A broad coalition of environmental NGOs and other citizens' groups is fighting to stop the construction of two gas-fired power plants (GPPs) on the western coast of Norway. The power plants will increase the danger of global warming, breaking domestic and international commitments to prevent dangerous man-made climate change. The environmentalists are prepared to use direct action as a last resort. More than 1,000 people are ready to help stop construction of the plants by acts of civil disobedience.

The GPPs will have severe environmental impacts. They will emit 2,1 million tonnes of the greenhouse gas CO2 a year, and increase Norway's CO2 emissions by 5-6 percent, as much as half the cars in Norway. The GPPs will make it impossible for Norway to achieve the international target of stabilising CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. The GPPs would also give local pollution in the form of acid rain. Acid rain has already damaged the south-western part of Norway. New emissions could harm heaths.

GPPs are an inefficient way of using the gas. Nearly half the energy would be lost as waste heat. In Rygarden, 58 percent of the energy will be used; in Tysv²r, 69 percent. Compare this with Germany, where natural gas is used directly for heating, with more than 85 percent efficiency.

To ensure that the plants will be profitable, Naturkraft will be exempt from the Norwegian CO2 tax. The gas turbines powering Norwegian oil and gas production on the continental shelf are subject to this tax. Exempting the gas-driven power plants from the tax is a hidden subsidy, to the tune of NOK 740 million (more than USD 100 million) every year.

Would Norwegian Gas Power Replace Coal Abroad?
Naturkraft A/S and the Norwegian government admit that the planned gas-fired power plants (GPPs) will not lead to a single coal-fired plant being shut down. They claim, however, that the GPPs could prevent new coal-fired plants being built (e.g., Finnish utilities will opt for buying electricity from the Norwegian GPPs, rather than build coal-fired plants to satisfy increasing energy demand). They thus actually admit that the GPPs will increase Nordic emissions; but they say that emissions will grow more slowly because of the GPPs. This is hardly a way of confronting the climate threat. Besides, it is unlikely that the GPPs will prevent new coal-fired plants.

The GPPs will deliver electricity to a free energy market governed by the law of supply and demand. Increasing energy supply will increase energy demand. The GPPs are therefore likely to come in addition to coal-fired power plants, not replace them.

All the Nordic environmental NGOs are against gas-fired power plants in Norway. The NGOs want a drive for energy conservation and efficiency, and renewable energy sources. There is a huge potential for wind and biomass energy in the Nordic countries.

Norwegian gas power would compete with a drive for environment-friendly energy. Renewables have the weakest position in the market; they are easily out-competed. If necessary, Norway could supply power to its neighbours with no increase in its CO2 emissions by opting for energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. According to a study by Energidata, Norway can conserve as much power as would be produced by eight GPPs.

A Stumbling Block for International Climate Change Negotiations
The Norwegian government is undermining the international negotiations on a climate agreement, the most important international environmental treaty of our time. Norway is seeking to avoid commitments that will require cuts in Norwegian emissions.

At the "Earth Summit" in Rio, 1992, an international Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) was signed. Its aim is to avoid dangerous man-made climate change. The present, far-from-adequate target set in the FCCC is that industrial countries should not have higher emissions in the year 2000 than they did in 1990. Norway is already missing this target. The government's policy implies exceeding the target by 20 percent. One quarter of this increase will be due to the GPPs.

But to avoid global warming, we do not need a standstill in emissions, we need cuts. Countries must make clear commitments to reduce emissions. Unfortunately, in the on-going negotiations many states are holding out against making such commitments. To our embarrassment, Norway is among them.

Norway does not think that the industrial countries should all cut their emissions by equal shares, but that one country should have a different commitment from another. The US pollutes more than Norway per person, and should cut emissions by a greater percentage. The size of each country's commitment should be calculated according to a complicated formula (which, of course, lets Norway off easy). Besides, Norway thinks a country should be allowed to buy its way out of emission reductions at home, by paying for reduction measures in other countries instead ("joint implementation").

Like Norway, the superpowers are holding out for different solutions designed to let themselves off easy. This will not lead to a deal. Someone will have to give way. We believe that Norway should play a constructive role by showing that we are willing to reduce our own emissions as well. But instead, Norway is seeking to protect its oil and gas interests. The complicated Norwegian formula for calculating each country's commitment adds further obstacles to progress in the slow-moving negotiations.

The most environment friendly proposal comes from the Alliance Of Small Island States (AOSIS): a commitment for industrial countries to reduce emissions by 20 percent by the year 2005. They fear that the proposal for differentiated commitments will make negotiations more complicated and delay an international agreement.

Civil Disobedience Against Power Plants
The battle against the two proposed gas-fired power plants (GPPs) on the western coast of Norway has reached a decisive stage. Unless the government drops its plans for GPPs, the Action Against GPPs will mobilise for civil disobedience actions to prevent construction. More than a thousand people have already declared themselves ready to participate in such actions.

The use of civil disobedience is justified by the impact that the plants' enormous pollution would have on future generations and on international co-operation for the environment, as well as by the undemocratic procedure followed by the government.

The threat of global warming must be countered by emission cuts. Unless we start making these cuts now, our children and grandchildren will inherit even worse environmental problems. Future generations are not represented in our elected bodies, yet they have the right to a decent life and a living environment. We cannot accept decisions that will undermine their livelihoods.

The Norwegian government (i.e., the Cabinet under Prime Minister ThorbjÀrn Jagland) has handled the GPP issue in an undemocratic way. The government is both judge and jury: It owns a controlling share in the companies planning to build the plants; it grants the construction permit; it processes the complaint made by the environmental NGOs.

Norway's legislative body, the Storting (parliament), has not discussed the two proposed GPPs specifically. The Storting's decision to allow gas power in principle was rushed through before the environmental expert authorities and NGOs got a chance to present their views. The decision to build GPPs is in conflict with the Storting's 1989 decision (still valid) to stabilise CO2 emissions at 1989 levels by the year 2000.

Civil disobedience is the last resort for resistance against the GPPs. Nearly all legal channels have been tried without success. A number of seminars, meetings and actions have been made to present facts and arguments. In Spring 1996, 26 NGOs and political parties joined together in the so-called "Climate Alliance" (not to be confused with the similarly named industry lobby group!). The Alliance has collected 100,000 signatures against the GPPs, and produced a counter-paper to the government's White Paper on gas-fired power plants. The environmental NGOs have appealed the decision to build GPPs.

There is broad opposition to GPPs among the Norwegian people. According to Opinion, a polling firm, in May 1997 44 percent of those asked were against gas-fired power plants, while only 28 percent supported their construction. No less than 39 percent came out in support of civil disobedience against construction of GPPs.

The environmental NGOs are joined in their opposition to the project by the youth sections of all political parties save one; a number of religious associations; all farmer's organisations; the Norwegian Tourists' Association; and a number of trade unions.

Background: The Warming World
Human beings are disturbing a hair-trigger natural balance: Man-made emissions are increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases that keep the planet warm. This will make the world a hotter place.

The world's leading climate scientists, gathered in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have estimated that the global mean temperature will increase by 3ÁC by the end of the next century, unless there is a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Three degrees in a hundred years may not sound like much, but it would mean a quicker heating than the planet has experienced in the last 10,000 years - and result in the highest mean temperature in 150,000 years.

The most important man-made greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2) from the use of fossil fuels - coal, oil, and natural gas. CO2 accounts for slightly more than half of the man-made greenhouse effect. Today, there is 25 percent more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was before the industrial revolution.

How can we prevent global warming? According to an IPCC estimate, to stabilise the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, we must reduce the emissions of CO2 by 60 percent or more. The longer we put off these emission cuts, the greater the cuts will have to be.

The warming will have severe impacts on the natural environment in which we live and on which we depend. Global warming means acute distress for much of humanity, great economic loss, and stresses on nature with unforeseeable consequences.

World food production is under threat. Harvests may be destroyed by increased drought in some areas, or by more frequent storms in others. Pests and diseases will spread. Fisheries will be disturbed. Animals, plants, and the ecosystems in which they live, are adapted to specific temperature zones. Man-made climate change will go so fast that many species may be unable to cope and be wiped out.

Many people live in coastal areas which will be flooded by rising sea levels. Global warming could create tens or even hundreds of millions of environmental refugees, on the run from rising seas and spreading deserts. The insurance industry is worried that climate change might lead to more frequent natural disasters: extreme weather types such as storms and monsoons, or forest fires in drought-ridden areas.

By Christian Moe, chr.moe@c2i.net