Norway does have substantial subsidies for electric vehicles and other less co2 producing tech.

Teslas are now the most sold car brand in Norway thanks to that and their cheap hydro power.

Some of the oil operators are even subsidizing its own companies working on renewable technologies.

I suspect most oil companies are investing in post-fossil... to the end of future-proofing themselves; they have no interest in fossil fuels being supplanted any time soon. That would be to cede position to their replacements.

So their investment will result in less public benefit than equivalent investment by players that aren't, uh, invested in fossil.

Every country seems to have some way to rationalize why they are more justified than the others, or at least that their contribution doesn't matter.

For small countries (Norway, New-Zealand), the feeling may be that their contribution is just a drop in the ocean.

For countries with victim complexes (China, Russia, the Middle East), they may feel that the West has exploited them for too long, and now it is their turn.

For countries that are still objectively poor/-ish (India, much of Africa), they may feel they don't have the luxery of acting long term.

And progressives (in the USA, Germany and much of the EU) may focus more on symbolic efforts ("renewable" power) while failing to start large scale activities that can realistically reduce emissions to levels that would be sustainable as world averages (either through having enough Nuclear power, or to make sure that there is enough energy storage capacity available that renewables can be depended upon).

Meanwhile, nationalists (in all countries) may see it more as a zero-sum game, where the goal is to "win" over other countries, and they definitely do not want to sacrifice too much without an ensurance that "the other side" contributes at least as much. Furthermore, perceived (partly based on reality, partly based on conspiracy theories) hypocrisy from environmentalist leftists is used to downplay, doubt or even deny the reality of the threat.

As long as everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else, while the world's carbon emissions continue to grow, we will not be able contain CO2 levels. Most likely, we _will_ suffer the consequences, and experience some global warming over the coming decades. Also, as usual, poor countries will suffer the most.

That being said, 2 degrees of warming is much better than 6. Also, blaming everyone else will just serve to add hostility between groups on top of the warming, in ways that can lead to hostilities that may be even more dangerous than the warming itself.

So for those that genuinely want to work towards a sustainable environment, I think we need to: - Look at what we can do ourselves, personally, within our political party and within our country, in that order, instead of just pointing fingers at the "Other" to take the attention away from our own contributions. Finger pointing just serves to make us feel good, but is not likely to change the minds of the "Other". - Promote a world view that is based on real mainstream science, rather than fringe scare-mongery, politically correct dogmas etc. Exaggerating predictions will just provide fuel to the deniers (ie the world will end by 2030), and even if some scare-mongering may mobilize some politically active youths, I believe the net effect will be to increase polarization which in turn causes inability to act. - In particular, fight dogmas that prevent initiatives that can realistically help, such dogmas surrounding nuclear power. Institutions that spread such dogmas need to be confronted, especially when they are on "our side" (since there is little we can do to affect the "other side") - Generally, stop fueling all sorts polarization. As individuals and organizations we may benefit from turning to the extremes of "our side" as it may make us seem extra virtous, while demonizing the "Other". But we need ot be mindful of the fact that participating in this, is to inflict harm on society and implicitly on the plant. Polarization, both within and between countries, serve to undermine objectivity, as ideas start to be seen in terms of ideology rather than science. - Instead, by trying to avoid partisanship and focus on the objectively most reliable science as well as policies that can be accepted by a wide, bi-partisan majority, we may help restore some trust in institutions in the general public.