Norwegian ruling on Arctic oil and gas drilling



[ad_1]

Greenpeace Norden and the Norwegian environmental youth organization Natur og Ungdom have jointly sued the Norwegian state for opening a new area in the Barents Arctic Sea for oil exploration.

The decision was made in 2016 and it was the first time in twenty years that a new area was opened further north than ever on the Norwegian continental shelf.

The same year that Norway wrote on and ratified the Paris Agreement and that is one of the reasons why environmental organizations sued the State. They considered that the opening of the new oil area violated Norway’s promises in the Paris Agreement.

Environmental organizations have referred to, among other things, research reports saying that given all the oil already produced, Arctic oil cannot be pumped and burned if climate goals are to be achieved. The organizations claim that oil exploration violates environmental section 112 of the Norwegian Constitution. It says, among other things: “Every person has the right to a healthy environment and a nature where productivity and biodiversity are preserved.”

The climate drop has migrated through the legal system and has been present in two court hearings, the District Court in 2017 and the Court of Appeal, corresponding to the Swedish Court of Appeal, in 2019.

None of the lower courts has followed the line of environmental organizations that wanted to condemn the State to withdraw the licenses that have been distributed to oil companies.

Unlike the district court, the Court of Appeal found that the Norwegian state should take responsibility for Norwegian oil emissions, even if it takes place outside the country’s borders. However, the case was rejected because the court found that the oil licenses were not extensive enough to violate the Constitution.

What the fifteen judges in the Supreme Court concludes that it may be of great importance to Norway and the oil industry. Norway’s economy is based on the oil and gas industry, which accounts for more than half of exports, the judges’ decisions can have important consequences, come what may.

[ad_2]