(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
We're having a bad time. Norway must sweep its own door well before the Paris climate summit in late November. In order for us to demand much of the largest emission countries in the world – including the United States, China, the Gulf states, Russia and Japan – we must demand more of ourselves.
The message from the experts and the UN Climate Panel is more than clear: We know that it is still possible to keep global warming below two degrees, but in order to achieve this, we must cut emissions of greenhouse gases in the world by at least 2050 percent compared to 80. -level.
Today we are behind schedule. If we want to be a country that is listened to and has an important bridge-building role in the formulation of a legally binding agreement in Paris, we must assume our historical responsibility and that we have one of Europe's highest per capita emissions.
Within 2050. The Norwegian the goal of 40 percent emission cuts within 2030 is not enough. Norway will have to raise the 2030 target to the 50 percent cut before the Paris meeting. The new climate law that the Government is working on must provide the recipe for how the goal will be achieved. And at the climate summit, Norway must announce that the Norwegian Oil Fund will go heavily into the financing of renewable energy, with a commitment equivalent to five per cent of the Oil Fund as a starting point. New renewable energy means not only climate cuts, but also poverty reduction, energy access, better public health, employment and better protection of natural diversity.
WWF and the international environmental movement are working towards a global goal of transition from fossil energy to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2050. And we want this goal to be part of the Paris agreement.
Norway does not want such a target, but rather a target of "net zero emissions" in 2050, which means a system of carbon capture and storage and possibly carbon binding in forests and the sea. A decision on 100 per cent renewable is realistic, WWF believes. This will also give a clear message to Norwegian players that Norway must cut more. In addition, we must to a greater extent use the expertise and resources Norway has to help make this shift internationally. Here, Norway and other rich countries have great opportunities to help. We can contribute clean technology to developing countries, as well as financial support for adaptation measures.
The level of ambition drops. But if we are to avoid the climate disaster, we are dependent on the largest emission countries, the United States and China, agreeing on binding agreements on comprehensive emission cuts. Much of the challenge in the climate negotiations lies in the fact that almost 200 very different countries must agree on who should do what and how much, and not least who will pay. The countries of the world must accelerate their efforts to reduce their emissions. And the rich countries must help the poor. US diplomats and negotiators are working very hard to make a climate deal this year – one that includes everyone. The impression is that they want a broad agreement that embraces everyone rather than an ambitious agreement that is consistent with what science tells us must be done. There must also be an agreement that the United States can ratify, and the political situation in the country makes this difficult. What we see is that other countries are following what they think is possible in the United States. Unfortunately, this means that the level of ambition is dropping.
An important point in the climate negotiations is financing. After the establishment of the Green Climate Fund, several countries, including Norway, have made promises to replenish this fund with money. But so far, large sums are missing. The "Stoltenberg committee" showed in 2010 that it is absolutely necessary that public funds be used to trigger private capital to finance global climate work in the coming decades. This is where Norway comes in as an investor. Not just huser Norway's major financial environments within banking (for example DnB) and pension funds (for example KLP and Storebrand) – the Norwegian authorities also manage the world's largest investment fund, namely the Statens Pensjonsfond Utland (SPU), or the Oil Fund, as we prefer to call it.
A decision on 100 per cent renewable energy is realistic.
WWF believes that the GPFG must invest up to five percent of the value of the Oil Fund directly in renewable energy infrastructure. Such a mandate is being investigated now, and the Storting is likely to vote on such a proposal in the spring of 2016. If the Oil Fund actually does so, it could encourage others to develop institutions and services that will again invest directly in renewable energy in a responsible manner.
Precarious. We know that 2014 was the hottest year in Norway's history (since the measurements started). And we know that the world has already become 0,74 degrees warmer in the last 100 years. We see the ice melting on the poles. Then we hope that Erna Solberg and the rest of the Government also feel the heat – and choose to go for a 100 percent renewabletarget in 2050.
Jensen is Secretary General of the WWF.
njensen@wwf.no.
