Sweden has its Klimatpolitiska council, Great Britain has the Climate Change Committee. France and Austria also have climate councils. – The Climate Council is independent. It can say that “this was fine” and “this was not fine” and be completely independent professionally, says Brita Bye. She is Norwegian, a researcher at Statistics Norway, but is also a member of the Danish Climate Council. Looking at the authorities in the cards – The council is formalizing methods to see if the government is following up on the climate policy in order to reach the Danes’ climate goals, says Brita Bye, researcher at Statistics Norway. Photo: Karina Rønning Although the countries’ councils vary somewhat, they basically have much the same job. They look at whether the country’s climate targets are in line with the Paris Agreement and whether the measures proposed by the government are enough to achieve the targets. Bye says that she feels that the Danish council is clear in its statements. – The Council is clear that Denmark is not achieving the goals of the adopted policy. For example, the government has come up with a proposal to close the gap to reaching the 2025 targets by using more biofuel. There, the council has stated that more biofuel is not a good solution, says Bye. Strong words in Great Britain Lord Deben, head of the Climate Change Committee in Great Britain, has not been afraid to criticize his own government. Photo: Roger Harris The British Council has so far been the one that has come up with the harshest criticism of its own government. In the annual report on the government’s policy this year, the council wrote that “Britain is failing to meet its climate targets in almost all areas”. The head of the council, Lord Deben, said, according to The Guardian, that Britain had lost its leadership role in climate work and had done things that were “completely unacceptable”. Should be visible to people Brita Bye says that the chairman of the climate council has as part of his duties to speak on behalf of the climate council and be available. – I feel that the chairman of the council is heard and is a person who has a role in the public sphere, says Bye. She says that having a system that is more similar to what they have in other countries could be good for both the debate and the design of policy in Norway. At the same time, it will require a lot. – Having a climate council and secretariat like Denmark is comprehensive. Denmark spends a lot of resources on this, says Bye. Divided in Norway news has asked the parties in the Storting whether they believe that Norway should introduce a climate council. All, except the Center Party, have responded. The result is that it is split down the middle, four parties are for and four are against. MDG, Frp, KrF and Venstre are all in favor of a climate council in Norway. Ap, Høyre, SV and Rødt are against. Read the politicians’ full response Une Bastholm (MDG): MDG believes that such a council should be established, and also has this in our party program in the chapter on climate policy, p 18: “MDG will. Create an independent, expertly based climate council with a mandate to assess target achievement and propose necessary measures and instruments to achieve the targets. and Denmark), without any sanctions or other obligations if the government does not follow the path in annual emission cuts to reach the climate target for 2030. This climate act is currently under consideration, in the Energy and Environment Committee. Altogether, this means that the flat truth is that the Storting has accepted a very dishonest structure for the implementation of climate policy, and has not ensured that the government must actually follow up the climate target that the Storting has decided, with actual measures. I believe that the Storting has almost abdicated and left climate policy to the current government and the annual budget negotiations. That is one of the main reasons why we have only cut 4.7% since 1990. No major parties want to take responsibility for the cuts when they are in government, nor have they bound each other through laws or institutions that force it and could been an “excuse” when one sits in a position. Ola Elvestuen (V): The Liberals are positive about a climate policy council, even if the experience is slightly different in the countries that have it today. It is nevertheless not essential to establish since we already have a lot of knowledge about how we are based through the work of the Norwegian Environment Agency. In addition, EFTA’s monitoring body ESA will review Norway’s follow-up of the obligations in the climate agreement we have with the EU, and may demand stronger climate measures if necessary. Terje Halleland (Frp): We can certainly see a need for a “council” to respond to unrealistic objectives in its climate targets. We still do not believe that a new council could do a different job than other established institutions, which could do such quality assurance, and preferably in collaboration with the media. Kjell Ingolf Ropstad (KrF): I support the intention that the current government at all times should be held accountable for its goals. It would have been exciting to get an assessment of how such a council has functioned in our neighboring countries. At the same time, it is the case that the state budget only applies to one year at a time, and in each of the coming years different decisions will be made that affect greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, there will always be a certain amount of uncertainty with such a projection and I am unsure whether it is appropriate to have a climate policy council that will repeat much of what is already in the climate budget. Mathilde Tybring-Gjedde (H) It is crucial that Norwegian climate policy is regularly evaluated and criticized by professionals, and that comprehensive recommendations and analyzes of the climate effort are made. This function can be fulfilled in many different ways in different countries. In Norway, for example, we have the Environment Agency’s reports which show how we are doing in relation to adopted policy and which new climate measures are needed in sector by sector. The Conservative Party therefore believes that it is not necessary to establish a new body or council. What is needed now is action. The Norwegian Environment Agency’s report for 2030 shows that the government’s policy is insufficient to reach the adopted climate targets. The government has tightened the climate targets, but at the same time weakened several climate measures and made it more difficult to develop more renewable energy. A more powerful climate and energy policy is now needed. We need more development of renewable energy and networks, a greater investment in future climate solutions such as carbon capture and storage and green and blue hydrogen, and a larger package of measures to cut emissions from heavy transport. The Conservative Party has also recently put forward a “Climate menu for municipalities and counties”, which shows how local people can also take the lead and cut their own emissions. Marianne Sivertsen Næss (Ap): The Støre government has now committed itself to presenting a green book every year from now on to assess whether the policy is sufficient to achieve the goals adopted at any given time. It is an honest and unvarnished version of the stoda in climate policy, precisely to shed light on progress towards climate goals and to have a transparent climate policy. Sofie Marhaug (R): The problem with Norwegian climate policy is a lack of action, not well-intentioned targets or measurements, reports or reports. I think it is more important to take environmental considerations and warnings about climate consequences more seriously through concrete measures. Because there is no point in climate messages if these do not actually lead to political movement. My impression is that climate policy does not gain traction when we deal with matters relating to petroleum and transport. Everything should only be greenwashed there; the majority in the Storting are not interested in consuming less. I don’t think a climate council would play any role from now on. Instead, those of us who are concerned with stopping the worst consequences of climate change must continue to try to convince about political measures that cut emissions. Lars Haltbrekken (SV): We don’t need more councils and committees to talk. We know that the government’s climate policy is not sufficient to achieve our climate goals. We don’t need enough advice to tell us that. What we need is continuous work with new measures and tools to cut emissions. Here we have the Norwegian Environment Agency and the Technical Calculation Committee, as well as several research communities and businesses who are constantly submitting proposals to us. Une Bastholm (MDG) says that it is stated in the party’s program that Norway should get a climate council. She believes that in addition to lacking an independent climate council, Norway has a surprisingly non-binding climate law. – Taken together, this means that the flat truth is that the Storting has accepted a very dishonest structure for implementing climate policy, and has not ensured that the government actually has to follow up the climate target that the Storting has decided, with actual measures, she says. SV’s Lars Haltbrekken, on the other hand, is among those who believe that no climate council is needed. – We don’t need more councils and committees to talk. We know that the government’s climate policy is not sufficient to achieve our climate goals. We don’t need another council to tell us that, he says. Together with the national budget, the government presented the Green Book last Friday, which is intended to be a review of the climate work. Photo: Gunhild Hjermundrud / news The Labor Party is also opposed to the climate council. Leader of the Storting’s energy and environment committee Marianne Sivertsen Næss (Ap) says that the Støre government has The Støre government has now committed to presenting a green book every year going forward. It must assess whether the policy is sufficient to achieve the goals adopted at any given time. – It is an honest and unadorned version of the stoda in climate policy, precisely to shed light on progress towards climate goals and to have a transparent climate policy, she says. 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.
ttn-69
The parties are divided on whether Norway should introduce a climate council – news Urix – Foreign news and documentaries
