and we pump up this oil anyway because the world needs oil and nobody's addressing that part of the problem.

Yeah but pointless performative self sacrifice is kind of our thing.

Your argument doesn't make any sense. If they pump it out of the ground, someone WILL burn it. If they don't, it can't be burned.

Also: less oil -> higher price -> less burning

You don't understand my argument. If they don't pump it, someone else will pump more to compensate and we'll end up pumping it up later anyway.

I don't think there's going to be transport ships docked for lack of fuel just because Norway doesn't develop some oil fields. And I think once supply some day gets to a point where oil price skyrockets, we'll probably end up developing them then - they'll revisit the case and circumstances changed (or maybe just politicians changed) and they'll suck it up anyway.

Or maybe US/Russia/whoever will come liberate it. I mean I doubt that's happening any time soon but it's definitely a real possibility in a future scenario where resources are dwindling.

> If you don't pump it, we'll end up pumping it up later anyway.

Well just give up now then.

Let's assume we can have enough sense to decide not to pump it and leave it that way. Then it's a win.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com