Hacker News Reader

Their resource company is effectively the government and reducing their climate impact is basically impossible without killing their economy. I think we'd rather not be in that position.

View on HN

Because it's somehow easier to kill the private companies instead of public ones? Show us.

> In 2019, fossil fuels contributed 48 percent of Norway’s export revenues of around $53 billion. And that number is much, much larger today, thanks to ballooning demand for natural gas in the wake of the Ukraine war.

How do you propose they kill the public company exactly? At least in Australia, govt. revenue is barely reliant on fossil fuels.

Norway is more reliant on oil/gas money than almost every country on Earth. e.g. to its small population it produces significantly more oil per capita than Saudi Arabia. So yeah for instance it is/was way easier for Britain to kill its privatized oil industry.

Neither Norway nor Saudi Arabia will ever voluntarily kill its oil industry. That will only happen when other countries stop buying.

However, Saudi Arabia needs higher prices than Norway to balance the budget, so Saudi Arabia will likely cut first.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com