Liberal Party opposes new oil exploration licenses on the Norwegian continental shelf

Oil platform - Odin Drill - Aker H3 plattformPhoto (illustration): Erik Thorberg / NTB Scanpix
Advertisements

The Liberal Party (V) does not want new licenses to be issued for oil exploration, the party’s national leadership decided on Friday night.

Thus, the delegates followed the wishes of the Minister of Climate and Environment and Deputy Chairman Sveinung Rotevatn, who chaired the program committee.

“It is a pretty big step for the party, but I think the time has come. We simply do not believe that it is good for the climate to explore increasingly remote sea areas for more and more complicated resources,” Rotevatn told news bureau NTB on Tuesday.

The Liberal Party will also vote on such a proposal at its national meeting this weekend, while the Christian Democratic Party (KRF) will votw on the issue at its national meeting next weekend.

The Liberal Party’s national leadership also decided that they are in favor of wind power both on land and at sea and that the party wants to build more power cables to Europe and electrify the Norwegian shelf.

Source: © NTB Scanpix / #Norway Today / #NorwayTodayFinance

Do you have a news tip for Norway Today? We want to hear it. Get in touch at info@norwaytoday.no

Advertisements

5 Comments on "Liberal Party opposes new oil exploration licenses on the Norwegian continental shelf"

  1. I think this pressure on reducing oil exploration on Norway just doesn’t make sense. Actually, this logic of we should do everything we can do and we’re not responsible for other’s choices just doesn’t make sense.

    Norway reducing oil production/exploration, will have countless political power shifts and economical consequences for the country & EU. The only thing it wouldn’t have is any impact on climate, since any reduction will be reprimanded by middle Easterns, Russia or the US itself anyway. They wouldn’t certainly care when time comes.

  2. You are clearly wrong, Alireza.

    Note that Russia’s Putin fully participated in the world leaders’ environmental conference and has said we must unite! to save the environment … and Life itself.

    Your point about others not cutting back would be valid, and there will (have to) be mutual, verified international cutbacks in fossil fuel production, just like for weapons of mass destruction – also caused/created by us humans – which also threaten the survival of not just humanity but Life itself.

    Worldwide energy conversion must accompany fossil fuel cutback too.

    We have (all) run out of TIME, and we *must* work together and cut back. We must be gung-ho about the environment, and in Chinese gung-ho means “all together,” not (just) eager for the mission.

    Norway is the custodian of the Nobel Peace Prize and has a special responsibility to exert moral leadership internationally, and saving the environment/Life is the most moral cause possible. It is to the Liberal Party’s great credit that it has the courage to speak out and exert leadership on this.

    I hope you will reconsider this issue more objectively and instead join in support of fossil fuel cutbacks (and energy conversion), even if your current income may be fossil fuel dependent.

    • Ofcourse Lou, I’m not saying that inaction is the solution. What I’m saying is that prematurely deciding that we should stop oil exploration is wrong. I do believe in Allen Smith’s invisible hand in making things work.

      You want to tackle climate, then sure, Norway can be a leader and push for international cooperation and UN resolutions, to put legal caps for something like Pollution per Capita a country can create per target year and try to reduce it. Then it’s those countries responsibilities to meet the thresholds, and them meeting those means reducing reliance on oil! That in turn means a country like Norway wouldn’t find any economical value anymore in producing/exploring oil anymore and what you’re suggesting automatically happens.

      What I’m saying is that it shouldn’t be forced! Norway’s responsibility is to spearhead innovation, international collaboration, transition to green tech and providing investments in these areas. Also my salary is by no means related to anything oil related 😉

  3. Thank you for responding, Alireza.

    But we have run out of TIME. It will take 20 years for what we finally do now to stop the warming. And it’s not only warming but the chemical alteration of the atmosphere that endangers our children and grandchildren … and Life on Earth generally.

    For example, Brazil’s Bolsonaro committed in the teleconference to taking serious action to stop the destruction of the Amazon rain forest – a major oxygen supplier on Earth – actually, life in the seas produces most of it, I’ve found out, but the Amazon oxygen is still vital – but if he still can’t stop the destruction there is going to have to be international – military – intervention.

    So yes, change will have to be forced, if that is necessary to get it done/made as soon as possible.

    For a time there was an attempt to get the major energy corporations to *lead* energy conversion – BP, British Petroleum, was even calling itself Beyond Petroleum – but in the U.S. the Supreme Court wouldn’t allow that, claiming it broke anti-monopoly laws.

    Pres. Biden and Congress must do whatever necessary to change those laws as soon as possible.

    As Churchill would inscribe on top-priority directives during World War 2, “Action this day!”

    Thanks for clarifying that your judgment is not affected by being in the industry.

  4. I asked the Green Party where they stood on this, not seeing them mentioned in the article, and got this response back from Ayla:

    Hi Lou,

    Thanks for contacting us. The way I understand your email you are wondering where the Green Party stands on opening new oil fields. We are of course against opening up new oil fields. The Greens want to stop all oil production by 2035.

    ***

    In fairness to those working in the industry in Norway, I think oil/fossil fuel production should be cut back mutually … proportionately … verifiably, internationally.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*