The Supreme Court of Norway on December 22, 2020, upheld the plans of the Norwegian government for oil exploration in the Arctic. It dismissed the lawsuit by the campaigners, Greenpeace and the Nature and Youth group, who viewed the scheme as violative of people’s right to a healthy environment. The litigation sought a court order to invalidate the oil licences based on this constitutional provision, and considering that climate science dictates that the vast majority of fossil fuels be left in the ground to avoid the most catastrophic levels of warming. The hearing on the petition began on November 4, 2020, before a bench of 15 voting Supreme Court judges. This is a procedure which is reserved only for most significant issues. While announcing the judgement of Norway, the Chief Justice Toril Marie Oeie said that 11 of the 15-judge panel ruled in favour of the government, while 4 supported the environmental groups.
This decision came as a big disappointment and caused outrage for environmental and climate activists in Norway as well as in many other parts of the world.
This is the first ever case based on any country’s constitutional rights to environmental safety. Specifically, the case cites Norway’s 112th amendment, under which “every person has the right to an environment that is conducive to health and to a natural environment whose productivity and diversity are maintained.” It is also the first litigation in the world to invoke the 2015 Paris Agreement. Norway was one of the first countries to ratify the Paris Agreement. The agreement aims to limit global warming to under 2-degree Celsius. In order to attain that target, the scientists opined that around 82 per cent of the world’s fossil fuels must remain in the ground.
While the case was specifically about ten exploration licences awarded four years ago, the environmental campaigners had hoped that their appeal would set a precedent limiting the oil industry’s Arctic expansion. Greenpeace and the Nature and Youth had sued the Norwegian government in 2016 challenging the opening of new areas of the Barents Sea to oil drilling.
Although the Supreme Court of Norway declined to overturn the grant of oil licences in this instance, the ruling did acknowledge that Norwegian authorities may have a duty to deny oil companies’ permits to actually produce the oil in view of the constitutional right to a healthy environment.
The Oslo District Court in January 2018 and the Norwegian Court of Appeal in January 2020, had declined to invalidate the oil drilling licences issued by the Norway Government, though both the courts recognised the right of citizens to bring the case under Article 112, which outlines that the citizen’s right which must be protected. The appeals court in its ruling also said that the Norwegian government should be responsible for the carbon emissions tied to its petroleum exports. But ultimately both the lower courts concluded that the government did not violate this right by awarding new oil drilling licences.
The Norwegian government has faced severe criticism from the UN as well as massive protests for its exploration of more oil. The country recently lost its spot on the UN Human Development ranking due to its large carbon footprint from the oil industry that is seen as putting people’s quality of life at risk. The case is especially pertinent in Norway because of its position on the forefront of the international race for oil in the Arctic, even as it has implemented ambitious emission reduction goals.
It is to be noted that while Norway has been continuing to expand oil exploration into the Arctic, its neighbour Denmark, the biggest oil producer in the EU, has brought an immediate end to new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea as part of a plan to phase out fossil fuel extraction by 2050.
Norway is one of the largest exporters of oil and gas in the world. According to a 2017 analysis from Oil Change International (based on data from Rystad Energy), Norway is the world’s seventh largest exporter of planet-warming emissions, and the country exports 10 times more emissions than it generates domestically by shipping its extract petroleum abroad.