Greenland suspends oil exploration because of climate change

Norway is the quintessential don’t get high on your own supply oil dealer. Subsidize green energy while fueling the world. NIMBY.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-sweden-electricity...

98% power comes from renewable energies. Quite impressive.[2] They were in 13th place last year for oil production and about the same as Saudi Arabia if you look at per capita oil production. Per capita they are on par with most middle eastern countries.[3] Only difference is they fund their country via the oil fund not some monarch kleptocracy family.

[2] https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/energy/renewable-energy...

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_pro...

> 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

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?

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.

This is how good their PR is!

Maybe kidding.

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.

Read better written stories.

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.

It never worked out and it was only a rally cry for internet folk. We are not Russia.

> "Iraq's sector has remained state-owned and state-guided, and US companies have been forced to compete in open licensing rounds. Various efforts by US Administrations (including the current Trump Administration) to engineer bilateral negotiations and to promote US company interests have come to naught."

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-ne...

> 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.

The very first citation in Wikipedia's Petroleum explorations in the Arctic page [1] states that, "Greenland is believed by some geologists to have some of the world's largest remaining oil resources." It goes on to cite a US Geological Survey that found its waters could contain up to 110 million barrels of oil.

So yes, I believe that qualifies as a huge self-sacrifice.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_exploration_in_the...