The Norwegian court dismissed Thursday Greenpeace and two other NGOs opposed to Norway's granting of oil licenses in the Arctic, an emblematic case showing that the fight against global warming is being played out more and more in the courtrooms.
In a judgment still subject to appeal, the Oslo court ruled that the Norwegian state did not violate the Constitution by granting in May 2016 concessions in the Barents Sea to 13 oil companies, among them the national champion Statoil, the Americans Chevron and ConocoPhillips, and the Russian Lukoil.
In conjunction with the Nature and Youth and Grandparents for Climate Campaigns, Greenpeace has assigned Norway for the first time by invoking a recent constitutional provision that guarantees the right of all to a healthy environment.
The plaintiffs also argued that new oil activities in the fragile Arctic would defeat the Oslo Accord of 2016, which aims to limit global warming to less than 2 ° C. climate.
While recognizing that paragraph 112 of the Constitution provided new rights to the individual, the Oslo court concluded that this did not apply to the granting of oil licenses.
In particular, the judge ruled that Norway, the largest producer of oil and natural gas in Western Europe, could not be held responsible for the carbon dioxide emissions generated by its hydrocarbon exports to other countries.
The plaintiffs will also have to pay 580,000 crowns (more than 59,000 euros) of court costs of the state.
"We are pleased that the court has given a clear content to the paragraph on the environment (...) that can be used to halt harmful political decisions," said Greenpeace Norway leader Truls Gulowsen.
"At the same time, we are very disappointed that it has created a legal vacuum by claiming that emissions from Norwegian oil abroad are not covered by this provision of the Constitution," he said. AFP.
The oil industry satisfied
An NGO victory would have had serious economic repercussions for the kingdom, which owes its wealth to oil. This allowed him to raise a sovereign fund of over $ 1 trillion, the largest in the world.
In the face of the decline in oil production, halved since 2000, Norway now has the Far North: according to official estimates, the Barents Sea holds about 65% of the remaining resources to be discovered off the coast of the country.
At the trial in November, the State - 67% shareholder of Statoil - said that the granting of exploration licenses had been in accordance with the law. His lawyer, Attorney General Fredrik Sejersted, also denounced a "show" of NGOs.
"The oil policy of Norway is the business of Parliament, not the judicial system," said Thursday Tommy Hansen, spokesman for the organization representing the oil sector.
"And this is a unanimous Parliament, less a vote that has adopted the 23rd cycle of oil concessions, so it has a solid political and democratic majority," he told AFP.
The horizon of the oil industry in the Norwegian Far North is not clear: the last prospecting campaigns have been disappointing and the exploitation costs of any discoveries are expected to be high, which has diverted several majors of the region.
The case illustrates in any case the growing judiciarisation of the fight against global warming.
The London-based Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change has indexed more than 260 climate-related cases in 25 jurisdictions, most of them for less than a decade. This figure excludes the United States, where the number of disputes of this kind is greater than 700.
Judicial battles sometimes successful.
The Netherlands was condemned in 2015 to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020, a decision that was appealed.
In November, the German court also agreed to consider the request of a Peruvian peasant who wants to force the energy giant RWE to repair the effects of climate change in the Andes.
In a judgment still subject to appeal, the Oslo court ruled that the Norwegian state did not violate the Constitution by granting in May 2016 concessions in the Barents Sea to 13 oil companies, among them the national champion Statoil, the Americans Chevron and ConocoPhillips, and the Russian Lukoil.
In conjunction with the Nature and Youth and Grandparents for Climate Campaigns, Greenpeace has assigned Norway for the first time by invoking a recent constitutional provision that guarantees the right of all to a healthy environment.
The plaintiffs also argued that new oil activities in the fragile Arctic would defeat the Oslo Accord of 2016, which aims to limit global warming to less than 2 ° C. climate.
While recognizing that paragraph 112 of the Constitution provided new rights to the individual, the Oslo court concluded that this did not apply to the granting of oil licenses.
In particular, the judge ruled that Norway, the largest producer of oil and natural gas in Western Europe, could not be held responsible for the carbon dioxide emissions generated by its hydrocarbon exports to other countries.
The plaintiffs will also have to pay 580,000 crowns (more than 59,000 euros) of court costs of the state.
"We are pleased that the court has given a clear content to the paragraph on the environment (...) that can be used to halt harmful political decisions," said Greenpeace Norway leader Truls Gulowsen.
"At the same time, we are very disappointed that it has created a legal vacuum by claiming that emissions from Norwegian oil abroad are not covered by this provision of the Constitution," he said. AFP.
The oil industry satisfied
An NGO victory would have had serious economic repercussions for the kingdom, which owes its wealth to oil. This allowed him to raise a sovereign fund of over $ 1 trillion, the largest in the world.
In the face of the decline in oil production, halved since 2000, Norway now has the Far North: according to official estimates, the Barents Sea holds about 65% of the remaining resources to be discovered off the coast of the country.
At the trial in November, the State - 67% shareholder of Statoil - said that the granting of exploration licenses had been in accordance with the law. His lawyer, Attorney General Fredrik Sejersted, also denounced a "show" of NGOs.
"The oil policy of Norway is the business of Parliament, not the judicial system," said Thursday Tommy Hansen, spokesman for the organization representing the oil sector.
"And this is a unanimous Parliament, less a vote that has adopted the 23rd cycle of oil concessions, so it has a solid political and democratic majority," he told AFP.
The horizon of the oil industry in the Norwegian Far North is not clear: the last prospecting campaigns have been disappointing and the exploitation costs of any discoveries are expected to be high, which has diverted several majors of the region.
The case illustrates in any case the growing judiciarisation of the fight against global warming.
The London-based Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change has indexed more than 260 climate-related cases in 25 jurisdictions, most of them for less than a decade. This figure excludes the United States, where the number of disputes of this kind is greater than 700.
Judicial battles sometimes successful.
The Netherlands was condemned in 2015 to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020, a decision that was appealed.
In November, the German court also agreed to consider the request of a Peruvian peasant who wants to force the energy giant RWE to repair the effects of climate change in the Andes.
0 comments:
Post a Comment