Climate summit Glasgow: Don’t be fooled by my country’s green image. What’s the biggest climate issue in your country?
Climate summit Glasgow: Don’t be fooled by my country’s green image. What’s the biggest climate issue in your country?
42 comments
I don’t know why Norway gives the notion of being a better country? They’re not, Even Commercial Whale hunting it’s legal in Norway! (They’re good at BSing I guess)
That our heating companies sell solar…. heating panels that heat up the water inside your boiler to provide for warm water depending on sun intensity. We have so little sun efficiency, this system doesn’t work at all.
​
It is state funded, and often mistaken by homeowners because it says “solar system”. That its a crude “sun heating system”, they dont know un til its too late.
I think our biggest hurdle to making our country more sustainable is corporate influence. It’s absolutely everywhere. Even in the plans that do greenify the economy.
The government is in the process of subsidising hydrogen production. Which you would think is a good thing. Only they plan to do it in such a way it’ll pretty much give Shell of all companies a monopoly without any control over the way they’ll handle it. Things like that make me hate being Dutch sometimes.
Romania: almost all investment is done on car-centric infrastructure.
There is no major investment in railroads, as trains are seen as being for poor people who can’t afford a car.
Please make nuclear energy clean energy, I am getting rid of those countries shutting down nuclear plants for russian gas powered plants instead. Stop this fucking hypocrisy
I fundamentally don’t see what reducing production has to do with anything. Oil in particular is used for more than energy production. I can’t comment on the last three points (though they’re more vague than anything anyways since what “insufficient” or “unlikely” actually mean in real terms heavily depends on the beholder) but the first two points are just dumb honestly.
Yeah something something Norwegian climate goals.
BUT LOOK AT THE DINOSAUR OIL PLATFORMS!!
We just buy “green certificate” to “compensate” our own emissions and polutions.
And let’s not talk about some of the other pollutant spread around in the ground and water.
Biggest climate issue in Poland? Dat black, black coal…..which we apparently import from Australia and perhaps Russia if I recall correctly.
Norway needs to continue digging oil tho. It guarantees that we are not *totally* fucked when middle east, Russia cuts our oil and we don’t *have to* go to another war for oil on US side.
German here. Where do I start?
* We basically drove our solar industry into the ground (which was once a global leader).
* Wave declared vast swathes of land unsuitable for building wind turbines because tHeY aRe UgLy aNd DeSTrOy tHe LAnDScaPe.
* We like being afraid of things we don’t understand, hence we hastily backed out of nuclear power in the fallout (pun intended :P) of the Fukushima catastrophe. Now we’re importing nuclear power from potentially less safe sources. What a win.
* We’ve become somewhat famous for eliminating entire villages to create new open-face brown coal mines because why the fuck would this be your preferred option of energy creation in 2021?
* ~~And of course we’re also relying more on fossil fuels power than we have in a long time because of the aforementioned shutdown of most nuclear power plants.~~
Edit: redacting the last point because I was talking out of my ass. Sorry for spreading misinformation.
All I know is most of Romania uses old school agriculture techniques, like plows dragged by horse/donkeys and manually picking fruit and veggies. Backwards, you say? More like environmentally friendly! /s
All jokes aside, it’s funny how developed countries just decide bashing less developed ones on issues like pollution, slavery, racist, etc. as if Romania was at the forefront of colonialism and the industrial revolution. Sure, we’ve done our part to fuck up the world, but not to the extent of the “great” powers.
Don’t mind me, I’m just here to rant. Think of it as a pressure valve.
Footprint of the aviation industry and a declining respect for nuclear come to mind. France stands as a bastion of rational power grid design, but from what I hear that may be changing as anti-nuclear voices gain power. A recent analysis’ most nuclear intensive scenario (out of 6) calculated a 50% share for nuclear, down from the current 75%.
Renewables and Russian gas, that seems to be Europe’s solution to climate change, and that’s sad
Biggest climate issue in Denmark (in my opinion) is delusional politicians hyping and tax-breaking electric vehicles (which would be coming anyway without such tax breaks and laws) without ensuring the required infrastructure, and compensating the rich who can afford the electric cars while punishing the poor, who can only afford diesel and gasoline cars.
(France)
Nuclear – Has completely failed to deliver on the next gen [EPR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)) reactors. The reactors under contstuction in Normandy and Finaland are each at least a decade over schedule and several billions over budget. I’m suprised the Finns will still even talk to us and that the Brits haven’t cancelled their project on Hinkley point. So what now? France is [pivoting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)) to small nuclear reactors that are easy to make and can be exported to prop up the nuclear industry. It’s a very smart change, but they’re only doing it because they are forced to by the total failure of the EPRs.
Bikes in Paris- I see a lot of stuff on Reddit recently about how Paris is going to become a [100% biking](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/qeqcbq/paris_to_become_100_cycling_city_within_four/) city and all sorts of stuff like that. I brought this up with a girl who works in Paris city government. Basically she said that the mayor, Hidalgo, is really good at PR but very soft on followup. Basically, I’m not optimistic about all these grand promises to revolutionize the city.
Total (Oil Extraction) – Total is France’s version of Exxon/ Shell/ BP/ Norway/ Gazprom/ Aramco etc… Total is an oil company. Full stop. It will never stop searching for oil until its all run out and the country will never allow it to be shut down. So we’ll build windfarms and solar panels and all that lovely stuff, but at the same time, we’ll be getting oil out of the ground and selling it to whoever wants it.
One huge failure in germany was the destruction of alternative energy industries, first, solar, second, wind. They have not been deemed essential, as the car industry always is.
Shutting down the oil industry would completely kill the economy in the entire west coast area south of Trønderlag. So many small towns completely rely upon oil workers wages. Any party that wants to win elections won’t shut down the oil industry for that reason.
In Italy it has to be the debate around reopening of nuclear plants.
After the Chernobyl disaster, all the nuclear plants were shut down following a national poll.
During the ’90s, [a journalist investigating nuclear waste](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilaria_Alpi) being shipped from Italy to Africa was murdered in Somalia.
So originally nobody wanted the nuclear plants because of the chernobyl disaster, nowadays on the other hand, it’s more about the nuclear waste and the uncertainty about where it’s gonna end up due to the mafia infiltrations.
I could probably mention some other issues, like the city of [Rosignano Solvay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosignano_Solvay) and its century-long dump of industrial waste into the sea, but there isn’t much national awareness.
Splendidly succesfull grabs for EU and state funds in the name of “climate”. We have something called “the solar tunnel”, which consist of group of well-connected and well-informed friends who got onto the dotation teat with solar plants. The law is written so wonderfully that the sun might be hiding all year long and these guys will still make a mint.
We do not need solar plants. In our climate, they are very occasional and if you count the manufacture, upkeep, loss of arable soil, recycling and trip from China, they are just a black hole. We could have had some new blocks for sorely needed nuclear plats for the money, but, well… Not climate friedly enough, apparently.
“How do you feel about putting down your top profitable market?”
Green or not, that’s not a light decision..
In Poland coal is the biggest problem. Its still the main source of heating power in the rural areas where the current national-socialist government is the most popular, at its also the main source of our electricity. At the same time people who have some money are swtiching to gas heating and solar power because we also have a serious problem with air pollution during winter. This also causes an even bigger divide between rich cities vs poor villages.
*intention
Is it better focus on ALL the oil producing countries to reduce and phase out production together, so that we don’t just create a vacuum in the market that will be swallowed by another oil producing country? Iran produces twice as much oil as Norway every day. Will they not start selling oil to our previous customers if we just stop?
As many other European countries :
We reach (more or less) the CO₂ goals by externalizing the production. So, the pollution is the same, and even worst, but on an other line of the Excel file. Then, it is not *our* pollution in objects we buy.
I’m going against the grain here and say that Norway is doing great. This current attitude of looking at single countries rather than the world is fucking up western economy.
The fact is we need oil. If Norway stops drilling oil, we will get it elsewhere. Even if the World reaches carbon neutrality, we will need and use oil. Especially the high quality oil from Norway. The light and sweet Norwegian oil also needs less energy to refine so it is less harmful to climate than oil from middle east. The money from oil drilling also goes to Norway, a country that has helped the green energy sector immensely. If the Norwegian oil is replaced by Saudi oil, that money is instead spent on bigger yachts and oppression.
I’d say the question is, can Norway further reduce they emissions from drilling oil without reducing the amount drilled?
This same attitude is seen elsewhere. Finland is supposed to stop cutting trees and Sweden is supposed to stop producing steel. That would reduce carbon emissions massively from those countries, but it would just move to other countries with dirtier methods and the end result would be more carbon emissions worldwide.
We need to both get our industries cleaner AND require the same standards from imported goods.
For example Sweden has figured out how to make fossil free steel. It has possibilities to massively reduce emission but it is expensive. It will stay a niche product until it’s either subsidized or more polluting steel is banned.
If Sweden goes carbon neutral, their carbon steel production will end, but without outside help that steel production won’t be replaced by carbon free steel. It will be replaced by even dirtier steel from China.
Tldr; Heavily polluting industry pollutes less in Europe than outside Europe and we shouldn’t push that industry away as long as the industry is needed. For example coal in energy use can get fucked, because it can be replaced. Steel and oil we can’t replace so they need to be produced with less carbon emissions.
This stuff is hard. Harder than just saying ‘fuck it, cut all the things’.
Here’s the thing: The insinuation here (that norway should just close the tap) __will make the environment worse__.
Let me try to explain. Note that Norway’s oil and gas production is generally considered top notch: The lowest greenhouse gas releases per energy unit of oil and/or gas produced. Keep that in mind.
Right now the EU sort of messed up and is hurting for gas. However, you can’t just snap your fingers and make gas ‘go away’.
One of two things are going to happen if Norway closes their taps:
* The EU buys more gas from russia, which has significantly more negative climate impact per energy produced (you can __see__ the methane blooms on satellite imagery for crying out loud!!), and other places, which by definition (as norway is ‘the best’) pollutes MORE.
* OR, the EU doesn’t, the economy goes in the toilet, we pull the US along with us. China and Russia take over world economic production, and the US votes for the Sarah-Palin-du-jour (“Drill, baby Drill!”), who got the votes because of economic downturn. They have vastly fewer rules about pollution than the EU does, so the environment gets worse. Way, way worse.
* OR, the EU doesn’t, the populace revolts, and the political parties that are hanging out at ~5 to ~30% of the vote in the EU countries that actively deny climate change or otherwise advocate that fighting climate change isn’t worthwhile, win, because they promise an end to the economic downturn.
In __all 3 of these scenarios, the environment loses__.
So, norway __SHOULD NOT__ close the taps.
Instead, Norway should take the cash they get from that and spend it on two things:
* Pressure the customers (mostly, the EU) on finding ways to reduce their reliance on gas, for example by explaining that they’ll start raising the price in a few years. It doesn’t help to tell the EU to get everybody off gas tomorrow, that’s not technically doable. But ‘in 5 years’, that might light some fire (heh) under the asses and is still doable without causing a political shift to climate denialism or an economic shift towards countries with dictators that don’t give a fuck about any time in the future past their personal lifetime.
* Research. Including being first customer of currently-still-too-expensive promising techniques that have already been researched but need mass market clients in order to figure out how to produce it more cheaply. Invest in fancy new windmills, invest in cutting edge solar, invest in new materials and techniques to isolate existing homes. Give subisidies to norwegians to buy that stuff, promise bounties (worldwide, even, maybe! 100 million kroner to the first company that invents an isolating material with these properties!)
The problem is, doing this feels less dramatic than __CL0SE THE TAPS!!!!111!!!!__ so well-meaning climate activists will then, I dunno, chain themselves to a norwegian gas well or something.
That’s my personal flavour of climate doom: That the ones trying to fix climate change fight amongst themselves and so the planet goes tits up. Same way left-leaning political parties usually just fight amongst themselves (have a look at the candidates for president of France!). (And right-fringe political parties do this all the time too).
This prime minister? If that’s your choice of enemy, hoo boy, we’re all fucking fucked. Have you __seen__ Putin? Have you looked what Trump would do?
The thing about oil is particularly fun when concidering that electrifying the oil rigs is discussed as a serious climate emissions measure. Rigs that currenttly get their energy needs from the gas they extract themselves.
A measure that would lead to a dramatic increase in electricity prices, and lead to less power for other things on land. Likely to the point of needing to import power. The cost of this? Likely to be mostly covered by the government, leaving the operators of the rigs with more gas to sell elsewhere.
All that to make the emission charts look greener by burning less gas in our waters, as emissions in Norway are relatively stagnant compared to Sweden and Denmark thanks to the oil industry.
If any the proposal is getting more and more holes poked through it each day, so doing it at a large scale is unlikely in the end.
hydrogen has been discounted into obscenity. probably because it doesn’t benefit the overfed owner’s of natural ressources.
it will be the transportation equivalent to const and static. the largely invariable, indispensable bedrock of fuel supplies for a ecological world trade and transport of the future.
it is better suited for long-haul, air and sea transport, than lithium-ion batteries
i hope norway and netherlands can lead us out of this hellhole.
Most of our power production still comes from oil shale, making it the dirtiest electricity in Europe (even worse than other fossil fuels). Investment in renewables has been anemic.
Closing down nuclear in favor of burning dead things. I have been green all my life, I was on the list during our last regional elections, but this infuriates me like nothing else.
We need a safe nuclear program, not the total abolishment of it.
Damn, I am green for the science, not for the goat woolen socks!
Belgium here. The irrational closing down of our nuclear generation capacity and projected replacement by gas!
In Ireland, the Green Party in government can be best described as Organic Fine Gael
the scariest part is that even with that, your country is probably one of the world leaders in ecology
(France) we are killing our train company.
Without Norwegian gas, Germany will just buy even more Russian one, much climate so business:)
I think the biggest climate issue in Norway is that the discussion isn’t really based around how to solve the problem. Giving Norway and economy that isn’t reliant on excessive pollution.
To solve the climate crisis we have to find the solutions for how the economy can function without oil. Exactly how a successful transition is made is the answer we need. When the issue is made into a for or against, be it stopping now or gradually, the problems is not solved. The short term thinking caused by the nature of election cycles just means the problem will be delayed until it’s too late.
Is Spain we are far behind in electrification. Few chargers are available and that’s a mayor issue.
Sweden here: Very hard to pick a top candidate, but here are a few
>Maintaining a living sustainable countryside.
>Decarbonization of steel industry.
>Forest/agriculture that doesn’t wipe out ecosystems.
>Reversing the dead sea floor in the Baltic Sea.
>Survival at all if the Gulf Stream goes belly up.
Edited because I’m a noob and mess up formatting.
Guys, please help us to get rid of oil shale energetics. Sincerely yours, Estonia.
Swede here
Giant iron mines
Giant limestone quarry
To reliant on nuclear power which our government want to phase out and if they succeed we will need to get power from either oil or coal power plants
And no diversity in or forest and today they are basically called tree farms
Not in Europe but thought I’d share anyways – Canada
There’s a few big issues:
– a province that has tied it’s identity to the oil industry
– an obsession with building sprawling suburbs because “no one wants to live in a shoebox apartment” completely ignoring how high density can be achieved without everyone living in apartment buildings (see most of Montreal)
– long distances, it’s a 3000km trip to get grain from Saskatchewan to Quebec and trucks/trains are not emission free
– climate, it takes a lot of energy to heat houses in the winter and lots of older buildings are still poorly insulated
not surprising Norway makes all its money off its oil. (aswell as investing said money smartly instead of dumping it, like what happened in the uk).