It was Thursday when Oslo Airport had to realize that all the fussing in the world could not keep air traffic going, since the pilots could no longer see the lights from the runway. Trains and buses stopped. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians struggled to get through. From the Oslo District Court, the judge announced his conclusion of a little-talked-about climate lawsuit: The District Court believes that the state has broken the law by allowing oil extraction at Breidablikk, Yggdrasil and Tyvring. During their lifetime, the fields can lead to emissions ten times what Norway emits each year. We must get more information about what Norwegian oil exploration has to say about the snow that falls, the snow that melts, temperature and drought – both in the world and here at home – before new permits can be granted, the District Court thought. The state has now appealed the verdict, and the environmental organizations say they are ready for a rematch in the Court of Appeal. A fight over the facts Since the Supreme Court acquitted the state in the original climate lawsuit in 2020, we have gained even more knowledge about the connection between the increasingly extreme weather and emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO₂. The court heard that the UN climate panel now says climate change is no longer something we expect in the future. They are here, here and now. But we do not know how these specific oil fields will contribute to an increasingly wilder climate. There, the state has not shown the consequences of burning the oil at all. It receives harsh criticism from the District Court. Greenpeace and Nature and Youth sued the state after three fields were opened for extraction. Photo: Emilie Holtet / NTB What the state has investigated is what will happen if Norway stops extracting oil and gas. The findings shocked the 2021 election campaign: The analysis agency Rystad Energy concluded that the Norwegian oil shutdown will increase world emissions. In short, because others want to meet the demand by producing more oil and gas in a less climate-friendly way. The environmental organizations commissioned their own expert report, which came to the opposite conclusion. It boils down to a question of what must come first. Should we cut the production of oil and gas, and hope that demand shifts to other forms of energy? The critics believe it will only lead to other countries producing the oil instead. Or should we change society to need less fossil energy, and wait for production to decline accordingly. If the district court verdict is upheld, the state must go into much more detail to show what the emissions will mean for the climate both in Norway and in the rest of the world. The Yggdrasil field consists of oil, gas and NGL. It is expected to be able to extract around 140 million cubic meters of oil equivalents from the field, which could lead to emissions of 365 million tonnes of CO₂ during the 25 years the field will operate, according to the judgement. Illustration: Aker BP Can’t cut blind The fact that Norway doesn’t think carefully about what happens to the oil we sell out of the country is perhaps not so surprising. No one can do enough alone in the fight against climate change. Therefore, the Paris Agreement stipulates that everyone must cut, constantly cut more and report on their emissions. The goal is to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. For Norway, the oil and gas emissions are primarily about emissions from the extraction itself. What other countries emit when they use the same oil has been their responsibility. The District Court says it is not enough. The Supreme Court judgment must mean that Norway must also show what consequences the burning of the oil has, the court believes. It joins the series of increased pressure on Norway to accept that our wealth also has consequences beyond our borders. We report emissions equivalent to around 50 million tonnes of CO₂ to the UN. If we include the emissions from the burning of Norwegian oil and gas, the figure can increase tenfold to around 500 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents, according to the government-appointed Climate Committee. They believe that Norway needs a separate target for such emissions – and have asked the government to halt all oil and gas exploration pending a plan for how to continue exploration and at the same time meet the climate targets. Climate committee leader Martin Skancke, here together with deputy central bank governor Egil Matsen during a lecture on climate risk. Photo: Stian Lysberg Solum / NTB Not decided in the courtroom As we now approach 2030, we are so far away from the climate goals Norway and the world have set, that few believe they can be reached: The world must limit warming to 1.5 degrees. The year behind us was calculated to be 1.48 degrees warmer than pre-industrial times. Norway’s contribution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 55 per cent by 2030, compared to 1990. So far we have cut around 5 per cent, and there are six years left. The 55 percent target is just the start. By 2050, so to speak, all emissions will be gone – what we cannot cut, we must capture again ourselves. Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre (Ap) was the only one who raised his hand when Fredrik Solvang asked who thinks we will achieve the climate goals during Arendal Week. The political majority does not want to end Norwegian oil production. Various governments and parliamentary majorities have insisted that the transition away from oil and gas must come before we stop extracting more. That will not change, even if the Oslo district court’s judgment is upheld. Ultimately, the climate case is not decided in the courtroom. It is decided by the sum of all the choices we and the world make in the coming years.
ttn-69
When no one can do enough – Expression
