SHARE
COPY LINK

CLIMATE CRISIS

Why Norway is accused of ‘throwing gasoline’ on climate crisis ‘fire’

A court began hearing Tuesday a lawsuit against Norway over oil and gas development plans, with environmental groups saying the country is throwing "gasoline on the fire" of the climate crisis.

Pictured is an oil rig in Norwegian waters.
The Norwegian State was taken to court over oil and gas drilling. The Norwegian energy giant Statoil shows its Huldra oil rig in the North Sea. AFP PHOTO / STATOIL / KJETIL ALSVIK /

The Nordic branch of Greenpeace and Natur og Ungdom, a Norwegian affiliate of Friends of the Earth, are challenging the government’s approval of the development of three new offshore oil and gas fields.

The court case opened just two days ahead of the UN’s crucial COP28 climate negotiations in Dubai.

“Norway should leave the oil where it is, but instead of that, the state is giving future generations the task of reducing (greenhouse gas) emissions even more and ever-growing climate dangers,” the head of Natur og Ungdom, Gina Gylver, told AFP.

“Children’s best interests are obviously that adults do not inflict extreme weather events, health problems, food shortages and refugee crises on them by pumping more oil than the climate can tolerate,” she said.

The two organisations have called for an immediate halt to the development of the fields, citing the Norwegian constitution which guarantees the right to a healthy environment, and the UN convention on the rights of the child.

“We hope the trial will put international pressure on Norway to commit to a fossil fuel phase-out at COP in Dubai,” said the head of Greenpeace Norway, Frode Pleym.

“Whilst Norway acknowledges the climate crisis, it throws gasoline on the fire by opening up new oil fields,” he said, calling the country “a climate hypocrite”.

Norway insists it is not violating any rights and says it must guarantee Europe’s energy supply, especially now that it has overtaken Russia as the continent’s biggest gas provider following the war in Ukraine.

 “Given the position we find ourselves in today in the European energy system, especially since the war in Ukraine, it’s a good idea, I think, to prospect and develop a bit more on the Norwegian continental shelf for a few more years,” Climate and Environment Minister Andreas Bjelland Eriksen told AFP.

Asked whether the lawsuit was an embarrassment for Norway, especially coming at the same time as the COP28 talks, he replied: “That is part of the game when you are a country governed by rule of law and a democracy.”

Norway is Western Europe’s largest producer of oil and gas. Oil and gas production also makes up a significant portion of the countries emissions. 

Norway’s economy is highly dependent on oil and gas. Revenues generated from oil and gas account for almost 20 percent of government spending. This makes Norway’s commitment to its economy and the climate a tight balancing act. 

By 2030, Norway plans to cut its emissions by at least 55 percent compared to 1990 levels. The 2030 goal aims to try and prevent the worst effects of climate change. 

An earlier report from the Norwegian Environment Agency identified 85 measures the country should adopt to try to reach its 2030 goal. Robbie Andrew, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate Research (CICERO), has previously told The Local that the country would need to make “very sharp emissions cuts” year on year to achieve this goal. 

Despite oil and gas production making up a large proportion of the country’s emissions, no government has signalled any intent to rapidly move away from all and gas. Andrew told The Local previously that anything other than a gradual shift from fossil fuels could cause issues for the country’s economy. 

READ MORE: How can Norway be ready for the energy transition when it depends on oil?

The proceedings in the Oslo district court are expected to continue until December 6th.

In December 2020, Norway’s Supreme Court dismissed a previous lawsuit brought by Greenpeace and Natur og Ungdom which wanted the cancellation of 10 oil exploration licences awarded in 2016 in the Barents Sea in the Arctic.

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

CLIMATE CRISIS

Top Europe rights court to issue landmark climate verdicts

Europe's top rights court will on Tuesday issue unprecedented verdicts in three separate cases on the responsibility of states in the face of global warming, rulings that could force governments to adopt more ambitious climate policies.

Top Europe rights court to issue landmark climate verdicts

The European Court of Human Rights, part of the 46-member Council of Europe, will rule on whether governments’ climate change policies are violating the European Convention on Human Rights, which it oversees.

All three cases accuse European governments of inaction or insufficient action in their measures against global warming.

In a sign of the importance of the issue, the cases have all been treated as priority by the Grand Chamber of the ECHR, the court’s top instance, whose 17 judges can set a potentially crucial legal precedent.

It will be the first time the court has issued a ruling on climate change.

While several European states, including France, have already been condemned by domestic courts for not fulfilling commitments against global warming, the ECHR could go further and make clear new fundamental rights.

The challenge lies in ensuring “the recognition of an individual and collective right to a climate that is as stable as possible, which would constitute an important legal innovation”, said lawyer and former French environment minister Corinne Lepage, who is defending one of the cases.

‘Turning point’ 

The court’s position “may mark a turning point in the global struggle for a liveable future,” said lawyer Gerry Liston, of the NGO Global Legal Action Network (GLAN).

“A victory in any of the three cases could constitute the most significant legal development on climate change for Europe since the signing of the Paris 2015 Agreement” that set new targets for governments to reduce emissions, he said.

Even if the Convention does not contain any explicit provision relating to the environment, the Court has already ruled based on Article 8 of the Convention — the right to respect for private and family life — an obligation of States to maintain a “healthy environment”, in cases relating to waste management or industrial activities.

Of the three cases which will be decided on Tuesday, the first is brought by the Swiss association of Elders for Climate Protection — 2,500 women aged 73 on average — and four of its members who have also put forward individual complaints.

They complain about “failings of the Swiss authorities” in terms of climate protection, which “would seriously harm their state of health”.

Damien Careme, former mayor of the northern French coastal town of Grande-Synthe, in his case attacks the “deficiencies” of the French state, arguing they pose a risk of his town being submerged under the North Sea.

In 2019, he already filed a case at France’s Council of State — its highest administrative court — alleging “climate inaction” on the part of France.

The court ruled in favour of the municipality in July 2021, but rejected a case he’d brought in his own name, leading Careme to take it to the ECHR.

‘For benefit of all’

The third case was brought by a group of six Portuguese, aged 12 to 24, inspired to act after fires ravaged their country in 2017.

Their case is not only against Portugal, but also 31 other states (every EU country, plus Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Russia).

Almost all European countries belong to the Council of Europe, not just EU members.

Russian was expelled from the COE after its invasion of Ukraine but cases against Moscow are still heard at the court.

The ECHR hears cases only when all domestic appeals have been exhausted. Its rulings are binding, although there have been problems with compliance of certain states such as Turkey.

The three cases rely primarily on articles in the Convention that protect the “right to life” and the “right to respect for private life”.

However, the Court will only issue a precedent-setting verdict if it determines that these cases have exhausted all remedies at the national level.

The accused states tried to demonstrate this is not the case during two hearings held in 2023.

SHOW COMMENTS