If we don't export petroleum products, someone else will. Much of the money we earn from petroleum is spent on making "the green shift" happen. Can other exporters say the same?
By all means make snarky remarks instead of actual arguments. I hope you're not from the US, or the hypocrisy would be tangible.
In any case, if we stopped exporting oil products now, the only real effect would be that supply goes down, driving prices up for Qatar, the US, Russia and other major exporters -- who each have significantly higher emissions (per capita) than Norway. Instead we are spending money on finding ways to decrease demand, to make the step away from petroleum globally. If you ask me, that's a far better, and more realistic, solution.
Wouldn’t make a difference. More non-Norwegian oil and gas would get shifted toward combustion from plastics.
I don’t think Europe is too big on plastics (or ammonia fertilizer) production because they really need the gas for local use and wouldn’t want to depend on Russian gas any more than they do.
The election was on Monday, the left side with Labor and the Center Party were the major winners. Which parties will form government remains to be seen.
Not sure where they got that climate/environment was a big issue for this campaign, because it hasn't really been. The most outspoken "green" party even got a fairly mediocre result and fell below the very important 4 % limit. This will probably be seen as a sign that the Norwegian people is in no hurry to completely stop our petroleum industry right away.
In any case, what we do here won't have any significant impact on global environment. However, if we lead the way then perhaps others will follow; the big question is what the most effective course of action to achieve that will be.
The most effective course of action would be to implement a law that for every kilogram of carbon imported or extracted from Norwegian ocean, one kg of carbon must be sequestered somewhere in Norway.
Soon there will be nowhere to sequester carbon, no new space to plant trees, and oil and gas extraction will cease.
Along the way, tremendous funds will be poured into carbon collection and sequesteration technology, and energy prices will rise, forcing investment into alternatives.
Norway is an interesting case because their own energy grid is mostly powered by renewables. However, they export huge amounts of fossil fuels to other countries:
> With their hydro-powered energy grid and electric cars, they are among the world’s most enthusiastic consumers of green power, but decades of exporting oil and gas means this nation of 5.3 million enjoys a generous welfare buffer, and sits on the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund.
It was easy for them to give up fossil fuels, but then they simply export those fossil fuels to other countries who will burn them anyway.
While local production is mostly renewable, Norway also, at least on paper, sells much of it. Some European countries (like Germany) have imposed renewable mandates higher than local supply can support, so renewable energy has become worth more than "dirty" energy. You can arbitrage this difference by selling your clean energy through the European Energy Certificate System, and Norway is a prolific seller on that market.
Whether this matters depends on what you're counting. The main problem is that if you count this Norwegian electricity that Germany buys towards Germany's renewable energy percentage, you shouldn't also count it towards Norway's or it gets double-counted. One approach is to just ignore the EECS as fiction and only count local generation, in which case Norway does look fairly clean (and Germany less clean than some numbers would suggest). A different approach is to consider stuff sold on the EECS as actually swapped for other energy (at least on paper) and compute a "residual mix" after the sales. In that way of accounting, Norway doesn't have a very green residual mix: https://medium.com/@skloesch/why-norwegian-and-icelandic-and...
GOs are marketing gimmicks, nothing more. Norway only exports the energy that it doesn't use domestically. Germany is still the one producing the dirty energy, and that's what really counts at the end of the day. --The absurdity of GOs are only highlighted by Iceland selling GOs even though Iceland is obviously not actually exporting the energy.
Others have commented that Norwegians aren't "getting high on their own supply", but it isn't admirable that they're exporting it to countries that use and abuse it while lecturing others on fossil fuels.
Not that Norway is alone in this hypocrisy. Other countries nearby such as Sweden for instance with its arms manufacturing industry (instead of oil) while being seen and promoting themselves as super liberal peace-mongers.
'"It is such a more nuanced issue involving other things like agriculture and transport.”'
Hah, that's good. It IS nuanced, or rather, not a simple matter, but it seems that unless you personally feel the threat of getting cut off from the gravy train, you are likely to toss around simplistic slogans which environmentalists and "green politicians" are notorious for. But it's likely that in the latter case, this is just pandering, like the whole "tax the rich" theater.
It will be very interesting to watch what Norway does, and telling. The proof will be in the pudding.
"It might affect our own climate budget, but it’s not going to make a difference globally,"
"an end to Norwegian production would have a net negative effect on global emissions. Demand would stay the same, and cleaner Norwegian production would be replaced by other countries with higher emissions"
While these things might well be true, there is a distinct and corrosive 'hypocrisy factor' in Norway shifting it's society to sustainable energy, all paid for by continuing fossil fuel exports to the rest of the world.
Norway could prove it's green leadership credentials, and send a very clear rallying message to the rest of the world, by starting to shut down this industry, perhaps redirecting it to deep geothermal, etc.
Which, if they did that starting today, would just mean that it'd be shifting its society to sustainable energy, all paid for by previously exporting fossil fuel to the rest of the world. Given that, and that Norway also has no other ready obvious alternative economic model to leverage to support its energy transition, this seems like an odd nit to pick and to further call "corrosive". On the contrary, this seems like exactly the sort of thing we should be wanting nation-states to fastidiously project and plan for and execute on.
There is another reason for Norway to dig up the fossil fuels that gets little discussion: Russia. The Norwegian army's most pertinent threat is Russian invasion for the fossil-fuel reserves.
It is interesting that some precious resources, such as fossil fuels, are also a great liability. In retrospect, I can think of quite a few nations that would have seen far less foreign interference and invasion had they had less fossil fuel reserves. A Canadian tribe also once famously tried to hide their precious metals from Europeans for fear of invasion.
There a Netflix show a while back about Russia invading Norway to control the oil reserves after Norway decided to go completely green, and stop exporting oil to EU partners.
The Norwegian armed forces' most pertinent threat is being invaded by Russia as part of a bigger east/west struggle. Russia invading for oil is unthinkable. If anything it would be a conflict over arctic drilling. Source: Am Norwegian officer.
However, it makes more sense for us to export our petroleum than to let supply decrease, driving up prices for the Russian exports.
Thank you very much for your input. I had a very interesting conversation a few years ago with a Norwegian conscript in Tromso who brought the Russian threat to my attention.
Norway is wealthy because of its strong institutions. Nigeria and Venezuela have more oil, Azerbaijan and Libya too, but for them it's a curse not a blessing. Norway has the rule of law, low corruption, people have confidence in their government, and the government looks out for the people. With or without oil, these things are tremendous assets. If oil were to become worthless tomorrow, Norway would continue to do quite well. After all, Denmark has only a tenth of Norway's oil reserves, and about the same population. That doesn't make them ten times poorer, in fact their GDP per capita is only 20% lower.
That's right, but here goes the question: colonialism provided a way to "export" safe, stable and reliable societies. And people rejected it. Was it a mistake?
I think most people would say colonialism did a poor job of explaining safety at least. Instead it was often powered by racism and subjugation. We do desperately need to find a way to help countries develop, but on the balance colonialism doesn’t seem to be it
In that the solution is to give them money? Because they doesn't seem to have worked so well either? Or do you mean that really foreign policy is just about keeping the dollar dominate
No that's interesting and seems possible. I'm not sure which way the causality works. I think I haven't really seen great examples of isolationism working for development, but maybe some combination of capital controls and confidence in the countries trajectory are helpful
That's another fun conversation of governance, rights and nation building.
Which, ironically has plagued South America for quite a while - The reason Colombia and Venezuela have similar flags is they had the same wars and fight for freedom. They freed themselves from Spain and then became the institutions we know today. Corrupt, semi corrupt nation states, not on a national level but influence can be bought.
Africa no idea, but that's the thing, was it fully rejection?
Not every country can be the United States in terms of fighting for freedom, gaining independence and being successful. You can still go into many parts of New England and see lots of British influence.
Also Florida, and see much Spanish influence.
It isn't as much as "export" but building, having a plan and the problem then (and possibly event today) is that the people who are successful, ethical, moral and such are living comfortable lives.
Prisoners were most of the people that were on the Spanish ships that sailed to Venezuela and Colombia and built much of that, alongside prisoners were political refugees such as Jewish people and people who were destitute. Religious political refugees too, bad enough stuff but not exactly criminal.
You can kinda align it today with the people who are ground on troops with USA in AFghanistan, where we exported our way of life for 20 years.
Overnight, erased. The people there didn't want it, we didn't leave anyone part of the military behind and whomever had some influence slid into power or fled for their life.
--
I don't even know where to begin w/ Africa, I'm not up to date on their History or such besides some/much used to belong to the French.
Colonization provides a "safe, stable and reliable society" only as much as prison provides a "safe, stable and reliable living". Your average colony is a stunted caricature of a country, with borders and an economy that only make sense in the context of servitude to a remote power.
The only consistently prosperous form of former-colony is the type where the colonizers just removed and replaced the native population entirely - an extension of their own society into newly-emptied land. USA, Canada, Australia, etc.
There is no prosperity for the locals under colonialism. It's either servitude or erasure. And you're surprised people rejected it? And you're questioning if it was a mistake to reject it?
No - Norway hasnt been treated like Nigeria, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Libya because Norway is a white western country. Thus, neither the US/UK/France nor others will topple democratic regimes in Norway to get at the resources.
Nigeria, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Libya on the other hand are "expendable" nations where western powers clear the slate and build as they like. Usually in the name of Democracy, but really in the name of money.
A perfect example is Iraq -- the US installed Saddam Hussein, then armed him, let me rule the country to despair, then the US spent two decades removing him and re-destroying the country. All the while, cheap to free oil was extracted from the nation for the benefit of western powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme
Nigeria, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Libya are corrupt because the US/UK/others install corrupt regimes and topple democratic ones.
Do you really argue that Muammar Gaddafi was democratically elected? He ruled as a dictator for 40 years until the Arab spring toppled his regime. He didn't come to power thanks to western influence, rather his coup was based on the anti west group.
The Jakarta Method came to Brazil to install a military dictatorship, then after that ended, didn’t they have good growth under Lula and more questionably under Dilma?
I'm not disputing that Western nations have meddled in these countries too much.
But it seems like you're completely absolving these countries and peoples of all responsibility for their country and themselves, that in and of itself seems like the Western elites' "these people can't help themselves" approach.
The reality is likely a mix somewhere between the two, variable for each country and circumstance.
Yes, It’s a mix of these people “not being able to help themselves” to fight off foreign government interference, and the foreign government interference. Similar to how people who get mugged are partly to blame for not being able to fight off the mugger.
It doesn’t matter how great a nation you have, if US comes along and decides to put in place a dictator to secure low oil prices.
If US invaded Norway tomorrow and put a corrupt religious fundamentalist in power, there is absolutely no way you could blame it on the country, the religion or the color of the skin of he people living there.
> Nigeria, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Libya are corrupt because the US/UK/others install corrupt regimes and topple democratic ones.
There's no clear explanation for why some countries are rich and prosperous and free while others are not. Anyone claiming to have such a theory is bloviating.
Futher, you assume that the default is democracy and prosperity and we must explain why some countries lack that. But that's not the default! The default is corruption, privation, and instability. Those were certainly the conditions preceeding colonialism. The real question is how to escape that, and we have no particularly good theories there either.
Finally, the idea that certain countries have no agency is insulting and unhelpful.
> A perfect example is Iraq -- the US installed Saddam Hussein, then armed him, let me rule the country to despair, then the US spent two decades removing him and re-destroying the country. All the while, cheap to free oil was extracted from the nation for the benefit of western powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme
As an Iraqi I am tired of people absolving us of agency as if the US just walks in and installs rulers left and right. There was no let there be Saddam, there were a lot of power grabs, internal struggle, and consolidation that happens before someone like Saddam becomes Saddam, and the most a western power can do is provide funds or international legitimacy
They’ve managed to maintain their wealth in social order largely because they’re neighbors of the British and friendly with them. And they’re part of NATO.
When Philips struck at Ekofisk some very smart people in the US/UK came to help them develop.
Norway was (by their own account) a country of scattered fishing villages.
> Norway was (by their own account) a country of scattered fishing villages.
By whose account, again? I grew up in Norway just before the oil boom started, and I never thought of the country that way. We had lumber, we had cheap hydroelectric power that we used to process aluminium and make fertiliser, and we were practically a global superpower in terms of ocean shipping. True, we weren’t rich in the way we are now, far from it – but weren’t that poor either.
A big part of our success as an oil producing nation is that we weren’t simply letting the (mostly) American oil producers just come in and do as they pleased; instead, we insisted on building our own expertise and running the business on our own terms. We hit many snags along the way, but it has paid off in the long run.
> Norway has the rule of law, low corruption, people have confidence in their government, and the government looks out for the people. With or without oil, these things are tremendous assets.
I think you missed that they have tons of hydro power available which is iirc cheaper or at least on par with burning fossil fuel, so they don't even need oil. Cheap power basically runs down their hills. (Similar to how in Iceland the hot water just spawns out of the ground. Yes I'm a little jealous.)
Here is a backstory of how Norway avoided the oil industry descent into corruption. They were lucky to hire an Iraqi with experience who built the healthy foundations.
Behind the paywall for me, but if it is about who I think it is, he was washing dishes at a restaurant until his real expertise was suddenly in demand.
I'm sorry, but I learned about this person in 1985 or thereabout, but in 1986 I changed to a university job that involved little contact with the oil industry. So many details are lost in time. But as I recall the story, he was a refugee, and his engineering credentials weren't really recognised at the time. Hence the dishwashing job. (Norway used to be much too skeptical about any education from other countries. That might still be the case.) If I remember correctly, he quickly rose to the top of the government agency overseeing oil exploration and production, once he got a foot in the door. It was a story to remember, even if all the details are gone thirty-five years later. And it makes you wonder, how much wasted talent is out there?
70 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] threadCan they give up exporting it too though? I doubt that will happen.
In any case, if we stopped exporting oil products now, the only real effect would be that supply goes down, driving prices up for Qatar, the US, Russia and other major exporters -- who each have significantly higher emissions (per capita) than Norway. Instead we are spending money on finding ways to decrease demand, to make the step away from petroleum globally. If you ask me, that's a far better, and more realistic, solution.
How much would Norway lose if they pivoted to exporting plastics instead of crude oil for burning?
I don’t think Europe is too big on plastics (or ammonia fertilizer) production because they really need the gas for local use and wouldn’t want to depend on Russian gas any more than they do.
Not sure where they got that climate/environment was a big issue for this campaign, because it hasn't really been. The most outspoken "green" party even got a fairly mediocre result and fell below the very important 4 % limit. This will probably be seen as a sign that the Norwegian people is in no hurry to completely stop our petroleum industry right away.
In any case, what we do here won't have any significant impact on global environment. However, if we lead the way then perhaps others will follow; the big question is what the most effective course of action to achieve that will be.
Soon there will be nowhere to sequester carbon, no new space to plant trees, and oil and gas extraction will cease.
Along the way, tremendous funds will be poured into carbon collection and sequesteration technology, and energy prices will rise, forcing investment into alternatives.
> With their hydro-powered energy grid and electric cars, they are among the world’s most enthusiastic consumers of green power, but decades of exporting oil and gas means this nation of 5.3 million enjoys a generous welfare buffer, and sits on the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund.
It was easy for them to give up fossil fuels, but then they simply export those fossil fuels to other countries who will burn them anyway.
Its “just say no” with cartel scale sales operations.
(Sacklarian? Desackler-capitalism?)
Whether this matters depends on what you're counting. The main problem is that if you count this Norwegian electricity that Germany buys towards Germany's renewable energy percentage, you shouldn't also count it towards Norway's or it gets double-counted. One approach is to just ignore the EECS as fiction and only count local generation, in which case Norway does look fairly clean (and Germany less clean than some numbers would suggest). A different approach is to consider stuff sold on the EECS as actually swapped for other energy (at least on paper) and compute a "residual mix" after the sales. In that way of accounting, Norway doesn't have a very green residual mix: https://medium.com/@skloesch/why-norwegian-and-icelandic-and...
Not that Norway is alone in this hypocrisy. Other countries nearby such as Sweden for instance with its arms manufacturing industry (instead of oil) while being seen and promoting themselves as super liberal peace-mongers.
Hah, that's good. It IS nuanced, or rather, not a simple matter, but it seems that unless you personally feel the threat of getting cut off from the gravy train, you are likely to toss around simplistic slogans which environmentalists and "green politicians" are notorious for. But it's likely that in the latter case, this is just pandering, like the whole "tax the rich" theater.
It will be very interesting to watch what Norway does, and telling. The proof will be in the pudding.
"an end to Norwegian production would have a net negative effect on global emissions. Demand would stay the same, and cleaner Norwegian production would be replaced by other countries with higher emissions"
While these things might well be true, there is a distinct and corrosive 'hypocrisy factor' in Norway shifting it's society to sustainable energy, all paid for by continuing fossil fuel exports to the rest of the world.
Norway could prove it's green leadership credentials, and send a very clear rallying message to the rest of the world, by starting to shut down this industry, perhaps redirecting it to deep geothermal, etc.
It is interesting that some precious resources, such as fossil fuels, are also a great liability. In retrospect, I can think of quite a few nations that would have seen far less foreign interference and invasion had they had less fossil fuel reserves. A Canadian tribe also once famously tried to hide their precious metals from Europeans for fear of invasion.
However, it makes more sense for us to export our petroleum than to let supply decrease, driving up prices for the Russian exports.
What they see is the old system of explore and exploit.
Hold our currencies.
And this rational fear is becuase our currencies continue to devalue.
You did ask.
Which, ironically has plagued South America for quite a while - The reason Colombia and Venezuela have similar flags is they had the same wars and fight for freedom. They freed themselves from Spain and then became the institutions we know today. Corrupt, semi corrupt nation states, not on a national level but influence can be bought.
Africa no idea, but that's the thing, was it fully rejection?
Not every country can be the United States in terms of fighting for freedom, gaining independence and being successful. You can still go into many parts of New England and see lots of British influence.
Also Florida, and see much Spanish influence.
It isn't as much as "export" but building, having a plan and the problem then (and possibly event today) is that the people who are successful, ethical, moral and such are living comfortable lives.
Prisoners were most of the people that were on the Spanish ships that sailed to Venezuela and Colombia and built much of that, alongside prisoners were political refugees such as Jewish people and people who were destitute. Religious political refugees too, bad enough stuff but not exactly criminal.
You can kinda align it today with the people who are ground on troops with USA in AFghanistan, where we exported our way of life for 20 years.
Overnight, erased. The people there didn't want it, we didn't leave anyone part of the military behind and whomever had some influence slid into power or fled for their life.
--
I don't even know where to begin w/ Africa, I'm not up to date on their History or such besides some/much used to belong to the French.
The only consistently prosperous form of former-colony is the type where the colonizers just removed and replaced the native population entirely - an extension of their own society into newly-emptied land. USA, Canada, Australia, etc.
There is no prosperity for the locals under colonialism. It's either servitude or erasure. And you're surprised people rejected it? And you're questioning if it was a mistake to reject it?
I had to read this a few times to be sure this really was the point you were trying to make.
One of many examples on how this is absolutely abhorrently untrue:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free...
Nigeria, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Libya on the other hand are "expendable" nations where western powers clear the slate and build as they like. Usually in the name of Democracy, but really in the name of money.
A perfect example is Iraq -- the US installed Saddam Hussein, then armed him, let me rule the country to despair, then the US spent two decades removing him and re-destroying the country. All the while, cheap to free oil was extracted from the nation for the benefit of western powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme
Nigeria, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Libya are corrupt because the US/UK/others install corrupt regimes and topple democratic ones.
But it seems like you're completely absolving these countries and peoples of all responsibility for their country and themselves, that in and of itself seems like the Western elites' "these people can't help themselves" approach.
The reality is likely a mix somewhere between the two, variable for each country and circumstance.
It doesn’t matter how great a nation you have, if US comes along and decides to put in place a dictator to secure low oil prices.
If US invaded Norway tomorrow and put a corrupt religious fundamentalist in power, there is absolutely no way you could blame it on the country, the religion or the color of the skin of he people living there.
There's no clear explanation for why some countries are rich and prosperous and free while others are not. Anyone claiming to have such a theory is bloviating.
Futher, you assume that the default is democracy and prosperity and we must explain why some countries lack that. But that's not the default! The default is corruption, privation, and instability. Those were certainly the conditions preceeding colonialism. The real question is how to escape that, and we have no particularly good theories there either.
Finally, the idea that certain countries have no agency is insulting and unhelpful.
As an Iraqi I am tired of people absolving us of agency as if the US just walks in and installs rulers left and right. There was no let there be Saddam, there were a lot of power grabs, internal struggle, and consolidation that happens before someone like Saddam becomes Saddam, and the most a western power can do is provide funds or international legitimacy
When Philips struck at Ekofisk some very smart people in the US/UK came to help them develop.
Norway was (by their own account) a country of scattered fishing villages.
By whose account, again? I grew up in Norway just before the oil boom started, and I never thought of the country that way. We had lumber, we had cheap hydroelectric power that we used to process aluminium and make fertiliser, and we were practically a global superpower in terms of ocean shipping. True, we weren’t rich in the way we are now, far from it – but weren’t that poor either.
A big part of our success as an oil producing nation is that we weren’t simply letting the (mostly) American oil producers just come in and do as they pleased; instead, we insisted on building our own expertise and running the business on our own terms. We hit many snags along the way, but it has paid off in the long run.
I think you missed that they have tons of hydro power available which is iirc cheaper or at least on par with burning fossil fuel, so they don't even need oil. Cheap power basically runs down their hills. (Similar to how in Iceland the hot water just spawns out of the ground. Yes I'm a little jealous.)
Only the best prepared attackers can wrestle control of those oilfields from the government and their delegates.
Whereas if oil is over land, all it takes is a few determined people to shut down production for weeks.
https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...
Is a lot being sold at a steep discount to particular industries? Or is there a huge dependence on resistive heating or?
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC
https://www.nationmaster.com/nmx/ranking/aluminum-production