Last night’s Norwegian election kept the coalition government, but supposedly changed the balance enough to open for expansion of oil-drilling to the north of Norway (Lofoten and Vesterålen). Initially, I opposed this, but with oil sand in Canada, coal mines in China, and all other much dirtier sources of energy likely to be realisitic competitors for years to come, I’m not so sure any more.
Another argument that doesn’t really have to do with the environment, is that if we wait, we’ll have to redevelop the infrastructure required to get the oil out. On the other hand, we might have better ways to burn oil by then. Norwegian oil already, as far as I can remember, is the cleanest oil available, so I suppose as long as people are still going to use oil, it’s a good thing we can provide ours.
So what say ye? All other interests aside - would or wouldn’t this be a good thing for the environment?
From the POV of the environment it makes no difference at all. People will use oil whether they get it from Norway or Tibuktu. At best Norway refusing to extract oil will increase the price of oil by an immeasurable amount, which might encourage less usage of oil. But it’s really just a symbolic move.
Might as well save it for later. Dubai expects to run out in 30 years, and is planning ahead to change their economic base before that happens. To tourism and tax shelters, I think, not a great plan but it beats not planning at all.
Sure why not drill in any place there is oil to be produced at a profit? We can create hundreds of thousands of new jobs by drilling offshore in the USA and parts of ANWR too.
Sounds reasonable to me.