20% of Norway's GDP comes from pumping oil out of the ground and selling it for others to burn. If they were really green that would stop.
To be precise, it's 14%, down from 26% in 2008.[0]
[0] https://e24.no/norsk-oekonomi/i/dOXzd1/norge-er-mindre-oljea...
Be like Norway and use the time you have left selling a natural resource wisely, because bans and cross border tariffs are coming, and you’ll be left with what you could build during your transition when the revenue dries up. Hopefully as a country, you don’t end up empty handed.
(Norway also supplies the UK with a large amount of clean hydro power, roughly 690MW continuous, through a newly commissioned underwater HVDC transmission line, so it’s not all dirty fossil exports)
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a37872650/formula-1-auto-r...
Of course it's nice that they subsidize R&D for synfuels (we might need them for niche applications after all), but selling them as "carbon neutral" is just greenwashing.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/09/porsches-new-synthetic-...
https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/news/magazine/2021/...
By this definition, no source is clean, because there are always "better uses" for energy.
Hypocritical facile criticism is hypocritically facile.
What's notable about Norway is that back in 1968, as the country was first becoming aware of its oil wealth through the newly-realised North Sea deposits (shared with the UK), the country had the foresight to tap the advice of an Iraqi ex-pat who advised the country to invest its oil funds for national growth, infrasturcture, and sustainability, and not squander it in corruption and gratuitous expenditures as so many other countries had and would.
That story is now in the HN queue:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2878010
The consequence is that we can now face the ironic but heartening fact that, yes, an oil-producing and exporting country is now positioned as amongst the more prepared for a post-fossil-fuel economy and civilisation.
If you find yourself in a lifeboat with limited supplies and rations, it's not unwise to make use of those rations. It is unwise to squander those rations for purposes other than reaching safety. And it's extraordinarily unwise to criticise those who are using those rations to achieve a safer state.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28780108
The final "8" got truncated above, leading to a random 10 year old comment...
We also need oil for road building. I don't see that changing anytime either. After all, asphalt production produces far fewer greenhouse gasses than cement. Concrete roads have their place but the vast majority of road miles will be made with asphalt for the near future.
90% of everything in your direct line of sight probably contain petrol derivatives. From wall paint to shampoo, your t-shirt, phone, chewing gums, toothpaste, rugs, shoes... We just can't sustain our modern lifestyle without it
Maybe I'm being reductive, but isn't this essentially because we haven't electrified mine carts et al yet? Or are you referring to steel smelting?
And wood energy was used to jumpstart the fossil fuel energy age. There was a transition period before fossil fuel energy became the dominant way to extract more fossil fuels. Now wood for energy is economically negligible in advanced economies.
They got a "live" counter here[1], so yeah around 1.3 trillion USD give or take. Estimates for corona spending is around 80 billion USD[2].
[2]: https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/regjeringen-advarer-oljefo...
Human capital is far more valuable, but most of the industrial knowledge of Norway is in energy production.
Many large oil exporting countries know the good times won't last, and are planning for it.
That's not much - $25K per person over 10 years, and with an average income of $70K per person, and something like half of their economy is energy (most if not all social programs are funded from energy production).
If oil were to stop tomorrow, they'd have around 10 years before the money runs out. (Maybe a bit longer since kids don't earn money.) And if they have to replace all the social funding, they'd have even less time.
Norway is relying on slow reduction in demand, and time to transition their economy. Will they have it? It's far from certain. I feel like Norwegians rely too much on this fund to save themselves, rather than transitioning away from oil now.
However, I find it a bit disingenuous to chide Norway which is doing far better than much larger countries like the UK, US or Germany in transitioning to renewables.
I am not worried for Norway (though when the North Atlantic jetbtream shifts they will likely suffer) - I'm far more worried for the poor and marginalized peoples - they will suffer far more.
It's no surprise that thought leaders are worried about climate change impacts. Some will perversely benefit (politicians who are anti-immigration will gain populartiy because climate migrations are clearly defined by US defense dept as a likely result from climate change). Others may benefit by providing mitigating solutions to climate change itself that alter economies.
Additionally social funding in Norway comes from oil - without that funding taxes would have to go up a lot.
You really think that's enough to replace the oil sector?
Anyway, they are still extracting oil and probably will continue to do so for a couple decades. That gives them time to grow their wealth fund and gradually transition their economy. They are at a huge advantage compared to other oil exporters.
That's basically a text book example of the "strategy tax", which isn't about stopping profit from existing products, but to let new concepts cannibalise legacy products.
In which way do you see Norway hitting the brakes on new technology and future trends to protect the oil business ?
Of course second order effects might dwarf that, like the fact that increasing prices would incentivize oil extraction in currently unprofitable locations. That extraction may or may not be more carbon-intensive than Norway's (though probably more if it's currently unprofitable).
It sounds punchy to say "Norway should stop extracting oil" as much as it does to say "It doesn't matter whether they do or not since someone else will", but the reality is much more complex than either of those simplistic zeroth-order approximations.
The only real change from such a policy is how quickly wells will run dry, but I hope we can abandon oil long before running out is a serious concern.
Sure, other wells will produce more. But at a higher price. Higher prices encourage use of greener alternatives.
It bootstraps companies like Tesla, and VW's electric cars. That will lead to more CO2 reductions happening sooner.
The alternative would be "dogfooding", eat what you make.