Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

Norway’s climate pollution: Oil, gas, coal, and carbon trading

Posted on 26 March 201517 March 2019

A recent article in Bloomberg looks at how Norway is planning to continue its greenhouse gas emissions. “Norway is wagering it will be easier to cut carbon emissions overseas than at home,” writes Bloomberg journalist Mathew Carr.

On 4 February 2015, Norway announced a plan to cut its emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Except that Norway expects its emissions to be the same in 2030 as they are in 2015. The “reduction” will take place elsewhere and will be offset by continued emissions in Norway.

Since 1990, Norway’s emissions from oil and gas production have increased by 80%, according to Bloomberg.

Investing in coal

Meanwhile, Norway’s US$868 billion Government Pension Fund Global continues to invest in coal. The manager of the Pension Fund, Norges Bank Investment Management, recently announced a divestment from 53 coal companies.

But when Heffa Schücking of the German NGO urgewald took a closer look at the numbers behind the divestment, she found it to be a lot less impressive than it at first appeared:

“As our 2014 report ‘Dirty & Dangerous’ analyzed the GPF’s previous holdings, we were curious to see which coal companies were dropped and how this affects the Pension Fund’s overall participation in the coal sector. Our first analysis shows that the GPF divested from 53 coal companies, which is one-third of the total number of coal companies we found in the portfolio last year. While this is a laudable first step, the overall result is very disappointing as the GPF’s total investments in the coal industry show only a marginal decrease.”

Schücking points out that while the Pension Fund now invests in fewer coal companies, the Pension Fund’s coal investments have only been reduced by 4.6% since 2013.

Half of the money divested was simply moved to other coal investments. For example, the Pension Fund divested US$92 million from 13 Indian coal companies but increased its investments in the Chinese coal sector by US$94 million.

Norway still has US$9.16 billion invested in coal.

Just add carbon trading

Jens Frølich Holte, a political adviser to the Norwegian Minister for Climate and Environment, told Bloomberg that Norway’s US$370 million a year on forest protection is “not designed” to help Norway comply with emissions reductions targets.

But part of Norway’s rainforest funding goes to the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, which is hell-bent on creating a market for REDD carbon credits.

Bloomberg quotes Holte as saying that,

“Carbon trading can speed up the global transition away from a fossil economy. Trade creates benefits and this is as true for carbon as it is for other commodities.”

Holte’s statement is patent nonsense, as the example of his own country clearly shows. Far from speeding up a transition from burning fossil fuels, carbon trading is the mechanism that allows Norway’s pollution from fossil fuels to continue.

Ten days ago, REDD-Monitor sent Holte some questions about this statement. Within minutes, I got a response from the Ministry of Climate and Environment confirming that they had received my email. As I’m still waiting for Holte’s response, I sent him a reminder today. REDD-Monitor looks forward to posting Holte’s response in full.


UPDATE – 17 April 2015: Holte’s response is available here.


From: Chris Lang reddmonitor@gmail.com
Date: 16 March 2015 at 13:12
Subject: Questions for Jens Frølich Holte on carbon trading
To: postmottak@kld.dep.no

Dear Jens Frølich Holte,

My name is Chris Lang and I run a website called REDD-Monitor.

I read your comment about carbon trading in Bloomberg last week:

    “Carbon trading can speed up the global transition away from a fossil economy,” said Jens Froelich Holte, a political adviser at the Norwegian ministry for climate and environment. “Trade creates benefits and this is as true for carbon as it is for other commodities,”

Could you please explain why you believe that carbon trading can speed up a transition from fossil fuels, particularly given the fact that carbon trading schemes have been operating for many years, without a global reduction in burning fossil fuels.

How do you respond to the argument that the corporations responsible for emissions from fossil fuels buy carbon credits in order to continue polluting, e.g. through coal-fired power plants, thus locking in emissions from fossil fuels for decades into the future?

Please also respond to the argument that carbon trading does not reduce emissions overall – it’s a zero sum game. Emissions may be reduced in one place, but the buyer of carbon credits uses those credits to continue emissions, and the one cancels out the other.

Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. Please consider your response to be on the record.

Regards, Chris Lang

 


 

1 thought on “Norway’s climate pollution: Oil, gas, coal, and carbon trading”

  1. Robert Hii says:
    26 March 2015 at 2:33 pm

    Looking forward to the follow up blog on this matter!

Leave a Reply

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

SUBSCRIBE!

Recent themes
30x30
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Recent Posts

  • REDD-Monitor is moving to Substack
  • REDD Project in Brazil Nut concessions in Madre de Dios, Peru finally started paying communities a decade after the project started. “I’m still lacking money,” says one community member
  • REDD-Monitor’s top ten posts in 2022
  • The harsh reality of 30×30: The EU is keen to allow extractivism in the 30×30 target – but not Indigenous Peoples’ territories
  • Human rights abuses against Indigenous Peoples and the proposed “30×30” target

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Cryptocurrency Deforestation EcoPlanet Bamboo Evictions FCPF Financing REDD Fossil fuels FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post Human rights ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC Verra World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Gabon Germany Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Spain Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA West Papua
©2025 REDD-Monitor | Powered by SuperbThemes!