Norway and the environment

Binge and purge


See article

Readers' comments



In fact I think the article is too weak in its critique of Norway. Yes indeed the Norwegian policy is to brag about their green targets while shopping for cheap carbon credits abroad to keep extracting oil and gas at home. But the article makes it look like Norway actually IS doing something at home. Unfortunately they are not, and Jens Stoltenberg is one of the main reasons why. A comparison with Sweden is revealing: two social democracies with a lot of climatic and historical similarities, but while Sweden have CUT emissions by 8,7%, Norway have INCREASED by 11%. Of course oil and gas extraction has a great share in this, but why have emissions from road traffic increased by 28% as compared to the Swedish 10%? Emissions from landfills and agriculture and industry have all gone up more than in Sweden. The Norwegian Pollution Control Authority clearly state that the most important measure in Norwegian climate policy is the CO2tax, which was introduced in 1991! And since that almost nothing has happened! In comparison Sweden has spent billions of kroners on a ten-year local investment programme, there are local energy advisors in almost all municipalities, they have a green certificate electricity production scheme, and they have made a green tax shift worth 30 bill. SEK. Norway has the lowest level of green taxes in Scandinavia, Denmark and Sweden are far ahead. Lunar landings and pilot projects for salt power is great, but it's not generating any emission cuts in Norway, and the amounts of public money spent on this kind of research are microscopic compared to the research money spent to increase extraction of oil reserves. Jens Stoltenberg is the man who said no to a new marke based system for green power (green certificate together with Sweden), and he was the one who knocked over the previous government by forcing through a weakening of the Pollution Act.The fact is that emissions are rising fast in all sectors, not just oil. If you want to see a country who's actually spent their money on doing stuff, not just talking about doing stuff, look to Sweden!Best from Norway


Another example of your trademark ironic tone in
your environmental reporting. Why don't you use the same
tone in your business and finance reporting -- these
sectors deserve it far more than the competent good global citizens of Norway.

Yankee Doodle

I'm not arguing anything. Kyoto sounded good so Europe went for Kyoto. Kyoto set goals that Norway (and Europe) ignored. Why didn't these goals get met? Money, cash, euros. Europe talked a lot, but did less than the United States did in regard to the Kyoto goals. Fact pskor, this is a fact.

Norway lied - or Norway foolishly signed a treaty that Norway lacked the funds to meet. Which was it pskor?


Your argumentation isn't impressing anyone either yankee doodle. Nor is your country. Hopefully president Obama might change the course of the US. My money is on him, and I wish him the best.Too bad he won't be able to change you yankee...

Yankee Doodle

The fact remains that Europe signed Kyoto and then ignored it. The US is closer to meeting the Kyoto goals than is most of Europe.

Why doesn't Norway meet Kyoto? Signing while knowing all of the time that Norway would ignore Kyoto does not impress anyone.


minomusiI know exactly what 'letters' I am looking for, if you had actually read all the posts you would have realized it. And, as I already pointed out, Switzerland is not a member of the EEA; and A in place of a C makes all the difference in the world, hence the claim that the EEC still exists cannot be correct. The EEC and the EEA are (were) two completely different organizations. In fact, EEA countries must comply with the EU's (formerly known as EEC) internal market rules, but have no say (voting power) in deciding what the rules are (fax-democracy).

Lyn Oslo

My dear Englishman....

I can assure you there's not a single drop of nationalism running through my veins, especially as my background is just as much lappish (a minority not always kindly treated by Norwegians in the past)and I have spent large parts of my life abroad. My point is this; with the EFTA-agreement you should be able to go back and live in your native Engand (or Sweden) and still be entitled to your pension. If money stretches further in England, surely this would be the rational choice ?

And surely, things aren`t always that easy in the UK either. When I started working in London some years ago with a MsC in Economics from Japan and being fairly fluent in Japanese, English and Norwegian (and with a good command of German and the other Scandinavian languages), all I was able to fetch when was Nkr 14,000 monthly (before tax), working 09.00 to 20.00 most weekdays. With the prices on transport and accomodation in London, that wasn't exactly easy, but I was still grateful that I had a job. I would agree with you anytime that London in particular and the UK in general is a more liberal and inlusive place than most Scandinavian countries.

The problem with the welfare state is that it`s a bit like shooting on a target with a shotgun, especially the way the welfare state is set up in Scandinavia. Too many benefits going to people with no needs of support (one example being child support, where the super-rich benefits just as much as those in the low income brackets) rather than those in need. I do hope your lot improves as you seem to be one of those people clearly willing to work and not being given the chances one deserves in life is truly unfair and awful.

Lyn Oslo


I have never sort to comment on one of your articles before. But I must now. This article is one of the most unreasonable I have ever read, and am amazed to find it in the Economist. I can only echo the sentiments of others and say that it is completely unfair to criticise Norway for doing its best to be carbon neutral, while exporting its gas and oil to others. Who in their right mind would choose not to? Any government that did would surely be thrown out, post-haste. I hope to never read such ultra-liberal drivel again in what is normally such a fine magazine. I expect a more balanced and economically-realistic view from the Economist.


thundermax & mathias: The three letters you are looking for are EEA, the European Economic Area. Mathias' writings are correct if you substitute that C with an A.englishman in norway: It's sad you don't like it here, but I find it strange that you are too old to move, but have been studying double time. Also, you haven't exactly picked our top educational institutions. Sweden is open to you, appearently much more tolerant and generous, so bon voyage. I'll help you into the bus. Although we do have our share of racism, it isn't worse than other European countries, and anti-english sentiments are virtually non-existant (I have English friends living here, so I know.) As a foreign national enjoying welfare benefits in Norway, I'm not so sure you should be the first to complain about the size of them. Anyway, English ex-pat bitterness is just as relevant here as the jew question raised earlier. As for your estimates on Norways fossile reserves, the oil is starting to run out, but the gas isn't for many decades to come. Norway ARE greener than most countries, and without a question greener than other oil exporters. Still, at the Economist points out, there are many sides to this story. We do live on selling fossile energy, and our flying and heating habits are utterly unsustainable. If we put our money where our mouth is more than other nations, it's because we have the money and we have the moral responsibility.As for the latter, this goes for the US as well. Yankee Doodles attempts to greenwash the US are laughable, but one thing is clear: if we're ever going to get out of this mess, it will be because the US turned around and put its power to work. So, you are indeed more guilty than pretty much all other nations, but you are also the hope of the world. By the way, Sweden, without the fossile fuel bank of Norway, has done far more impressive things than Norway. Those damn pragmatic, industrious, clever, responsible, good looking swedes...The Progress Party was mentoned in the article, and I'd like to mention that the reason they are shunned by many other parties are not spiteful ones. While a wide part of the Norwegian political spectre, even the socialists, promote responsible spending, the PP promises money right and left at every election. Their main strategy is fearmongering against immigration and muslims. They are the only Bush loving party in Scandinavia, and have only reacently admitted that there might be something to this global warming thing... not that they consider it more important than building those broad new motorways and getting the price of alcohol, petrol and tobacco down.Oh, and cycle paths are utterly rubbish, so bad research there. Look to Denmark and Netherlands for that.


It is indeed a valid line of thought arguing that the Norwegians should cut their own omissions when they are exporting so much oil. However, I'd rather buy my oil and gas from the Norwegians, a democratic country with a peace-keeping image, than from some predatory state with nuclear weapons and a bad human rights reputation. Having the Norwegians producing the stuff is as geopolitically sound as it gets. So many countries with vast natural resources have such poor track records in human rights, and the revenue generated from it only favours the elite. The Norwegians put it in an "ethically invested" fund and saves it for their children. I'd rather let Norwegian children have my money than some ambitious president and his chums in a country that strangles political opposition and threatens its neighbours (there are a few of them).


Mathias.HPerhaps you refer to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) of which those countries are indeed the remaining members. Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein (but not Switzerland) are also part of the EU Internal Market through the European Economic Area (EEA).As of February 1992, in fact, the EEC is no more, having been replaced by the EU (see Maastricht Treaty)

David Arneson

Its nice to see that some Norwegians notice the rank hypocrisy of their position, but I am very tired of them lecturing the world about their own piety when they are no better than a drug dealer who goes to church on Sunday and then heads over to the school yard on Monday to push their wares. Kudos to the Economist for shining a light on this, and shame on the Norwegians for their evil, earth destroying greed.


Wow Yankee doodle you are some piece of work. You have stars and stripes in your eyes and probably when you smile too. This could be because you sat on an american flag as a child.
Check out the recommends on your comments. Is that you and your mum?
Here is something priceless:

"George W. Bush tried to explain to you that our atmosphere is global - and that only a global solution would work. Why can't you grasp this concept, that we all live on the same globe with the same atmosphere? The fools and the frauds did not understand this wisdom, or pretended not to. Americans will not follow these same fools and frauds, it is time to accept new leadership on global climate change"

I tried to use the words George W Bush and wisdom in the same sentence once before and a small black hole appeared and started sucking everything in. Looked like an american at a buffet.
Yes we all live in the same world, although you seem to be somewhere in space. Here is an idea to help control the "worlds" problem. Stop america producing 22.2% of the carbon emissions in the world. As most of it goes to feed their fat, overweight, lazy bodies as they shove the hopes and dreams of island nations into there mouths, you people could benefit from it too.
People in greenhouses shouldn't throw stones you moron.
Are you in fact hired by the economist to drum up some heated debate? Put down the processed food and pick up some lateral thinking.

Graham Sinclair @ESGarchitect

Comparing the state of progress is worthy. Based on the briefing, Norway has gone beyond the thinking - or the talking - that many countries have done, to put in 18 years of experimentation with carbon taxes, making a switch to cap-and-trade an informed decision. We hope Finance Minister Trevor Manuel in South Africa will have read carefully, having expressed an interest in carbon taxes in the 2008 Budget. The position of the Norwegian sovereign wealth pension fund and it's USD200 billion in AUM is expressed through the filter of the ethical committee that earns highest marks for best practice in transparency, and they have contributed to the discussion on long term investor roles. Reliance on any global norms or standards will offer tensions in any investment team, or multi-stakeholder approach, and I have no confidence in any one "standard" or initiative proving any activity. The proof of the pudding remains in the eating. But to actively integrate environmental, social and corporate governance factors into investment decisions - irrespective of the market or implied value in the minute - is the appropriate measure to cover all risks and returns opportunities in 21stC investing [more at]. The merits of the HBS study on Norges and Wal-Mart may be debated elsewhere.GSSRI-Extra


Economist Missed!Even the Economist shows a human side. A briefing called "Norway and the environment" in the Economist's most recent issue fell for a line of argument that distorts the real picture of the environmental situation here. By falling for the easy, but wrong-minded, take, the Economist missed the real story....


Who can blame the Norwegians for not joining the EU?
Only the Economist can argue that Norway's efforts at environmentalism is a contradiction.I say, even if guilt is the motivating factor for the Norwegians, they are still doing something for the environment. Maybe the writer(s) for the economist might like to have a salary of $100,000, live in a clean city and feel proud of their country but they don't. Green with envy you could say.


Yankee Doodle, the political details of the US budgetary process are really not of interest here. The point is that hundreds of billions of dollars were spent in Iraq to secure further supplies of fossil fuels rather than to develope a global system to prevent their damaging effects on our planet's atmosphere. While the United States was busy making sure it would have enough oil to spew CO2 into our atmosphere for a few decades more, Europe and Asia successfully implemented a compromise on emissions reductions as a first step toward a global agreement. Yankee Doodle's statement "The EU suggests that it was a waste of resources in regard to Europe" is clearly false given that the EU has invested large efforts in improving and streamlining regulations for the 2008-12 Kyoto commitment period. This is an unambiguous sign of support for Kyoto and its successor.And by the way, what in the world does the absence of a EU constitution or president have to do with emissions reductions? The EU developed an emissions trading system (ETS) which is used by member nations to meet their individual Kyoto obligations. The American RGGI (based on ETS) is used by northeastern States for emissions trading yet Connecticut doesn't have a president. So what?Pity that Yankee Doodle has no qualms spending "a small fraction of one percent of US GDP" for the invasion of Iraq and the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians while he cannot bring himself to spend a similar amount on the stabilisation of our planet's climate to help all the world's people.


Yankee Doodle asks "Any nation that signed Kyoto has changed our climate for the better by signing?" Just by signing of course not - even the United States managed to muster enough courage to sign. However, when it came to developing mechanisms and markets to actually reduce emissions, Europe took the lead while the US quit the game. Signing and not ratifying on the grounds of reduced global competitiveness was a copout of the first order. Is this the American way - play the game only if you set the rules and are assured of victory?On to your next question. "Any nation that instead insisted upon a global approach to a global problem destroyed our climate?" As a matter of fact, this perfectly describes the United States. The negotiations for a global post-Kyoto system are currently deadlocked precisely because the world's two largest polluters cannot agree on details. China rightly argues that since 1850, the US has emitted a total of 4 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than it has. Yet the US demands that China immediately submit to drastic emissions reductions as part of a global deal. So if you consider the US as a nation which is "insisting on a global approach" then it is in fact destroying our climate by blocking a deal which would have it accept responsibility for its past actions. A thief who steals 4 cars should rightly be penalised more than a thief who steals one car.Will the US once again quit the game as soon as the going gets tough? At least Europe can be counted on to keep plugging away, even without a perfect game plan.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

