Flattering on behalf of my country to be asked to speak about Green Diplomacy, feel it implies that Norway has been among the most active ones in multilateral environmental efforts. Guess it is the case. No country done enough, neither at home nor abroad. Nor no exception.
Norway first to have a Minister of the Environment, in 1972. Same year – first world environmental conference in Stockholm, Sweden. 35 years later not every country even in the EU has separate minister of the environment. One of the first ministers was Gro Harlem Brundtland. She later became Prime Minister. GHB became in 1984 chairman of UN Comm. on Environment and Development. Report 1987. Introduced concept Susainable Development. My “bible” for environmental diplomacy. Report is as relevant today (unfortunately). One of personally most rewarding tasks in my 35 years in foreign service - in Geneva 1986-90 – introduce and include analyses, assesments and recommendations of that report in Work Programs of intl. org. (WHO, ILO, ECE etc.)
Maybe the first example of really successful diplomatic effort in the environmental field was the Montreal Protocol on phasing out use of gases that depleted the ozone layer. That Protocol is proof that through common efforts, and with political will, one can succeed.
Multilateral approach not necessarily same as global approach. More limited context, regional, bilateral. One example – Norway’s assistance since 1994 to clean up radioactive waste in NW Russia. Have spent huge amounts. Russian & Norwegian mutual interest to reduce risk of nuclear contamination in the High North. There was strong concern in North Norway about radioactive pollution from East. Now discussions on whether Russia is rich enough to finance this themselves. Bot has low priority in Moscow. Dilemma. Another dilemma: Representing my country in the Nuclear Safety Account in London (EBRD). Task was to help either improve safety or close down Nuclear Power Plants that had outdated Soviet-era technology. Dilemma: 4 Kola reactors, close to Norwegian border, we wanted them to close a.s.a.p., but helped improve safety for remainder of projected life-time, Russia uses now as justification for prolonged use.
Was rewarding to work in env. diplomacy in the late 80s, Our Common Future, Montreal Protocol, Framework Conventions on Climate Change and on Biodiversity (Rio 1992). Became somewhat frustrating ten years later, as with Kyoto on reduction of greenhouse emissions. Is not a very good agreement, but the best that could be achieved at the time. Lack of political will to go further at the time. Not easy to catch the interest of political leaders. Environment was not a priority issue among voters in any country. The public awareness and engagement was low, and in most countries politicians had other priorities.
In the 90s focus was more on globalisation, about its challenges and opportunities. Globalisation of environmental degradation was largely overlooked. Environment was not an issue that would get politicians re-elected.
But now, finally, politicians and the public alike seem to become aware of the need for some kind of change to fight climate change. Public awareness of climate change is rising even faster than the global average temperature rises. The number of sceptics goes down even faster than the ice in the Arctic melts. Promising. To a lesser extent, I think, public is aware of the the dramatic loss of biological diversity. Changes in the habitat of the Polar bears is one of many examples of how Climate Change and Biodiversity are linked.
See change in public awareness also in Greece since I arrived here nine months ago. That is hopeful sign, because we will need the push from grassroot level to muster the political will to take decisive action.
For green diplomacy to succeed we need stronger institutions, with clear mandates that emerge from political will and honest commitmements from governments. We have not seen enough of that yet. The UN is not up to its task in the environmental field, although a lot of important work, that gets little attention, is going on. But it was a very encouraging sign of change that the UNSC recently held a separate meeting on Climate Change. Because climate change is a serious security matter. UNEP is not strong enough. There is urgent need for reform of the UN (not only in the environmental field). I hope that as the public around the world becomes increasingly aware about what is going on, governments will give the UN the means it needs to show stronger leadership.The potentially strongest and most effective international body in the short- and medium term is in my mind the EU (remind: Norway is not a member). We have recently witnessed some leadership from the EU. Confident that the momentum that has been created during the German presidency will continue.
The European Commission also plays a crucial role. Env. directives from Brussels increasingly widen in scope and ambition. Monitoring and enforcement is improving. Commend Enironment Commissioner Stavros Dimas who is doing a great job. Illustration of how green diplomacy has developed: PM Stoltenberg in Beijing and Moscow last few weeks, Climate Change on top of agenda. Would not have happened even a year ago.
Some words about how Norway sees energy’s role in responding to climate change. And I do that representing a country that is the world’s third largest oil exporter, and the third largest gas exporter, meaning of course producers also of CO2. Norway will take a leading role in the development of a new, binding climate agreement. We want to be in the forefront in the field of climate friendly technological innovation. We will not only live up to our international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, we will sharpen our emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol by ten per cent. We will cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 30 per cent by 2020, not just 20, and hope EU will do the same. In the period up to 2050, Norway will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 100 per cent of our own emissions. We will be carbon-neutral. (Why wait that long?)
Norway was the first nation to introduce a CO2 tax on petroleum production in the early 1990ies. Not surprisingly, industry objected to the CO2 tax. But today, the Norwegian continental shelf is the most energy-efficient petroleum- producing region in the world. CO2 emissions from Norwegian production amount to less than one third of the global average per unit produced.
Technology will ultimately be vital for reducing the dependence on oil and gas and the carbon content of hydrocarbons, as well as making a transition away from fossil fuels to Renewable Energy Sources. R&D could trigger a revolution in how we produce energy and make more efficient use of it. Companies operating on the Norwegian continental shelf have developed technologies that separate CO2 from the oil and gas produced and reinject it into the reservoir for underground storage.
We have ambitious goals for achieving additional capture and storage of CO2. Last fall, we embarked on a major new research, development and demonstration project. Our aim is to build the world’s largest full-scale CO2 capture and storage facility in connection with a combined gas-fired heat and power plant on our west coast. This is a cooperative venture between the Norwegian Government and the oil and gas company Statoil. We hope that the vision of building a full-scale CO2 capture and storage facility will accelerate not only Norway’s transition, but the world’s transition, onto a low-carbon development path.
One may of course ask, would it not be better, for the environment and climate, to completely replace oil, gas and coal with renewable energy? The answer is yes, of course.
But no matter how successful the breakthroughs may be in alternative energies, the world will continue to rely on fossil fuels for decades to come. But increasingly, renewable energy must and will play a stronger role in the total energy mix.
According to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2006, fossil fuels will remain the dominant source of energy up to 2030. The share of oil will drop, but oil will still be the largest single fuel in the global energy mix in 2030. Coal will remain the second largest primary fuel. The share of natural gas will increase, that of nuclear decrease. Non-hydro renewables – including wind, solar and geothermal energy – will grow quickest, but from a small base. These are IEA projections, and I hope they will be proven wrong. Renewables should play a much greater role in 2030. And maybe an energy revolution will happen. I wish we will see more solar and wind power in Greece, and sharply decreasing use of lignite.
A few words about energy security:
Energy security is a two-way street. Where the consumer is looking for security of supply, the producer is seeking security of delivery. This reality can be seen in Russia’s relations with Europe.True, some countries are highly dependent on Russian energy, but Europe as a whole depends on Russian gas for about 30-35 percent of its supplies. Russia, for its part, is dependent on Europe for 80 percent of its export market and has no easy opportunity to shift this gas to any of its other potential buyers. As far as I can tell, it makes no political sense for Russia to cut off gas to Europe and discredit itself in the international energy markets. This would also send a very negative message to countries like China and India, potential future importers of Russian gas.Norway has always resisted the temptation to turn energy into more of a political or strategic commodity than it already is. We believe that this has served our interests well, solidifying our reputation in global energy markets as a predictable and reliable supplier of oil and gas.
When we see what mankind has achieved in the past 100 years by use of new technology, why should we not be able to find the responses to the approaching climate crisis. Remember, crisis means not only dangers but also opportunities. I feel confident that human ingenuity will enable us to develop the technologies necessary to meet the twin challenges of energy security and climate security. But we cannot entirely leave the job to technology alone. The Brundtland report – Our Common Future – made it clear that we in the rich part of the world need to change the way we produce and consume. I think this is essential. We need changes in our lifestyles. We cannot simply say to the developing world, “Sorry, we filled up the waste baskets – there is no more room left for you.” They too have a right to develop. And we have the obligation to assist them to achieve a sustainable development, by sharing technology, open our markets and make sure they learn from our past mistakes.