On our first morning in Oslo, we took a lovely walk from our hostel to the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, which works to promote and ensure clean, efficient, and renewable energy creation from Norway’s wide range of energy resources. As an industrialized nation, Norway’s energy consumption is high on a global scale, but comparable to that of other industrialized nations, including the United States and Canada. However, the energy use here is, unlike other countries, predominantly based on electricity. 95% of Norway’s electricity is produced by hydropower from hydropower plants fed by the nation’s many mountain lakes, but the country also takes advantage of wind, marine, bioenergy, and its expansive petroleum reserves. As we learned during our visit, this unique and diverse mixture of resources necessitates the coordination of several Norwegian state ministries in the creation of an integrated energy policy.
This cooperation, as economist Frederik Netland explained in his presentation, is evident in Norway’s body of climate change policy. Netland, of the Ministry of Climate and Environment, began his presentation by defining the joint responsibility of these two ministries as the maintenance of a successful balance of resource use with efforts in climate change mitigation and energy technology implementation. In accordance with this goal, Norway boasts an extensive and multi-faceted climate change mitigation and research initiative.
In 2012, Norway’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions equaled approximately 48 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, 29% of which were from petrol activities outside of industry and road traffic. Comparatively, Norway’s total emissions represents less than 1% of the those of the United States and equates to a per capita emissions value of roughly half of that of the United States. Though low compared to the United States and other comparably industrialized nations, such as Canada and Sweden, Norway’s amount of total emissions still places the nation high on the list of carbon dioxide emitters globally.
Recognizing that these emissions will likely create an increase in the Earth’s mean surface temperature, leading to significant disruptions to precipitation patterns and climate zones, the Norwegian government acknowledges climate change as an international environmental dilemma. Domestic energy goals reflect this international focus, beginning with the Norwegian goal to limit the average rise in global temperature to less than 2° C above the pre-industrial level. In addition, Norway has pledged emission reductions equivalent to 26% of its own 1990 emissions by the year 2020,approximately 60% of which will be made within its domestic borders. Norway also plans to independently achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, a target date that could be reduced by 20 years through the coordinated efforts of similar targets made by other developed countries.
As Netland explained, the policy instruments intended to achieve these objectives were founded on the polluter pays principle, which holds the emitting party responsible for monetarily paying for the resulting environmental damage. Norway, therefore, participates in the EU emissions trading system, which uses the ‘cap and trade’ principle to establish a set limit for greenhouse gas emissions across all participating nations and then auction off allowances in order to encourage emission reduction. Norway also makes use of a carbon tax.Together these two instruments reduced the annual carbon dioxide emissions from the petroleum sector by more than 5 million metric tons. This success is impressive, yet not surprising given the expansive implementation of Norway’s policies. For example, I found it interesting to learn that over 80% of companies participate in either the ETS system or pay the carbon tax and 90% of petroleum companies participate in ETS. In contrast to this wide participation, the United States, where the carbon tax is met with much opposition, has never leveled a national carbon tax. Still, I knew that carbon taxes have been established in several states, including California and Colorado. Netland, however, diminished our small, municipal achievements when comparing their rates to those of Norway. Norway’s carbon tax charges an equivalent of70USD per metric ton of carbon dioxide while California charged a comparatively minimal rate of 10 USD.
In addition to these economic instruments, Norway has also integrated scientific research goals into its climate change policies, dedicating itself to the research and implementation of cutting-edge carbon capture and storage technologies. As we learned at the ministry, Norway maintains three large-scales CCS projects— two operational sites and one project in the planning stage. Both operational sites, Sleipner and Snøhvit, involve the injection of carbon into storage reservoirs located in the North Sea. Their goals include the reduction of environmental, technical, and financial risks; the encouragement of further development; and the experimentation and verification of new carbon capture technologies. These goals, achieve through a partnership between the Norwegian state; industries including Statoil, Shell, and Gassnova; and authorities such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represent another fascinatingly intricate joint effort at simultaneous domestic and international mitigation and financial profit, emphasizing Norway’s present struggle between the environmental right and petroleum’s financial gains.