New Norway uses war as an argument for oil and gas – VG

New Norway uses war as an argument for oil and gas - VG
Support: When I went to court in Norway, support signs for climate lawsuits were organized across the country. The case is currently being heard in Human Rights Court.

Attorney General Strasbourg asks the court to dismiss the climate case. They point out that Europe needs Norwegian oil and gas.


The Human Rights Court in Strasbourg will hear the Norwegian climate case, where several organizations and young Norwegians have filed lawsuits against the government.

The case is on the verge of going to trial at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), but it could still be stopped.

The government has now responded to the questions they asked in court.

In return, they ask EMD to dismiss the case.

– We do not know what will happen next. Now it is a matter of waiting and watching, and we hope that the Human Rights Court will show willingness to keep the state in its ears, says Frod Flem, President of Greenpeace Norway.

The last event: When the climate case came up in the Supreme Court in 2020, Therese Huxmeyer Voy was the leader of nature and youth. It ended with a loss, but not without benefit.

Climate case in Norway

The background to the case in EMD is the climate complaint, where Greenpeace is Norway and Nature and the youth sued the government. They stand together with the Nature Conservation Association and Grandparents Climate Action.

Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online.

See also  Farmers receive NOK 754 million in compensation for increased costs

Lost inside All three courts. The Supreme Court ruling led to changes in Norwegian oil policy.

The Supreme Court ruled Before allowing companies to extract, the Ministry of Petroleum must assess what global greenhouse gas emissions will be for each individual oil and gas field.

The Ministry of Petroleum said it was currently following suit.

The plaintiffs, along with six young climate activists, appealed the case in court in Strasbourg. This case is one of only three climate cases pending before EMD.

Supreme Court: The case was held digitally and the verdict came on 22 December 2020. This has now had repercussions on the government’s oil and gas administration.

Arguing with war

The Attorney General uses the argument that Europe needs a democratic, stable and predictable oil and gas supplier.

“Europe’s need for a sustainable and predictable energy supplier has recently been underlined by Russia’s instrumentalization of energy and its use of all means to achieve its own geopolitical goals.

According to Bush, this is an appropriate context to show the existence of a divided Norway. On the one hand, the government will be a “stable, predictable and democratic energy supplier.” On the other hand, the government is working for a rapid transition to renewable energy.

Norway is the second largest energy supplier to Europe after Russia.

For the government: Henriette Bush has written the Attorney General’s response to the European Court of Human Rights.

Believes the case is not relevant

The public prosecutor seeks to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs cannot be considered victims in this case.

See also  Discrimination against unusual names - expression

They also argue that EMD is not an appropriate system to consider such an issue.

The decision to grant inspection licenses will not directly lead to greenhouse gas emissions, Bush writes. At that point, it is uncertain whether companies will discover large amounts of oil and gas deposits.

The Supreme Court supported this argument, believing that opening the licensing circuit would not lead to separate emissions.

Most research licenses have been handed back by companies. Therefore, the public prosecutor believes that this case no longer applies.

In court: Frode Pleym of Greenpeace says the Supreme Court ruling is the most important thing that has come out of the seasonal appeal.

Greenpeace: – cynical

– To use war as an excuse to pursue a consistent course in oil policy, we think it is an incredibly cynical act. Fraud Flame of Greenpeace Norway says this war cannot legitimize the need for new production of oil and gas that will begin long after 2030.

– We believe this shows that the complaint belongs to EMD.

– Why?

– Research is very clear that the world has discovered more oil, coal and gas than we can consume if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

Research licenses issued in 2016 will not lead to a new supply of oil and gas to Europe for at least ten years, Flem says.

Article 112: Greenpeace confronts Norway’s Fraud Flame, banner with environmental rule §112 in the Constitution. This was the basis for the climate case in Norway along with human rights and EEA directives.

At the same time, investing in new sites now will take longer to phase out oil and gas.

See also  The father runs the farm on the son (3)

– There is no one who recommends that the pipe be closed overnight. It’s about new production, which will start well after 2030 and will continue for decades to come, Flame says.

The organizations took the case to Strasbourg because they wanted a test on the question of whether new oil and gas were possible in Norway within the 1.5 degree target.

– Is it possible not to come to trial yet?

– After the Supreme Court has given its verdict, whatever happens now is the most important outcome of the case. The climate case is going to change Norway’s oil policy, which is very obvious, Flem says.

– We have a long way to go, but the debate is going well right now.

Joshi Akinjide

Joshi Akinjide

"Music geek. Coffee lover. Devoted food scholar. Web buff. Passionate internet guru."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *