Environmental organizations lost climate lawsuit at all points in Supreme Court – NRK Norway – Summary of news from different parts of the country

The leaders of Greenpeace and Nature and Youth met with the press today with tears in their eyes.

– I think today is a heavy message and a heavy blow. I think the Supreme Court is failing the youth of today, when they say that politicians have the power to take away a livable environment from us, to make us insecure about our future.

This is how Therese Hugstmyr Woie reacts in Nature and Youth after the Supreme Court ruling.

– They have given us some right in the sense that the environmental clause is a right that places a limit on politicians. But it hurts even more when they give us that right, but they say it takes a long time before a limit is set for politicians.

However, he does not regret suing the state and believes that it has brought to light many aspects of Norwegian oil management.

Environmental organizations will now examine the verdict thoroughly, in order to consider taking the case before the European Court of Human Rights.

– We believe that the Supreme Court has completely failed in its responsibility as the third state power, says a very disappointed leader of Greenpeace, Frode Pleym.

Law professor: – The environmental clause is dead

University of Bergen law professor Hans Fredrik Marthinussen did not think the state should be involved in the case, but he still reacts strongly to the Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court believes that it is only relevant to review the Storting if the Storting has seriously ignored its obligations to safeguard the environment. For that, the threshold must be very high.

– This probably means that in practice we will not see this provision used in Norwegian courts. I think it’s sad, says Marthiniussen. On Twitter, he writes that the environmental clause is dead.

The professor believes that the Supreme Court has taken the most cautious line, more conservative than both the literature and the conclusion of the Court of Appeals.

Joy in the north

In the oil industry, several have feared the consequences for jobs and future oil activities if the state were sent. Therefore, the joy was great in the Petro Arctic supplier network when the conclusion was known.

– Hurrah! This was good news, but not unexpected. For us in Northern Norway and Finnmark, it is very good news that the decisions that were made when parts of the Barents Sea were opened were the right ones, says director Kjell Giæver.

– That we can still obtain our activity from the sea is the very basis for us to live and live here.

Minister of Petroleum: – Important and complete judgment

The state has always believed that the case is political and does not belong to the judiciary.

The Minister of Oil and Energy says she is satisfied with the verdict. She describes it as important and complete.

– We have received acceptance that our decision was valid. I am not surprised, given that it was a decision that was supported by a large majority in the Storting. The verdict is important because it calls for a long-standing Norwegian tradition in which elected representatives in the Storting evaluate, debate and ultimately weigh difficult political issues, says Tina Bru (H) in a press release.

High threshold for constitutional violations

Greenpeace and Natur og Ungdom lost the case in both the district court and the court of appeal. On Tuesday, there was another defeat in the Supreme Court.

The court unanimously believes that the 2016 oil licensing in the Barents Sea was not a violation of the Environment Section of the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as claimed by the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court believes that Article 112 of the Constitution should be a “safety valve”, in case the state seriously neglects its functions. For that, the threshold must be very high, according to the verdict.

The court believes that it is primarily if the state no implements climatic measures that the section can be used. The judges point out that the state has implemented a series of climate measures and has set goals to reduce emissions.

If the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, it would have meant the start of a controlled liquidation of Norwegian oil activities. That decision should rest with the Storting and not with the court, believes the Supreme Court.

Regarding the ECHR, the Supreme Court affirms that there is not a sufficient connection between the climatic consequences of oil licenses and the loss of life in Norway.

The Supreme Court also believes that Norway is not responsible for the emissions of Norwegian oil that is incinerated in other countries, as the Court of Appeal held.

Dissent on procedural errors

One point was the disagreement between the judges. That was if a procedural error was made when the southeast Barents Sea was opened in 2013.

This includes a profitability calculation from the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, which the Petroleum Ministry decided not to send to the Storting. It showed that oil exploration in the area could in all probability lead to a staggering deficit.

Most judges believe that neither the economy nor the climate consequences were assessed incorrectly, and that emissions can only be assessed after oil has been found.

Four out of eleven judges, for their part, believe that the greenhouse gas emissions consequences of any discovery should have been investigated at the time of opening.