# The Norwegian Paradox: Norway's Fossil Fuel Dilemma

An episode of [Drilled](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1439735906), 29 Dec 2025, 25 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/tracking.swap.fm/track/SxlTEPDY7xDg35RXkASs/pdrl.fm/3e5572/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/9a7ab5ee-ce11-48ff-a544-b3ec00ea9b1e/7080b038-ee43-4749-b4fd-b3ec00eacfbf/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=7f82f371-6316-4ea6-a108-b3ec00ea9b2d

In this bonus episode of The Black Thread, we examine a single legal case that distilles the Norwegian paradox perfectly: the planned electrification of the Melkøya gas processing plant. It's a key conflict site where Norway's net zero transformation clashes with its fossil fuel industry, Indigenous rights, youth climate activism, worker safety, and even criticism from the United Nation. Additional resources: Communicating Climate Change See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:00] Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to this bonus episode of The Black Thread,
[0:04] Speaker 1: made possible thanks to the Heinrich Berlerstiftung as part of
[0:07] Speaker 1: their Climate Disinformation Media Fellowship for twenty twenty five. The
[0:11] Speaker 1: Black Thread is a podcast series unraveling Norway's complex relationship
[0:15] Speaker 1: with prosperity, identity, and responsibility in a warming world. And
[0:20] Speaker 1: I'm Dickham, a climate communications expert based in Oslo, the
[0:23] Speaker 1: Norwegian capital, tracing the Black Thread Oil through Norway's society
[0:28] Speaker 1: and culture. Throughout this series, we've explored how deeply oil
[0:32] Speaker 1: is woven into the fabric of Norwegian life. We've heard
[0:36] Speaker 1: experts describe the reach of fossil fuel influence, and industry
[0:40] Speaker 1: insiders explain the logic behind the narratives that they promote,
[0:44] Speaker 1: narratives repeated anywhere from school classrooms to the Norwegian Parliament.
[0:48] Speaker 1: And we've discovered how more and more people are beginning
[0:51] Speaker 1: to push back. But all these insights have considered Norway
[0:55] Speaker 1: and Norwegians at large. We've never zoomed in on any
[0:58] Speaker 1: single specific case of place or space in detail. In
[1:03] Speaker 1: this episode, though, we'll do exactly that, exploring a key
[1:07] Speaker 1: conflict site where the development of Norway's net zero transformation
[1:10] Speaker 1: intersects with its fossil fuel industry, indigenous rights, the youth
[1:14] Speaker 1: climate movement, and even critique from the United Nations. It's
[1:19] Speaker 1: a case that was raised in several of the interviews
[1:21] Speaker 1: I conducted for the rest of this series, and which
[1:23] Speaker 1: has featured prominently in Norwegian news over recent months, but
[1:27] Speaker 1: which has received little international media attention. It's a case
[1:31] Speaker 1: that distills Norway's climate paradox perfectly. This is an episode.
[1:35] Speaker 2: About melchg melgher meltgher.
[1:40] Speaker 1: Melke is a small island just off the coast of
[1:42] Speaker 1: the city of Hammerfest in the Finnmark region of northern Norway.
[1:46] Speaker 1: You might remember Hammerfest from episode two, when journalist, author
[1:50] Speaker 1: and project leader at the Norwegian Climate Foundation Anakhar and
[1:53] Speaker 1: Souther described the city's transformation in the.
[1:57] Speaker 3: North hum Midfest.
[1:58] Speaker 4: It was an cd that was sort of almost dead,
[2:00] Speaker 4: and then it grew and prospered, and the local politicians
[2:04] Speaker 4: love oil and gas there.
[2:07] Speaker 1: Melger is central to that story. The entire island, previously
[2:11] Speaker 1: home to seasonal fishing, cabins and farmland, is now dominated
[2:16] Speaker 1: by a liquefied natural gas processing facility operated by Equinor.
[2:21] Speaker 1: The facility has been receiving gas via pipeline from the
[2:24] Speaker 1: snow White field in the Barren Sea since two thousand
[2:27] Speaker 1: and seven. It processes and compresses the gas, which is
[2:30] Speaker 1: then exported by ship to destinations all over the world. Today,
[2:35] Speaker 1: the future of that facility and how it's powered has
[2:39] Speaker 1: become one of the most debated energy and climate issues
[2:41] Speaker 1: in Norway. To understand more about this case and why
[2:45] Speaker 1: it's become so contested, I sat down with Ery Melhus,
[2:49] Speaker 1: deputy leader of naturd or Undom, Norway's largest youth environmental group,
[2:54] Speaker 1: to learn more what.
[2:56] Speaker 5: Special with Melger is. It's one of the biggest pluting
[3:00] Speaker 5: in Norway. It's responsible for around two percent of the
[3:04] Speaker 5: total emissions in Norway, which makes it important for the
[3:08] Speaker 5: politicians to do something about it to make sure that
[3:12] Speaker 5: we will be able to reach our climate goals. The
[3:16] Speaker 5: government wants to electrify the facility and they're going to
[3:20] Speaker 5: build several high voltage power lines across the entire film
[3:24] Speaker 5: Mark and this will have huge consequences. It's all located
[3:28] Speaker 5: in subme and most of the facilities will be in
[3:33] Speaker 5: reindeer herding eras so in addition to destroying the Samilan,
[3:38] Speaker 5: it's also just greenw washing politics because the gas that
[3:42] Speaker 5: they normally now used to run the gas facility will
[3:45] Speaker 5: be just sold to another country and used there instead.
[3:48] Speaker 5: There will not be any global effects on this project,
[3:51] Speaker 5: but it will look really good on an Norwegian climate county.
[3:56] Speaker 1: So Arie raises two key issues. First, they claim that
[4:00] Speaker 1: electrification will not reduce the overall emissions associated with the plant,
[4:04] Speaker 1: and second that the electrification itself requires the construction of
[4:09] Speaker 1: infrastructure that will greatly impact indigenous practices. Let's look at
[4:13] Speaker 1: each of these issues in turn, Starting with the emissions.
[4:17] Speaker 1: The facility on Melkore is currently powered by a gas
[4:20] Speaker 1: fired power plant and, according to the Norwegian Environment Agency,
[4:24] Speaker 1: is Norway's third most emitting location, releasing around eight hundred
[4:28] Speaker 1: and fifty thousand tons of carbon dioxide into the air
[4:31] Speaker 1: each year. Its planned electrification is pitched as the single
[4:35] Speaker 1: largest emissions reduction measure taken by a Norwegian government so far. However,
[4:40] Speaker 1: Airy describes the proposed electrification of the gas plant as
[4:44] Speaker 1: green washing, But what does that actually mean. According to
[4:48] Speaker 1: the United Nations, greenwashing is the act of misleading the
[4:51] Speaker 1: public about how environmentally friendly a product really is taking
[4:55] Speaker 1: its entire life cycle into account. For example, as we
[4:59] Speaker 1: discre in previous episodes, though Norwegian oil and gas may
[5:03] Speaker 1: at present have lower production emissions compared to other oil
[5:07] Speaker 1: and gas products, that does not make it quote unquote
[5:11] Speaker 1: climate friendly. Since ninety seven percent of the planet warming
[5:15] Speaker 1: impact happens when the product is burned during what's called
[5:18] Speaker 1: the use phase of its life cycle, the net effect
[5:21] Speaker 1: is absolutely not climate friendly, so no credible claim to
[5:25] Speaker 1: the contrary can be made. Calling Norwegian oil and gas
[5:29] Speaker 1: climate friendly then would be greenwashing, regardless of whether you
[5:33] Speaker 1: might be an industry spokesperson, a politician, or indeed a
[5:37] Speaker 1: representative of Norway's leading climate research center. Has happened earlier
[5:42] Speaker 1: this year. For critics of the Medcoy plan, this perspective matters.
[5:47] Speaker 1: They argue that if the gas that's currently burned on
[5:50] Speaker 1: site to power the facility is instead just exported and
[5:53] Speaker 1: burned elsewhere, then the global climate effect basically remains the same.
[5:58] Speaker 1: So although extrification might look good in noise domestic emissions accounting,
[6:03] Speaker 1: since it does little to reduce the overall climate impact
[6:06] Speaker 1: of the project. They claim that promoting the electrification of
[6:10] Speaker 1: the plant as a win for the climate could be
[6:12] Speaker 1: considered greenwashing. Climate change, as the saying goes, knows no
[6:17] Speaker 1: national borders.
[6:19] Speaker 4: That has been Norway's defense all the time that yes,
[6:21] Speaker 4: we try to reduce our territorial emissions, but whatever happens
[6:25] Speaker 4: to the oil and gas of the export, that's not
[6:27] Speaker 4: our responsibility.
[6:28] Speaker 3: That defense is no longer tenable.
[6:31] Speaker 4: The International Court of Justice, in its twenty third of
[6:34] Speaker 4: July decision this summer, has.
[6:36] Speaker 3: Said that those emissions must also be assessed.
[6:40] Speaker 1: That's Yenni Sunvic, a climate and human rights lawyer who
[6:43] Speaker 1: recently represented Greenpeace and natudro Ungdam in several legal challenges
[6:48] Speaker 1: against the Norwegian state, including a major Arctic drilling case,
[6:52] Speaker 1: where she helped secure a landmark ruling requiring the assessment
[6:56] Speaker 1: of the full climate harm from associated emissions when open
[7:00] Speaker 1: new areas for oil and gas drilling. Though Yenni's work
[7:03] Speaker 1: is not associated with Melco, this outcome may have implications
[7:08] Speaker 1: for the case.
[7:09] Speaker 4: The European Court of Human Rights held that it is
[7:13] Speaker 4: a human rights obligation on the state to assess climate
[7:16] Speaker 4: harm from a licensing drilling because climate does have an
[7:21] Speaker 4: increased effect on mortality and morbidity. The right to life
[7:25] Speaker 4: and the right to private life offers protection against that
[7:28] Speaker 4: kind of climate harm, and therefore there are obligations on
[7:31] Speaker 4: the state to protect its citizens against those kind of impacts,
[7:35] Speaker 4: and that assessment must be done with regard to international
[7:38] Speaker 4: and national climate targets, cumulative emissions and the impact to
[7:43] Speaker 4: life and health, and be based on best available science.
[7:46] Speaker 1: As you can hear, these are major cases International Court
[7:51] Speaker 1: of Justice, European Court of Human Rights against the Norwegian
[7:55] Speaker 1: state and so far winning. But what do these judgments
[7:59] Speaker 1: mean for all the talking points we heard in previous
[8:02] Speaker 1: episodes about Norwegian oil and gas being aligned with the
[8:05] Speaker 1: aims of the Paris Agreement, ideas that very much rest
[8:09] Speaker 1: on the hypothetical substitution of all other oil and gas
[8:12] Speaker 1: products for the lower production emission Norwegian alternative, essentially the
[8:18] Speaker 1: arguments that are used to justify the electrification of the
[8:21] Speaker 1: gas plant on Melcare. Jenny explained that this rhetoric has
[8:26] Speaker 1: been under fire in the courts.
[8:28] Speaker 4: What's been called out is the assumption that if you
[8:31] Speaker 4: don't drill these fields in the North Sea that global
[8:36] Speaker 4: emissions would rise. That the argument that this oil from
[8:40] Speaker 4: these fields will substitute and lead to smaller emissions overall.
[8:46] Speaker 4: The problem with that assumption, which I think is very
[8:49] Speaker 4: wildly shared in Norway. That's what we've been exposed to
[8:53] Speaker 4: now for years, through commercials, through media, through all kinds
[8:58] Speaker 4: of channels, and it's a very comforting it's a very
[9:01] Speaker 4: soothing conclusion. I mean, it would be lovely if that
[9:04] Speaker 4: was the case. But it's always the problem with things
[9:08] Speaker 4: that are a little too comfortable is that they may
[9:10] Speaker 4: not be true. Recent studies show that that assumption has
[9:14] Speaker 4: a less than one to two percent probability of being true.
[9:17] Speaker 4: What we've been able to show in these proceedings, like
[9:19] Speaker 4: one hasn't been in public debate, is to scrutinize the assumptions.
[9:24] Speaker 4: There are a lot of myths out there that are
[9:27] Speaker 4: allowed to just fly, but if you really test them,
[9:30] Speaker 4: that's just nothing.
[9:31] Speaker 1: To them any points to a now infamous report produced
[9:35] Speaker 1: by consultancy firm produced stud Energy that forms the basis
[9:39] Speaker 1: of much of this prevalent narrative about Norwegian fossil fuels
[9:43] Speaker 1: being a net benefit for the climate if they substitute
[9:46] Speaker 1: other products in the courts. She explains, when both sides
[9:50] Speaker 1: are given equal time to present the evidence based on
[9:53] Speaker 1: the best available science, with all the strategic communication cast aside,
[9:58] Speaker 1: the truth becomes too clear to ignore.
[10:01] Speaker 4: You have to assess the emissions, all emissions embedded in
[10:04] Speaker 4: the reserve, and you have to assess the effect of
[10:06] Speaker 4: those emissions on all climate impacts. That best available science
[10:11] Speaker 4: allow you to quantify how many people will die, how
[10:14] Speaker 4: many square kilometers of sea ice in the Arctic will
[10:17] Speaker 4: be melted as a result of these emissions, how many
[10:21] Speaker 4: square kilometers of snow cover will be reduced as a
[10:24] Speaker 4: result of these emissions, how much will sea level rise,
[10:28] Speaker 4: how many children born in various birth cohorts will be
[10:32] Speaker 4: exposed to extreme weather events that wouldn't have occurred without
[10:36] Speaker 4: these emissions. So those kind of impacts that we now
[10:41] Speaker 4: can quantify because there are direct relationships between the amount
[10:46] Speaker 4: of CO two and temperature increase, and because there is
[10:48] Speaker 4: then a direct relationship between temperature increase and a number
[10:53] Speaker 4: of physical climate impacts, you can quantify those climate impacts.
[10:56] Speaker 3: The ways in which we can.
[10:58] Speaker 4: Show evidence of the harm has up till now been challenging,
[11:04] Speaker 4: But now with attribution science, you can simply quantify the
[11:08] Speaker 4: harmful effects.
[11:09] Speaker 3: And that's really all these cases are about.
[11:12] Speaker 1: Jenny suggests that attribution science, which is able to quantify
[11:16] Speaker 1: the impacts of a climate shaped by human activity, offers
[11:19] Speaker 1: a new level of visibility on the consequences of fossil
[11:23] Speaker 1: fuel extraction, and that there is now a precedent for
[11:26] Speaker 1: the courts to consider such insights, including downstream or exported emissions.
[11:32] Speaker 1: The plan to electrify the gas plant on Medco is
[11:36] Speaker 1: expected to add twenty years to the lifespan of the facility,
[11:40] Speaker 1: along with its processing and the export of gas. A
[11:44] Speaker 1: report from research and advocacy organization Oil Change International calls
[11:48] Speaker 1: the move a climate bomb. It quotes the government's own
[11:52] Speaker 1: analysis that estimates that burning the additional gas produced over
[11:56] Speaker 1: this extended lifetime will emit over one hundred and fifty
[11:59] Speaker 1: million tons of carbon dioxide, a number that dwarfs the
[12:03] Speaker 1: touted emissions reductions of eight hundred and fifty thousand tons
[12:06] Speaker 1: per year from electrifying the plant. These emissions would seem
[12:10] Speaker 1: to dash any claims that the electrification of the plant
[12:13] Speaker 1: is a climate measure, which brings us to an important question.
[12:18] Speaker 1: Earlier in the series, we heard Norwegian Minister of Finance
[12:21] Speaker 1: Jence Stoltenberg quoted as saying that Norway hasn't spent oil
[12:25] Speaker 1: money since two thousand and one, instead spending revenues from
[12:29] Speaker 1: investments made through its sovereign Wealth Fund, and Anakhar And Sather,
[12:33] Speaker 1: project leader at the Norwegian Climate Foundation, has pointed to
[12:36] Speaker 1: research suggesting that this wealth is set to grow at
[12:39] Speaker 1: more or less the same pace even without new oil
[12:42] Speaker 1: and gas resources. So if the country doesn't need more
[12:46] Speaker 1: fossil fuel production to stay wealthy, and if the climate
[12:49] Speaker 1: costs of extending it are increasingly visible, including in court
[12:54] Speaker 1: where the true cost of Noruay's actions are being revealed,
[12:57] Speaker 1: quantified and judged, then the question begs who actually benefits
[13:02] Speaker 1: from electrifying melca Very Melhu's from Natura Undom shares their
[13:06] Speaker 1: thoughts on.
[13:07] Speaker 5: This, the government and the industry. They are presenting it
[13:10] Speaker 5: at something we need, and when they present it, they
[13:14] Speaker 5: all the time avoid to mention the things that makes
[13:17] Speaker 5: it unpopular, like how the power prices in the era
[13:21] Speaker 5: they will be raised in the next couple of years
[13:24] Speaker 5: because of the cost from actually making the power lines.
[13:28] Speaker 5: That bill will go to the people who lives there
[13:31] Speaker 5: and not for the ones who actually take the decisions.
[13:34] Speaker 5: Most of the nature is almost untouched and almost none
[13:37] Speaker 5: of the population in the north want these projects because
[13:41] Speaker 5: it will destroy the eras and the nature and the land,
[13:45] Speaker 5: and they won't be able to take their children's to
[13:48] Speaker 5: the same mountains as they used to go to when
[13:50] Speaker 5: they were children. And not just the Sami people but
[13:53] Speaker 5: also the origions. It's a part of their identity, and
[13:57] Speaker 5: I also avoid talking about the possible human rights violation.
[14:01] Speaker 5: They have to make sure that the green transition doesn't
[14:04] Speaker 5: go on the expense of the nature and the indigenous lands.
[14:09] Speaker 5: We cannot solve the climate crisis with destroying the nature.
[14:13] Speaker 1: Airy believes that electrifying Melcore benefits oil companies and politicians,
[14:18] Speaker 1: who they claim want Norway to remain a major fossil
[14:22] Speaker 1: fuel nation. By reducing domestic emissions, Airy suggests that Norway
[14:26] Speaker 1: can avoid the kinds of EU pollution penalties we heard
[14:29] Speaker 1: about earlier in the series and keep the gas industry
[14:32] Speaker 1: running for years longer than it otherwise might, all while
[14:36] Speaker 1: continuing to export fossil fuels. The gas from Melkoa will
[14:40] Speaker 1: go primarily to Europe, where as we've heard previously, though
[14:43] Speaker 1: it may fill a gap created by the decision not
[14:46] Speaker 1: to import Russian gas. Experts believe such a move serves
[14:49] Speaker 1: to prolong Europe's reliance on fossil fuels rather than encouraging
[14:54] Speaker 1: it to build renewables. But Airy raised another important point
[14:58] Speaker 1: of contention that the wind farmer planned to electrify. The
[15:01] Speaker 1: facility would be built on Sami land, interfering with ancient
[15:05] Speaker 1: reindeer herding practices. As we heard in an earlier episode,
[15:08] Speaker 1: those lands carry significant cultural and spiritual importance for Sami communities.
[15:14] Speaker 1: An Oil Change International report called the proposed electrification of
[15:17] Speaker 1: Melkoya quote another slap in the face for Sami rights.
[15:21] Speaker 1: But what insight can a Sami perspective bring to this case?
[15:25] Speaker 1: I spoke to Bayaska Nilas, parliamentary leader of the Norwegian
[15:29] Speaker 1: Sami Association to learn more.
[15:31] Speaker 2: With the Malke decision and electrification, we are looking at
[15:35] Speaker 2: twelve to thirty new record sized wind power plantations in
[15:40] Speaker 2: an area that is already used for reindeer husbandry, and
[15:44] Speaker 2: some of the districts are already heavily affected by other
[15:48] Speaker 2: industries that are already built. So this comes on top
[15:51] Speaker 2: of that. So we are looking ahead now a few
[15:54] Speaker 2: years of really big fights on top of the ones
[15:56] Speaker 2: we already have. The government never consulted with any one
[16:00] Speaker 2: when it came to decision of electrifying the gas plantation.
[16:04] Speaker 2: Last year, for the first time in history, the Sami
[16:07] Speaker 2: Parliament decided to sue the Norwegian government regarding electrification of Melkya.
[16:13] Speaker 1: Biasca describes the Melka case as yet another in a
[16:17] Speaker 1: long line of land and resource grabs carried out by
[16:20] Speaker 1: the Norwegian government without due process.
[16:23] Speaker 2: In every matter that regards the Sami people, we should
[16:27] Speaker 2: have a say and also we should have free, prior
[16:29] Speaker 2: and informed consent. It means that every party should be
[16:33] Speaker 2: fully informed about the matters, Every party should be fully involved,
[16:37] Speaker 2: every party should be at the table and then give
[16:40] Speaker 2: an informed consent or no. That process is very often
[16:45] Speaker 2: ignored and they just jump straight to conclusion. So on
[16:48] Speaker 2: Norway as a human rights defender is very false. The
[16:53] Speaker 2: body in Yuen that surveils indigenous people's rights recently had
[16:58] Speaker 2: a report on Norway and nation report that very clearly
[17:03] Speaker 2: states how Norway is violating right and especially free prior
[17:08] Speaker 2: and inform consent. And we also have a system in
[17:10] Speaker 2: Norway where it's basically a built first, ask later policy.
[17:15] Speaker 1: Biasca describes cases where mining was started or wind turbines
[17:19] Speaker 1: were constructed, all without permission. After hearing these insights, it's
[17:23] Speaker 1: clear that the Melco debate isn't just about emissions or electricity.
[17:28] Speaker 1: It's also about people's lives, the people whose land is affected,
[17:33] Speaker 1: whose traditions are disrupted, and whose voices don't always make
[17:37] Speaker 1: it into the decision making process. And there's another group
[17:41] Speaker 1: whose experience often gets overlooked in stories like this too,
[17:44] Speaker 1: the workers at the plant itself. If you've been following
[17:48] Speaker 1: this series, you'll remember how often the idea of the
[17:51] Speaker 1: oil worker comes up. This hero of Norway's modern success
[17:55] Speaker 1: story the backbone of the national narrative. But on Melkoa,
[17:59] Speaker 1: that picture becomes a bit more complicated because, alongside the
[18:03] Speaker 1: political debate and the land use fight, Melcoa has also
[18:07] Speaker 1: been the center of repeated concerns about worker safety and
[18:10] Speaker 1: equinor As the operator of the plant has faced repeated
[18:14] Speaker 1: criticism for issues on site and the treatment of staff
[18:17] Speaker 1: employed at the facility. One case involved a fall from
[18:21] Speaker 1: height that left a worker with a broken leg. According
[18:24] Speaker 1: to reporting of the case, staff had already raised concerns
[18:27] Speaker 1: about the condition of the safety equipment, but the problems
[18:30] Speaker 1: hadn't been fixed before the accident happened, and this wasn't
[18:34] Speaker 1: an isolated incident. Over the summer, the Norwegian newspaper Wege
[18:39] Speaker 1: conducted more than forty interviews with people connected to the facility.
[18:43] Speaker 1: Workers described symptoms they believed were linked to gas exposure,
[18:47] Speaker 1: nose bleeds, memory problems, breathing difficulties, even vomiting yellow foam.
[18:53] Speaker 1: In one incident, thirteen people were sent to the emergency room.
[18:57] Speaker 1: Several said they struggled to get proper follow up afterwards,
[19:00] Speaker 1: with others saying they'd been told to keep working even
[19:03] Speaker 1: when alarms signaled a possible gas leak. Others still said
[19:07] Speaker 1: they felt pressure not to speak up at all, and
[19:10] Speaker 1: there have been multiple reports of staff being dismissed for
[19:13] Speaker 1: speaking out. Stories that conflict significantly with Equinor's reputation as
[19:18] Speaker 1: a top employer and a champion of responsible business operations.
[19:22] Speaker 1: It's a very different picture from the one we often
[19:25] Speaker 1: hear about Norway's oil and gas sector, the safe, stable,
[19:29] Speaker 1: well regulated workplace, and it complicates the idea repeated so
[19:33] Speaker 1: often in Norwegian public life that the industry looks out
[19:37] Speaker 1: for the best interests of Norway and its people. In
[19:40] Speaker 1: many ways, it seems that Melkoye represents the unraveling of
[19:44] Speaker 1: the black thread, a case where the alleged greenwashing is
[19:48] Speaker 1: clearer to see, where the realities of working conditions and
[19:52] Speaker 1: the treatment of oil and gas workers comes into sharp
[19:55] Speaker 1: relief with those of the national narrative, and where the
[19:58] Speaker 1: Norwegian government is taking decisions that choose oil and gas
[20:02] Speaker 1: over nature and colonial oppression over justice. All this reveals
[20:08] Speaker 1: that the electrification of Melkoya is not a green milestone.
[20:12] Speaker 1: It exposes the contradiction in Norway's global image quite neatly,
[20:17] Speaker 1: a nation celebrated for human rights and climate leadership, yet
[20:21] Speaker 1: here revealing a willingness to prioritize wealth and energy exports
[20:25] Speaker 1: over ecological and social responsibility. With all this in mind,
[20:30] Speaker 1: I asked Dery Melhus from naturo Ungdam what they would
[20:33] Speaker 1: say to Norway's politicians if they had the chance.
[20:36] Speaker 5: First of all, it's important for them to take clim detection.
[20:39] Speaker 5: They do have a big responsibility for my generation and
[20:44] Speaker 5: every generation coming after. They have a huge responsibility to
[20:49] Speaker 5: take Norway in the right direction and in a greener direction.
[20:53] Speaker 5: And I think it's important for them to actually follow
[20:57] Speaker 5: up what they promise. I need them to make sure
[21:01] Speaker 5: that the climate politics actually cuts emissions and it isn't
[21:05] Speaker 5: just greenwashing politics as it is right now.
[21:09] Speaker 1: In this bonus episode of The Black Thread, we heard
[21:12] Speaker 1: how a project that looks like a climate win on
[21:14] Speaker 1: paper can still contribute to far greater emissions once the
[21:18] Speaker 1: full picture is taken into account. We've heard how human rights,
[21:22] Speaker 1: indigenous land use, worker safety, and questions of greenwashing all
[21:27] Speaker 1: converge in the case of Melkoa, and how increasingly the
[21:31] Speaker 1: true costs of Norway's continued fossil fuel extraction are being
[21:35] Speaker 1: brought to light. There's a phrase in Norwegian bernati anister,
[21:40] Speaker 1: or a bear's service that springs to mind here. It's
[21:43] Speaker 1: an expression that refers to a fable about a bear
[21:46] Speaker 1: using a stone to swat a fly on its sleeping
[21:48] Speaker 1: companion's face, and in doing so, killing the companion. It's
[21:53] Speaker 1: about actions that have good intentions for the recipient but
[21:56] Speaker 1: ultimately leave them worse off despite looking good. In always
[22:00] Speaker 1: domestic climate accounting, the net climate impact of the proposed
[22:04] Speaker 1: electrification of Melkoya is not a good one. To me.
[22:08] Speaker 1: That sounds like a bunty unster. Indeed, Melkoya is a
[22:13] Speaker 1: cautionary tale. It's a reminder that renewable technology alone doesn't
[22:17] Speaker 1: equal climate leadership, and that the intersection of economy, energy,
[22:22] Speaker 1: and ethics can still leave communities and the planet paying
[22:27] Speaker 1: the price.
[22:28] Speaker 3: It's also worth.
[22:29] Speaker 1: Remembering who the legal challenges we've discussed are aimed at.
[22:33] Speaker 1: Cases like this aren't brought against companies like Equanor. They're
[22:37] Speaker 1: brought against the Norwegian state. Under Norwegian law, it's the
[22:41] Speaker 1: state that issues the licenses, sets the frameworks, and carries
[22:45] Speaker 1: the responsibility for whether a project should go ahead or not.
[22:49] Speaker 1: When the state chooses a path that extends fossil fuel
[22:51] Speaker 1: production or abuses indigenous rights, it's the state, not the
[22:56] Speaker 1: oil companies, that ends up in court. Back in episode two,
[23:00] Speaker 1: Ana Kharansa that from the Norwegian Climate Foundation, told us
[23:03] Speaker 1: that Equinor and its peers don't hold all the cards.
[23:06] Speaker 1: She argued that its politicians who have consistently pushed for
[23:10] Speaker 1: more oil and gas, and Melkoya is an example of
[23:13] Speaker 1: that dynamic in action. It's the government that sets the direction,
[23:17] Speaker 1: the same government elected by the public, the same institutions
[23:21] Speaker 1: meant to safeguard rights, land and the long term interests
[23:24] Speaker 1: of the Norwegian people, and that matters because of everything
[23:28] Speaker 1: we know about Norway, Norwegians and the values that define them.
[23:33] Speaker 1: Norway sees itself as a climate leader, a defender of
[23:36] Speaker 1: human rights, and a force for good in the world.
[23:39] Speaker 1: But Melikoya shows how difficult it is to uphold that
[23:42] Speaker 1: image while continuing to expand oil and gas extraction. Once
[23:47] Speaker 1: the slick storytelling and the rhetorical gymnastics fall away and
[23:51] Speaker 1: the facts come into focus, the idea of a climate
[23:55] Speaker 1: friendly oil nation becomes impossible to maintain. The gas between
[24:00] Speaker 1: the story Norway tells about itself and the decisions it
[24:03] Speaker 1: continues to make is the heart of the Norwegian paradox.
[24:07] Speaker 1: A nation with strong values, strong institutions, and a strong
[24:11] Speaker 1: sense of fairness, yet one that can still struggle to
[24:14] Speaker 1: align its actions with those ideals when it really matters.
[24:18] Speaker 1: Melkoya makes it clear sooner or later, Norway will have
[24:22] Speaker 1: to choose between the story it tells itself and the
[24:25] Speaker 1: truth the world is already beginning to see. Thanks for listening,
[24:29] Speaker 1: and catch you next time. The Black Thread is a
[24:35] Speaker 1: collaboration between Communicating Climate Change and Klimakultur. It was written
[24:40] Speaker 1: and narrated by Dick and Bonvicstone produced and edited by
[24:44] Speaker 1: lever Solid Schulearud and the executive producer was vigdis Bonvicstone
[24:48] Speaker 1: artwork is by Anya Jimushkevich. For more information see the
[24:52] Speaker 1: show notes

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.