The government may have approved several oil developments in violation of the constitution and human rights, according to the Norwegian Institute for Human Rights (NIM).
–
On Thursday, NIM will explain how, in a hearing in the Storting.
It all started with a judgment in the Supreme Court on 22 December 2020. The environmental organizations lost the lawsuit against the state, but the verdict may nevertheless have major consequences for Norwegian oil management.
The Supreme Court assumes that the ministry must assess the impact of how large greenhouse gas emissions the oil will lead to – also when it is burned abroad.
The judges come to the conclusion that this assessment must be made when the ministry is to approve a plan for development and operation, called the PDO.
The ruling also means that the government will be obliged to refuse oil extraction, if it is not compatible with keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees.
– As we assess it, the Supreme Court has not said that we have done anything illegal, says Minister of Petroleum and Energy Terje Aasland (Labor).
He emphasizes that the state’s policy for oil and gas is within the framework of the constitution.
– Will the ministry carry out an impact assessment of incineration emissions when you consider development plans in the future?
– We have some of these types of questions for consideration in the Storting. We will answer the Storting before we go to VG with that, says Aasland to VG.
– But we follow up the orders we have received, in relation to how we calculate combustion emissions from the various development projects on the Norwegian shelf.
Five plans have been approved after the verdict
The question is whether approvals have been given by the ministry after Supreme Court rulings are illegal under the Constitution and human rights.
- Troll B and C – the platforms and Sleipner have applied for and received approval for changes
- Kristin Sør was approved In february
- Kobra East & Gekko was approved In february
- Breidablikk was approved in June 2021before the change of government
The ministry has made assessments of the combustion emissions, after the verdict came, according to the Minister of Petroleum.
He does not call it impact assessments.
– We have taken a schematic template calculation and defined what it will entail when the oil and gas are burned. The conclusion was that the emissions were more marginal, says Aasland.
Aftenposten wrote on Tuesday that combustion emissions have not been assessed before Breidablikk was approved.
– Breidablikk was adopted before my time as Minister of State, and I do not know specifically what calculations have been made. We are following this up. Since this government has taken office, we have made explicit calculations and assessments of the greenhouse gas emissions for the fields Kristin Sør and Kobra East & Gekko, says Aasland to VG.
According to Aasland, the Ministry of Petroleum believes that they are now following the requirement set by the Supreme Court.
The Norwegian Institute for Human Rights (NIM) does not agree. They believe the changes the government has introduced are not enough to respond to what the Supreme Court expects.
Hearing tomorrow
NIM is an independent body, but with assignments from the Storting. They must ensure that human rights are safeguarded by providing advice and guidance to the authorities.
It was NIM that first reacted to the fact that the Ministry of Petroleum had apparently not changed its practice. They contacted the ministry almost a year after the verdict was handed down.
– We had not registered that there had been any changes, says Jenny Sandvig in NIM.
The lawyers in NIM were invited to a meeting with the ministry. In the end, NIM was asked to write a statement of its assessment.
To approve new oil fields is in violation of the Constitutionconcluded NIM. The statement became public in April and mentioned by Aftenposten.
Read the full statement her.
NIM believes that the Supreme Court’s ruling requires the government to investigate the consequences for the climate, before approving the development and extraction of an oil discovery.
Without such an impact assessment, the government is violating Article 112 of the Constitution and human rights, according to NIM.
The judges also conclude that the government has a duty to refuse oil extraction, if the findings so require.
–Jenny Sandvig will explain this in a hearing at the energy committee in the Storting on Thursday, following a proposal from the Green Party.
– We will account for the obligation to carry out an impact assessment of the combustion emissions, and at what time that assessment must be made. We will go into the importance of this being publicly available to the citizens, and then we will explain our view of the constitutional obligation to refuse oil production for reasons of climate.
In the judgment from the Supreme Court, the judge writes that the state will have a duty, according to Section 112 of the Constitution, to refuse the development of oil and gas if considerations of climate and environment so require.
– NIM believes that this obligation arises if the emissions a recovery leads to, both from production in Norway and combustion emissions abroad, are not compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, Sandvig says.
–The documents are not public
NIM has also considered the government’s solution for investigating greenhouse gas emissions, and believes that they are not good enough to meet the Supreme Court’s requirements.
– As far as we can see, the government has not assessed the combustion emissions and the consequences for the climate. But we have to a limited extent gained access to all the case documents. It is an ongoing process, says Sandvig.
When the Ministry of Petroleum approves a development plan, the case documents are not public.
– We believe that this type of document should be publicly available, says Sandvig.
– The government will assess the climate effects of emissions from production and incineration, and make such assessments visible, says Terje Aasland to VG.
–
