The new climate act came off the cliff when the government in April asked the Storting to urgently deal with the act before the summer. – Bold and not humble, acknowledged the energy and environment committee at the Storting. The rejection was unanimous, and included the government’s own party friends in the Center Party and the Labor Party. The reason for the rush was that the government wanted to legislate the new climate target of at least a 55 percent cut by 2030, which they had already reported to the UN. The opposition, for its part, wanted a less self-willed government that did not make decisions in “closed rooms”. Half a year later, the situation is just as deadlocked, if not more so. On Tuesday, seven of the parties in the Storting’s energy and environment committee backed a joint statement against the government’s climate policy, which they characterize as “unconcrete” and “not worth the paper it is written on”. The last characteristic belongs to Une Bastholm (MDG), who is chairperson in the committee. – Norwegian climate policy is determined by a minority government and some small adjustments in budget negotiations with SV. An entire generation that will inherit the climate problem lacks a real, political voice. It is undemocratic, she adds. news has been in contact with the Ministry of Climate and the Environment, but has so far not received a reply. Norway’s greenhouse gas emissions and climate targets measured in million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents60 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents? Click for explanation of CO₂ equivalents. Norway’s climate target 23.1 million tonnes annually Go to news’s Climate Status What is Norway’s climate target? By 2030, Norway must cut at least 55 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels. The goal is to be achieved in cooperation with the EU. By 2050, 90-95 per cent of Norwegian emissions must be cut. This means that we must cut emissions at record speed. In the last ten years we have managed to cut around 5 million tonnes, in the next ten we will cut around 25 million tonnes. How will Norway reach the climate target? Norway must cut emissions in two ways, because the sources of emissions can be divided into two: Emissions subject to a quota: This are particularly emissions from industry and the oil/gas platforms. The emissions are covered by the EU’s quota system: In order to emit greenhouse gases, the industry must buy permits (quotas) in the EU at the price determined by the quota market. Steadily higher prices and fewer allowances will force emissions cuts where it is easiest to implement. Non-eligible emissions: These are greenhouse gas emissions from, among other things, transport, agriculture, waste and heating in buildings. This is called the non-quota-obligatory sector because you do not need quotas to release greenhouse gases. How Norway can cut emissions in this sector is described in the specialist report “Climate cure 2030”. The politicians decide which of the measures from the report are to be implemented. Norway can also cut non-quota-obligatory emissions by paying for emission cuts in other European countries. The government says that it plans to meet the targets without using this option, but it can be used if it becomes “strictly necessary”. For Norway, the emissions in the two sectors are roughly the same: in 2019, they released around 25 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each .What happens if Norway does not reach the climate target? It could be politically embarrassing. A likely solution is that Norway chooses to pay for emission cuts in other countries. Norway can also be subject to sanctions if we do not reach the targets we have agreed with the EU. Norway must regularly report cuts to the UN, in line with the targets set in the Paris Agreement. Here, no sanctions are stipulated for those who do not fulfill their obligations. – Openness is needed about measures in climate policy Terje Halleland (Frp) tells news that it is “both strange and arrogant” if the government expects the committee to stand behind a road map that “even Trygve Slagsvold Vedum admits that he does not believe in ». – The government has no credible climate policy. First, they ask the Storting to adopt a higher climate target. Then the finance minister stands in the party leader debate and does not raise his hand on whether Norway will meet our climate goals, says Høgre’s Mathilde Tybring-Gjedde. The meeting in the energy and environment committee on Tuesday therefore culminated in the new “seven alliance” asking the government to come back with a “new and clear plan” for how Norway will cut emissions over the next seven years. – And that plan must be presented and negotiated in the Storting, not behind closed doors in government, says Tybring-Gjedde. – Political discussions and openness about measures in climate and environmental policy are needed. That is what a collective opposition is now calling for. Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre was the only one to raise his hand when the party leaders were asked if they think Norway will achieve our climate goals. – The Storting is on the sidelines “Green book” is the name of the climate budget where the government counts carbon emissions as they count money in the “yellow” state budget. According to the government, they have shown their “card” and made visible the way to the climate goal through this. Professor Carlo Aall at Vestlandsforsking believes that the Storting is gradually being sidelined, symbolized by today’s statement, “which brings together both climate skeptics and climate bullists”. – How to unravel this Gordian knot is difficult to say. It always is when such knots arise in politics, he says. On behalf of the Climate Committee 2050, Fridtjof Nansen’s Institute and Menon Economics have studied the power relations in Norwegian climate policy. In the report “Who has power in Norwegian climate policy?” writes research leader Lars H. Gulbrandsen that the “weight of meat” in the Storting has meant a lot to who has gained influence. He says to news that the political disagreement “shows that climate policy has dragged on”. – It is because the changeover is going too slowly. The political opposition wants the Storting to consider plans for emission reductions and restructuring. The government, on the other hand, believes that it has presented the plans needed to reach the 2030 target in a green book. In addition, the government has just sent the NOU “Transition to low emissions – road selection for the climate policy towards 2050” out for ordinary consultation. Zero: – Everyone has to sharpen up Sigrun Aasland, manager of Zero – Everyone has to sharpen up here. Now there is a lot of mess. Firstly, the government should propose legislating its so-called “transformation target”, which states that emissions must be cut by 55 per cent in Norway. It is very clear that this is far less binding than what is now legislated. Both Sweden and Denmark have climate targets that are both higher and obligate them to cut emissions at home. Secondly, the Storting itself should decide that the green book should be treated as a budget document. The Green Book must also have a binding plan for emission reductions in the sector subject to quotas, i.e. industry and petroleum. It is missing now. Asbjørn Torvanger, CICERO – It is good to get a better match between the different versions of Norwegian climate targets. But a 55% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 is a very demanding goal for a country with a clean power sector and a petroleum sector that is expensive to cut. There is a lack of sufficiently concrete plans and means to achieve this goal. There will be few new and green technologies in seven years, but the cost of reaching the climate target will depend both on the EU’s policy going forward and whether other countries follow up the global climate efforts with stricter policies. In the end, the question is how the government and the opposition will handle and distribute the risk between failing when it comes to reaching the climate target, economic risk for society and industry from a stricter climate policy, the risk of social and political unrest – especially because it is often the low-income groups which will be most affected by stronger climate measures, and change the popularity of the political parties. Une Bastholm, MDG – The government’s answer to all questions about climate at the moment is “green book”, but it has not been adopted in the Storting and it lacks the policy needed to cut the large emissions quickly enough. The good news is that all the parties now, apart from Ap and Sp, demand that the government’s plans be submitted to the Storting as a report to the Storting, so we have the opportunities to look for a majority for a more ambitious and predictable climate policy. The Climate Act in itself is unfortunately hardly worth the paper it is written on, because Høgre, Ap, Sp and Frp do not wish to make it more binding. After all, the climate and nature crisis is existential, and is about basic preparedness and stability for our country. It is a great paradox that many laws with far less significance for the safety and well-being of the population are far more binding on the government than Norway’s Climate Act. It is, after all, a systemic failure without parallel. Une Bastholm (MDG) believes that the government’s “lonely approach” weakens Norwegian climate policy because the majority in the Storting is more forward-leaning. Photo: Ali Zare / NTB – The government must realize that the emission cuts have been too small. news has also been in contact with the other parties that signed the statement. Kjell Ingolf Ropstad (KrF): – Now the government must show how this goal is to be achieved, so that people and businesses can plan accordingly. A climate report to the Storting would be a good basis for a climate settlement that would create predictability for politics. Lars Haltbrekken (SV): – The government must realize that the emission cuts in recent years have been too small. It requires far tougher measures than we have seen so far. This is what the majority is in favor of in the Storting if the government wants to. Sofie Marhaug (Raudt): – We are ready to cooperate with the government on a fair environmental policy, and a clear plan for emission cuts in all sectors, as the government promised in the Hurdal platform. Unfortunately, the government has not followed through on its promises. I am pleased that a majority in the committee is ordering the government to draw up a more binding plan for major emission reductions in the coming years. Annual deviation from normal temperature in Norway compared to the average in the period 1991-2020 +1°C compared to normal? Click for explanation normal temperature1900192019401960198020002020 Go to news’s Climate Status Why are most years blue and colder than normal? This is because all years are now compared to a new normal , that is, the average weather in the 30-year period 1991-2020. These 30 years have been unusually warm. Most other years are therefore colder than normal. Until recently, researchers used a normal period that ran from 1961-1990. In these years it was relatively cold. It’s been quite a while since the 1960s and the new normal allows us to compare the weather with the climate (normal) that people actually experience today. The normal period is determined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and is used in all countries . In this way, we can compare the weather in Norway with other countries and we can measure changes all over the globe. How can you calculate one temperature for the whole of Norway? There are many hundreds of thermometers located around Norway. These are read at fixed times and collected and checked by the Meteorological Institute. In some places the measuring stations are close together, in other places there is a greater distance. Using a statistical method, the meteorologists are able to give the measurements different weights, so that all parts of the country have equal importance: The country is divided into routes of 1*1 kilometer and the meteorologists then calculate one temperature for each route. Then they can again work their way up to one figure for the whole country, for a county, for a month or for an entire year.
ttn-69
Full climate clinch between the Storting and the government – news Vestland
