Hello and welcome back to Drilled. I'm Amy Westervelt. Today we're bringing you the third part in the four part mini series from Communicating Climate Change podcast host dick and Bombickstone and Norwegian nonprofit KLIMA Cool Tour The Black Thread, about Norway's conflicted identity as both an oil state and a progressive leader in the world today. Episode three challenging
the narratives. Much of the ability of Norway's oil industry to maintain its influence and continue with business as usual comes from the lack of questions being asked about its ideas and about how the world works. In this episode, The Black Thread steps away from that norm and challenges industry rhetoric head on.
Enjoy it.
Welcome back to The Black Thread, a podcast unraveling Norway's complex relationship with prosperity, identity, and responsibility in a warming world. I'm Dickon, a climate communications expert based in Oslo, the Norwegian capital, Tracing the Black Thread oil through Norway, society and culture. Last time we delved into petroganda in Norway, hearing how critics perceive the industry's strategic use of sponsorships, advertising and storytelling work to uphold a narrative of oil
normalization and acceptability. We learned how oil interests are embedded in the boards of cultural institutions, government agencies, and even the nation's schooling whilst what many consider to be faded journalistic scrutiny contributes to the erosion of public awareness and debate. Plus, we heard how oil and climate are often treated as separate issues in policy, and how this shapes the limits of public discourse. Yet both critics and industry voices agreed
about one thing. Norway needs open discussions about its future grounded in facts. In this episode, we'll explore where the facts do and don't match up to the stories being told by Nory's fossil fuel industry, amplified by its government, and legitimized through a wealth of public outreach. We'll hear experts challenge some of the most familiar narratives that keep Norwegian oil and gas pumping, and industry voices will explain
the logic behind their rhetoric. Along the way, we'll try to find answers to questions like was Norway really poor before oil? Will it be poor if it stops pumping fossil fuels today? What will happen to the famous Norwegian welfare system, won't. Lots of people lose their jobs and many more. As we've heard in previous episodes, oil has become important to the Norwegian identity and plays a major role in public perceptions of the country's success as well
as its wealth. But Norwegian attitudes towards oil haven't always been unwavering. In the early days, there was caution and concern. Kick things off by exploring this shift in perspective. Author journalist and project leader at the Norwegian Climate Foundation an A Current Satha, explains how Norway's first oil discoveries were met with careful consideration.
In the beginning in the nineteen sixties and the nineteen seventies, it was a lot of criticism actually towards this new industry, and that's not part of the story, funny enough, but people were asking, why should we do this? Isn't it dangerous? And what's actually happening? People were skeptical. I guess it was only in the eighties when we were sort of prouder. It was established as something in the Norwegian debate and consciousness.
Even though oil and gas have become central to Norway's economy, and identity. It's worth noting that this influence has taken shape in just a few decades. According to our experts, Norwegians weren't automatically on board with this new national venture. To learn more, I asked bord Land from the University of Oslo's Oil and Society Research Network to expand on how the industry was first perceived.
The discussions about oil and gas policy and kind of how to govern Norwegian oil and gas resources tended actually to be much more critical during the first couple of decades. And this whole kind of success story about the Norwegian only Aventa, the oil adventure, the oil fairy tale, and this whole idea that Norway has been so good at handling and managing the wealth from the oil and gas.
All of these things are quite new constructs, and so the idea that oil is overwhelmingly positive to Norwegian society is something that to some extent appeared alongside the Oil Fund. The discussions about the role of oil in Norwegian society were actually much more hesitant, and you even see it
in official documents. They are definitely highlighting the wealth and the prosperity that oil might bring, but there also skeptical towards the downsides and the problems and the potential tensions that might arise due to this new industry.
So, according to Board, it wasn't always a fairy tale of fate and fortune, as we're often led to believe in Norway. He points out that this narrative of oil as an unmitigated success only really took shape once climate change became a core issue. Based on what we've heard in the previous episodes about industry efforts to shape public perception, even targeting young people to ensure a future generation of oil positive citizens, it's worth considering whether this story emerged
organically or whether it was ceded strategically. With both Board and Anakarn claiming that the narrative around Norway's oil discovery has changed over time, we have to ask how this has happened. When I spoke to Anna Karin, she identified three myths that she says have contributed to this shift in perspective.
The first is that we have climate friendly oil and gas production. We have less during extraction due to an early ban on flaring and electrification of the installations offshore, and since Nowechan oil and gas have relatively lower emissions than the average in the world. It will be good if you use nowech and oil instead of oil and gas from other places. So that's why they have been
calling it climate friendly or clean oil and gas. But the thing that is not so much talked about in this area in strategic communication, you sort of put a lot of light on some parts of the story and others are put in the shade. And what is put in the shade when it comes to this is that the production counts up to something like two or three percent of the total of emissions. What counts is when you combust the oil and gas, that's like ninety seven percent.
And if you have a fossil fuel car a petrol car and you drive it on the highway, it doesn't really matter if the petrol comes from Norway or Nigeria or other countries. The emissions will be just as big.
The first of Anikarin so called oil myths is that Norway's oil is climate friendly. We've heard that one before. In fact, it's a line that comes up often from all kinds of sources. But just as we found with the industry communication discussed in the previous episode, important context that would reveal the true nature of such a claim tends to be left out, but let's hear some more from Anikarin.
The second one is that gas from Norway replaces coal in Europe. Since Europe can use gas instead of coal, we can contribute to lowering emissions in Europe. And the oil industry has used data showing us how much emissions will be reduced in Europe if our gas replaces coal. But that's not what's happening because there's just a little bit of the gas that is actually going into power generation and that's where they compete oil and gas with
renewables and with energy efficiency. But that's not part of the story. And gas may replace coal in the short run, but it will lock us to gas infrastructure, and it will hinder the energy transition. It will sort of stand in the way for more renewables, and that's not part of the story unfortunately.
So the second of Ana carn so called oil myths is that replacing coal with gas is a climate solution. But let's hear the last one.
The third myth is that we must stand on the shoulders of today's petroleum industry in order to succeed in the green transition, and as with all myths, you could argue that it is some truth in it, because offshore know how from the petroleum industry is useful when we're to build offshore win like it was useful back in the days to have a maritime industry history when we started off with oil and gas. But it obscures the fact that we're standing at the crossroad and that we
have to make a choice. Do we go into even more oil and gas or do we go into more renewables. It's actually a choice, and by saying that we have to stand on the shoulders of oil and gas, you sort of say that we can just continue, we can build upwards, we can just do more of the same and somehow one day wake up and be in a renewable society. It's so deep in the Norwegian debate, this last one. It's fascinating, But we can't do two things
at the same time. You have a limited amount of expertise, employees and available money to invest, So there's obviously problems with all this story.
The third of anakharinsarth that's so called oil myths is that the fossil fuel industry is essential to a green transition together. She claims these myths shape a story in which Norwegian oil and gas come across as not just acceptable but even good, a story that makes the industry appear more compatible with climate action than it might really be,
and that helps justify continued drilling. To many, such messaging might sound too convenient to be taken at face value, But how does the industry itself explain and defend it. To explore the logic behind these narratives and the paradox of the Norwegian identity they help sustain, I spoke with and Catharine vorga climate policy manager at Offshore Norway, the organization that represents companies operating on the Norwegian continental shelf,
many with a direct stake in oil and gas. As someone whose role is shaping climate policy whilst at the same time advocating for the very industry that that policy is meant to regulate, her perspective is especially useful for understanding how the industry squares its climate ambitions on the one hand with its dependence on fossil fuel production on the other.
My role as a climate policy manager is to give advice and input to the authorities on climate policies and regulations. When oil and gas are burned, considerable emissions are released to the atmosphere, contributing to the global warming and climate change. And I think that's why the work with the climate policy within the oil and gas industry is so important. We must both reduce emissions linked oil and gas, but at the same time we must increase the production of
renewable energy also not gaz. Together with our partners, we have established very ambitious climate targets and we aim to reduce emissions from the oil and gas production by fifty percent in twenty third thirty and to near zero in twenty fifty and this will be very challenging. We are engaged in reducing emissions from the use of the oil and gas by capturing the C two and storing it or by producing blue hydrogen.
Let me quickly help here. Blue hydrogen is a fuel created using methane derived from fossil gas. Now back to and Catherine.
We are also heavily engaged in the development of offshore wind sector in Norway and the policy measures that are needed for the energy transition from fossil fuels to the renewables. So I wouldn't say that there are tensions between working with climate policy and working in the oil and gas sector. On the contrary, climate policies is actually a full of integrated part of shows activities.
And Catherine points to efforts to reduce emissions from oil and gas production to zero by twenty fifty as evan of the industries taking responsibility for its actions. But as we just heard, only three percent of the total emissions from oil and gas are associated with their production. Even if the industry hits its twenty fifty targets, that doesn't help with the ninety seven percent of emissions released into the atmosphere when Norwegian oil is burned at the use phase.
At the same time, while she highlights the likes of CO two capture, blue hydrogen production and offshore wind development as ways that the industry is contributing to both dealing with those use phase emissions on the one hand and transitioning away from oil and gas towards renewable energy on the other, critics contend that neither carbon capture and storage nor blue hydrogen are anywhere near developed enough to make
a meaningful impact. In fact, Equinor and others recently scrapped plans to export blue hydrogen abroad due to a lack of demand for fossil based fuels compared to their renewable counterparts. However, despite this demand and ambitious goals to develop Norways off shore wind capacity, earlier this year, Equinor, who are perhaps best placed to make strides in the sector, and several of their peers, also rolled back their offshore wind targets too.
So while Anne Catherine claims that climate policy is fully integrated into oil and gas activities, the messaging seems to be moving much faster than the technologies it's highlighting. Next, I asked how the planned expansion of Noua's oil and gas industry could be even remotely in alignment with the
international obligations set out by the Paris Agreement. It's here in Ane Catherine's response that the black thread becomes a knot, a tightly wound tangle of industry led narratives, strategies and claims. As Anakar and Sath from the Norwegian Climate Foundation told us earlier, in strategic communication, some things are brought into the light and others are left in the shade. So as we listen to Ann Catherine's answer to my question,
it's worth asking ourselves what's left out? How are her claims framed to make oil gas appear more compatible with climate goals than perhaps they actually are, and which so called myths does she invoke along the way?
An increase of the total oil and gas production will obviously lead to more emissions, and it is not in
line with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Aill oil and gas have the same amount of emissions when you use it, but emissions link to the production and the transportation of the oil and gas differ significantly, and using oil and gas from Norway instead of using oil and gas from other countries can then lead to less emissions as we have less emissions from the production side, and therefore be in line with the aim of the Paris Agreement. But also replacing coal with oil and gas will have
a significant effect on emissions. So if the expansion of the oil and gas production replaces alternatives with more emissions and leads to actual total lower emissions, that is in line with aim of the Peri's agreement to reduce the greenose gas emissions.
Did you catch that we just heard two of the so called oil myths, first the idea of Norwegian oil being climate friendly and second that replacing coal with oil and gas is a climate solution. As we've discussed, the climate friendly oil framing highlights production efficiency but doesn't account for the total emissions from consumption or the long term
lock in effects of continued fossil fuel dependence. Similarly, replacing coal with oil and gas might reduce emissions in the short term, but it still locks in carbon intensive energy infrastructure, as Anakarr and Sather explained earlier, delaying the shift to genuinely renewable sources. But let's keep listening. Here's and Catherine Vorga again moving on to the expansion of noise oil and gas activities.
The outlook for the production of the oil and gas in Norway is that in some years we will reach peak production and then we will see a significant decline. So the exploration for new resources will ensure that the downward production curve will not be steeper than the demand curve. So exploration for more oil and gas in Norway as we see today will not be an expansion from the
current level. Almost all of the oil and gas produced in Norway alsold to uk and ere and the Russian invasion of Ukraine has clearly demonstrated how dependent Europe is of the energy from Norway, and EU has now decided to stop the import of oil and gas from Russia, and their main priority is of course to replace this
by investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. But it takes time to build new renewable capacity, and in the short medium term the oil and gas from Russia will have to be replaced by oil and gas from other countries, and in climate perspective, oil and gas from Norway are produced with lower carbon footprint than oil and gas from other contries.
In this part of her response, we hear the familiar petroganda narrative of energy security, as discussed in the previous episode. While valid in the context of Europe's immediate needs, this argument can also be read as a justification for maintaining production levels in the longer term, even when the broader climate context calls for a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, a transition we've already heard is made all the more
difficult if we continue investing in the oil industry. Meanwhile, on the expansion issue, my understanding of what and Catherine's saying is that we shouldn't worry too much, because she argues any such activity isn't about increasing overall use of fossil fuels, but instead about ensuring that there'll be enough to get us through the forthcoming energy transition in line with the projected decline in demand for oil and gas
from the likes of Europe and the UK. However, a twenty twenty four report found that if the EU curbs demand in line with its targets, existing oil and gas projects and contracts will be sufficient to meet declining European needs, which means there's no need for more Norwegian oil and gas. But let's hear the final part of and Catherine's response.
The main driver in the energy market is the demand for energy. Society needs enough and affordable energy, and to limit the climate crisis, the energy must be as clean as possible, So both UK and THEY asset ambitious targets for transition of their energy mix away from fossil fuels and towards for renewables. But even in the scenarios where they reach their climate goals, they will need more oil
and gas than Norway from over prognosis can deliver. So in the case where UK and E need oil and gas as a part of their energy mix, this Shurrado coom from more production in our Way than from other producing countries, and that's also from a climate perspective.
Right, So then we're back to the idea that Norway's oil and gas is simply filling the British and European demand, but with the added twist that assumes Norwegian oil and gas will substitute products from other providers based on the logic of it being cleaner. It's a lot to take in, and that's kind of the point. Each of these industry narratives builds on or intertwines with the next, which, according to the industry's critics, complicates any effort required to challenge them.
And while the arguments are pretty straightforward, Norwegian oil has a lower production footprint than other imports, replacing coal with gas can reduce emissions, and Europe's current energy situation makes
Norwegian supply important. These strategic framings, as are experts of expan, often present partial truths or short term solutions as evidence of alignment with climate goals, but seen through the lens of the oil myths and the petroganda narratives we've heard about from expert observers and voices critical of oil industry rhetoric.
Such communication seems to reinforce a story that makes fossil fuels seem necessary, acceptable, and even beneficial, while obscuring broader context and the structural challenges of a full energy transition. So we now have a better understanding of the logic behind the communication coming out of NOI's fossil fuel industry, much of which seems to rest on this idea or
myth of climate friendly oil. I was curious to learn more about this, so I asked Cilia ask Lundberg from research and advocacy organization oil Change International for her take.
We've had so many different slogans that are connected to how we frame it. It's like, it's the green oil, it's the climate friendly oil. Now it's the democratic oil. So it just keeps on filling it with all of these wonderful words, basically just to be able to continue to say that we should be the last country on Earth to produce oil and gas, which is like the narrative that is being built by the industry, and unfortunately that is accepted by a lot of politicians.
Indeed, many politicians, including the Norwegian Minister for Climate and the Environment, have repeated these lines about climate friendly oil, and all of Anakharan's so called myths can be identified in the Norwegian government's recent climate strategy, alongside a number of Drilled media's petroganda narratives discussed in the previous episode. Tocillia's point and echoing an Catherine Vorga from off Shore
Norway's position. In an interview with The New York Times, Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Garstura said, I believe that the change here will have to come from the demand side, and it cannot be by having political decisions to cut the supply side. I asked Oslo based author, journalist and climate data expert Catan Joshi what he thinks about this kind of reasoning.
Something that's important to note is that countries that supply a large amount of fossil fuels to other places in the world are very emotionally centered on making sure that people burn those fossil fuels. We as a country that supplies fossil fuels, frame ourselves as passive or somewhat neutral. We just happen to have been born on top of a whole bunch of oil and gas, and it's therefore our neutral and unbiased responsibility to pick it up out
of the ground and transfer it elsewhere. What happens in reality is that when you are invested in supplying fossil fuels, you will go out of your way to come up with stories and lines of argument that encourage people to burn them. A nice example, of course, has been the energy crisis in Europe. Russia invaded a neighboring country, and as a consequence, a lot of the countries in Europe that buy its gas products decided to try and reduce that.
Norway stepped up and said, hey, don't worry about all the electrification and the demand reduction and energy efficiency. Just swap it out with Norwegian gas instead. We can supply it. It's all good. And then we take that argument and say we are providing energy security where the real energy security for Europe would have been reducing reliance on important fuels. And so not only are we compelled to tell the world different ways that they can feel good about burning
our products, we feel proud about it. We sort of present it as if we're sort of doing a heroic thing for the rest of the world. This is the headspace of the fossil fuel exporterer. It's a line of argument that allows the maintenance of prolonged fossil fuel extraction.
Katan believes that, as we've discussed in the previous episode, Norway's leaders are prone to motivated reasoning, finding any justification they can for continuing business as usual. Along with the personal and political benefits it brings. The so called myths that Anakhar and Satha described, like the idea of climate
friendly oil, become particularly powerful in this context. They aren't just stories, they're convenient frames of reference, offering leaders information that allows them to defend the path they're already on board. Land from the University of Oslo's Oil and Society Research
Network illustrates how this plays out. He describes how projections of falling oil and gas demand, like the ones Zan Catharine Voger invoked to reassure me that the industry is simply walking at the pace of European needs, can be weaponized by different actors to reinforce the very narratives that keep drilling going.
If you look at the projections for future oil and gas production, they show a quite significant decline over the next twenty to thirty years. Those figures are used very differently by different actors in the political scene. So some would point to them and say this, I guest thing is it's not really a problem because it's going to fix itself over time, So why bother discussing phase outdates.
But then at the same time, the oil industry and the Ministry of Energy are using those same numbers and forecasts to argue, Look, we need to work to keep production going. We need more exploration, we need tax incentives, we need all of these new things to avoid this decline.
Board explains how some actors use these figures to downplay the urgency of policies to curb fossil fuel extraction, while others use them to justify continued exploration and subsidies, ultimately to develop the industry rather than dismantle it, which brings us to the only so called oil myth. We've yet to dig into the idea that the oil industry is
vital to enabling the green transition. A key piece of the puzzle here is carbon capture and storage or CCS, the fossil fuel industry's effort to suck CO two out of the air and lock it deep underground. Let's hear from Offshore Norway's climate policy manager again and Catherine Vorga about carbon cap in storage and how it works in practice.
The emissions from the use of both oil and gas are considerable and Norway has a particular responsibility for these emissions. I think a good example of Norway taking this responsibility is Norway's contribution to the development of a value chain for C two capture and transportation and storage. The Novisian state has taken a majority of the investments and now
the value chain is in place. CO two is captured and transported by ships to the Northern Lights receiving terminal, and then the CO two is transported by pipeline to a reservoir at a continental shelf and its story two thousand and six hundred meters under the seabed. Norway has by this project paved the way for other CEO two
capture and storage projects. The Northern Lights terminal is now actually expounding its capacity to five million ton z with finance she'll support from EU, and in addition, several storage projects are underplanning in Norway. So it's a clear example on how Norway takes the responsibility for their missions and at the same time liverageure or technolological and geographical advantage.
Despite this successful depiction of the Northern Lights project, it wasn't until several weeks after our conversation that the very first volumes of CO two an undisclosed amount, were injected into the undersea reservoir associated with the initiative, So five million tons a year. I asked Doan Catherine by when, to which she answered that it would quote take some time. Indeed, in always climate and energy circles, ambition often outruns delivery.
Although the country is off track to meet its existing decarbonization goals, earlier this year, Climate and Environment Minister Andre s bl and Eriksson claimed that the most important thing Norway could do for the climate was to set even higher goals. Ketan Joshi has been following Norway's progress closely.
He's also been analyzing the development of carbon capture and storage for several years, and, based on his findings, like many others, believes this technology serves only to prolong society's reliance on fossil fuels.
Norway is held up as a global example of ccs' success, but the percentage of our emissions that CCS avoids keeps getting smaller and smaller every year. And the reason is that CCS stays small in the amount that we extract in cell keeps increasing.
Katan calls CCS a quote false promise, essentially that the idea that a single technology could erase all of our emissions is so enticing that we cling to it even as real progress remains slow. The longer we hold on, the more the incumbent powers of the oil and gas industry benefit from business as usual, all while the climate crisis grows more urgent. To me, it seems a bit like clinging to a balloon As it rises higher. The hope seems real, but the distance to the ground only widens,
and you can only hold on for so long. Despite the lack of progress, though, Katan notes one benefit Norway gains from its work with CCS.
That helps maintain our self image of being a green country.
According to our experts, all these myths are used to justify the growth of Norway's oil industry and duplicate its people into oil positivity while boosting that self image as a green country. But critics contend that yet another myth that Norway needs oil to remain rich and maintain the welfare system plays a part here too, indeed, and Catherine Vorga explained that oil revenues help grow the Oil Fund for the benefit of the annual state budget and the
Norwegian welfare system. But here again commentators shed some doubt the idea that Norway needs more oil to remain wealthy, and according to anakhar And Sather, project manager at the Norwegian Climate Foundation, the long stand notion that Norway was poor before oil and gas are two of the major misconceptions Norwegians hold about their wealth. Let's hear more from Anna Karn about Norway's economic situation before the oil boom.
I think most Norwegians there are quite aware that we became richer because of oil and gas, and some people even think that we were poor before, and that goes from lots of politicians to the crown princesses and others. Talking to people abroad or the discussions in Norway is often about that that the oil and gas revenue kind
of saved us. But that's not really the fact. We did become richer because of oil and gas, but we were already number ten on the list of the richest countries in the world before we found oil and gas. We had timber. We had hydropower, shipping, huge marriage sector, growing industry, lots of other activities that actually made us fairly rich before we found oil. So that's a problem with the perception among most Norwegians, I think, and that
legitimize further exploration. Unfortunately, so in contrast to the mainstream notion that Norway was poor before it struck oil, Anakaran
claims the country was actually pretty wealthy. The rags to riches story, though, which ties wonderfully into the sense of Norway being the clever underdog from those folk tales we discussed in episode one, is now deeply entrenched and according to our experts, it shapes people's fears about and even their inability to consider the end of Norwegian oil and gas. Let's hear a bit more from Anna Karan and the
gap between the perception and reality of Norwegian wealth. We did a study among Norwegians and we found that two out of three think we have to do more exploration
in order to have a proper welfare system. Where our work now in the Norwich Climate Foundation, we got some really good economists to do a study for us, and we ask them what will further exploration for more oil and gas mean for the welfare system in the years ahead, and they said, after this long report, not really much, because we have the oil fund and that will grow
almost no matter what. The oil fund now is just as much money money as oil money, and we only take out a few percent each year, so it doesn't really matter. They say that the place we would have been in twenty forty nine, we can be in twenty fifty when it comes to welfare without further exploration. But this is a surprise to Norwegians. And when we have this Semini in Stavangna presenting this study, there was even one guide saying that I don't believe this number. I
don't believe this study. But that doesn't really matter because it's the facts.
To Anakharin's point that Norway doesn't actually need new oil revenue to remain wealthy. Yence Stoltenberg, current Norwegian Minister of Finance and former head of NATO, confirmed in an interview with NRK, the National radio that oil money isn't actually spent at all. He said, quote, I often say, and many others say, that we use oil money. The truth is that we don't really spend oil money. We have
spent zero oil money since two thousand and one. What we use is financial income, the return of the oil revenues we have saved, and as long as we stay within that then this fund can last forever end quote. So Norway's wealth isn't at risk even without new oil. If we reflect on the petroganda narrative of having to choose between the economy or the environment, then we see
how Norwegians may be being presented with a false dilemma. Yet, earlier this summer, the Norwegian government opened for the largest ever offering of potential oil and gas areas, with an
emphasis on the Arctic waters of the Barren Sea. In the face of such continued expansion of the industry, anakhar and Star that explains that whether fossil fuel companies, politicians or the Norwegian public want to acknowledge it or not, rising risks, regulatory pressures and the worsening impacts of climate change are coming, and they won't wait for the narratives to catch up.
So that are also some facts that they have to get used to.
Unfortunately, with the growing sense that norways entrenched dependence on oil and gas is approaching its limits, the question becomes not if, but how the country will navigate this challenge.
Much of the political approach at the moment is to just keep saying that we want to develop the industry, we want to maintain it into the future.
That's Bored Land from the University of Oslo, again reflecting on politicians' reluctance to prepare for the end of Norwegian oil and gas.
That's problematic whether it succeeds or not, because if it succeeds, it's of course prolonging the oil age, and that's problematic for climate reasons. If it doesn't succeed, then we're kind of fooling ourselves into not dealing with the problems that we're facing when this industry is declining. One thing that would help a lot would be to get a more widespread acceptance that we are nearing the end of the Norwegian oil and gas age, that we are on a declining path.
Board argues that if efforts to sustain production succeed, it extends the oil age, harming the climate, while if they fail, it delays confronting the challenges of a declining industry. He suggests a more realistic acknowledgment of this decline would shift policy towards managing a planned phase out of the industry rather than trying to maintain it indefinitely.
We need a strategy for the final phase of the region oil and gas production.
A clear strategy could not only guide noway through this shift, but also help prepare the oil industry workforce for the future. As we noted in the first episode, many Norwegians personally know people working in the industry, and commentators point out that one of the industry's regular defenses against phasing out operations is the perceived size of the workforce and the number of jobs that could be lost. To explore this issue, let's hear from Cillia ask Lundberg from Oil Change International.
For those people working there, that of course will be a very big thing, but that is not an excuse to not do anything, and you can meet that if you plan for it. You can meet that with policies so you can shift them or transition them into other jobs. But one of their old big issues in Norway is that there is no will to try to plan for this, or to even try to start imagining a world without out continued Norwegian oil and gas production.
Interestingly, in connection with the oil price drop between twenty fourteen and twenty sixteen, many thousands of workers left the Norwegian oil industry, but according to Christopher Berger, senior advisor at Statistics Norway, most found jobs in other sectors within a year. My understanding then is that a well managed transition could ease the impact on the workforce. Yet with little planning for a final phase of oil and gas, the government risks failing the very people as long celebrated
as heroes. Meanwhile, public opinion is moving ahead of politicians. Sillier notes that polls show how Norwegians are increasingly supportive of measures to limit fossil fuel expansion, a shift that leaves policymakers.
Playing catch up.
We are seeing that that realization is beginning to happen to more and more Norwegians, more and more borders are starting to ask for more restrictive policy for the oil and gas industry.
Cilia shared that according to recent polling, more than half of Norwegian voters are against oil and gas production in areas that are important for the fishing industry and against oil and gas production in Arctic waters, and even believes that Norway should stop looking for more oil and gas.
Despite this rising public opposition to new oil and gas activities, especially in sensitive Arctic areas like the Barren Sea, which we just heard was central to the recent government exploration offering, the government continues to push for expansion.
The major obstacle in Norway are the major political parties. If you look at the Labor Party, the Conservative Parties and the Progress Party, those three parties are very much a favor of continuing to explore for more oil and gas, so they are at odds with the majority of Norwegian borders.
Cilia believes the issue is Norway's politicians, who she claims remain under the spell of the industry.
I think this shows how strong a grip the oil and gas industry have over Norwegian politics and how implemented those narratives that we've been talking about are also in the minds of the politicians. Europe needs energy now, but Europe is on a path of getting rid of their gas. They're starting with the Russian gas, but they're not ending there. Norway is now planning on expanding and producing way more than what the EU is asking for.
Just as bord Lain explained earlier, Cilia shares how Norway's political leaders are incapable of even addressing the idea of a Norway after oil, fixated instead on the rhetoric of the industry, much of which we've heard throughout this and the previous episode.
If you try to talk to a labor politician or a conservative politician about trying to plan for Norway post oil, the conversation just stops. They are not interested at all, and I think what drives them is fear. They are afraid because that would mean that they do something a bit new and unheard of in Norway, which is stand up to the oil and gas industry. So then it's easier to just do nothing.
According to Cilia, the disconnect between political decisions and the majority of view is not only frustrating for a growing number of citizens, it's also affecting how Norway is perceived internationally.
When you have international criticism of Norway asa oil and Gas major, if the Financial Times write about it or the Guardian, that ends up being headline used in Norway as well in terms of like, wow, we're getting criticized. Governments in other nations have been very afraid to criticize governments like Norway, but it looks like that might be starting to shift a bit.
Governments of other countries might be warming up to the idea of criticizing Norway, but citizens around the world are already on the case. Campaigns like Fight for the Bite in Australia mobilized thousands against Quinor's plans to drill in a highly sensitive marine area, attracting international media attention and
ultimately prompting the company to withdraw. Similarly, the Stop Willow campaign in Canada has sought to halt Equinor's development of oil in Arctic waters, raising concerns over environmental impact and indigenous rights, and in the UK, the ongoing Stop Rosebank campaign challenges Equinor's plans to exploit the country's largest undeveloped
oil field. While outrage from the energy town game discussed in the previous episode only adds to the negativity, these high profile campaigns and criticisms call out both Equinor and Norway directly, increasingly framing the country as a climate offender rather than a climate leader. Anakhar and Satha from the Norwegian Climate Foundation agrees that Nou's reputation in the international scene is suffering.
I think our reputation has gotten pretty much worse, especially since Russian full scale invasion of Ukraine in two thousand and twenty two, because now people start talking, at least in Brussels and EU countries, that we have been profiting from the war and the high gas prices, and when people in Europe they've had an energy price crisis and someone took those money that they have been paying out of their pockets and that was us. So we're not that big a hero any longer, I think.
As Norway faces scrutiny on the international stage in response to Equinor's activities, the government and industry often respond by emphasizing the careful planning, strategy and adherence to facts that underpin their actions. Framing their conduct in this way ensures it appears rational and evidence based, even as critics point
to the widening gap between words and outcomes. And Catherine Vorga from Offshore Norway reflects this approach, highlighting the importance of grounding decisions in evidence and demonstrating tangible action.
That laws, regulations and policies are established based on facts and the deep understanding of the different aspects and the consequences. For me, it's the most important thing is actually what we do and to demonstrate what we do, to have a clear strategy and set the clear targets. And that's why we have a strategy on a climate target now to reduce the emissions, but also to contribute to more offshore bind and reduce emission from the use of oil
and gas. So for me, in my position, the most important thing is the actions.
Yet after listening to the wider picture, Norway is ongoing oil expansion, growing public opinion against new drilling, international campaigns calling out the country and its flagship companies, the glacial progress of technological solutions like CCS and blue hydrogen, and rollbacks of offshore wind targets by the industry's biggest players. We have to ask whether tangible action is really taking
place here. But the real question, according to Catan Joshi, is not where the plans exist or targets are set. It's where the Norway is actually showing ambition, honesty and giving its absolute best effort to achieve real world impact. For him, climate credibility isn't a technical exercise. It's a test of a country's metal, its intent, and its integrity on the global stage.
There's been a really loud and somewhat nervous debate in the climate community around targets. A country will set a target and they kind of have to nominate what level of the world heating up that they're aiming for, even though the country alone doesn't decide it. You have to kind of figure out the future that you're aligned to.
And what happened is in twenty fifteen around the Paris Climate Agreement, a lot of country is decided that they wanted to align with a planet that heats by one point five degrees relative to what it was before the industrial age, and this was sort of calculated as being the highest ambition that you could have based on what we knew at the time. In twenty fifteen, it's very likely that we're going to pass that target level, and there's been this almost anxious debate about what the next
number is going to be. Do we kind of just do like a point five increment and go to two. I like one point five zero one myself, But it's a silly debate. What was really trying to be expressed there, And when you go back and look at the statements from the nations, particularly the small island Pacific Nations, that were the ones pushing for that target. Is they weren't talking about a number. They were talking about the strength and the will of action and the need to protect
human survival. They don't talk about emissions and global atmospheric modeling. They were talking about something much more material, which is whether or not people are trying their hardest to reduce emissions. Is the line going up or is it going down? Actually need to look at a country and determine whether it has that feeling in its heart, is it actually trying as hard as it possibly can to reduce emissions? And you can actually determine this type of thing. Are
they cheating, are they using tricks? Are they being honest? Are they being transparent? Are they taking risks? Are they actually having successes that are surprising? All of these things, With time and effort, you can cage and determine. It takes accountability into this completely different space, a very emotional space.
But I think it's actually really important. And you compare that with all of the calculations and the charts that you want, right, because that's what I do, is that I like doing, but I like to pair it with an assessment of whether or not the hardest effort is being applied.
To the problem, With politicians openly discussing the irrelevance of oil to always continued wealth, failing to align with a growing public discontent with fossil fuel activities, missing targets for domestic climate measures, and bringing no clear strategy for the final phase of Norwegian oil and gas to the table. It raises serious questions about whether the Norway's leaders are responding effectively to the concerns and long term interests of
their citizens. Reflecting on Catan's question, is the hardest effort being applied to the problem in Norway's case, the evidence seems to suggest that the answer is known. In this episode, we tested the stories and the rhetoric against the facts. What did we learn well? For starters, Norway wasn't poor before oil and gas and is unlikely to be poor
after it. We heard how what might sound like common sense, climate friendly oil colld to gas substitution economic and energy security unravels under scrutiny, exposing strategies that risk driving fossil fuel dependence for decades, and that while the industry promotes actions over ambitions, it also puts its faith in as yet unproven technologies to justify its worldview, which is then amplified by Norway's politicians acting against the wishes of the
public majority. But these lines aren't just rhetoric in isolation. Our experts argue that they provide the underlying logic that politicians and the industry rely on to defend continued oil production. They shape public understanding, influence policy debates, and reinforce the idea that Norway can be both a major fossil fuel producer and a climate leader, a paradox that continues to
guide communication strategies and political decision making. Next time, in the final episode of The Black Thread, we'll look forward into Norway's future. We'll explore the pressing need for imagining how Norway and its people could support a truly green and just energy transition, to create spaces for genuine, good faith discussions about oil and climate, to realign the nation's actions with its values, and potentially safeguard its international reputation
on climate related issues before it's too late. Thanks for listening, and catch you next time. The Black Thread is a collaboration between Communicating Climate Change and Klimaculetur. It was written and narrated by dickon Bonvicstone produced and edited by lever Solid Schulearud and the executive producer was vigdis Bonvickstone artwork is by Anya Jimushkevich. For more information see the show notes