Hacker News Reader

Comment by csmac3144 | Hacker News Reader

Norway is one of the world's largest per capita producers of greenhouse gases. Norway adds 1.6 million barrels of oil per day to the world's market. Buying EVs might make people feel virtuous, but it makes no real difference compared to the enormous fossil fuel output.

View on HN

Since when do people count exports as emissions? No one is forcing countries to buy that oil and refusing to sell it is inconsequential.

Also their grid is 100% renewable and per capita they are around half of US emissions and on par with most of Europe.

It's not that much different than blaming the sellers of military equipment for the atrocities committed by that military equipment. If County A sells bombs to County B knowing that Country B will use them to commit genocide in Country C, County A can't be entirely off the hook for that genocide. Sure if Country A didn't sell then another country would, and sure no one forced Country B to buy those weapons, but Country A still knew what the outcome was going to be when they made the sale. And Country A decided that the money was worth the ethical consequences.

If you produce and sell oil, even if you don't use the oil yourself, you know full well what that oil will be used for.

Genocide?

If one single word from an overly-obvious analogy is your main take-away from what I wrote, I would encourage you to just move on. It's probably not worth your time.

I largely agree with you, but you have to consider the flip side: if Norway won't supply oil, countries won't just switch to green alternatives. They will be forced to go elsewhere because there just aren't any viable alternatives at the scale of global transportation. Whether they go to dirtier fuels, go to more dangerous regimes for their oil, or just straight up go to war, it's a big risk for the entire world. We've only recently found out from Kido Koichi's diary that oil was one of the primary reasons Japan began to encroach outward and the oil embargo was the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

I'll admit that argument doesn't sit right with me on a personal level, but on the scale of geopolitics the stakes are just that high. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, died last time the US cut off oil supplies to a major country.

But if Country A doesn't supply weapons to Country B, someone else will. Maybe someone who will sell them a nuke. Or chemical weapons. Or maybe Country B goes to their last resort and builds a dirty bomb to fight Country C instead of civilized bombs and tanks.

There's a game theory discussion to be had about negotiating with terrorists, but at the end of the day that oil is still getting burned and the damage is still being done.

Governments don't have an urgent pressing need to purchase the shiniest new weapons though, the comparison isn't valid. They do urgently need oil to stay in power, plenty have been thrown out over far less. If hypothetically the world's biggest oil exporters stopped overnight there'd be widespread geopolitical instability/war within a month after reserves are gone.

Purely regarding the market dynamics: one supplier exiting means immediately higher prices. Even if everyone finds an alternative from a vendor with less scruples, it will be more expensive and therefore incentivise investment in alternatives across the board.

Fair is fair: This argument works better for sane markets than for tortured oligopolies like oil. But, at its core, morally if nothing else, this is the principle. And this is why that “if I don’t do it someone else will” argument never is a strong one.

Norway can’t hide their oily fingerprints in green washed gloves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com