Etter å ha gått seirende ut av «klimavalget 2021», står den rødgrønne regjeringen overfor oppgaven med å sikre Norges grønne omstilling. I den offentlige debatten står gjerne argumenter om global solidaritet og miljøhensyn fremst i begrunnelsene for nødvendigheten av en grønn omstilling, mens motstandere av et raskt skifte fokuserer på de negative økonomiske konsekvensene de mener et raskt skifte vil få for Norge. Denne artikkelen søker å nyansere dette bildet, og argumenterer for et bredere kost-nytte-perspektiv som også tar høyde for diplomatiske kostnader ved å fortsette med oljeleting, samt de økonomiske konsekvensene av en treg omstilling. Selv om man holder konsekvensene av klimaendringene helt utenfor vurderingen, argumenterer vi for at usikkerheten rundt fremtidig oljepris og omdømmerisikoen Norge løper ved å fortsette å basere økonomien på ikke-fornybare energikilder, burde være gode argumenter for å revurdere Norges oljepolitikk.
Abstract in English:Norway's Oil Dilemma After Glasgow: An Immoral Argument for a Rapid Green TransitionAfter winning the "2021 climate election", Norway's new government faces the task of ensuring Norway's green transition. In the public debate, global solidarity and environmental considerations are often at the forefront of arguments for the necessity of a rapid green transition, while opponents of a rapid transition tend to focus on the negative financial consequences they believe such a change will have for Norway. This article seeks to nuance this debate, and argues for a broader cost-benefit perspective that also takes into account diplomatic costs of continuing with oil exploration, as well as the economic consequences of a slow transition. We argue that, even if not considering other consequences of climate change, the uncertainty surrounding future oil prices and the reputational risk Norway runs by continuing basing the economy on non-renewable energy sources should be good enough arguments to reconsider Norway's oil policy.
Med fem ulike bidrag fra norske samfunnsforskere setter dette fokusnummeret søkelys på norsk klima- og utenrikspolitikk. Bidragene i fokusnummeret viser at det har skjedd en vesentlig sammenkobling av politikkområder som tidligere har vært atskilt, og at klimapolitikken spiller en stadig større rolle i andre politikkområder, slik som utenriks-, handels- og kraftpolitikken. I tillegg kommer det frem at det internasjonale klimaregimet, til tross for nær universell ratifisering av Parisavtalen, stadig fragmenteres. Norge har reagert på dette med å knytte seg stadig tettere til EU, både når det gjelder klima- og kraftpolitikk. Videre påpeker fokusnummeret at internasjonale omdømmekostnader og økende global etterspørsel etter fornybar energi øker presset på en rask grønn omstilling, også innenlands. I sum fremstår Norges ambisjon om å være en global klimaforkjemper som stadig mer uforenelig med rollen som storskala produsent av olje og gass.
Abstract in English:Norwegian Climate and Foreign Policy: Is the Ambition to Be a Global Climate Leader Compatible with Norway's Role as an Oil Producer?The five contributions in this special issue all focus on various aspects of Norwegian climate and foreign policy. The special issue highlights the interconnectedness of policy areas that previously have been separate in showing how climate policy plays an increasing role in other policy domains, such as foreign, trade and energy politics. Even if the Paris Agreement enjoys near universal ratification, the international climate regime is becoming increasingly fragmented. As a result, Norwegian climate policy is becoming increasingly integrated with the EU in both climate and energy regulation. Moreover, the special issue highlights how international reputational costs and increasing future demand for renewable energy are putting additional pressure on a rapid green transition, also domestically. Taken together, Norway's ambition to be a global climate leader appears more and more incompatible with its role as a large producer of oil and gas.
Russia's strategy in the Arctic is dominated by two overriding discourses – and foreign policy directions – which at first glance may look like opposites. On the one hand, an IR realism/geopolitical discourse that often has a clear patriotic character, dealing with "capturing", "winning" or "conquering" the Arctic and putting power, including military power, behind the national interests in the area – which is why we, in recent years, have seen an increasing military build-up, also in the Russian Arctic. Opposed to this is an IR liberalism, international law-inspired and modernization-focused discourse, which is characterized by words such as "negotiation", "cooperation" and "joint ventures" and which has as an axiom that the companies and countries operating in the Arctic all benefit the most if they collaborate in peace and friendliness. So far, the IR liberalism discourse has set the trend of the Russian policy carried out in relation to the Arctic. Thus, it has primarily been the Russian Foreign Ministry and, above all, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that have drawn the overall lines of the Arctic policy, well aided by the Transport Ministry and the Energy Ministry. On the other side are the Russian national Security Council led by Nikolai Patrushev and the Russian Defence Ministry headed by Sergey Shoygu, which both have embedded their visions of Russia and the Arctic in the IR realism/geopolitical discourse. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, does the same. Nevertheless, he has primarily chosen to let the Foreign Ministry set the line for the Arctic policy carried out, presumably out of a pragmatic acknowledgement of the means that have, so far, served the Russian interests best. Moreover, it is worth noting that both wings, even though they can disagree about the means, in fact are more or less in agreement about the goal of Russia's Arctic policy: namely, to utilize the expected wealth of oil and natural gas resources in the underground to ensure the continuation of the restoration of Russia's position as a Great Power when the capacity of the energy fields in Siberia slowly diminishes – which the Russian Energy Ministry expects to happen sometime between 2015 and 2030. In addition to that, Russia sees – as the polar ice slowly melts – great potential for opening an ice-free northern sea route between Europe and Asia across the Russian Arctic, with the hope that the international shipping industry can see the common sense of saving up to nearly 4,000 nautical miles on a voyage from Ulsan, Korea, to Rotterdam, Holland, so Russia can earn money by servicing the ships and issuing permissions for passage through what Russia regards as Russian territorial water. The question is whether Russia will be able to realize its ambitious goals. First, the Russian state energy companies Gazprom and Rosneft lack the technology, know-how and experience to extract oil and gas under the exceedingly difficult environment in the Arctic, where the most significant deposits are believed to be in very deep water in areas that are very difficult to access due to bad weather conditions. The Western sanctions mean that the Russian energy companies cannot, as planned, obtain this technology and know-how via the already entered-into partnerships with Western energy companies. The sanctions limit loan opportunities in Western banks, which hit the profitability of the most cost-heavy projects in the Arctic. However, what hits hardest are the low oil prices – at present 50 dollars per barrel (Brent). According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the fields in the Arctic are not profitable as long as the oil price is under 120 dollars per barrel. Whether Russia chooses to suspend the projects until the energy prices rise again – and until it has again entered into partnerships that can deliver the desired technology and know-how – or whether the Russian state will continuously pump money into the projects is uncertain. The hard-pressed Russian economy, with the prospects of recession, increasing inflation, increasing flight of capital, rising interest rates and a continuously low oil price, provides a market economic incentive for suspending the projects until further notice. Whether the Kremlin will think in a market economic way or a long-term strategic way is uncertain – but, historically, there has been a penchant for the latter. One of the Kremlin's hopes is that Chinese-Russian cooperation can take over where the Western-Russian cooperation has shut down. Russia has long wanted to diversify its energy markets to reduce its dependence on sales to Europe. At the same time, those in the Kremlin have had a deeply-rooted fear of ending up as a "resource appendix" to the onrushing Chinese economy, which so far has been a strong contributing reason for keeping the Russian-Chinese overtures in check. The question now is whether the Western sanctions can be the catalyst that can make Russia overcome this fear and thus, in the long term, support the efforts to enter into a real, strategic partnership with China. ; Russia's strategy in the Arctic is dominated by two overriding discourses – and foreign policy directions – which at first glance may look like opposites. On the one hand, Russia have an IR realism/geopolitical discourse that often has a clear patriotic character, dealing with "exploring", "winning" or "conquering" the Arctic and putting power, including military power, behind the national interests in the area – which is why we, in recent years, have seen an increasing military build-up, also in the Russian Arctic. Opposed to this is an IR liberalism, international law-inspired and modernization- focused discourse, which is characterized by words such as "negotiation", "cooperation" and "joint ventures" and which has as an axiom that the companies and countries operating in the Arctic all benefit the most if they cooperate peacefully.
I denne artikkelen undersøker vi om olje- og gassproduksjonen har negativ innvirkning på Norges klimaomdømme. Dette gjør vi ved å kartlegge meldinger som ble lagt ut på Twitter i forbindelse med det 26. klimatoppmøtet (COP 26) i Glasgow. For å sette Norges omdømme i perspektiv, sammenlikner vi Twitter-meldingene om Norge og Sverige. Studien viser at det er liten forskjell mellom meldingene som omhandler Norge og Sverige når det gjelder negative holdninger. Vi finner imidlertid to trekk som er av interesse for forståelsen av Norges omdømme. For det første er meldingene tematisk ulike: De dominerende temaene i meldingene som nevner Sverige handler om å fremme overgangen til grønn energi og klimaaktivisme, mens de dominerende temaene i meldingene om Norge i hovedsak handler om klimafinansiering og behovet for utfasing av produksjon av fossilt brensel. For det andre er de negative meldingene om Sverige av mer generell karakter, knyttet til kritikk av alle lands manglende omstilling, mens de negative meldingene om Norge er spesifikk, knyttet til olje- og gassproduksjon.
Abstract in English:Norway's Climate Reputation on TwitterIn this article we explore whether oil and gas industry negatively affects Norway's climate reputation by analyzing tweets posted during the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow. To make our findings more reliable, we compare tweets about Norway with tweets about Sweden. The results of our study reveal that there is no significant difference in negative sentiment between tweets about Norway compared with tweets about Sweden. However, we find that tweets about the two states differ thematically. While dominant topics in tweets mentioning Sweden are about promotion of the green transition and climate activism, tweets about Norway are mostly about climate financing and the need to phase out fossil fuel production. Furthermore, negative tweets about Sweden are of a more general nature, similar to criticism of all countries not meeting their climate goals, while negative tweets about Norway are specific and related to fossil fuel industry.
Ukrainekrisen har forstyrret det ellers velfungerende samarbejde i Arktis, og det er blevet vanskeligere at samarbejde om både militære, diplomatiske og økonomiske forhold. Dog er krisens betydning mere begrænset, end man kunne have frygtet. Ruslands vigtige interesse i arktisk olie og gas gør, at Moskva har ført en mindre aggressiv politik i det høje nord. I stedet er det særligt Vesten, der har bragt krisen til polarregionen ved at inddrage regionen i sine sanktionspakker, og det kan betyde, at Rusland skifter kurs i fremtiden. I så fald vil Rusland ikke søge en direkte militær konfrontation, men i stedet udnytte politiske svagheder i den vestlige alliance ved hjælp af provokationer, obstruktion af samarbejde og suverænitetskrænkelser. Rigsfællesskabet bør fortsætte sin samarbejdsorienterede politik i Arktis. Praktisk samarbejde og åbne kommunikationskanaler til Moskva vil gøre det muligt at afspænde situationen og undgå, at misforståelser og enkeltstående episoder fører til en unødig eskalering. Samtidig bør Rigsfællesskabet dog forberede sig på, at Rusland kan skifte kurs i Arktis i det omfang, at disse forberedelser ikke underminerer den samarbejdsorienterede politik. ; The Ukraine crisis has made it more difficult to cooperate over military, diplomatic, and economic matters in the Arctic, but the impact of the crisis is less severe than it could have been. Oil and gas exploration and exploitation in the Arctic is central to Russia's grand strategy and it makes Russia more dependent on the other states in the Arctic, and thus more prone to cooperate in the region. Instead, it is mainly the West that has brought the crisis to the High North by including the region in its sanction packages. It may become rational for Russia to change to a more aggressive course in the Arctic. Russia will not seek a military confrontation in that case, but will instead exploit political weaknesses in the Western alliance through provocations, obstructions of cooperation, and violations of sovereignty. The Kingdom of Denmark (Denmark, the Faeroe Islands, and Greenland) should continue its cooperation-oriented policy in the Arctic. Practical cooperation and open channels of communication enable Denmark and the Western states to lower tensions and to avoid that a single incident or misunderstanding escalates the situation. The Kingdom of Denmark should concurrently prepare for how to handle a more assertive Russia in the Arctic, insofar as these preparations do not undermine its cooperation-oriented policy in the High North.
