[HN Gopher] Greenland suspends oil exploration because of climat...
___________________________________________________________________
Greenland suspends oil exploration because of climate change
Author : DocFeind
Score : 160 points
Date : 2021-07-16 18:28 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| chmaynard wrote:
| Obviously this decision is not guaranteed to remain in place
| forever. Nevertheless, it could be tremendously beneficial for
| future generations.
| [deleted]
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| I won't wade into the entire "suspend oil expoloration" issue but
| find it lacks a bit of credibility when a territory of 57,000
| people that receives an annual subsidy of $540 million promotes
| this under the guise of renewability and sustainability. The
| entire existance is essentially a non-renewable consumption.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| I don't think you understand how significant the move is _to
| them_ in sacrifice.
|
| The untapped reserves are likely worth factors of ten more than
| their yearly aid from Denmark. They could have used whatever
| they found to force the issue of independence they've insisted,
| year by year, they want from the Kingdom. Imagine using that
| wealth to build out a Norway-in-miniature.
| [deleted]
| bpodgursky wrote:
| There are ton of hypotheticals being thrown around here, but'll
| point out it's easy to suspend oil exploration when
|
| > No oil has been found yet around Greenland
|
| The people of Greenland would probably _not_ be so thrilled if
| there was a number on this like "$1mm per Greenlander is being
| turned down". But because there's no actual oil on the table yet,
| and no dollar signs on it, it's relatively easy to stick to
| principles.
| at-fates-hands wrote:
| >> it's relatively easy to stick to principles.
|
| right up until the they do discover oil and then the companies
| come in, cities are set up, massive amounts of people get
| employed, the money will flow and it will be Western North
| Dakota all over again.
| anonporridge wrote:
| This reminds me of a Norwegian series called Occupied.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied
|
| The premise is Norway suspends oil extraction completely,
| intensifying an energy crisis in Europe. In response, Russia
| invades and occupies Norway to force them to keep extracting oil,
| with the implicit support of the EU.
| dwiel wrote:
| Wouldn't Russia rather Norway stop pumping oil so the EU buys
| more energy from Russia? What is in it for Russia? I don't
| really know much about this, genuinely curious.
| gtt wrote:
| But there is plenty of oil in Russia! Why invade?
| skywal_l wrote:
| If I remember the plot correctly, the EU needed the oil. The
| russians just took advantage of the situation to move in.
| anonporridge wrote:
| There's plenty of oil in the US. Why invade Iraq?
| adventured wrote:
| > Why invade Iraq?
|
| For the same reason the US occupied Afghanistan for two
| decades, destroyed Syria and toppled Libya. An attempt to
| strip Russia's influence out of the Middle East and wider
| region as a continuation of the eternal great powers
| conflict. The US has been conflicting with China across
| Asia, battling over influence, for decades in a similar
| way.
|
| One of the highest ranking and most decorated generals in
| US history - four star general Wesley Clark - is on public
| record stating that this is the exact reason we did it, as
| told directly to him by his pals in the Pentagon as the
| plans were being put into action and before we wrecked
| Syria or Libya (both of which were on the list to come
| next).
|
| Now the US is leaving Afghanistan and guess who is stepping
| into the regional great power void: Russia. And there's
| George W Bush now saying we shouldn't leave Afghanistan, he
| doesn't want the US to cede regional influence to Russia.
| Globalist warmongers are gonna be globalist warmongers.
|
| Oil is a very distant consideration next to military
| dominion and regional influence/control. If the US wanted
| Iraqi oil, Saddam would have sold it to the US by the
| millions of barrels per day at any time the US wished it.
| Hell, Saddam would have sold it under the table at a steep
| discount. It was very obviously not about the oil. Oil is
| merely one of many strategic items on the board. Sometimes
| I think the warmongers in DC prefer the false "they did it
| for the oil" premise, it's preferable to the truth, that we
| smashed the US fiscally and got thousands of our soldiers
| killed, to spar with Russia over influence. But that's the
| same exact reason we invaded Vietnam, we weren't there for
| oil either, we were there for the influence/control over
| the region. We're also not all over Eastern Europe for the
| oil, either; again, it's the power conflict with Russia.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _guess who is stepping into the regional great power
| void: Russia_
|
| Russia is a spent force. It's population and military are
| aging, its resources are stretched; it's more a nuisance
| than a menace. (This is fine. Britain was, too, after
| WWII.)
|
| China is the real threat in the region, and it's likely
| moving into the vacuum. (For reasonable reasons. The
| Taliban can help secure their western border.)
| leereeves wrote:
| > Now the US is leaving Afghanistan and guess who is
| stepping into the regional great power void: Russia. And
| there's George W Bush now saying we shouldn't leave
| Afghanistan, he doesn't want the US to cede regional
| influence to Russia. Globalist warmongers are gonna be
| globalist warmongers.
|
| Don't we also have an obligation to support our allies? I
| don't think we should have become involved in Afghanistan
| in the first place, but after we've been there for nearly
| 20 years, encouraging the Afghans to fight against the
| Taliban, I'm not happy that we're leaving our allies to
| die. (Just as we did in Vietnam.)
| rtkwe wrote:
| I think the 'US did it for the oil' has always been just a
| pithy jab at the US more than the truth. Looking at what
| actually happened it looks like Ahmad Chalabi lied to
| enough people (even after being labelled as an unreliable
| source by the US intelligence agencies) to convince the US
| to get involved in his life long goal to get him and the
| Shiites back into power in Iraq after being forced out by
| Saddam's Baath party and the Shia faction it represented.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| Interesting, I didn't think the US trusted people like
| Chalabi to that degree. Since watching Game of Thrones
| it's looked to me like it was a personal feud between two
| oligarchical families that had a falling out.
| rtkwe wrote:
| He'd been working on it for decades in exile trying to
| convince the US to back rebellions in Iraq then trying to
| get the US to depose Saddam itself. Of course there's
| rarely a single reason anything involving a whole
| government decides to do something but I think it'd be
| ridiculous to not say Chalabi was one of the big factors
| leading to the US invasion of Iraq. Another potential is
| the fact that the Bush family might have felt like they
| had unfinished work there from the first invasion where
| the US stopped short of deposing Saddam over Kuwait.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Oil, family business, getting strategic military bases
| oriented towards Iran, China, and Russia, wanting to
| really break America of "Vietnam Syndrome". It's all
| there!
| pengaru wrote:
| All your competitors need oil to be competitive, control of
| such valuable resources otherwise up for grabs is of high
| strategic priority.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| For the sake of the plot. A lot of what happens in stories is
| basically unmotivated.
| munk-a wrote:
| What do you mean inspect possible futures through science
| fiction - none of that stuff is real! /s
|
| Stories, when well done, explore interesting concepts and
| can teach us about how some actions may turn out - yes a
| lot of writing is lazy and stupid these days, but it's
| hardly justified to write off all of fiction because of
| that.
| throwanem wrote:
| Read better written stories.
| tpmx wrote:
| In reality Norway is the Saudi Arabia of the north, but with
| fantastic PR. Really, the best PR that money can buy. Bill
| Gates/George W Bush level PR, but for a country.
|
| They're going all out on going green in every part of society..
| except for not stopping pumping oil from the sea bed and then
| selling it to people for the purpose of combusting it and
| releasing the co2 into the atmosphere.
|
| The sad thing is that it seems to work really well for them.
|
| Giant kudos to Greenland for resisting this way and showing the
| norwegians how to do this.
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| In a sense then, Norway is a microcosm of all human
| civilization. Since the early days of humanity we've burned
| trees, peat, whale oil, petroleum, whatever we could, side
| effects be damned. And for most of that time, there's been no
| sustainable plan to move away from such consumption. At least
| Norway is now using their oil wealth to try to plot an
| alternative course forward. We're not there yet, but at least
| they're not pumping oil today AND acting like pumping oil is
| the future as well.
| munk-a wrote:
| I disagree - it isn't just in recent times that dumping
| waste into waterways that people consume has been
| discouraged. For most of human history we've been ignorant
| on how we're hurting ourselves through pollution, but as
| we've learned how harmful pollution can be we've worked to
| minimize it. Dying and leather curing was, for a large part
| of history, about the most toxic thing you could do and so
| those facilities were usually forced away from the most
| dense population centers - and sewers have been a thing for
| a loooong time.
|
| I think the first time folks realized that sending smoke up
| into the air might actually be harmful is when London
| started having ash clouds from industrialization, but
| that's just one sort of pollution.
|
| Humanity actually has a pretty good record for cutting in
| and regulating things that they know are harmful.
| tpmx wrote:
| This is how good their PR is!
|
| Maybe kidding.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Norway is sort of like a drug pusher who is trying to wean
| themselves off of getting high on their own supply.
| tpmx wrote:
| Stretching that analogy quite a bit, I'd say Norway is more
| like a drug producing cartel that has gotten really rich
| from selling drugs to the rest of the world, but is now
| half-heartedly trying to stop because they've grown a
| conscience, but at the same time the hunger for money is so
| much stronger.
|
| So they're using their riches to at least make it appear
| that they're really good, conscious people.
| pengaru wrote:
| Using oil to fuel your pivot off oil, economically or
| directly for energy, strikes me as the most sensible use of
| oil for any nation.
|
| What's upsetting is how much of the oil burned so far, and
| continuing to be burned today, is completely frivolous and
| unnecessary. To still be carrying on this way when we still
| haven't pivoted from fossil fuels as a species, given clear
| evidence we're headed for global climate disaster, is
| completely asinine.
|
| We need something like a carbon tax something fierce, it
| needs to be cost prohibitive to fly across the country by jet
| for a weekend change of scenery and some instagram selfies.
| tpmx wrote:
| They have a giant oil fund ($1.3T) already, why not use
| that? Show some balls like Greenland just did.
|
| You are shifting the blame from the entitity who pumps to
| oil up from the sea bed to the entity which combusts it.
| Why?
| pengaru wrote:
| I have no problem with the entity combusting it if
| they're doing it to drive their nation's pivot off fossil
| fuels.
|
| Surely Norway sells its oil to nations manufacturing the
| very things Norway requires to build its green future.
|
| My problem is with frivolous waste of oil and the
| externalized costs of its use being placed on future
| generations enabling such waste.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| Possibly because an invasion of Norway with the tacit
| approval of the EU wouldn't be as much of a stretch as
| you imagine.
|
| The oil must flow. Look at Venezuela if you believe
| otherwise.
| tpmx wrote:
| This TV series was mostly bad, but sometimes exciting. I
| saw it all, unfortunately. Did you actually take the
| premise seriously?
|
| Norway getting invaded because they removed 2% of the
| global oil supply is not realistic.
| [deleted]
| danuker wrote:
| > is completely frivolous and unnecessary
|
| How so? Would people not stop polluting voluntarily if it's
| so frivolous?
|
| Instead, there are protests like these:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests
| [deleted]
| aaron_m04 wrote:
| That's what happens when policymakers don't consider the
| effect on people's livelihoods.
|
| The moral of the story: if you add a carbon tax, don't
| let it push large numbers of the population downward on
| Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Nobody who loses their job
| due to climate change policy will give a shit about the
| planet, unless/until they get another job.
| tda wrote:
| Buying plastic crap from amazon, commuting to office work
| every day, SUV's, eating too much meat, flying halfway
| accross the globe for a business meeting or vacation. It
| all still happens (though Corona proved how much if that
| was not needed) , and all is frivolous. And all will stop
| when the oil runs out, or would be greatly reduced if the
| oil price is set at say 10x the current level
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| Interestingly, not all denizens of the Arctic (or near-Arctic)
| feel the same way. I (accidentally, by acquisition) found myself
| working for the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, a company
| owned by the Inupiat people of the northernmost part of Alaska.
| They're the ones pushing to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife
| Refuge and nearby areas. They're the ones who pulled out of the
| Alaska Federation of Natives when the AFN declared a climate
| emergency.
|
| I ended up leaving the company, in no small part because I
| disagreed with their oil exploration policy, but it is
| interesting to see how some of the Alaska Natives, despite seeing
| their surroundings warming faster than the worldwide averages,
| despite (or maybe due to) infrastructure crumbling due to
| permafrost thawing, they're saying "yep, we need money, so we
| need to drill for more oil for the world to burn".
| trhway wrote:
| > seeing their surroundings warming faster than the worldwide
| averages, despite (or maybe due to) infrastructure crumbling
| due to permafrost thawing
|
| put yourself into their shoes - all that happens to them
| because somebody is making huge money while they aren't getting
| anything, and they can't stop it from happening. Given that, it
| hard to blame them for wanting at least some of those money.
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| I've thought about a it a lot. I definitely see some sense to
| ASRC's stance. Last I heard they're providing an ~$8k/year
| dividend to each of their shareholders (every Inupiat tribe
| member). That certainly does some good. They also give out
| scholarships and do other beneficial things.
|
| There'd be less money for all of that if the oil work
| stopped. I understand that that's problematic.
|
| On the other hand, I believe the government contracting side
| of ASRC's business has grown at a faster pace than the oil
| side. I'd sure prefer to see them make a stand and pivot into
| less damaging areas than oil exploration and extraction. But
| yeah, I do get why they do it.
| Gupie wrote:
| "Would you feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving
| forever? If I offered you PS20,000 for every dot that stopped -
| would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money?"
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Its not like being born native american makes you automatically
| forever eco-friendly living in sync with nature etc.
|
| Draw of money is strong one, and its also very easy to fool
| oneself into wanting more to do something for community now and
| let long term issues be solved later/by next generation.
|
| Or pure greed, politics, power etc. which is something all
| tribes and nations have in some way.
| reaperducer wrote:
| See also: The Navajo Nation, which laments environmental
| destruction and climate change on its reservations, but is
| buying up mines in Wyoming to export coal to China.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| I wonder when folks will switch to methane hydrates
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-16 23:01 UTC)