In a report prepared by the Boston Consulting Group for the
Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO) in January, it became clear that
Norway is lagging behind other northern European countries when it comes to
emission cuts.
“We must change Norwegian society in a way that we have
never done before to reach our climate goals,” NHO chief Ole Erik Almlid
told national newspaper VG (link in Norwegian) and added that “the situation is
desperate.”
According to VG, Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland have cut their emissions by between 35 and 49 per cent since 1990.
Norway has only cut 4.6 per cent, according to Environment Norway. This is despite the fact that Norway has a target of
cutting 55 per cent of emissions by 2030.
Have not tried
In Denmark, greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by 41
per cent since 1990. In Sweden, the decrease is 37 per cent.
Why hasn’t Norway achieved the same?
“Many people in Norway believe that no one can cut
emissions. But of all the wealthy countries in Europe, Norway is very special,” Elin Lerum Boasson says.
Boasson is a professor at the University of Oslo’s Department of Political
Science and a researcher at the CICERO Center for International
Climate Research.
“There are only a few wealthy countries that have not cut
emissions,” she says.
Boasson says there is no mystery as to why Norway is
lagging behind.
“We haven’t succeeded because we haven’t tried. That’s
the main explanation,” she says.
Have not had coal power plants to shut down
Stig Schjølset is chief adviser at Zero Emission Resource Organisation (ZERO).
He says that the main reason why Norway has cut
so little compared to Sweden and Denmark is that emissions from Norway’s oil
and gas sector have increased since 1990.
“It’s a uniquely Norwegian phenomenon,” he says.
The second reason is that Denmark had coal-fired power plants to shut down. Norway did not.
“We had 100 per cent renewable power production in 1990,
and we still have that. Denmark has gone from having 90 per cent coal to a
maximum of 10 per cent coal,” he says.
Wind power, bioenergy, and to some extent solar power have
largely replaced fossil sources for electricity production in Denmark, graphs from the IEA show.
Sweden had little fossil electricity production as early
as 1990, according to IEA data. Hydropower, nuclear power, wind power, and some
bioenergy are Sweden’s main sources of electricity.
No excuse
Has it been easier for neighbouring countries to cut
emissions than for Norway?
“It’s easier, of course, because climate policy in most
countries started by replacing coal or gas to generate electricity with solar,
wind, or other renewable sources. It’s the smartest and easiest thing for most
countries,” Schjølset says.
Sweden and Denmark also do not have a large petroleum
industry, like Norway.
But this does not absolve Norway from cutting emissions,
Schjølset believes.
“When you have an industry as profitable as the oil and
gas industry has been for Norway, you also have the financial resources to make
emission cuts in other sectors,” he says.
He thinks Norway has not made enough of an effort.
“Norway is one of the countries that really worked for
the 1.5 degree target to be an important part of the Paris Agreement. If you hold
that position internationally, then you also have to do much more to cut your
own emissions,” he says.
Energy efficiency and district heating
Elin Lerum Boasson has more to say about what lies behind
Sweden’s and Denmark’s emission cuts.
“Denmark has gone from having a real fossil power
industry to doing an incredible amount in energy efficiency and renewable
energy,” she says.
Sweden has managed to cut emissions from transport by
mixing in biofuel.
Biofuel is definitely one of the climate solutions we
need, according to Schjølset at ZERO. But experts disagree on how sustainable
this is in the long run.
The Swedes have also switched from oil heating and developed a lot of district heating for heating buildings.
Those who want to defend the low Norwegian cuts will say that it
has been very difficult for Norway because we had renewable energy in to start with, Boasson says.
“It’s true that most countries tackle the power sector
first. But that doesn’t mean that it has been very easy for these countries to
do so. It has cost a lot of money and political effort,” she
says.
Sweden is slowing down
Boasson herself is a member of the Climate Policy Council in
Sweden, which advises the Swedish government on achieving its climate goals.
“For the first time since climate change was put on the
agenda, Sweden now has a policy that means they will not continue to cut
emissions. There has been a dramatic change in climate policy with
the new government,” Boasson says.
Among other changes, this involves reducing the
requirement for blending biodiesel into petrol and diesel.
But the country is still well positioned, Boasson says. Emissions in Sweden fell by three per cent last year compared to the year before.
Difference in governance
Tor Håkon Jackson Inderberg is a political scientist and
senior researcher at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
He highlights climate policy management as one of the
differences between Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.
“I have previously criticised the structure of the
Norwegian Climate Act, for example, because it’s quite weak. It sets some
targets, but is very poor at sub-targets and the necessary structures that
would oblige the government to follow up on its own targets with concrete
measures,” he says.
Sweden and Denmark also have climate laws that legislate
emission cuts.
At the same time, they have stronger regulations, Inderberg believes. They also have independent climate councils that are supposed to keep the governments accountable.
Inderberg highlights the Green Book as a positive
development in the management of climate policy in Norway. The Green Book is a
kind of account that shows how Norway is doing in terms of meeting its climate targets, according to the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, NRK (link in Norwegian).
Large increase in oil and gas emissions
What’s behind Norway’s 4.6 per cent emission cuts?
The oil and gas industry accounts for a quarter of
Norwegian greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions nearly doubled from 1990 until
2007. Since then, emissions have decreased, but the overall increase is still 48
per cent since 1990, according to Environment Norway.
“The reason for this is mainly that we have invested a
lot and expanded a lot,” says Boasson.
And more energy is required to recover oil from ageing
fields.
Emissions have decreased slightly because a number of old
oil fields have been closed. Norway has also discovered gas fields that can
be developed with fewer emissions than oil, and several new oil and gas fields have
been electrified.
The Johan Sverdrup, Ormen Lange, Snøhvit, Troll A, Gjøa,
Goliat, Valhall, and Martin Linge fields all operate with land-based electric power,
according to norskpetrolum.no.
The industry has cut 40 per cent
Industry emissions, on the other hand, have significantly decreased: a whole 40 per cent since 1990.
“The industry has managed to cut greenhouse gases other
than CO2 through process improvements,” Schjølset says.
Emissions of the fluorinated greenhouse gases PFCs
(perflurocarbons), the greenhouse gas SF6, and nitrous oxide were reduced until 2010. CO2 emissions have remained stable.
“The next major action that Norway’s industry has to take
is to eliminate CO2 emissions linked to heating and other uses of
fossil energy in industrial processes,” says Schjølset.
Emissions from transport have increased a great deal since
1990, as in many other countries. Now it is levelling off, and emissions from
road transport will fall in coming years. This is due to the use of a biofuel mix,
and the fact that Norway is a leader in the adoption of electric cars.
Oil and
gas industry delays progress
Carlo Aall, senior researcher at the Western Norway Research Institute,
believes the oil and gas industry delays Norwegian
emissions cuts.
“It’s the biggest source of emissions,” he says.
Aall believes that clean electricity that could have been
used elsewhere will be used to electrify the oil and gas industry.
“You have to build cables and huge facilities. I
think that the more we bet on that horse, the more it will delay us, because it
requires an incredible amount of infrastructure,” he says.
Aall questions how wise it is to use resources to
electrify an industry that “we should really start to reduce”.
“To put it bluntly: When we have finally reduced
emissions from the production of oil and gas, we will no longer be able to sell
it,” he says.
Buying time by paying other countries to cut
Aall believes that Norway struggles with double
communication.
“On the one hand, there was rejoicing after the last
climate summit, because the final declaration finally said that we must start phasing
out the industry for oil and gas production. But that clearly does not apply to
Norway. The spilt only becomes more and more apparent,” he says.
Another reason Norway has made few cuts is an
ideology about cost efficiency in climate policy, Aall believes.
This is based on arguments that Norway can
cut more greenhouse gases by spending money abroad than in Norway.
“The supposed rationale behind this ideology is that we are buying time. While other countries made emission
cuts for us, our job was to develop technology in the form of battery-powered cars,
battery-powered airplanes, and carbon capture and storage facilities,” he says.
“But these technological efforts have been shelved. Now
all available domestic resources are instead being used to extend the fossil
era.”
Norway has become a world leader in adopting electric car
technology. But the country should have made
more progress with other measures, Aall believes.
2030 is fast approaching
Norway must cut emissions by 55 per cent of 1990 levels
by 2030.
According to the target that has been submitted to the
UN, these cuts must be done in collaboration with the EU. In other words,
Norway can pay for emission cuts in EU countries. The government has also set a
separate target for the cuts to take place domestically.
Boasson does not think that the government has presented a clear plan for how this will be done.
She is also not convinced that it will be possible to make
the cuts abroad.
“In this case, we have to find projects and countries
that are willing to let the Norwegian state finance emission cuts there and to
allow those emission cuts to be credited to Norway’s and not their own
accounts. It would have been nice if the Norwegian government told us about how
it is working to achieve these agreements with EU member states,” she says.
Doubt Norway will reach its goal
Tor Håkon Jackson Inderberg at the Fridtjof Nansen
Institute thinks things look bad for the 2030 target.
“I don’t think we will be able to make our goal. Either
you can cut significantly in petroleum, which doesn’t seem likely to happen, or you
have to electrify much faster. But the new stream of electricity we need does not seem to
be in place either,” he says.
Stig Schjølset agrees that Norway is not in a position to
achieve its goal. But he says there can certainly be emission cuts in the
future.
Industry could make big cuts quickly
“Emissions in the transport sector will continue to
decrease, because soon all new passenger cars sold will be electric. A larger
proportion of vans and lorries will be electric,” Schjølset says.
Industry could also make major cuts.
“The largest point emissions from industrial companies
account for a large proportion of the total emissions in Norway. Here, we can achieve big cuts through measures at quite a few facilities,” he says.
A report from the Norwegian Environment Agency (link in Norwegian) calculates that emissions from industry,
petroleum, and energy supply could be cut by 67 per cent from 2021 levels by 2030.
This would require 14 terawatt hours of renewable power,
some forest raw materials, and the storage of four million tonnes of CO2.
For example, the Norwegian gas plant on Melkøya in Northern Norway emits 800,000 tonnes of CO2, Schjølset says. If it
is electrified, 1.6 per cent of Norway’s emissions will be cut.
“Hydro and Yara could achieve the same. Many industrial companies are working with specific technologies and projects that
can reduce emissions almost to zero,” he says.
It will happen with time, Schjølset believes, but if it is to
happen quickly, something must change.
“With a combination of stricter state requirements and
support schemes, plus the policies we have today, many of the projects could be
realised around 2030,” he says.
In order to get enough electricity, the grid must be
expanded more, and Norway must increase the production of renewable power much
more, Schjølset adds.
———
Translated by Nancy Bazilchuk
Read the Norwegian version of this article at forskning.no