There has been the will and ability to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Norway in recent decades under changing governments. Nevertheless, there are three sacred cows that have been left alone in the stall: The oil industry, agriculture and the more or less pronounced backup solution that Norway can buy quotas and contribute to cuts elsewhere, if we can’t do it at home. Today’s report from the climate committee tackles all three of these sacred cows. Drastic measures are needed here as well. If not, the calculation does not add up. That is why today’s report is important. It will force politicians to rethink climate policy. If there is something that has not been in short supply, it is reports, calculations and analyses. In the amount of shelf space for those who wish, today’s report still stands out. Think again The Norwegian climate targets have been strengthened, but at the same time pushed forward in time. 2020 became 2030. The 2050 goal of a zero-emission society is much more definitive. Until now we have talked about percentage cuts. Going forward, we must deal with becoming a zero-emissions society. We have talked about what is realistic to achieve in various sectors. Going forward, we must deal with the fact that all sectors must end up close to or equal to 0 tonnes in emissions. We must therefore note the fundamental change in thinking the committee is bringing to the table: Climate policy must start with 0 emissions in 2050 as a premise. Then we have to work our way there. For too long, Norwegian policy has started with current emissions of around 50 million tonnes and seen how much it is possible, or likely, to cut in the short and medium term. There will not be a majority in favor of this, it would not be possible to garner support from the population, it may be objected. The committee believes that the same parliamentary majority that voted for the climate act must indirectly be in favor of the main lines of the climate report. The report is an expert assessment of how the law must be understood and followed up. The Climate Act must lead all other decisions, the politicians cannot withdraw now, is the committee’s important pointer back. In 2017, the Labor Party, the Conservative Party, the Progressive Party, the Christian People’s Party, the Center Party and the MDG voted for a climate act. It was a milestone for how the Storting committed itself not only to target setting, but also concrete follow-up and mapping of target achievement in climate policy. Now the committee is reminding us of what it will require. And that it will pain. Also where for the longest time we have avoided taking on too big a fight. Agriculture Norwegian agricultural policy must fulfill a number of political requirements and objectives. Food production is not only about self-supply of food for the population. It is about business policy, settlement and district policy, state transfers and a number of other objectives. Climate requirements for agriculture will not only be about electric tractors. There must be a discussion about the amount of red meat we eat and thus also produce. Thus also where it is produced. The committee reminds that if Norwegian greenhouse gas emissions are to be cut from approx. 50 million tonnes to between 2.5 million and 5 million tonnes in 2050, it must be seen in the context of the fact that the agricultural sector alone emits 5 million tonnes today. Cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are simply inevitable. Through the agricultural agreement and the annual negotiations with the state, agriculture has drawn up a separate climate agreement with several obligations. It is not enough. It is not happening quickly enough, we are to believe the committee. The experts believe that technological changes in agriculture must happen more quickly, production must be rearranged and consumers must make different choices in their daily lives. Grass resources must be utilized better and the production of red meat must decrease without a corresponding increase in imports. It will affect our shopping basket and the entire structure of Norwegian agriculture. That debate will be extremely controversial because the climate goals can compromise the other goals of agricultural policy. The oil industry Because oil and gas will be part of the energy mix in many countries for a long time to come, Norwegian politicians have for many years relied on the following mantra: The oil industry must be developed, not discontinued. The industry and politicians have taken steps that have reduced emissions from Norwegian oil production. Both electrification and carbon capture will contribute positively to Norway’s climate accounts. But it is not enough. The committee will have a full search break to avoid wrong investments and climate-wise wrong decisions. Oil policy must be significantly renewed if the pause is to end. In addition, they point to the need for a complete halt in exploration activities that are not close to already operational fields and an assurance not to allow development that binds us to new emissions up to and beyond 2050. The committee specifically requests that the government draw up a strategy for the final phase of Norwegian petroleum operations. This can be read as a direct contradiction to the more pleasant and less scary mantra of developing, not dismantling. Quotas Despite all moral, principled and strategic thoughts that Norway must first and foremost take the climate cuts “at home”, buying quotas has been seen as an emergency solution that we have been able to resort to, if needed. The committee is clear that this is not a sensible strategy. The quotas will not be able to help us. In the long term, there will be fewer quotas available. Cut your own emissions first, is the committee’s mantra. To business and politicians. The transition “should not rely on strategies such as quota purchases or new technologies”. Cut, cut, cut is the mantra. All in all, the report is a powerful wake-up call for Norwegian climate policy for those who want to take it seriously. Next year, the 2050 strategy will be hammered out by a powerful opposition and the government itself. Work on new party programs in all the parties will soon begin little by little. The climate debate has changed a lot in two decades. Climate targets have been strengthened, the quota market improved. Electric cars are phased in with effective financial instruments. The oil burners are gone with the help of effective prohibition. EU cooperation and international framework agreements oblige. We know more, we measure more. It is in this reality that we also hear that this is not enough. That the debate must continue even where there is pain. No cows can be sacred. Should this report end up in a drawer, it will also have a price and a consequence. Those who want to disregard all or part of the recommendations must launch an alternative with a corresponding climate effect. An argument against the fact that this report could and would end up in a drawer would have to be that all drawers are already full of climate reports, so there is simply no room for one more.
ttn-69
The last cows in the stall – Expression
