top | item 39216433

(no title)

zidel | 2 years ago

The requirement is for the government to produce an impact statement (including carbon emissions in foreign countries and emissions from e.g. combustion) as part of the plan for development and operations that is presented to parliament for approval. This follows from the Supreme Court decision in 2020.

There is also a temporary injunction on further developments and decisions related to these three oil fields until the validity of the plan has been decided.

The District Court ruling was appealed by the government yesterday.

Edit:

Machine translated judgement: https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-sweden-stateless/2...

Court documents (mostly in Norwegian, some witness presentations in English): https://www.greenpeace.org/norway/dokumenter-fra-oslo-tingre...

discuss

order

slashdev|2 years ago

One of the richest countries is considering leaving oil, and by association, money in the ground.

If only they could make a deal with Canada to swap these oil fields for leaving tar sands in the ground, that would be even better.

Lots of countries are going to have to make this selfless decision if we're going to get a handle on climate change. I don't want to guess what the odds of that are.

Technology is probably still our best hope.

sfn42|2 years ago

It's bullshit. Us(Norway) not pumping oil doesn't change anything. The problem isn't pumping, the problem is burning. We need to reduce the demand, not the supply. Reducing supply from Norway just causes other suppliers to scale up and the end result is exactly the same. Until they run out and we pump up this oil anyway because the world needs oil and nobody's addressing that part of the problem.