Norsk hodepine (2021) - full transcript
The state violates the Constitution, according to Greenpeace and Nature and Youth.
They have sued the state after it opened for oil drilling in the Barents Sea.
This is Norway's first climate court case. There is a trend in the world.
This is the first trial in which anyone will use the Constitution -
- to stop Norwegian petroleum policy, our most important industry.
It is also important from a legal point of view, such as the first case concerning Article 112 of the Constitution.
Important lawsuits are often involved in the state.
This office still has important, large, perhaps even historical trials.
Good morning. Be so kind.
Lawyer Hambro, please.
Remember to turn on the microphone.
Section 112 of the Constitution states that everyone has the right to an environment -
- which ensures health and safeguards this right also for posterity.
If you take the plaintiff's allegations seriously, the case concerns thousands of jobs, -
hundreds of billions and the future of Norway's most important industry.
Norway is today registered as one of the world's ten richest nations.
As a nation, we do not have to face this situation with guilt.
We should not be ashamed to live in one of the richest countries in the world.
We often hear that Norway does nothing for the climate. It's wrong.
Oil boils the globe, let the oil lie!
My name is Gaute and I am a leader in Nature and Youth. (loud cheers)
Folks, today we are writing history! We are in a team with thousands of young people -
- across the country and millions of young people across the globe. (loud cheers)
Many believe we should be at school today.
But it's not us who are shirking away from responsibility today.
These are the oil doping politicians!
I think it's a bad idea -
- to close down the Norwegian continental shelf or set an end date in the relatively near future.
When I walk in the workshop hall at Stord -
- and sees engineering and pride -
- the skilled workers in coveralls have -
over the equipment they produce, which is delivered to the USA, Brazil -
- and elsewhere in the world, we really have reason to be proud as a nation.
We have sued the Norwegian state -
- for having granted ten oil telecommunications licenses in the Barents Sea.
First round, in the district court: The state was acquitted.
We had very good arguments that the Oslo District Court ignored.
That is why we have anka: We think the verdict is too bad.
Dress is the dress code in court, right?
There is no suit obligation for you. You need to feel comfortable.
It can get a little overwhelming with the suit, in a way.
But maybe not Icelandic, somehow?
You're fine now.
OK, nice.
Icelander can get hot, but is a clear identity mark.
There are two parties in a lawsuit, each with their own story or narrative.
Most often, what has happened is within the framework of the same story.
There is disagreement about the legal assessment.
This is about the relationship between law and politics:
What does the Storting (supreme legislature)
decide, what do the courts decide?
It will be an interpretation of § 112: the boundary between law and politics.
Tomorrow begins the next round of the climate lawsuit in the Court of Appeal.
Finally, we will drag the state into the courtroom! (loud cheers)
You're welcome.
Then the court is set. The Borgarting Court of Appeal shall hear an appeal.
The environmental organizations claim that § 112 is a right provision -
- which requires the state to protect the environment and climate.
It is stated that the production licenses are in violation of Section 112 of the Constitution.
Honourable Court of Appeal.
My first question is: Why are we standing here today?
This is because the temperature on the planet is rising at a rapid pace.
When we stood in the district court two years ago, -
- the average temperature was 1 degree higher than in pre-industrial times.
Now it's even warmer.
The long-term consequences of continuing as before, -
- among other things by planning for new production of petroleum -
- which will enter the market well into the future, -
- undermines democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
We are in Arendal, the sailing ship capital.
Only in the last hundred years have we used fossil fuels.
The other good news is that the shifts may take ten years:
From sails to steam to petrol.
(inaudible)
Hammerfest did not come here by itself.
We ask the industry and the government to press the button and trigger even more activity.
Only in one way can we ensure that there is activity in the future: by searching and finding.
The role of the authorities, my job, is to make sure that there are areas to look in.
Fatih Birol, the head of the IEA, has said it very descriptively:
"The world needs all the oil and gas that Norway can produce."
The state has a duty to protect the climate, both as a duty of activity and a waiver.
Allowed the environmental authorities to blow up Jotunheimen because gravel was needed, -
- it would quite obviously be illegal and in violation of Article 112 of the Constitution.
2006 was perhaps a wake-up call for many.
It is active. Where it is green and has become soil, it has been ice-free for a long time.
In a picture from 1930, Kjelbreen and Vesljuvbreen are connected.
I have been walking in the mountains quite evenly for 25 years at least.
Then you follow.
With the huge meltdown that was last year, and the last few days, -
- there is one meter of ice a week; the landscape changed.
Bjørn Hallvard Samset? Score?
Senior researcher at the Cicero Centre for Climate Research here in Oslo.
I have one main message:
Should we now, as the politicians say in the Paris Agreement, stabilize climate change, -
- at two degrees, one and a half or over two, if we do not meet those goals ...
For stabilizing climate change -
- emissions from human activities must go to zero.
-There you see the mountain veronikas.
-Yes. Cool!
The interesting thing for us is how the mountain plants are doing.
To find out, we take lots of mountain plants, mark them -
- and come back year after year and measure how they feel:
The height, the size of the leaves, whether they have set flowers, survived.
Inside here it is 1.5-2 degrees warmer than outside. The Paris Agreement is in here.
When it gets warmer, -
- in fact, our mountain plants do worse.
They set more seeds, but survival is poorer.
We are now living in the midst of the sixth mass extinction on earth.
From the past, we know that the pace of change is very important for how bad things are going.
Our mass extinction is the fastest.
The extinction goes approx. a thousand times as fast as what is natural.
There is a little more carbon in the soil here than in the one further down, which is more leached out.
In the soil there is a lot of life, plant remains, fungi, lots of bacteria.
They live and have cellular breathing like us and exhale CO2 as a residual waste.
Carbon is constantly leaking from the ground.
Throughout the summer and a little in the winter, there is also uptake of carbon via the plants.
The balance is incredibly important for the future -
- to the hundred kilos of carbon that lies inside this small square.
Is there more that goes out than that goes down into the ground in a year, -
- we have a huge problem, a bomb.
How scared am I? It takes the night's sleep from me a few nights.
But you have to make the days go by from day to day.
You probably make some strategies:
You try to relate a little emotionlessly to what you know.
For what is the alternative?
You're welcome.
-Lawyer Victory Place, please. - Honourable Court of Appeal.
In media reports, this trial has been referred to as the trial of the century.
It can probably be discussed.
The appellants are deeply and warmly committed to petroleum policy.
The organizations are against new permits being granted.
They were against the 23rd round and have protested against the 24th round and other awards.
In this case, they are trying to take the political battle into the courts -
- and transform the topic into a question of legal validity of a single decision.
This is a completely different issue.
We have had a reality test today.
The Oslo branch and other Greenpeace branches in the world went into test mode.
It was great to see how we prepared to confront the oil rig.
In many places they did the same thing at the same time, so we are probably ready for action.
And.
Very good! You are amazing!
-Thank you very much. -You're welcome.
-You are involved on a voluntary basis. -Yes.
-Involved in the environment? -Yes.
I have realized that here it is a bit opposite.
You are well engaged in the environment, but at the same time ...
What would Hammerfest be without this?
I would like to have both: nothing against the environment and everything else.
The Barents Sea, which is partly in the Arctic and Atlantic,
crossed by an ice edge that moves with the seasons -
- and leads to algae blooms, nutrient supply and a bustling life.
Researchers become almost lyrical when they say what the Barents Sea is for cod.
Some of the licenses in this lawsuit could involve recovery further north -
- than any other exploration activity for petroleum.
50% of the undiscovered resources are supposedly in the Barents Sea.
One can easily become impatient; there have been few discoveries lately.
We're about here now.
Here is Rådhusplassen.
People my age and up have probably experienced what happens to a society -
- when it is not a job to get, but eviction and pessimism.
When the municipality does not have the finances to rehabilitate and maintain its buildings.
It has been seen what has happened since the petroleum industry came.
So it's probably hard for the hammer fasteners to ...
It has changed the municipality completely.
Can you accommodate all the students here, Anita?
I started as principal in 2007.
Now we stand here and have a wonderful great school -
- with air, light and space.
Everything the heart can desire.
The property tax from Melkøya has made it possible to build schools, kindergartens, -
- culture house, care centre, beach promenade, everything you see.
Melkøya came into operation in 2007. During those years, many people moved home.
For a time, so many children were born that we had to build one kindergarten a year!
It really was a boom.
You're talking about a car, it's polluting.
-Why do we have to have it? -It's much better to go.
But it can be a little okay with a car when it is very long.
For example, six hours by car, it will be a very long time to walk.
When the cars drive, they give off gas.
But it goes in the air, and it is very bad for nature and our planet.
Will this decision lead to increased global emissions with effects that violate 112?
I assume that the appellants believe the effects of global warming -
- in Norway, not Bangladesh, Africa or Latin America.
Is it in the Pacific, Bangladesh or something like that, -
- we are very far outside Norwegian jurisdiction and the scope of the Constitution.
It must be the global effects for Norway.
How much of the remaining space in the atmosphere do we think is ours?
It could be a very suitable question for the Storting to decide on.
How much of the remaining space is ours?
(roar)
-Ketil Lund is your full name? -Yes.
Your date of birth?
October 14, 1939.
You are probably retired?
I'm very much retired, yes.
Do you agree to tell the full truth and not hide anything?
This I assure you on my honour and conscience.
We in the Grandparents' Climate Action naturally support this lawsuit.
So it is the interests of our grandchildren we first and foremost have in mind.
We perceive that our generation has -
- a main responsibility for what we as Norwegian citizens have contributed to.
Not just for our own descendants, but for all the underprivileged of the world:
Indigenous peoples of the Arctic, island communities, -
- which will continue to be hardest hit by the world's fundamental injustice, -
- from which we here in Norway have in reality taken all the benefits.
To put it with the poet: We tolerate it so deeply well.
The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy lives on a completely different planet.
They only think about extracting as much as possible, not our future.
We will start local teams of Nature and Youth.
-Do you want to take pictures of us? -Yes.
-Then we can do it like this: feel the snow. -Yes!
Is it the case that you feel the effects of climate change?
It's not just statistics or reports.
You see that there is no longer ice on the fjord.
The glacier has shrunk, it rains days when it should not rain.
-This summer it was 19 plus degrees. -It's not normal.
-Not at all. -There is no normal temperature anymore.
I watched the news, then came the weather: "Svalbard warmest in the country today."
I just: Hey ?!
I want the generation after me to be able to see how beautiful nature is.
They could see a glacier. That it still exists.
We young people already feel that we inherit enough environmental problems.
For the rest of the century, nature will change in ways we could never have imagined.
People all over the globe will lose their livelihood ...
So many decisions are made by politicians that affect our future, -
- which we are not allowed to take part in deciding on, and that ...
It feels grossly unfair as a young person to grow up with that realization:
It has gone so far that it becomes incredibly costly and demanding to solve the climate crisis.
The idea is to take a sample straight from the permafrost, which is ice.
When we get it out, it is kept frozen and transported to the lab for analysis.
Here is the permafrost, it is frozen. Thaws the ice, sinks the entire surface down.
-Is there maybe ice underneath? -No.
This was probably over the water last year, but certainly two years ago.
In just five years, it has sunk almost a meter.
All the material we have here is under water. The question is: What happens to the gases?
Everything is organic material.
If we go in with this now, a lot of gas will come out.
We will measure the gases released from the ground:
CO2, methane and nitrous oxide.
Now we take a sample to measure the concentration.
That was one.
Photosynthetically active radiation is 270.
CO2 is 406.
This is the CO2 concentration.
CO2 increases.
The more the permafrost thaws, the higher the carbon emissions.
When we established the station, -
- this orange pipe was -
- at the very top of the mound.
These changes are actually happening frighteningly fast.
-Why scary? -Because it goes so fast!
"Norway is getting even warmer."
"A warmer Norway will in isolation lead to a longer growing season."
Then it's about drought, forest areas, mosquitoes and ticks.
"Norway is getting wetter. Heavy rains are becoming heavier and will occur more often."
"Increase in frequency will be greatest for winter precipitation. Flood patterns change."
I do not have time for ...
These are climate changes that are envisaged on Norwegian territory.
Do we think self-interest ... Of course it is a global and moral perspective.
But specifically for Norway, it may not be natural changes, but other conditions:
Political uncertainty and danger of war, migration and financial collapse.
These are important concerns, but they have nothing to do with § 112.
The goal is to pick up the most important from everything that has happened.
And counteract the most important of what the other party has said.
Then it's important to get the court to agree that it is not so ... It is very important.
But it is not the great drama of daring to do anything with these licenses.
The state is trying to scare them:
"If you touch these licenses, you have to put them all down."
Good day. You're welcome.
Lawyer Hambro, please.
The organizations take care of a very important social task here:
Conditions that will affect the living conditions of children and young people -
- who live in Norway today, and who do not have the right to vote.
On their behalf, the protection afforded by the Constitution is invoked.
The whole point of 112, the essence, is that it gives power to the powerless.
The Storting has given them protection in the Constitution -
- and thus determined that the courts must take care. Thanks.
Then the court is adjourned, thank you for now.
Since the Storting's decision in 2002, we have built stone upon stone -
- to become the petroleum capital of the north.
I still have a couple of concerns.
One cannot shut down our largest and most successful industrial project.
I hope the minister is very clear that society in the north is not being degraded.
If we are to get our children and grandchildren to live here, we must change drastically.
It is an issue that Helse Finnmarks director and the head of Melkøya commutes
That's not how we build society. They are not at football matches, bridge or the pub.
I'm looking darkly at North Norway ahead, if we don't, with all the resources,
- manage to settle people. If people are going to settle with their families,
- they must have job security, so predictability in exploration policy is very important.
We need to look further north, where half of the undiscovered resources are.
The future possibilities are here.
It has been a little hen and egg. We have not had the necessary experience.
Then hopefully comes Wisting, which is a huge naval operation.
The, yes.
Climate action! Now!
Climate action! Now!
All those who can jump, jump for the environment!
(violent roar)
-It really is ... -Now I have received the verdict by e-mail:
"Anken forkastes."
"Costs are not awarded."
We were expecting champagne.
The state does not have champagne. We are not disappointed when we lose, -
- or happy when we win, we just take note.
Then we got them in the climate case.
The environmental organizations are still quite happy.
We feel we have come a long way.
The first step is that the Court of Appeal states that exported emissions also count -
- in the assessments under 112, something everyone here is very happy about.
The environmental clause as a right is upheld. This is very important.
We will appeal, but this is a big step in the right direction.
Glory ...
The power cord I filmed from there.
Then I look to the right ... I stand by a small window under the kitchen furniture.
-And the forest just passes by at full speed. -OMG!
People have lived here for generations.
Everything is gone. We got a stuffed fox back, and it does not like the old woman.
So everything is wrong. It floated!
It is important for me to see it with my own eyes.
We know we will get more extreme weather and precipitation. This will be a challenge we have to live with.
There is an extremely small chance that the world will achieve this. I'm worried about shit.
-I think about that a lot. -That it does not work?
-Yes. -What happens then?
Then it's awful. Not everyone wants to die, even if you can get that impression.
An American Armageddon movie: By 2050, everyone is burned up, sort of.
It's not like that. But you lose some exceptionally valuable things.
Large parts of the world are becoming uninhabitable.
This will lead to war and conflict over resources and land.
I want my son to be able to dive on coral reefs when he's 20, which I could.
A case that concerns the soul of Oil Norway itself.
This is not a downhill case in the Supreme Court, that much I can say.
But it is very difficult to say. We have a little wind in the back here.
There is a completely different mood and attitude to this lawsuit now -
- than when we started.
The constitution is not for decoration. This is about our chance to -
- to grow up in a liveable environment with a still fairly stable climate.
The fact that the case is being taken up in the Supreme Court says that this has not been completely clarified.
Absolutely. We have known since the case was brought five years ago, -
- that this was a matter of principle that would end in the Supreme Court in plenary, -
- the most important treatment any Norwegian court can give.
Good morning. The Supreme Court in plenary will today hear a civil appeal.
If anyone can talk a little now ...
At least now we have contact with the public prosecutor.
Then I give the floor to the appellants' legal counsel, lawyer Hambro.
Thanks. Most venerable court, the supreme judges of the kingdom.
The state has one major, overriding main argument in this case:
That this is politics. It's fundamental in a liberal rule of law -
- that the room for manoeuvre of politics is below the limits of the Constitution.
The environmental organizations are asking the Supreme Court to draw that line.
The organizations claim to speak on behalf of the descendants.
I would say that is the responsibility of the Storting. Who knows what the posterity wants?
If you see this as a trade-off ... Norway runs on oil due to the income.
We want the income to take care of living standards and welfare societies.
It is also a moment.
Maybe the descendants are interested in maintaining the current level of welfare?
What kind of case is this really?
A slightly catchy word that has taken hold is "climate issue".
For the appellants, of course, it is.
For the state, this is primarily a matter of distribution of power.
Who will decide the content of Norwegian climate and petroleum policy?
Parliament and government or also the courts?
The best argument is that it is in the law that we are obliged to secure the descendants.
It cannot be read in any other way.
I would like one last request -
- point out the descendants' very basic need for liveable living conditions.
Our grandchildren will have to deal with the climate crisis -
- in a completely different way than we have done.
Some of them want to know that they had a grandfather or grandmother -
- in the Norwegian Supreme Court, because everyone knows if they had it.
I would urge the Supreme Court to pass judgment as the grandchildren and great-grandchildren -
- can be proud that the members of the Supreme Court were present and rejected. Thanks.
(elephant shock)
(loud cheers and applause)
Thank you very much!
Delicious to be done. But it feels good; we have done everything we can.
Now I'm going home and have a beer. Or two!
The Arctic is changing. It is a different Arctic than before.
It will continue if man continues to change the composition of the atmosphere.
What worries me the most is that the changes are going so fast.
We lose predictability. A young man who wanted to be a farmer, -
- be able to talk to grandma, grandpa, grandma and grandpa and get advice.
That advice does not apply today.
It was 20 degrees up here this summer. Everyone wore summer dresses and sandals.
-It's not normal. -I do not walk around and am scared.
But it's behind the head, how it will go with the world, the next generation.
When I started in Nature and Youth, I read up and was terrified:
Everyone wants to die! The world will perish! I'll never have children.
Think what kind of world my kids will grow up in ...!
Will I be able to have children -
- if the air and the world become so environmentally harmful to body and nature?
If you're scared, you have to do something about it, try to change it.
§ 112 is the right to a liveable environment, and we believe the state has violated it.
"Everyone has the right to an environment that ensures health," -
- "and to a nature where productivity and diversity are preserved."
"Nature's resources must be disposed of on the basis of a long-term and versatile consideration" -
- "who safeguards this right also for posterity."
At 9 o'clock today, the Supreme Court will rule on the climate lawsuit.
Is not oil drilling a purely political issue?
When they make promises about the environment in the Constitution, they have made it a legal issue.
-Then the court can try it. -Where do you think the boundaries should go?
Many parliamentary resolutions should have violated that section.
But here at least the border should go.
Waiting for the conference host.
Lawyer Hambro, can you still hear me?
I hear you.
Good morning. The Supreme Court in plenary will now rule on the appeal -
- between Nature and Youth and Greenpeace Norden against the state -
- at the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. I give the floor to Judge Høgetveit Berg.
I am voting in favour of such a judgment: the appeal will be rejected.
Judge Skoghøy? -I agree with Høgetveit Berg.
- Judge Matheson? -Likewise.
Judge Falkanger? -Likewise.
- Judge Normann? -Likewise.
Judge Kallerud? -Likewise.
Judge Ringnes? -Likewise.
Judge Bergh? -Likewise.
Judge Thyness? -Likewise.
Judge Steinsvik? -Likewise.
I also say the same.
Following this, the Supreme Court rules as follows: The appeal is rejected.
The negotiations are now closed, thank you for today.
If ...
Anger, disappointment and pride. It's contrary to what the world's climate needs, -
- and with the restructuring Norway must do immediately.
What are the bright spots in the verdict?
It must be that the Supreme Court maintains that 112 is a right provision, -
- with high threshold for review:
The violation of the environment must be far more dramatic than today -
- before a court will rule that the right has been violated.
I really do not think we should sue out of all the problems.
But it could be a tipping point. Say to politicians: "Here goes a limit."
"Here you get a reason to steer politics in a new direction."
I'm happy, mostly with the verdict stating that it's the politicians' responsibility -
- to find out what measures to take to achieve the goal, not the courts'.
I share the impatience and, to a great extent, the concern.
But the basic principle is that there are politicians elected by the people -
- who have to take us there, and if you are very dissatisfied, you have to replace them.
Today we present the most important energy and industrial plan for many decades:
The Government's plan for the next chapter in the history of the energy nation Norway.
We will make sure to achieve national climate goals -
- and facilitate a future-oriented oil and gas industry -
- with low emissions within the framework of climate policy.
Norwegian oil and gas operations are in a mature phase.
Production will decline in the years to come.
That fall includes that we are still searching and finding.
Otherwise, the fall of 65% by 2050 would be much sharper.
Should we alone not look for new areas ...
The countries that say that have finished their oil and gas activities.
It will have no effect; then others will fill those market shares.
Our ambition is very low, preferably no emissions from the oil and gas business.
We have no choice but to fight on and take the climate action -
to the European Court of Human Rights.
Incredibly nice to stand here -
- when we now go together to Strasbourg to hold the Norwegian state accountable.
The Supreme Court did not agree with us that Norway violated any rights.
The EMD shall not assess whether the Supreme Court ruled correctly or not.
We apply for them to consider -
- whether Norway violated human rights when the 23rd licensing round was handed out.
They have sued the state after it opened for oil drilling in the Barents Sea.
This is Norway's first climate court case. There is a trend in the world.
This is the first trial in which anyone will use the Constitution -
- to stop Norwegian petroleum policy, our most important industry.
It is also important from a legal point of view, such as the first case concerning Article 112 of the Constitution.
Important lawsuits are often involved in the state.
This office still has important, large, perhaps even historical trials.
Good morning. Be so kind.
Lawyer Hambro, please.
Remember to turn on the microphone.
Section 112 of the Constitution states that everyone has the right to an environment -
- which ensures health and safeguards this right also for posterity.
If you take the plaintiff's allegations seriously, the case concerns thousands of jobs, -
hundreds of billions and the future of Norway's most important industry.
Norway is today registered as one of the world's ten richest nations.
As a nation, we do not have to face this situation with guilt.
We should not be ashamed to live in one of the richest countries in the world.
We often hear that Norway does nothing for the climate. It's wrong.
Oil boils the globe, let the oil lie!
My name is Gaute and I am a leader in Nature and Youth. (loud cheers)
Folks, today we are writing history! We are in a team with thousands of young people -
- across the country and millions of young people across the globe. (loud cheers)
Many believe we should be at school today.
But it's not us who are shirking away from responsibility today.
These are the oil doping politicians!
I think it's a bad idea -
- to close down the Norwegian continental shelf or set an end date in the relatively near future.
When I walk in the workshop hall at Stord -
- and sees engineering and pride -
- the skilled workers in coveralls have -
over the equipment they produce, which is delivered to the USA, Brazil -
- and elsewhere in the world, we really have reason to be proud as a nation.
We have sued the Norwegian state -
- for having granted ten oil telecommunications licenses in the Barents Sea.
First round, in the district court: The state was acquitted.
We had very good arguments that the Oslo District Court ignored.
That is why we have anka: We think the verdict is too bad.
Dress is the dress code in court, right?
There is no suit obligation for you. You need to feel comfortable.
It can get a little overwhelming with the suit, in a way.
But maybe not Icelandic, somehow?
You're fine now.
OK, nice.
Icelander can get hot, but is a clear identity mark.
There are two parties in a lawsuit, each with their own story or narrative.
Most often, what has happened is within the framework of the same story.
There is disagreement about the legal assessment.
This is about the relationship between law and politics:
What does the Storting (supreme legislature)
decide, what do the courts decide?
It will be an interpretation of § 112: the boundary between law and politics.
Tomorrow begins the next round of the climate lawsuit in the Court of Appeal.
Finally, we will drag the state into the courtroom! (loud cheers)
You're welcome.
Then the court is set. The Borgarting Court of Appeal shall hear an appeal.
The environmental organizations claim that § 112 is a right provision -
- which requires the state to protect the environment and climate.
It is stated that the production licenses are in violation of Section 112 of the Constitution.
Honourable Court of Appeal.
My first question is: Why are we standing here today?
This is because the temperature on the planet is rising at a rapid pace.
When we stood in the district court two years ago, -
- the average temperature was 1 degree higher than in pre-industrial times.
Now it's even warmer.
The long-term consequences of continuing as before, -
- among other things by planning for new production of petroleum -
- which will enter the market well into the future, -
- undermines democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
We are in Arendal, the sailing ship capital.
Only in the last hundred years have we used fossil fuels.
The other good news is that the shifts may take ten years:
From sails to steam to petrol.
(inaudible)
Hammerfest did not come here by itself.
We ask the industry and the government to press the button and trigger even more activity.
Only in one way can we ensure that there is activity in the future: by searching and finding.
The role of the authorities, my job, is to make sure that there are areas to look in.
Fatih Birol, the head of the IEA, has said it very descriptively:
"The world needs all the oil and gas that Norway can produce."
The state has a duty to protect the climate, both as a duty of activity and a waiver.
Allowed the environmental authorities to blow up Jotunheimen because gravel was needed, -
- it would quite obviously be illegal and in violation of Article 112 of the Constitution.
2006 was perhaps a wake-up call for many.
It is active. Where it is green and has become soil, it has been ice-free for a long time.
In a picture from 1930, Kjelbreen and Vesljuvbreen are connected.
I have been walking in the mountains quite evenly for 25 years at least.
Then you follow.
With the huge meltdown that was last year, and the last few days, -
- there is one meter of ice a week; the landscape changed.
Bjørn Hallvard Samset? Score?
Senior researcher at the Cicero Centre for Climate Research here in Oslo.
I have one main message:
Should we now, as the politicians say in the Paris Agreement, stabilize climate change, -
- at two degrees, one and a half or over two, if we do not meet those goals ...
For stabilizing climate change -
- emissions from human activities must go to zero.
-There you see the mountain veronikas.
-Yes. Cool!
The interesting thing for us is how the mountain plants are doing.
To find out, we take lots of mountain plants, mark them -
- and come back year after year and measure how they feel:
The height, the size of the leaves, whether they have set flowers, survived.
Inside here it is 1.5-2 degrees warmer than outside. The Paris Agreement is in here.
When it gets warmer, -
- in fact, our mountain plants do worse.
They set more seeds, but survival is poorer.
We are now living in the midst of the sixth mass extinction on earth.
From the past, we know that the pace of change is very important for how bad things are going.
Our mass extinction is the fastest.
The extinction goes approx. a thousand times as fast as what is natural.
There is a little more carbon in the soil here than in the one further down, which is more leached out.
In the soil there is a lot of life, plant remains, fungi, lots of bacteria.
They live and have cellular breathing like us and exhale CO2 as a residual waste.
Carbon is constantly leaking from the ground.
Throughout the summer and a little in the winter, there is also uptake of carbon via the plants.
The balance is incredibly important for the future -
- to the hundred kilos of carbon that lies inside this small square.
Is there more that goes out than that goes down into the ground in a year, -
- we have a huge problem, a bomb.
How scared am I? It takes the night's sleep from me a few nights.
But you have to make the days go by from day to day.
You probably make some strategies:
You try to relate a little emotionlessly to what you know.
For what is the alternative?
You're welcome.
-Lawyer Victory Place, please. - Honourable Court of Appeal.
In media reports, this trial has been referred to as the trial of the century.
It can probably be discussed.
The appellants are deeply and warmly committed to petroleum policy.
The organizations are against new permits being granted.
They were against the 23rd round and have protested against the 24th round and other awards.
In this case, they are trying to take the political battle into the courts -
- and transform the topic into a question of legal validity of a single decision.
This is a completely different issue.
We have had a reality test today.
The Oslo branch and other Greenpeace branches in the world went into test mode.
It was great to see how we prepared to confront the oil rig.
In many places they did the same thing at the same time, so we are probably ready for action.
And.
Very good! You are amazing!
-Thank you very much. -You're welcome.
-You are involved on a voluntary basis. -Yes.
-Involved in the environment? -Yes.
I have realized that here it is a bit opposite.
You are well engaged in the environment, but at the same time ...
What would Hammerfest be without this?
I would like to have both: nothing against the environment and everything else.
The Barents Sea, which is partly in the Arctic and Atlantic,
crossed by an ice edge that moves with the seasons -
- and leads to algae blooms, nutrient supply and a bustling life.
Researchers become almost lyrical when they say what the Barents Sea is for cod.
Some of the licenses in this lawsuit could involve recovery further north -
- than any other exploration activity for petroleum.
50% of the undiscovered resources are supposedly in the Barents Sea.
One can easily become impatient; there have been few discoveries lately.
We're about here now.
Here is Rådhusplassen.
People my age and up have probably experienced what happens to a society -
- when it is not a job to get, but eviction and pessimism.
When the municipality does not have the finances to rehabilitate and maintain its buildings.
It has been seen what has happened since the petroleum industry came.
So it's probably hard for the hammer fasteners to ...
It has changed the municipality completely.
Can you accommodate all the students here, Anita?
I started as principal in 2007.
Now we stand here and have a wonderful great school -
- with air, light and space.
Everything the heart can desire.
The property tax from Melkøya has made it possible to build schools, kindergartens, -
- culture house, care centre, beach promenade, everything you see.
Melkøya came into operation in 2007. During those years, many people moved home.
For a time, so many children were born that we had to build one kindergarten a year!
It really was a boom.
You're talking about a car, it's polluting.
-Why do we have to have it? -It's much better to go.
But it can be a little okay with a car when it is very long.
For example, six hours by car, it will be a very long time to walk.
When the cars drive, they give off gas.
But it goes in the air, and it is very bad for nature and our planet.
Will this decision lead to increased global emissions with effects that violate 112?
I assume that the appellants believe the effects of global warming -
- in Norway, not Bangladesh, Africa or Latin America.
Is it in the Pacific, Bangladesh or something like that, -
- we are very far outside Norwegian jurisdiction and the scope of the Constitution.
It must be the global effects for Norway.
How much of the remaining space in the atmosphere do we think is ours?
It could be a very suitable question for the Storting to decide on.
How much of the remaining space is ours?
(roar)
-Ketil Lund is your full name? -Yes.
Your date of birth?
October 14, 1939.
You are probably retired?
I'm very much retired, yes.
Do you agree to tell the full truth and not hide anything?
This I assure you on my honour and conscience.
We in the Grandparents' Climate Action naturally support this lawsuit.
So it is the interests of our grandchildren we first and foremost have in mind.
We perceive that our generation has -
- a main responsibility for what we as Norwegian citizens have contributed to.
Not just for our own descendants, but for all the underprivileged of the world:
Indigenous peoples of the Arctic, island communities, -
- which will continue to be hardest hit by the world's fundamental injustice, -
- from which we here in Norway have in reality taken all the benefits.
To put it with the poet: We tolerate it so deeply well.
The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy lives on a completely different planet.
They only think about extracting as much as possible, not our future.
We will start local teams of Nature and Youth.
-Do you want to take pictures of us? -Yes.
-Then we can do it like this: feel the snow. -Yes!
Is it the case that you feel the effects of climate change?
It's not just statistics or reports.
You see that there is no longer ice on the fjord.
The glacier has shrunk, it rains days when it should not rain.
-This summer it was 19 plus degrees. -It's not normal.
-Not at all. -There is no normal temperature anymore.
I watched the news, then came the weather: "Svalbard warmest in the country today."
I just: Hey ?!
I want the generation after me to be able to see how beautiful nature is.
They could see a glacier. That it still exists.
We young people already feel that we inherit enough environmental problems.
For the rest of the century, nature will change in ways we could never have imagined.
People all over the globe will lose their livelihood ...
So many decisions are made by politicians that affect our future, -
- which we are not allowed to take part in deciding on, and that ...
It feels grossly unfair as a young person to grow up with that realization:
It has gone so far that it becomes incredibly costly and demanding to solve the climate crisis.
The idea is to take a sample straight from the permafrost, which is ice.
When we get it out, it is kept frozen and transported to the lab for analysis.
Here is the permafrost, it is frozen. Thaws the ice, sinks the entire surface down.
-Is there maybe ice underneath? -No.
This was probably over the water last year, but certainly two years ago.
In just five years, it has sunk almost a meter.
All the material we have here is under water. The question is: What happens to the gases?
Everything is organic material.
If we go in with this now, a lot of gas will come out.
We will measure the gases released from the ground:
CO2, methane and nitrous oxide.
Now we take a sample to measure the concentration.
That was one.
Photosynthetically active radiation is 270.
CO2 is 406.
This is the CO2 concentration.
CO2 increases.
The more the permafrost thaws, the higher the carbon emissions.
When we established the station, -
- this orange pipe was -
- at the very top of the mound.
These changes are actually happening frighteningly fast.
-Why scary? -Because it goes so fast!
"Norway is getting even warmer."
"A warmer Norway will in isolation lead to a longer growing season."
Then it's about drought, forest areas, mosquitoes and ticks.
"Norway is getting wetter. Heavy rains are becoming heavier and will occur more often."
"Increase in frequency will be greatest for winter precipitation. Flood patterns change."
I do not have time for ...
These are climate changes that are envisaged on Norwegian territory.
Do we think self-interest ... Of course it is a global and moral perspective.
But specifically for Norway, it may not be natural changes, but other conditions:
Political uncertainty and danger of war, migration and financial collapse.
These are important concerns, but they have nothing to do with § 112.
The goal is to pick up the most important from everything that has happened.
And counteract the most important of what the other party has said.
Then it's important to get the court to agree that it is not so ... It is very important.
But it is not the great drama of daring to do anything with these licenses.
The state is trying to scare them:
"If you touch these licenses, you have to put them all down."
Good day. You're welcome.
Lawyer Hambro, please.
The organizations take care of a very important social task here:
Conditions that will affect the living conditions of children and young people -
- who live in Norway today, and who do not have the right to vote.
On their behalf, the protection afforded by the Constitution is invoked.
The whole point of 112, the essence, is that it gives power to the powerless.
The Storting has given them protection in the Constitution -
- and thus determined that the courts must take care. Thanks.
Then the court is adjourned, thank you for now.
Since the Storting's decision in 2002, we have built stone upon stone -
- to become the petroleum capital of the north.
I still have a couple of concerns.
One cannot shut down our largest and most successful industrial project.
I hope the minister is very clear that society in the north is not being degraded.
If we are to get our children and grandchildren to live here, we must change drastically.
It is an issue that Helse Finnmarks director and the head of Melkøya commutes
That's not how we build society. They are not at football matches, bridge or the pub.
I'm looking darkly at North Norway ahead, if we don't, with all the resources,
- manage to settle people. If people are going to settle with their families,
- they must have job security, so predictability in exploration policy is very important.
We need to look further north, where half of the undiscovered resources are.
The future possibilities are here.
It has been a little hen and egg. We have not had the necessary experience.
Then hopefully comes Wisting, which is a huge naval operation.
The, yes.
Climate action! Now!
Climate action! Now!
All those who can jump, jump for the environment!
(violent roar)
-It really is ... -Now I have received the verdict by e-mail:
"Anken forkastes."
"Costs are not awarded."
We were expecting champagne.
The state does not have champagne. We are not disappointed when we lose, -
- or happy when we win, we just take note.
Then we got them in the climate case.
The environmental organizations are still quite happy.
We feel we have come a long way.
The first step is that the Court of Appeal states that exported emissions also count -
- in the assessments under 112, something everyone here is very happy about.
The environmental clause as a right is upheld. This is very important.
We will appeal, but this is a big step in the right direction.
Glory ...
The power cord I filmed from there.
Then I look to the right ... I stand by a small window under the kitchen furniture.
-And the forest just passes by at full speed. -OMG!
People have lived here for generations.
Everything is gone. We got a stuffed fox back, and it does not like the old woman.
So everything is wrong. It floated!
It is important for me to see it with my own eyes.
We know we will get more extreme weather and precipitation. This will be a challenge we have to live with.
There is an extremely small chance that the world will achieve this. I'm worried about shit.
-I think about that a lot. -That it does not work?
-Yes. -What happens then?
Then it's awful. Not everyone wants to die, even if you can get that impression.
An American Armageddon movie: By 2050, everyone is burned up, sort of.
It's not like that. But you lose some exceptionally valuable things.
Large parts of the world are becoming uninhabitable.
This will lead to war and conflict over resources and land.
I want my son to be able to dive on coral reefs when he's 20, which I could.
A case that concerns the soul of Oil Norway itself.
This is not a downhill case in the Supreme Court, that much I can say.
But it is very difficult to say. We have a little wind in the back here.
There is a completely different mood and attitude to this lawsuit now -
- than when we started.
The constitution is not for decoration. This is about our chance to -
- to grow up in a liveable environment with a still fairly stable climate.
The fact that the case is being taken up in the Supreme Court says that this has not been completely clarified.
Absolutely. We have known since the case was brought five years ago, -
- that this was a matter of principle that would end in the Supreme Court in plenary, -
- the most important treatment any Norwegian court can give.
Good morning. The Supreme Court in plenary will today hear a civil appeal.
If anyone can talk a little now ...
At least now we have contact with the public prosecutor.
Then I give the floor to the appellants' legal counsel, lawyer Hambro.
Thanks. Most venerable court, the supreme judges of the kingdom.
The state has one major, overriding main argument in this case:
That this is politics. It's fundamental in a liberal rule of law -
- that the room for manoeuvre of politics is below the limits of the Constitution.
The environmental organizations are asking the Supreme Court to draw that line.
The organizations claim to speak on behalf of the descendants.
I would say that is the responsibility of the Storting. Who knows what the posterity wants?
If you see this as a trade-off ... Norway runs on oil due to the income.
We want the income to take care of living standards and welfare societies.
It is also a moment.
Maybe the descendants are interested in maintaining the current level of welfare?
What kind of case is this really?
A slightly catchy word that has taken hold is "climate issue".
For the appellants, of course, it is.
For the state, this is primarily a matter of distribution of power.
Who will decide the content of Norwegian climate and petroleum policy?
Parliament and government or also the courts?
The best argument is that it is in the law that we are obliged to secure the descendants.
It cannot be read in any other way.
I would like one last request -
- point out the descendants' very basic need for liveable living conditions.
Our grandchildren will have to deal with the climate crisis -
- in a completely different way than we have done.
Some of them want to know that they had a grandfather or grandmother -
- in the Norwegian Supreme Court, because everyone knows if they had it.
I would urge the Supreme Court to pass judgment as the grandchildren and great-grandchildren -
- can be proud that the members of the Supreme Court were present and rejected. Thanks.
(elephant shock)
(loud cheers and applause)
Thank you very much!
Delicious to be done. But it feels good; we have done everything we can.
Now I'm going home and have a beer. Or two!
The Arctic is changing. It is a different Arctic than before.
It will continue if man continues to change the composition of the atmosphere.
What worries me the most is that the changes are going so fast.
We lose predictability. A young man who wanted to be a farmer, -
- be able to talk to grandma, grandpa, grandma and grandpa and get advice.
That advice does not apply today.
It was 20 degrees up here this summer. Everyone wore summer dresses and sandals.
-It's not normal. -I do not walk around and am scared.
But it's behind the head, how it will go with the world, the next generation.
When I started in Nature and Youth, I read up and was terrified:
Everyone wants to die! The world will perish! I'll never have children.
Think what kind of world my kids will grow up in ...!
Will I be able to have children -
- if the air and the world become so environmentally harmful to body and nature?
If you're scared, you have to do something about it, try to change it.
§ 112 is the right to a liveable environment, and we believe the state has violated it.
"Everyone has the right to an environment that ensures health," -
- "and to a nature where productivity and diversity are preserved."
"Nature's resources must be disposed of on the basis of a long-term and versatile consideration" -
- "who safeguards this right also for posterity."
At 9 o'clock today, the Supreme Court will rule on the climate lawsuit.
Is not oil drilling a purely political issue?
When they make promises about the environment in the Constitution, they have made it a legal issue.
-Then the court can try it. -Where do you think the boundaries should go?
Many parliamentary resolutions should have violated that section.
But here at least the border should go.
Waiting for the conference host.
Lawyer Hambro, can you still hear me?
I hear you.
Good morning. The Supreme Court in plenary will now rule on the appeal -
- between Nature and Youth and Greenpeace Norden against the state -
- at the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. I give the floor to Judge Høgetveit Berg.
I am voting in favour of such a judgment: the appeal will be rejected.
Judge Skoghøy? -I agree with Høgetveit Berg.
- Judge Matheson? -Likewise.
Judge Falkanger? -Likewise.
- Judge Normann? -Likewise.
Judge Kallerud? -Likewise.
Judge Ringnes? -Likewise.
Judge Bergh? -Likewise.
Judge Thyness? -Likewise.
Judge Steinsvik? -Likewise.
I also say the same.
Following this, the Supreme Court rules as follows: The appeal is rejected.
The negotiations are now closed, thank you for today.
If ...
Anger, disappointment and pride. It's contrary to what the world's climate needs, -
- and with the restructuring Norway must do immediately.
What are the bright spots in the verdict?
It must be that the Supreme Court maintains that 112 is a right provision, -
- with high threshold for review:
The violation of the environment must be far more dramatic than today -
- before a court will rule that the right has been violated.
I really do not think we should sue out of all the problems.
But it could be a tipping point. Say to politicians: "Here goes a limit."
"Here you get a reason to steer politics in a new direction."
I'm happy, mostly with the verdict stating that it's the politicians' responsibility -
- to find out what measures to take to achieve the goal, not the courts'.
I share the impatience and, to a great extent, the concern.
But the basic principle is that there are politicians elected by the people -
- who have to take us there, and if you are very dissatisfied, you have to replace them.
Today we present the most important energy and industrial plan for many decades:
The Government's plan for the next chapter in the history of the energy nation Norway.
We will make sure to achieve national climate goals -
- and facilitate a future-oriented oil and gas industry -
- with low emissions within the framework of climate policy.
Norwegian oil and gas operations are in a mature phase.
Production will decline in the years to come.
That fall includes that we are still searching and finding.
Otherwise, the fall of 65% by 2050 would be much sharper.
Should we alone not look for new areas ...
The countries that say that have finished their oil and gas activities.
It will have no effect; then others will fill those market shares.
Our ambition is very low, preferably no emissions from the oil and gas business.
We have no choice but to fight on and take the climate action -
to the European Court of Human Rights.
Incredibly nice to stand here -
- when we now go together to Strasbourg to hold the Norwegian state accountable.
The Supreme Court did not agree with us that Norway violated any rights.
The EMD shall not assess whether the Supreme Court ruled correctly or not.
We apply for them to consider -
- whether Norway violated human rights when the 23rd licensing round was handed out.