Tuesday, November 30

They do not meet the climate goals

They do not meet the climate goals

TRYING TO AGREE: Hadia Tajik (Labor Party), Anne Beathe Tvinnereim (Social Democrats) and Kari Elisabeth Kaski (Social Democrats) met at Bogstad farm this summer. Now their three parties are negotiating next year’s state budget.

Not even if SV decides, we get cut enough. The party should just be happy that they are not in government.

This is a comment. The commentary expresses the writer’s attitude

It is climate that is one of the big issues in the Storting these days, where the government is trying to get SV on a budget.

It’s no wonder. Because here the politicians are very far from fulfilling their promises.

MUST HAVE SOME VICTORIES: Torgeir Knag Fylkesnes and Kari Elisabeth Kaski in SV will increase fuel taxes and add more taxes on oil.

Even if SV were to get yes to all its demands, I do not think it would even have been enough.

We have set ourselves over-ambitious climate goals, as a new report from DNV shows.

The government promises to cut at least half of our emissions this decade. It is also what we have registered as our part of The Paris Agreement. A broad majority in the Storting is behind the goal.

We will therefore cut more in the next eight years than we have managed in the last 30. In simplification, we will reduce from around 50 million tonnes to 25 million tonnes. We have begun and have thus around 2.5 million tonnes to cut per year until 2030.

SV on its part will cut 70 percent. They deserve praise for having made their own plan for it. This is how they show the realism of this. You can see their cut proposals in the party alternative state budget.

Not even if SV had one hundred percent of the votes in Norway, I think the party would achieve its goal.

To achieve this, we almost have to turn off the North Sea, bolt back the Norwegian Sea and give the Barents Sea to Russia.

Not many people with insight believe that we will achieve a halving in nine years. We lack time, enough new power, transmission lines and a political majority. The skepticism of wind turbines is great, also in the environmental parties, and the authorities have put new wind farms on pause.

Also in the environmental movement, it is said in the back room that we will not be able to do this by 2030. Many also here believe that the climate goal entails an excessive and unwise development of wind turbines.

DISPUTES ABOUT TAXES AND CLIMATE: SV negotiates with the government on a budget. Now it is likely that the parties will continue until 2 December.

It is the petroleum sector that is Norway’s largest source of emissions. And if you look more closely at the figures SV states, they will cut almost all emissions from the sector by 2030.

How are they going to handle it?

SV has not set an end date for the oil. And although the MDGs have it, it is not until 2035.

Thus, there must be electrification. But where should SV get the power from?

The party points to offshore wind. But here it is not time for any major production before 2030.

In any case, it does not hold with offshore wind alone. Back up power is needed. That means cables from land.

But the power from land is what many want. At the same time, Statistics Norway says that the investments in new power production will more than halve next year. The main reason is a marked decline in wind power.

Statnett’s chairman of the board recently said that we will have too little power and that there is no solution to believing that we can only wait for offshore wind, according to Montel.

The oil sector itself is working on one plan for a 40 percent cut in its emissions by 2030.

Then the Storting last year the oil industry provided tax assistance, they had such a bad conscience that they also decided that emissions from the Norwegian continental shelf should be cut even more, by 50 percent.

It is also not very realistic, because it involves more wind turbines than politicians will approve plus it will be extremely expensive.

When Erna Solberg’s last budget came, it became clear that we are even worse off than planned, because one had forgotten some emissions.

Now this calculation error is blamed for not reaching our climate goals. But this was difficult even before that miss was discovered.

– It is very demanding, it is completely true. We say 55 percent, that is the average of the EU countries. The idea is that as an advanced industrial country, we must at least manage it. We can not count on Poland taking the job for us, replied Climate Minister Espen Barth Eide when I asked him about this during the climate summit in Glasgow.

He is the architect behind the government’s new goal of having all the cuts taken at home. And what about SV’s even more optimistic plan?

When asked, the party admits that they can not rule out that they have counted some cuts double, simply because it is unclear what kind of cuts have been made before.

This is how you can become the best in climate. On paper. The most realistic cut plan I think Frp has.

Their trick is to count all the tons our forest absorbs, as they do in the EU. They also propose old-fashioned Jens Stoltenberg policy: FRP will pay for emission cuts abroad.

And that is what we used to do in Norway. We fulfilled our obligations in the Kyoto agreement with quota purchases.

And that is probably also the plan for the future, even if it is not talked about so much. As the Norwegian Environment Agency writes: The emissions gap can be covered through various forms of flexibility. That is, to pay others to cut emissions.

It can not be sold as a climate winner. But for the climate it is at least as good.


Leave a Reply

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