Read news from:
Austria
SHARE
COPY LINK
For members

ENVIRONMENT

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

Norway has been ranked as one of the countries most ready for a shift away from fossil fuels. However, the country remains Western Europe’s largest oil and natural gas producer. 

Published: 15 November 2023 12:21 CET
Pictured is the West Epsilon oil rig.
Norway has been named as one of the countries most ready for the transition to green energy. However, the country is heavily reliant on oil. Pictured is the West Epsilon oil rig. Photo by Ingrid Martinussen on Unsplash

A report from the Renewable Energy Association released recently named Norway the country most ready for the global energy sector’s shift from fossil-based energy production and consumption. 

Norway was awarded a “high 4” out of 5, putting it ahead of Denmark, Finland and Sweden in the rankings. 

The Nordic country ranked well due to the majority of the electricity it generates coming from renewable sources and its adoption of other technologies, such as heat pumps. 

However, Robbie Andrew, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate Research (CICERO), told The Local that the report sat in a specific niche. 

The report was “from the perspective of private investors in the flexibility services and technologies that support the deployment of renewable power and decarbonisation”.

Norway is Western Europe’s largest oil and gas producer, and the economy is highly dependent on fossil fuels.

Around 20 percent of government spending in Norway comes from the roughly 15 trillion kroner sovereign wealth fund, where the revenues from oil and gas are invested. 

READ ALSO: What does Norway do with all its wealth? 

When accounting for oil and gas, Norway’s readiness to transition from fossil fuels becomes less clear. 

The Norwegian government is aware that the demand for oil and gas will decline over time, and production will need to be ramped down in line with the reduced demand. However, Andrew said anything other than a gradual decline may cause problems for the Scandinavian country. 

“This position assumes that demand will decline gradually, such that production declines do not lead to any changes in Norway that cannot be readily adapted to. Anything other than a gradual decline might lead to difficulties in adjusting within Norway because of reliance on this industry,” Andrew said. 

Furthermore, none of Norway’s governments have shown any willingness to speed up the transition from oil and gas. 

“No sitting Norwegian government has shown such signs, although several other political parties certainly have. The issue is not one-sided within Norway, but those who have power are reluctant to say anything that sounds like it might threaten the industry,” Andrew said. 

Aside from transitioning away from fossil fuels, Norway has set several emissions targets. The two most prominent are in 2030 and 2050. 

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. 

Earlier this year, the Norwegian Environment Agency identified 85 measures the country should adopt to try and reach its 2030 goal. Andrew said that even if every measure was adopted, Norway might still struggle to meet its 2030 goal. 

“The 2030 goal, in particular, would require very sharp cuts year on year, because progress has been so slow since it was first announced,” Andrew said. 

Regarding Norway’s “green credentials” overall, Andrew said the term was open-ended and hard to define. 

“Norway is a large producer of oil and gas, and, in particular, is a significant exporter of oil and gas. When you look at what is happening within Norway, you still need to include Norway’s oil and gas industry since just producing oil and gas is a large source of emissions here,” he said. 

However, factors like the mass adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) may be why some see Norway as a leader in green technology. In 2022, 79.3 percent of all new cars sold were fully electric, something which contributes to Norway being seen as a leader in EV adoption and infrastructure due to its vast charging network. 

“Overseas, people hear about Norway’s EVs, because those are so far ahead of other countries, but road passenger transport is only one component of Norway’s emissions, and many emissions sources are not declining,” he added. 

Andrew said that Norway as a whole doesn’t claim to be a green country, but some politicians speak up or play down the country’s environmental credentials. 

“So, we do have politicians that say that Norway is a leading example on environmental matters. Often, these statements omit the gross exceptions to such conclusions, oil and gas being one such exception,” he said. 

Other factors, such as the trade-offs when using energy sources which don’t produce as many greenhouse gasses, make it hard to assess how green Norway is overall.

“Then there is the scope of the term ‘green’. When considering greenhouse gas emissions, hydropower and wind are far preferable to coal and natural gas, but there are other environmental concerns with these,” Andrew said. 

Member comments

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

BUSINESS

Dying salmon worry Norway’s giant fish-farm industry

They are hailed for their omega-3 fatty acids and micronutrients, but Norway's salmon are not in the best of health themselves at the fish farms where they are bred.

Published: 30 April 2024 15:04 CEST
Dying salmon worry Norway's giant fish-farm industry

Almost 63 million salmon — a record — died prematurely last year in the large underwater sea pens that dot the fjords of Norway, the world’s biggest producer of Atlantic salmon.

That represents a mortality rate of 16.7 percent, also a record high and a number that has gradually risen over the years — posing an economic and an ethical problem to producers.

The salmon succumb to illnesses of the pancreas, gills or heart, or to injuries suffered during the removal of sea lice parasites.

“The death of animals is a waste of life and resources,” Edgar Brun, director of Aquatic Animal Health and Welfare at the Norwegian Veterinary Institute, told AFP. “We also have a moral and ethical responsibility to guarantee them the best possible conditions.”

Norway’s salmon exports exceeded $11 billion last year, with the 1.2 million tonnes sold representing the equivalent of 16 million meals per day.

The 63 million prematurely dead salmon represent almost $2 billion in lost income for the industry.

Not so appetising

Salmon that die prematurely are usually turned into animal feed or biofuel.

But according to Norwegian media, some fish that are in dire health at the time of slaughter, or even already dead, do sometimes end up on dinner plates, occasionally even sent off with a label marked “superior”.

“I see fish on sale that I myself would not eat,” a former head of quality control at a salmon slaughterhouse, Laila Sele Navikauskas, told public broadcaster NRK in November.

Eating those salmon poses no danger to human health, experts say.

“The pathogens that cause these illnesses in the salmon cannot be passed on to humans,” Brun explained.

But the revelations damage the salmon’s precious image.

“If you buy meat in a store, you expect it to come from an animal that was slaughtered in line with regulations and not one that was lying dead outside the barn,” said Trygve Poppe, a specialist in fish health. “Otherwise, as a consumer you feel tricked.”

The Norwegian Food Safety Authority said it observed anomalies at half of the fish farms inspected last year, noting that, among other things, injured or deformed fish had been exported in violation of Norwegian regulations.

In order to maintain its strong reputation, only salmon of ordinary or superior quality is authorised for export.

The lower quality fish — which accounts for a growing share of stocks, up to a third last winter — can only be sold abroad after it has been transformed, into fillets for example.

Matter of trust

Robert Eriksson, head of the Norwegian Seafood Association which represents small producers — generally considered less at fault — said the irregularities reported at some breeders were “totally unacceptable”.

“We live off of trust,” he said.

Taking shortcuts means “you get punished by the market and the economic impact is much bigger than the few extra kilos you sold.”

The Norwegian Seafood Federation — representing the biggest fish farming companies, those most often singled out over quality — insists it is addressing the matter but says more time is needed.

“On average, it takes three years to breed a salmon,” said the body’s director, Geir Ove Ystmark.

“So it’s very difficult to see immediate results today, even though we have launched a series of initiatives and measures.”

It is precisely the speed at which the fish are bred that is the problem, according to fish health specialist Poppe, who criticised the “terribly bad animal conditions” and who has stopped eating farmed salmon.

“The salmon are subjected to stress their entire lives, from the time they hatch in fresh water until their slaughter,” said Poppe.

“For example, during the first phase in fresh water, the light and temperature is manipulated so they’ll grow as quickly as possible,” he explained.

“In the wild, this phase takes two to six years. When they’re bred, it takes six months to a year.”

New technology

Truls Gulowsen, head of Friends of the Earth Norway, said recent years’ higher mortality rates were the result of aggressive industrialisation.

“We have bred a farmed fish that has poor chances of survival and which is dying from a combination of stress and bad genes because it’s been bred to grow as fast as possible and subjected to a major change in diet.”

The Norwegian Seafood Association aims to halve the mortality rate by 2030, and industry giant Salmar has allocated $45 million to tackle the issue.

Among the frequently mentioned possibilities are greater spacing between fish farms, and new technology, including so-called closed facilities.

The latter, where sea water is filtered, would help prevent sea lice but are more costly.

The government insists it is up to fish farms to respect the rules.

“Not all producers have the same mortality rates, so it is possible to reduce them,” said Even Tronstad Sagebakken, a state secretary at the fisheries ministry.

In the meantime, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority says it has not yet received any reports of salmon not fit for export being sold abroad.

SHOW COMMENTS