Opportunities for Supply-Side Climate Policies in a Norwegian Context
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Opportunities for Supply-Side Climate Policies in a Norwegian Context Exploring the Political Landscape Using Critical Discourse Analysis and Middle-Range Theories Sigrid Vigdisdatter Berg Master Thesis, Institute for Sociology and Human Geography UNIVERSITY OF OSLO 22.06.2020 Word Count: 46 413 II Opportunities for Supply-Side Climate Policies in a Norwegian Context Exploring the political landscape using critical discourse analysis and middle-range theories III © Sigrid Vigdisdatter Berg 2020 Opportunities for Supply-Side Climate Policies in a Norwegian Context Sigrid Vigdisdatter Berg http://www.duo.uio.no/ IV Abstract This thesis investigates opportunities and barriers for implementing supply-side climate policies in Norway. Studies have shown that reducing petroleum production on the Norwegian Continental ShelF and hence the market supply of Norwegian oil and gas can provide meaningful climate change mitigation, however a supply-side climate strategy is not considered relevant by Norwegian authorities. This research applies a social constructionist approach and Critical Discourse Theory to explore the underlying mechanisms preventing such a strategy despite the presence of exhaustive research and viable pathways. Middle-range theories on path dependency, carbon lock-in and the green paradox is put forward to elaborate on these mechanisms and the separation between petroleum and carbon policies in Norwegian politics. Six governing documents, consultation responses from 5 licensing rounds, in addition to observational studies of the ‘climate lawsuit’ provides the data material for the discourse analysis. Three prevalent discourses in the political landscape is identified; the ‘status quo’; ‘managed decline’ and ‘scientific research’ discourse. Each discourse holds opportunities and barriers for implementing supply-side climate policies, however the research finds that the current dominance and carbon entanglement of the ‘status quo’ discourse functions as a main obstacle for alternative pathways away from fossil fuels. V VI Acknowledgements To the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, thank you for granting me with a master scholarship and the opportunity to write my thesis from your offices at Polhøgda, surrounded by brilliant scholars and fellow master students. Your academic insights have inspired and guided me in this process. To my supervisor Hege Merete Knutsen, thank you for your commitment and indispensable perspective, advice, and honesty. Writing a master thesis during a global pandemic has been a rather surreal and challenging exercise. To the Human Geography class of 2020, thank you for your friendship and encouragement, it kept me going during months of lockdown and working from the kitchen table. To my family, thank you for your optimistic support and inspiration, but most of all for teaching me the value of nature and the importance of protecting it. To Henrikke, thank you for everything that you have taught me and for showing me the value of my ideas and efforts. To Stein Oskar, thank you for your patience, your constant moral support and for always believing in me. Sigrid Vigdisdatter Berg Oslo, June 2020 VII Abbreviations and Norwegian Translations APA Awards in Predefined Areas (TFO) CCS Carbon Capture and Storage (Karbonfangst og -lagring) COP Conference of the Parties (Klimaforhandlinger) NDNM Norwegian Directorate of Nature Management (Direktoratet for Naturforvaltning) ESR Effort Sharing Regulation (Innsatsfordelingen) EU ETS European Emission Trading Scheme (EUs Kvotehandelsystem) FOE Friends of the Earth Norway (Norges Naturvernforbund) GHG Greenhouse Gas (Drivhusgass) GPFG Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (Statens Pensjonsfond utland) IEA International Energy Agency (Det Internasjonale Energibyrået) NDC Nationally Determined Contributions (Nasjonalt bestemte bidrag) NCS Norwegian Continental Shelf (Den Norske Kontinentalsokkelen) NEA Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet) NPD Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (Oljedirektoratet) MPE Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (Olje- og Energidepartementet) NOROG Norwegian Oil and Gas Association (Norsk Olje og Gass) MOF Ministry of Finance (Finansdepartementet) MCE Ministry of Climate and Environment (Miljødepartementet) REDD+ Reducing Emissions from deforestation and forest degradation VIII Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Structure of the Thesis ............................................................................................................ 5 1.3 Background: Norwegian Petroleum Industry ......................................................................... 6 1.4 Background: Norwegian Climate Policy .............................................................................. 10 Methodological Framework .......................................................................................... 12 2.1 Textual Analysis and Social Constructionism ...................................................................... 13 2.2 Discourse and Discourse Analysis ........................................................................................ 16 2.3 Critical Discourse Analysis ................................................................................................... 19 2.4 Empirical Appliance: Conducting Critical Discourse Analysis ............................................ 22 2.5 Positionality of the Author .................................................................................................... 25 2.6 Gathering Data: Document Studies ....................................................................................... 25 2.7 Gathering Data: Observational Studies ................................................................................. 27 2.8 Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................... 29 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................. 30 3.1 Oil as a Social and Political Resource .................................................................................. 30 3.2 Path Dependence Theory ...................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Carbon Lock-In, Sunk Costs and Spatial Embeddedness ..................................................... 33 3.4 The Green Paradox ................................................................................................................ 35 3.5 Supply-Side Climate Policy .................................................................................................. 37 3.6 Scale ...................................................................................................................................... 42 3.7 Neoliberalism ........................................................................................................................ 44 Placing the Analysis in Relevant Literature ................................................................ 47 Results from Document Analysis: Climate and Petroleum Discourses in 2009 – 2019 Public Documents ................................................................................................................... 53 Results from Observation Studies: The Climate Lawsuit .......................................... 79 6.1 The Environmental Organizations Argumentation, Worldview and Legal Case ................. 79 6.2 The Norwegian State, Represented by Ministry of Petroleum and Energy Argumentation, Worldview and Legal Case ................................................................................................................ 85 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 91 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 106 Epilogue ......................................................................................................................... 108 References ............................................................................................................................. 110 Appendix ............................................................................................................................... 121 IX Introduction In May 2016 the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (MPE) awarded the 23rd licensing round on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) (Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, 2016). For the first time, areas in the Barents Sea South were opened for petroleum exploration, further north than any oil rig had ever been. Tord Lien, then Minister of Oil and Petroleum, assured Norwegian newspapers that this was merely the beginning for the ‘new Norwegian oil adventure’ (Dagbladet, 2016). The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) had estimated that the majority of undiscovered oil and gas resources were situated in the Barents Sea, and so the opening of new areas was met with high expectances of new jobs and increased economic input for the Norwegian welfare state (E24, 2016). A few months later, in October 2016, Greenpeace and Nature & Youth filed a lawsuit against the Norwegian Government, claiming that the awarded licenses