Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "PolyMatter" channel.

Kind of, we are working on putting an end to our exploration and extraction though. The green movement in this country is growing. SV, V and MDG are all enviromentalist political parties in Norway. Our biggest political party Ap isn't enviromentalist but they're close to being split in half on the issue and it's likely that they'll eventually buckle under combined external and internal pressure towards putting an end to oil exploration. Putting an end to actual extraction is going to be harder, but is also something we're going to achieve eventually. Norway has a proportional electoral system, but since one of our enviromentalist parties SV (on the left), V (on the right) and MDG (in the center) are likely to pretty much always be the king makers in future coalition negotiations we will get our will through on this eventually. Indeed I doubt that the minority AP, SP coalition that AP is currently negotiating for will survive the next 4 years without making such a concession to the green movement. End to exploration that is. They're not going to end extraction just yet no matter how much pressure we put on them this election, they'll turn to the conservatives before they'll do that right now.
200
@Noobscodee That's not true. There's other small countries that has wasted the oil money. The difference with us is that we actively avoided using the oil money as much as possible. Still relying on taxation of other industries for our government revenues and to keep our economy going.
68
@blugaledoh2669 They do fight wars for resources. But instead of taking over areas permanently you install a friendly government or scare the less friendly ones with the threat of intervention. Then you use that to negotiate trade deals that favours you at their expense. If you pay someone for something, paying a certain amount while holding a knife to their throat during the negotiations it's still theft even if you pay them to lower your own guilt. It's the same with wage slavery and slaves. Paying people doesn't automatically make it right.
58
@aCycloneSteve What do you mean? We're trying to put an end to extraction too But the political math just doesn't add up for that just yet. Look up my other comments in here, both the individual one and the response to ""AJ".
17
1:31 Sorry, but that part about Labor winning the 2017 election is just downright wrong. Being the biggest party does not equal winning in Norway or other proportional systems. And labeling them as "winning" just for being biggest is just outright wrong. They've been the biggest party every year since the war. They still lose about half the elections though.
12
Good luck. =) By the way, if you're interested in our politics (and our political system) I'd love to talk with you about that. But essentially we are going to put an end to our oil exploration and possibly extraction in one of the comming elections. We in the green movement are growing in power politically. We have a proportional electoral system and the green voters are split between 3 enviromentalist political parties on the left (SV), right (V) and in the center (MDG), as well as voters and party members within the major parties (Ap, our biggest party is almost split along the middle on the oil issue). Our voters being split means that each party has relatively speaking less direct power, however the situation also means that green parties tend to be king makers every election, and we're slowly winning concession after concession from the gray political parties on the gray-green political scale. This situation is making life difficult for the goverment. Both the previous one that relied on among other things representatives from V for support, and the upcomming cabinet that's going to need support from green parties to get their policies across.
10
Regarding the "lack of urgency" that's not entierly true. A majority of Norwegians do want to end our dependency on oil. Even our biggest party is split almost down the middle on the issue. And enviromentalist parties are growing. That said, we have 3 clearly enviromentalist parties, one left wing (SV), one right wing (V) and one centrist (MDG). As well as a couple more parties that also cares a lot about the enviroment but that don't has the enviroment as one of their main topics, R and KrF. Our influence on our society is growing. And since we're found on both sides of the political spectrum our parties are going to end up being kingmakers in Norwegian elections. Our oil exploitation is going to end. The question is just when. The current biggest party wanted to form a majority coalition, but that failed due to this very issue. As it is they're trying to form a minority coalition cabinet with only one other party actually within their coalition, depending on support from other parties in the parliament on a case by case basis. I very much doubt that they'll survive the next 4 years without making a concession on this very issue to one of the enviromentalist parties. That concession is likely to come in the form of a ban on new exploration, but not extraction. Any oil or gas already found will likely still mostly be extracted because the two biggest parties in Norway cares so much about predictability for the industries, the oil industry included. And also, because Europe still need gas supplies to survive the winters, and a alternative source to Russia. Once Europe is a bit less dependant on gas and we can end extraction without angering the Germans, Dutch, Brits etc, we'll probably ban extraction too. The reason why our extraction rates are likely to go up is that the conservative cabinet issued a number of oil exploration permits just ahead of the election. And while we (the enviromentalists) are likely to be able to end the issuing of new permits, we can't legally terminate the existing ones. Again, predictability. Yes, we're pissed at the conservatives for doing that. No, there's nothing we can do about that. The parties on the gray side of the gray-green scale are still in a majority in this country, although they're losing ground. But enviromentalists are the ones tipping the scale in the elections. So we have leverage. We have a proportional electoral system, that means compromises, compromises and more compromises. The direction is already pretty much defined, we will win this battle long term. It's just a question of what exact election we'll end up truly with the upper hand. In the meantime we're fighting for every inch in this tug of war with the gray parties. Eventually external pressure from enviromentalist parties entering coalition negotiations and internal pressure from enviromentalists working from within the gray parties is going to tip the scales.
4
@aristoclesathenaioi4939 Seriously, can you try not to to let your prejudice cloud your judgement for a moment? You keep making assumptions about people you don't know. First of all, human caused climate change is non-controversial here. That doesn't mean that there isn't a debate about its severity for *Norwegians*. Yes, climate change will cause issues, more refugees, more damage to infrastructure, supply chain disruptions, loss of glaciers, changes in the living areas of animals and plants, including some animals going extinct etc, that said, all things considered Norways location means that we're getting of relatively speaking easy. Especially because as a rich nation we're well placed to cope with the consequences. However the practices that's causing the climate change current are a big part of why we're so rich, and even apart from that we rely on exports to the EU, including Germany who relies on our natural gas. If they're pissed they might put pressure on us, perhaps even ending our trade agreement with the EU (we are not a EU member state). Our deal with the EU also involves us paying huge amounts of money to the EU every year. Basically we're kind of a tributary state of the union, paying money in return for freedom and independence. Ending our oil and gas exports to the continent could endanger that. Our wealth also enable us to pay for a expensive military, considering that we are bordering Russia that's seen as rather important as you might imagine... So while environmentalists like you and me might want to take care of the climate because we think it's the right thing to do it's a more calculated move for a lot of other people. With costs and benefits both with environmentalism and fossile fuel sales. Including the potential end of our very nation. There's multiple different estimates for the future trajectory of the climate given different behaviors. Also with regards to at least gass sales, Germany has some of the worst and most polluting coal power plants in Europe, while gas power plants are problematic they're still seen as cleaner then those coal plants and less geopolitically problematic then the Russian gas. So it's actually seen as environmentally friendly by many as well as important from a geopolitical safety point of view to ensure Norwegian gas to Germany, gas that is less polluting then the Russian gas. This is the kind of evaluations going on here. I don't agree with the idea that this gas should be extracted. But there are good arguments for that course of action too. And people are not just acting out of greed or ignorance. And remember, a gas power plant can in theory burn hydrogen extracted from water and mostly just produce water steam (and a few other things due to the high temperature that the air is exposed to). Meaning that getting gas power plants online could be good for the environment long term assuming that hydrogen production ends up coming online. So yeah, this is a super complicated topic. The political parties that wants to keep extracting oil and gas for the most part genuinely have credible environmental policies. That's why the green movement here is so divided. Environmentalists here have several different ideas about the best way forwards. Not all of those includes a end to drilling, even if that's our vision in the green party. And attitudes are shifting. But there's a bit of lagg and momentum in politics, and it takes time for changes in popular opinion to be reflected in the parliament. A poll recently actually indicated a slight majority for ending search for new oil and gas, up from a clear majority for continuing drilling just a few years ago. The industry won't get shut down, that's just not politically realistic here. But they probably won't get much new search permits anytime soon. So our production will go down.
3
@aristoclesathenaioi4939 My point was that you assumed that our actions where caused by self deception. That people that wants to continue drilling for oil here somehow doesn't think rationally. That assumption is false. Honestly that's one of the blessings of this country. All of our political parties genuinely wants to improve our country. They just have very different ideas about what's the best approach to doing so. As for my own preferred political party, the only party in the parliament they outright refuse to join into a coalition with is the "progress party", our local brand of right wing populism. They're the only human caused climate change sceptic party in our parliament. But even they aren't all that bad, as right wing populists go. There's decent people there too that you can work with even if their ideas about how this world works tends to be overly simplistic and lacking in nuance from my point of view. Of course, I'm sure their view of my preferred party probably isn't much more flattering... But yeah, we disagree on politics and world views, but that doesn't mean that they're not intelligent and have rational reasons for their decisions, with some valid concerns raised. I get that American politics has ended up with just two sides that can never agree on anything, but things doesn't work that way here. All the 10 political parties in our parliament can work with all the other 9 just fine, at the very least on a case by case basis. And the far right and far left here has allied to get laws though in the past for instance. The people wanting to do more oil drilling here are not corrupt or anything of that sort. They simply disagree with us.
3
2:21 Who in their right mind would call + 25 degrees C *cold*?
3
@swin Personally as a European I'd rather vote for the worst possible leaders of a country in terms of how they'd actually rule it as long as it improved democracy and peoples ability to influence their lives with their votes. Democracy is not about having the best possible people in power. But about having a consensus and the most legitimate leaders possible. Singapore is without doubt fairly well run, but it's not a democracy, and I'd prefer a poorly run nation that's a good democracy over a well run nation that's a poor democracy. Because a) then at least you as a citizen have agency to make any and all changes that's needed. And b) then you'll know that the people running the country into the ground at least won fair and square, that it's actually peoples choice to run it into the ground, and it'll be the peoples choice to bring it back up again at some other date. But I guess your milage may vary there...
2
@aristoclesathenaioi4939 Try saying that to the parties that wants to continue... It's like trying to convince Republicans in the US to provide unlimited federally funded abortions... Most Norwegian political parties does understand that climate change is real and requires counter steps. But less oil production means less wealth and jobs, and that's what gets most of them elected. We have a electoral system where small parties like the Greens can be king makers and force through change. But it's going to take time and involve a lot of compromises. Besides, most of the worst polluting coal power plants in Europe are in Germany, replacing them with renewables is of course best, but short term converting them to gas might actually be preferable, that might allow them to burn hydrogen in the future. It's still a silly idea to rely on hydrogen, but it is what the compromises in Germany has landed on... So Norway needs to work within that framework. I'm a green voter, but I consider myself a realist. I did not expect the Labour party and the Center party to form a minority cabinet instead of trying in earnest to get the socialist left party on board... The socialist left party pulled out of the negotiations because the coalition wasn't willing to make environmentalist concessions. So the socialist left party felt it could do more for both the environment and for their social values outside the government. As a opposition party.
2
Hum... How I'd reform it would be to not ban such ships. But rather do something like if a mode of transportation to, from or between American locations isn't crewed by no less then 75% American or American allied citizens, of which at least 50% must be American citizens you have to pay 5% extra tax on the transportation cost. If the ship (or other mode of transportation) isn't 75% owned by Americans or American allied citizens, of which at least 50% has to be American citizens you have to pay 5% extra tax (so 10% extra so far), if the construction cost isn't made up of at least 75% cost going to American or American allied companies, at least 50% going to American companies there's another 5% (so 15% total so far), and if the transportation method isn't in the 25% lowest emitting category of all methods available for a route, including the emissions from construction divided up over the expected lifetime of a mode of transportation) there's another 5%, for a total of 20% tax. So if you drive a Mexican built truck owned by a Canadian and driven by a Mexican and it's pouring out CO2 you'll pay 20% tax, if you drive a Tesla truck with a American driver and owned by a company with two American, one Canadian and one Russian owner you get 0% tax, likewise if the company owns 4 Teslas and have one Chinese, two American and one European driver. As a example. Or equally with planes, ships etc. Of course you'd probably have to negotiate a lot with other countries to find something everyone are okay with. But that would be the starting point for me at least. It would encourage a demand for American jobs and companies, it would encourage greener transportation methods and it would encourage American ownership of the businesses in question (the company producing the vehicle would have to have at least 50% American workers and owners etc to qualify with no more then 25% being from countries not America or allied to America) This kind of protectionist law would provide a strong incentive, but would still have safety valves for the economy to handle a demand that can't be meet internally for whatever reason. If no ships, crews or owners from America is available and all you have I'd a polluting Russian or Chinese or whatever cargo ship is all you have available, you can use it, you'll just have to pay the extra taxes. And each potential tax can be avoided separately without interfering with the others. So you could have American crew on a Korean ship, saving you the 5% of the crew part, or a Philippino crew on a American built ship etc. It offers flexibility for different companies to find different strategies. And since you don't demand 100% American crew or ship etc you can be competitive with a mixed crew. So say bridge crew and engineers being American while others are not etc. Leading to more ships using a partially American crew to begin with. Individual taxes can be raised or lowered and the amount needed adjusted to make the relative competitiveness better.
1
@changedmynamebcyallwouldnt.. What exactly do you mean? As for party affiliation... I actually want a conservative prime minister here in Norway. But you're right about me landing in the liberitarian left part of the political compass. No, working for a job isn't slavery. But my US GF has to work way more hours then me for way less money in a McDonalds... And is treated like dirt. And is barely able to pay her bills... And considering that she's among the lucky ones on a global scale... There's a balance that needs to be struck. People with wealth and companies need reliability and consistency. And the right is correct about the need to simplify laws and regulations. But you also need workers rights, and a government that truly oversee the economy. My currently preferred party is open to work with both sides of the political spectrum, and while my values are on the left end side of said party I actually argue for the right end pragmatic position within said party and oppose those within it that wants to align with the left only. Both for tactical reasons, but also because our main goal is on a different axis then the two of the compass. (I vote for the Norwegian Green Party, it's not anywhere near what say the British one is, and I'd say I belong to the "realos" faction of our party, if I'm to borrow a term for the German green party factions that is, German green party factions don't correspond exactly 1:1 with ours). And honestly, like I said, there are right wing solutions to problems that also works. And left wing ones that doesn't. So yes, while you're right about my ideals being left leaning I'd like to consider myself a pragmatist. And I can find common grounds with every single party in our parliament. Unlike most green party members that even include our "progress party". So in that regard I'm a centrist. Of course living in Norway and having our values means that my values and ideal world of course align more with Bernie Sanders or Jill Steins then either of the two major parties in the US... But honestly in the US I'd probably vote for the biggest third party candidate or independent representative that supports electoral reform regardless of party affiliation otherwise. As I see the first past the post electoral system as the biggest hurdle for the anglophone world. So much so that I'd otherwise would vote against my ideals in that regard.
1
@changedmynamebcyallwouldnt.. If you're talking about the actual liberal party in Norway. No, I don't vote for that party, but I'd say it's third on my list. Also, remember that a lot of people starts in the young liberals, then switch to the adult SV later because they align more with the youth party then the adult one. And a lot of SV voters have switched to MDG in recent years.
1
@aristoclesathenaioi4939 Also, in case it wasn't clear, when I said that human caused climate change is non-controversial here I meant in Norway... I live in Norway. And you are making so many assumptions about Norway without knowing anything about the country. I wish you'd actually learned a bit more about what you comment on before commenting.
1
I dissagree about the idea of just a prize. Instead make each patent conditional and require a documented need for said patent. For instance the development cost or in the case of artists etc living expenses etc. If a company makes a new drug make the patent depend on the condition that it's only valid as long as the company that made the drug has earned less then say 4x the documented cost of development (previous work done in for instance a university not included), as long as the company is activly selling the drug, and as long as at least 80% of the demand for the drug is being meet or some such, and the basic technology has to be made available to the goverment of said country even if said goverment may not actually use it to ensure that the tech don't vanish and is made freely available when the time comes. Also allow the UN to grant temporary excemptions to patents in the case of serious diseases, for instance to cover the remaining 20% with another company. The patent owner would still have a 80% market share and be pretty much guranteed to make back about 4x the investment in money. But the patent wouldn't be completely ruining innovasion.
1
11:52 Apples app store isn't particularly private or secure... With Android at least you have the option of installing third party "app stores" that offer you open source software like F-Droid that is respecting your privacy and security...
1
@olfmombach260 You're welcome. :-) I wrote more in response to "AJ" a bit further down in the comment field. You might find that interesting.
1
@Mosern1977 You're forgetting how big of a debate that the labour party has had within itself over issues like drilling in the north etc. Trust me, environmentalism is genuinely strong there and oil drilling will stop. The question is just when. Chances are high that MDG will be above the electoral threshold for the leveling seats. And like I said, environmentalists are numerous in most of the parties. Even FRP has a few environmentalist members. As for who is in a majority... Well three years ago you would have been right about continued oil search being the majority view. Now however this year 40% of the population is against continued search for oil and 35% wants continued search. The rest being undecided, worried about the UN reports but also about their future prosperity and don't have a firm stance yet. Compared to 49% in support for continued search back in 2019. And support for oil exploration and drilling has been steadily dropping for a long time and stays on a downwards trajectory. You're right, there probably isn't a majority in the population for a complete shutdown of the industry yet, but there is one for ending the searching required to keep it going long term. Meaning that with the current major in the population our oil production will go down regardless of what exists in the ground. If you're working in the oil industry I suggest looking for potential new skillets. There's probably not grounds for searching for new jobs just yet, but preparing for the coming changes is definitely advicable. Also, remember that the greens are a part of the ruling coalition in Germany and we have a lot of trade with Germany and the EU. And Germany has a lot of influence on the EU that we don't.
1
@Mosern1977 Speaking of Germany. That's another factor. A full stop in gas production would probably piss of Germany, so that's just not going to happen. But Germany is fully on board with phasing fossil fuels out, in line with a end to oil exploration policy. That's part of why I think that's going to be a compromise we'll end up with.
1
@Mosern1977 Did you read all of the two comments I made?
1
@_TeaMaster No, Singapore uses some variation of first past the post I assume? My point though wasn't about Singapore, it was that he showed factually wrong information in the video when he used Norway as a example. The Labor party of Norway in the election year he picked losing the election with the most votes and as the biggest party in parliament with the most representatives because they couldn't come up with a viable combination of parties willing to support a cabinet where they took part. My comment did not in any way, shape or form even refer to the mess that is Singapores political system... The point with democracy is not to get the most qualified, or best or whatever people into power. It's to ensure that the people who are have a consensus backing them and have legitimacy. Basically its goal is to ensure that everyone feel that while they might not agree with everything being done that at least they have influence on their own lives and that they do not feel like they need to turn to violence to be heard. In Singapore there's no way of knowing how many people are seriously upset about the state of affairs, living in fear, have serious issues that needs to be resolved, or solutions to major problems that Singapore as a nation has. Because it's not a real democracy. Singapore is well run in many ways, but the way it achieved that state is still fucked up beyond belief. That's my honest opinion. But I decided not to share it in a separate comment earlier to try to be polite, instead just commenting on the poor choice of example used in the video to contrast against Singapore. But you decided to make that completely off topic comment of yours, so you're welcome. He could have used our 2001 election instead where the prime minister was from a party with 12,4% of the voters behind them and 22 seats in our 165 seat parliament at the time. Or even the election he did choose but picking the party of our prime minister instead of just the biggest party. Now, if you're not interested in politics in Norway no one is forcing your hand to read any of this. No one was forcing you to read my original post either. But you made the choice to do so, and you made a comment that was 100% irrelevant to the topic of my comment. Completely missing what I was trying to say. So you're welcome. Enjoy reading all of this. All you achieved was pissing me off by being super rude. So now I feel no obligation to have any respect for you at all any more. Hence the above post. If I had to choose between a well run authoritarian goverment like Sinagpore or arguably China or a poorly run Democracy like the US, Argentina etc I'd personally pick the later, despite how much harder my life would be. No one is expecting perfection, Taiwan is the only half way decent democracy in the whole region, so I'm not expecting the ruling party in Singapore to play entierly fair. If Americans can gerrymander then so can they. But they're not even holding up the pretense and they're using violence and essentially forcing the voters hands instead of pulling the strings in the background like a normal flawed democracy.
1
+Walking Annoyance But even they have actual cold air during the night.
1