Marie writes*
A country that spends billions on forest conservation should be a global climate hero, right? Well, what if the same country is the 4th largest oil exporter in the world (Norwegian Petroleum, 2024)?
Through the legally binding international treaty on climate change (also known as “the Paris Agreement”), Norway agreed to the REDD+ protocol (UNFCCC). REDD+ (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) is the largest experiment in Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) promoting the commodification of ecosystems carbon storage, which is viewed as a market-based conservation approach (Sheng et al., 2019). One might even call it commodification of nature under neoliberal principles. Through this participation, Norway would support developing countries by giving result based payments for deforestation reduction to incentivise the effort for preserving the forest. One of Norway’s case studies was Guyana, where in the period 2009-2015 Norway agreed to pay Guyana US$5/t for reducing deforestation (UNFCCC REDD+, 2014). The agreement reduced tree-cover loss by 35%, which corresponds to 12.8 million tons of CO2 emissions avoided (Roopsind et al., 2019). In the same time period Norway continued its oil drilling, meaning that their efforts to reduce deforestation merely offset the carbon produced from oil drilling.
Herein lies a tension between green ambitions and black actions, a sort of greenwashing enabled by loopholes in climate policies.
Oil drilling in Norway between 2009 and 2015 generated the equivalent of 96.7 million tonns of CO2 (Norwegian Offshore Directorate, 2019, Figure 14.1). In comparison to the 12.8 million tons saved, Norway’s net carbon balance is seriously negative. Norway justifies its dual approach by claiming that its financial and technological contributions to climate mitigation outweigh the emissions from its oil production, which accounts for a small share of global emissions. Not only this but the focus of blame by the REDD+ is put on peasant farming rather than large-scale destruction driven by mainly, developed countries.
Instead of drilling at home and compensating abroad, why doesn’t Norway stop oil drilling and focus on reducing emissions domestically?
One of the “greatest” inequalities of the Paris Agreement is the burden put on developing countries due to past actions by developed countries. Given this situation, should Norway continue to drill, so it can help those developing countries reach climate goals, or should it stop drilling and clean up at home?
Bottom Line: Norway’s simultaneous role as a major oil exporter and a champion of forest conservation highlights the contradictions in global climate policies and raises deeper questions about accountability.
* Please help my Environmental Economics students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice :).
Seeing a hypocritical paradox here is a category error. The amount of fossil fuel consumption is determined by the amount desired by ultimate consumers, not by constraints on individual producers. It should be addressed by Pigovian taxation or consumption regulations.
There is an element of virtue signaling here, that is similar to the war on drugs, which has been a complete failure (as measured by price and availability on the street), which has entailed tyrannical death and incarceration, and which has cost far more than would have unlimited provision of evidence-based voluntary drug treatment.
Hi Rick, thank you for you comment. I found it interesting, yet a bit hard to grasp. The comment assumes that consumer demand is the primary driver of fossil fuel production, but this overlooks the role of producers in shaping the market. Producers like Norway actively lobby to maintain favorable conditions for fossil fuel use and invest in infrastructure that locks in long-term fossil fuel dependence. I am a bit unsure how to include your comment into consideration. Addressing both production and consumption is not mutually exclusive. Norway could reduce oil production while supporting global demand-side measures, achieving greater alignment between its policies and climate goals. While Pigovian taxes are a theoretically sound approach to addressing externalities, the implementation faces political and economic challenges, particularly on a global scale. For example: Developing countries may lack the resources to implement or enforce such taxes; and wealthy countries with high fossil fuel consumption may resist adopting aggressive taxes that could harm their economies. Just some food for thought. Would appriciate an explanation of your points, and any further comments, thank you.
If Norway decides stops producing oil, other countries will produce more to replace it. Most of those countries are corrupt dictatorships who ignore environmental and worker protection laws. Some individuals get pleasure from self inflicted harm, but I don’t think most Norwegians do.
California is indulging in the same sort of climate theater sideshows. We export taxes, jobs, and GDP, while Indonesia, Texas, and Mexico laugh all the way to the bank. The oil has to come in railroad cars or ocean tankers, instead of pipelines. Those forms of transportation are more energy intensive, environmentally dangerous, and costly. As long as the rubes in the audience don’t know, the show will go on.
Carbon taxes, nuclear power, and preparing are the only serious weapons that we presently have in the face of climate change. Conservation can help, but it’s no more important than War Bonds were in winning WWII. Especially when governments start picking winners and losers. But it makes people feel virtuous and superior to those little people who will think improperly if left to their own devices.
You describe a pressing problem that much of the Global North is faced with today. In turn, you highlight that such “apparent” champions of the green transition need to instead be pioneers in facilitating intergenerational climate justice. In doing so, your analysis is clear and concise. You provide a balanced argument by offering relevant context related both to the strides that Norway has made in climate action, as well their shortcomings. Moreover, the normative element of the inequality in the burden of management provides a strong justification for this study. However, it might be worth further exploring the financial and technological contributions that Norway claims it has made to climate mitigation, to assess the full scope of Norway’s contributions to such efforts. This is just a small suggestion that I hope would make your analysis even more refined. Regardless, I look forward to reading your paper.