[burkaman]

Title is a little misleading (for me at least), this is not one of the many cases where a group of young people sued their government for a broad violation of their rights. This is a more narrow case where the plaintiffs said the government is supposed to consider emissions impact when approving oil and gas projects, and did not. There aren't really any youth directly involved.

The court didn't say Norway can't drill anymore, just that when you're doing an environmental impact assessment of a new oil field (which is required in Norway) you obviously have to assess the impact of burning the oil. I don't think this is very controversial.

[downWidOutaFite]

Natur og Ungdom is a youth group so I don't know why you say youth aren't involved.

[burkaman]

Yes sorry you're right, I don't know what I was looking at. Members of that group are 13-25.

[bertil]

> new oil field

I was surprised because I assumed Norway wouldn’t open new oil fields. I’d say it’s “interesting,” but what I actually mean isn’t publishable.

[belval]

Hot take, but I feel like Norway gets greenwashed a lot as better than everywhere else, when they are basically a northern Saudi Arabia in terms of exports with over 70% of their exports being oil and gas.

[stubish]

Greenwashed a lot better? A lot better than whom? Which countries are more deserving of Norway's perceived status as one of the greenest nations?

[graemep]

Anywhere that does not export huge amounts of oil and gas.

[burkaman]

Really depends on what you mean by green, but here's one methodology: https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epi

[stubish]

So 20th, not bad but not the best. Some surprising countries before it, such as Australia. And UK number 2. This does seem to back up the OP.

[Invictus0]

Norway is a beautiful modern liberal democracy, Saudi Arabia is a theocratic desert dictatorship hellhole.

[seb1204]

Having been to both countries I fully agree. However the GP had a point in that the public image of Norway is hydro power and 90% EVs nowadays. The fact that they are a major oil and gas exporter is not as widespread.

[tordrt]

Is it more immoral to export oil and gas than to actually burn it? Norway is hydro power and a lot of EVs.

[defrost]

The age old question of the ethical heroin dealer.

Does not selling to the local school while riding an electric scooter make it alright?

[gettodachoppa]

Smug westerners love to say that stuff, and yet people in Saudi Arabia are much happier than Norwegians. The rate of suicide is double in Norway what it is in Saudi Arabia. I guess there's more to a country and people's worth than their willingness to fly LGBT flags?

[brohee]

Saudi Arabia age distribution got absolutely nothing to do with it obviously. Nor does the taboo on suicide can possibly lead to suicide being reported as accidents...

[tordrt]

Why wouldnt Norway open new oil fields?

[sershe]

"you obviously have to assess the impact of burning the oil."

It's not at all obvious.

1) If we assess all the indirect negative impacts that happen in remote places, nothing will ever be done. Should a factory making phones assess the DALY lost by drivers who get into accidents because of distracted driving?

2) Also, if we are going to assess hypothetical impacts of burning oil, why not assess the positive impacts? This oil could be used to build wind turbines, or to deliver food to a famine-impacted areas, or to raise living standards in the developing world. Generally oil is energy and energy is a precursor to GDP and high living standards.

The end result on not developing European (or US) energy reserves is that Europe is going to buy energy from dictators all over the world. Frankly it's one of these cases where I switch to my cynical mode "I hope there's enough civilization left for my lifetime, cause if you are THAT dumb, you deserve to be defeated."

[M95D]

1) If we assess all the indirect negative impacts that happen in remote places, nothing will ever be done. Should a factory making phones assess the DALY lost by drivers who get into accidents because of distracted driving?

IMO they really should!

2) Also, if we are going to assess hypothetical impacts of burning oil, why not assess the positive impacts? This oil could be used to build wind turbines, or to deliver food to a famine-impacted areas, or to raise living standards in the developing world. Generally oil is energy and energy is a precursor to GDP and high living standards.

And that's what a comprehensive assessment will include. Both positive and negative arguments. But you can't cherry-pick the ones you like. That would invalidate the results.

[sershe]

"And that's what a comprehensive assessment will include"

Do you have evidence of this? A typical assessment of impacts, especially any environmental assessment I have ever heard of, only focuses on the negatives.

[M95D]

> only focuses on the negatives

You are probably right.

[burkaman]

Why do you think nothing will be done? You aren't required to stop a project just because you've identified a single negative impact. If you can't trust your government to make good decisions even when presented with all the information, then you need a new government.

To answer your questions, yes anybody involved with making phones should be fully aware of their negative effects, and yes an environmental impact assessment should assess all environmental impacts, including positive ones.