Category: Norway

Categories
Norway United Kingdom

November 30, 2005 – a “North Sea Basin Task Force” is formed

Twenty years ago, on this day, November 31st, 2005,

On 30 November 2005, Minister Enoksen of Norway and Minister Wicks of the UK agreed to establish a North Sea Basin Task Force, composed of public and private bodies from countries on the rim of the North Sea. Its purpose: to develop common principles for managing and regulating the transport, injection and permanent storage of CO2 in the North Sea sub-seabed. https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/oed/pdf_filer/rapporter/north-sea-basin-report-final.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the North Sea had been an economic bonanza for both countries (only one of which had bothered to set up a sovereign wealth fund).

The specific context was – there was increased interest in CCS, and depleted North Sea oil fields seemed like a good idea…

What I think we can learn from this – we have been hoping for technofixes for a long time.

What happened next – the CCS bubble burst in 2011, and again in 2015, but thanks to astonishing lobbying, it’s back on the agenda, and is getting LOADS of money.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

November 30, 1978 – House of Lords debate on Atmospheric Changes…

November 30, 1994 – Another denialist dolt – “Global warming a clouded issue” 

November 30, 1998 – Exxon and Mobil merge

November 30, 2014 – US TV show The Newsroom tackles climate change

Categories
Norway Predatory delay Propaganda

New words! “Petroganda” and “oilsplaining”

I just listened to a Drilled podcast – The Black Thread Pt 2: Petroganda, and you should to.

It’s a nice investigation of the way Statoil (since rebranded as Equinor) has a virtual death grip on Norwegian culture and “common sense.” Nobody says “Gramsci” or “hegemony”, but maybe they should. Nice interview with the Statoil Veep of Communications too.

Here’s a definition

The term “petroganda” was coined by journalist and Drilled founder Amy Westervelt to describe the fossil fuel industry’s approach to the information ecosystem, an approach that goes far beyond simply “disinformation,” which Westervelt describes as just the most visible symptom of this problem. In this context “petroganda” is defined as: The intentional warping of information ecosystems by corporate interests, such that everything from the basic building blocks of information—university research, surveys, white papers—to public-facing campaigns crafted by PR and advertising experts are driven by a profit or power motive as opposed to the desire to understand and communicate.

“Petroganda” is perhaps a little clumsy, and is hardly new (but then, they don’t claim it is). It’s simply the way that the oil companies (and in Australia it was/is the coal companies) go for full spectrum dominance – making sure they are in people’s minds and hearts from a very young age. The usual stuff – museums, sponsoring sports and cultural stuff, games for the kiddies etc etc. And it creates what one interviewee calls “oilsplaining” – whenever she raises Statoil’s carbon emissions she gets all the oily talking points, from people who don’t think they’ve been indoctrinated at all…

I quite like Emily Atkin’s

of oilsplaining, drawing on (of course) Rebecca Solnit’s “mansplaining.”

Oilsplaining,” our word for when some random dude who doesn’t fully understand climate change explains the benefits of fossil fuels to you .

See also

The Fossil Fuel Industry Hasn’t Come Up With a New Story in 100 Years, Why Do Climate Folks Find It So Hard to Keep Up?

2023 academic article “The language of late fossil capital.”

And my piece about Shell and its corporate propaganda, from late 2015. On existentialism, guilt, Godard and … Shell’s corporate framing strategy

A Statoil guy talking about climate change in 1980.

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

Categories
Norway

August 26, 1991- We cannot delay says Brundtland

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 26th, 1991, the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland lays it out

Speaking to the industry at the international Environment Northern Seas Conference (sic.) in Stavanger in 1991, the prime minister stressed the danger of global warming:

“We cannot postpone dealing with global warming. We have enough scientific evidence about causes and probable effects to know that the costs of not acting will be very high and that a further delay of action will increase these costs even more”

.29 ; “Brundtland key note speech,” Environment Northern Seas International Conference and Exhibition, Stavanger, 26-30 August 1991,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Brundtland had been the poster-child for “development” as we then called it, in the 1980s. The “Our Common Future” process and report had popularised the term “sustainable development.”

The specific context was that the negotiations for a climate treaty were deadlocked because the United States wanted them to be – they were determined that whatever was (or wasn’t) signed in Rio the following year (i.e. June 1992) would be weak, and not place any commitments on the US.

What I think we can learn from this We knew 35 years ago that time was short.

What happened next – the Americans got their way – the UNFCCC contained no time tables or targets for reductions by rich countries. Meanwhile, Norway got rich exporting fossil fuels. Go figure. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

August 26, 1970 The Alkali Inspector’s report… 

August 26, 1973 – Sir Kingsley Dunham points out the C02 problem

August 26, 2003 – Australian “plan” to save biodiversity

August 26, 2006 – First “Climate Camp” begins

Categories
Norway

March 27, 1971 – Norwegian Tabloid talks about the climate threat

Fifty four years ago, on this day, March 27th, 1971,

In 1971, in Norway’s largest tabloid newspaper, a journalist reported [on March 27] that global warming “may cause the polar ice to melt, that the ocean will rise above its shores, that cities and large territories of land will be under water, [and] that humans will be displaced to mountain regions” (Anonymous 1971). This alarming news story, possibly the first reference to the issue of global warming in Norwegian press, was buried in a host of similar stories of doom and gloom. Since Earth Day a year before, readers had become used to hearing about a fast approaching environmental Ragnarök. This was alarming news to Norwegians who would typically spend their vacations enjoying the country’s beautiful fjords and mountains. 

Anonymous (1971) Og havet vil stige, VG March 27 

Source: Anker, 2018

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the previous year, in February, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands had mentioned CO2 build up. There were probably other mentions in the press, but crucially, this is apparently the first one in the Norwegian press, alongside a general sense of ecological problems, there was also a very specific climatological issue. 

What I think we can learn from this

Climate change was among the other late 1960s-early 197s eco-concerns…

What happened next

Well, nine years later, the Minister for Statoil said it was a long way off.  [see March 21, 1980]

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

Categories
Norway

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

Forty five years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1980, the oil companies CLEARLY knew what was coming. And not just those Evil American ones – also the nice cuddly progressive [Er, is this right? Ed] European ones….

One example of this was a talk given in 1980 [on March 21] by Finn Lied, the chair of the Statoil board, at a seminar about Norway’s energy supply towards the year 2000. Lied, who had also been the minister of industry during the establishment of Statoil in 1971–72, stressed the ‘social cost’ of the ‘CO2 problem’. His main concern, however, was not the effects that increasing carbon dioxide levels would have on nature and human life but what it meant for the oil industry’s future prospects. ‘Luckily’, Lied concluded, the emissions problem was ‘a very long-term problem that no one really dared to begin think about’.11 

Nissen, A. 2021. A greener shade of black? Statoil, the Norwegian government and climate change,1990—2005. Scandinavian Journal of History, Volume 46, 2021 – Issue 3, https://doi.org/10.1080/03468755.2021.1876757

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2025 it is 429ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the First World Climate Conference had happened in Geneva in February 1979. In the U the Charney report had happened. There were other reports coming out saying, “hey, carbon dioxide build up is going to be a real problem.”  If your day job was energy provision, you knew.

What I think we can learn from this is that people who knew about the problem and knew that their industry, their country, was helping to cause it, were, in 1980, sanguine, saying that proof was a long way off and they could simply kick the can down the road.

But eventually you run out of road, and the can gets bigger and you start to break your toe. That metaphor could be overused. Anyhoo. 

What happened next

Ten years later, Norway introduced a carbon tax, and Statoil started work on its tax dodge of Sleipner Field. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1994 – Yes to UNFCCC, yes to more coal-fired plants. Obviously. #auspol

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Norway

September 15, 1996 – A CCS posterchild is born: Sleipner Field comes online.

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, September 15th, 1996, a crucial part of the CCS publicity campaign came into existence.

The Sleipner Vest (West) field is used as a facility for carbon capture and storage (CCS).[1][8][9] It is the world’s first offshore CCS plant, operative since September 15, 1996.[10][11] The project, in the initial year, proved insecure due to sinking top sand.[10] However, after a re-perforation and an installation of a gravel layer in August 1997, CCS operations were secure.[10] As of 2018, one million tonnes of CO2 have been transported and injected into the formation yearly since 1996.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1991, the Norwegian government had passed a carbon tax. And this gave an incentive for the state owned oil company, Statoil, (the clue is in the name) to set up injection of CO2 into a depleted North Sea oil and gas field known as Sleipner. Also, the oil and gas they were extracting had high CO2 anyway, so they were going to need to ‘sweeten’ it anyway.

And this is really the poster child for CCS alleged as a proof of concept and is still being trotted out as “CCS works” almost 30 years later.

What we learn is that government policy can drive innovation and corporate behaviour if it’s well-designed with few loopholes, one or two incentives, etc. And it’s within the corporate skill set and their imaginations and so, it came to pass.

What happened next. Sleipner Field kept getting used as the poster child for CCS for the next 30 years because there are precious few other actually successful projects that bear much scrutiny: looking at Kemper, looking at you Boundary Dam, looking at you Gorgon. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

September 15, 1948 – Biologist Evelyn Hutchinson mentions carbon dioxide build-up at an AAAS symposium.

September 15, 1980 – Australian scientists hold “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” symposium in Canberra

September 15, 1982/1990 – “Environmental Justice” is born. And so is Captain Planet…

September 15, 2008- business splits over what to extort from Rudd…

Categories
International processes Norway

November 6, 1989 – Noordwijk conference – “alright, we will keep talking”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, November 6, 1989, an international meeting about climate change began in Norway. It was one of many.in that period. It was to review the progress of the then-new IPCC and have discussions about a possible treaty (opposed by the US). 

“Attendees included ministers of 68 countries. The goal of the conference was creating a binding agreement on CO₂ emissions, which almost succeeded. The conference was organized by the Dutch environment minister Ed Nijpels and prepared by climatologist Pier Vellinga.[3]

The United States, Japan, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom did not want to make an agreement about the reduction of emissions. Even discussions about stabilizing emissions turned out to be difficult”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noordwijk_Climate_Conference

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US had been doing its level best to prevent any discussion of rich nations adopting targets for emissions reductions. Japan and Great Britain and the Soviet Union were also onboard with that. There had been a meeting at The Hague to try to kick this loose. The big nations were not invited. By Nordwijk it was all becoming a bit uncomfortable. But if you read Nathaniel Rich’s version, you get the idea that because Bill Reilly invited the wrong underling it all went tits up. It’s a little bit more complicated than that. And the brutal review of Losing Earth that I mentioned last year, it’s really worth reading. 

What I think we can learn from this

Statecraft is statecraft is statecraft.

What happened next

A flurry of meetings in 1990, on climate, environment, development etc. Culminated in the Second World Climate Conference. Then the negotiations for a climate treaty…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Norway

September 20, 2013 – CCS project mothballed/killed.

Ten years ago, on this day, September 20, 2013, the Norwegian government pulled the plug on the Mongstad carbon capture and storage project.

Norway’s government on Friday terminated a full-scale project to capture carbon dioxide at the Mongstad refinery on the country’s western coast, citing high risks connected to the facility. It will be replaced with a carbon capture and storage (CCS) program that is designed to “realize” other full-scale CCS projects in the country.

 https://www.powermag.com/42579/

and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24233443

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly397ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the wheels were falling off the CCS bandwagon. The EU project NER300 was going nowhere. The British first competition head stopped. There were cost overruns at Southern Company. And the Norwegians just pull the plug.

What I think we can learn from this is that technosalvationism is really expensive and sometimes it gets so expensive that it can’t be sustained.

What happened next

 Everyone within a few years agreed to start talking about CCS as the next big thing and along has come hydrogen to assist in that. The game is the game is the game is the game 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
International processes Norway

June 24 1985 – Climate change rears its head at a development meeting…

Thirty eight years ago, on this day, June 24, 1985, the question of climate change was brought to the development table (not for the first time).

The third meeting of the world commission on environment and development began in Oslo today with serious concern over acid rain and greenhouse effects, according to a report from oslo. The seven-day meeting started with two days of public hearings at which non-government organizations testify on marine mammal conservation, possible irreversibility of acid rain effect and greenhouse effect on other energy-related issues. Dr. Irving Mintzer from the World Resources Institute (WRI) reviewed greenhouse effect by which carbon dioxide in the atmosphere impedes the ability of the earth to radiate back into space the heat from the sun. He also warned that other gases like methane and chlorofluorocarbons may amplify the warming effect of carbon dioxide. As an effect of greenhouse, the sea level would rise 70 to 100 cms and cause coastal flooding and salt water intrusion into rivers and ground water reservoirs which would disrupt the life of 40 percent of the world’s population dwelling in coastal areas, mainly in Bangladesh, vietnam, Egypt, the Netherlands and the U.S. gulf coastal areas.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 348.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1983 the World Commission on Environment and Development had been set up kind of a sequel or extension of the Brandt report published in 1980 and is clear from this meeting that climate was already well on the agenda.

What I think we can learn from this is that it is now 40 years since international bureaucrats were joining the dots about specific problems that would be faced.

What happened next

The Brundtland report was released in 1987. It gained a lot of traction because the second Cold War was winding down and everybody needed something new to talk about. And the environmental problems were becoming very clear especially thanks to the Amazon deforestation and the Ozone hole… Climate would explode in mid-1988.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.