[ad_1]
Prime Minister Erna Solberg wants to be part of the Paris Agreement but still drill for oil in the Arctic.
This is an opinion piece from the editorial team. Sydsvenskan’s attitude is independently liberal.
Norway can continue to extract oil in the sensitive Arctic. It became clear Tuesday after the country’s highest court rejected a lawsuit by a pair of environmental organizations.
The legal process began in 2016, when Norwegian authorities opened up to extracting oil and gas in the sensitive, previously unexplored Arctic. The environmental organizations Greenpeace and Natur og Ungdom sued the Norwegian state for the decision, but were therefore rejected in all three courts.
The jurisprudence must now have had something to say. But the same year the lawsuit was filed, the Norwegian state signed the Paris Agreement on new restrictions on global carbon dioxide emissions, which may seem counterintuitive. But since all of Norway’s welfare construction is based on oil revenues, it is not hard to see that Norwegian politicians are reluctant to give up oil revenues.
But the country’s oil fund, worth around NOK 10 billion, was created after all as financial insurance for the day the oil money runs out. In fact, they can do it faster than you think. The transition to more sustainable types of energy means that oil is not the safe investment it once was.
The Norwegian dilemma raises the question of the price of climate change. It is true that both law and policy can decide that Norway can have and eat the cake: continue to extract oil in the sensitive northern latitudes and at the same time be part of the Paris Agreement.
The price could be an Arctic in ruins. It is definitely too loud.
