Many oil developments may be unconstitutional, the NIM said in its annual report. Storting criticizes them for moving climate policy to the courts.
NTB- Anja Aerial Tornings Break
– We fully support the fight against the climate crisis, but do not want to legitimize the policy, said Peter A., chairman of Storting’s Regulatory and Constitutional Committee. Says Frolich (H).
The criticism comes after the panel reviewed the Norwegian Institute for Human Rights’ (NIM) annual report on Tuesday.
Criticized oil growth
NIM was established by Sorting in 2015 and its main mission is to promote and protect human rights in accordance with the Constitution and international law.
The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy has asked the NIM to assess how it will comply with the so-called climate case in the Supreme Court in the winter of 2020.
In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that when considering the development plans of the oil companies, they consider that the government evaluates the impact of global climate impact from the field.
The report, submitted in April, said the government may have approved a number of oil developments that violate the constitution and human rights.
The NIM also argued that such approvals made after the Supreme Court ruling should be reconsidered.
The vast majority in Sorting disagreed with NIM’s interpretation of the Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling.
– Like many experts, we believe that NIM is wrong in law. Frolich says it will not violate the Constitution unless more oil and gas extraction is done in conjunction with other climate measures.
“As an advisory body, the NIM is free to express its views, but in this case the members believe that the NIM’s understanding is based on a recommendation that lacks democratic support and no coverage in the Norwegian legal tradition.” It notes the NIM’s recommendation to have the support of the Conservatives, the Center Party, the Labor Party and the Progressive Party.
– Thus the Constitution cannot be used to stop personal projects. The constitution states that the state must fight the climate crisis, but Frolich believes that specific actions must be determined by Sporting.
NIM is confused that asking Sporting to discuss their proposal to study the setting of a 1.5-degree target to strengthen climate law is anti-democratic.
– Director Jenny Sandwick writes in NIM that this is a temperature target that Sporting has already approved by the Paris Agreement and implicitly mentioned in the climate law, and that the state has joined the Glasgow Accord since last year’s climate summit. Email to NTB.
He points out that in 2020 the Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution can put an end to individual projects.
If the situation is at the point of extraction and it is contrary to Article 112 of the Constitution, the government will have both the right and the duty not to recognize this plan, “the NIM said in its 2020 ruling.
Article 112 of the Constitution, also known as the Environment Act, states that the environment must be protected for future generations. Sandwick points out that the Supreme Court considered that the climate impact of combustion emissions should be assessed before development projects for oil and gas are approved.
– Following NIM’s report, we note that the Ministry has agreed to upgrade the oil fields without assessing the impact of the emissions, and announced that it will restructure the case process in the future to follow the ruling.
“Music geek. Coffee lover. Devoted food scholar. Web buff. Passionate internet guru.”