The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / International / Norway Court Affirms Climate Rights, But OKs Oil Leases Anyway
Norway Court Affirms Climate Rights, But OKs Oil Leases Anyway

Norway Court Affirms Climate Rights, But OKs Oil Leases Anyway

January 5, 2018 Filed Under: International

print
By Ucilia Wang

A judge in Norway ruled in favor of the government’s plan to allow more oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean on Thursday, delivering a setback to environmental groups that sought to invalidate the permits on constitutional grounds.  The court, however, did acknowledge the government’s duty to safeguard the environment for the public benefit, which signals a willingness to review the government’s action on climate change in the future.

The ruling, issued Thursday by the Oslo District Court, rejected the argument from Greenpeace and Nature and Youth that the government failed to uphold a constitutional provision that guarantees the right to a healthy environment when it issued 10 oil exploration licenses to 13 companies in 2015.

Granting the licenses in effect created new sources of greenhouse gas emissions even though the emissions from burning the fuel will take place beyond Norway, the plaintiffs said.

The court ruled that the emissions created from exporting the oil weren’t relevant in this case, and the climate impact from oil exploration alone isn’t significant enough to conclude that the government violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.

“Very significantly, the court did find that there is a right to a healthy environment that is constitutionally protected, said Michelle Jonker-Argueta, legal counsel for campaigns and actions at Greenpeace. “This right can be enforceable in the courts. This is quite an important win as it is the first time we are using the right to a healthy environment in a Norwegian courtroom.”

On the issue of the oil leases, however, the court did not directly tie the oil leases to their climate impacts.

“The district court failed to show leadership and recognize the reality of the substantial climate impact embedded in the oil Norway is exporting,” said Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law, an advocacy group.

The argument that connects climate change to constitutional rights is fairly new but is increasingly being used in lawsuits to try to compel the government to fight global warming aggressively. A 2015 case in the Netherlands helped to kickstart the trend when a district court judge ruled that the government failed its duty to protect the environment and must cut emissions at a faster pace.

In the U.S., a federal appellate court is set to decide whether a similar case in the U.S.,  Juliana v. United States, will proceed to trial. The plaintiffs, 21 people in their teens and early 20s, claim that the government is failing to protect their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by supporting energy policies that promote fossil fuel development.

The Norwegian court’s ruling  indicated that the court wasn’t willing to address whether the government was doing enough to tackle climate change. That issue is better decided through legislative processes, the ruling said.  

Norway makes for a promising venue for testing the constitutional claim because the country considers itself progressive and has environmental protection written into its constitution. Yet it is also one of the largest oil producing countries. Norway has the world’s biggest sovereign wealth fund, which surpassed $1 trillion, by investing its oil and gas revenues.

Greenpeace is still analyzing the court’s ruling and will decide later whether to appeal, said Jonker-Argueta.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: International

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. Netherlands works to overturn landmark Urgenda climate ruling says:
    May 24, 2018 at 1:41 pm

    […] lower court’s ruling inspired lawsuits subsequently filed in countries such as Norway, Pakistan, Ireland, Belgium, Colombia, Switzerland and New […]

  2. Canada promises climate progress and buys a pipeline instead says:
    June 4, 2018 at 11:27 am

    […] Norwegian court ruled in January that the government didn’t violate the constitutional provision because the […]

  3. Canada guarantees local weather progress and buys a pipeline as a substitute - Viral News Now says:
    June 4, 2018 at 3:03 pm

    […] Norwegian courtroom dominated in January that the federal government didn’t violate the constitutional provision as a result of […]

  4. In Canada, Pipeline Politics Threaten National Climate Plan - Climate Liability News says:
    September 6, 2018 at 1:45 pm

    […] ships 10 times as much carbon emissions abroad through its oil exports as it releases domestically. Greenpeace has sued the government for expanding oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean. The activist group says that […]

  5. Dutch government will again appeal historic Urgenda climate ruling says:
    November 19, 2018 at 1:52 pm

    […] 2015 is widely credited for kick-started similar lawsuits in other countries, including  the U.S., Norway, Pakistan, Ireland, Belgium, Colombia, Switzerland and New […]

  6. Norway must curtail oil production to fight climate change, UN expert says says:
    September 25, 2019 at 1:19 pm

    […] Norwegian constitution that guarantees the right to a healthy environment. The Oslo District Court recognized this constitutional right while concluding that offshore oil licensing does not violate this right. The environmental […]

  7. Norway: We are not responsible for climate impacts of the oil we drill says:
    November 14, 2019 at 4:46 pm

    […] two environmental organizations, Greenpeace Norway and Nature and Youth. After the district court dismissed the suit last year, the organizations’ appeal came before the appellate court in Oslo in hearings that […]

  8. Court allows drilling leases, but says Norway must count all oil emissions says:
    January 23, 2020 at 2:13 pm

    […] the right to a healthy and sustainable environment. The district court acknowledged this right but ruled that the awarding of licenses did not breach that right. The groups appealed that ruling, and in […]

  9. Court upholds historic Urgenda ruling: the Netherlands must cut emissions says:
    January 30, 2020 at 4:42 pm

    […] the case was filed in 2013, similar lawsuits have popped up in countries including the U.S., Norway, Pakistan, Ireland, Belgium, Colombia, Switzerland and New […]

  10. Court Allows Drilling Leases, But Says Norway Must Count All Oil Emissions - Climate Change Resources says:
    June 4, 2020 at 7:33 pm

    […] the right to a healthy and sustainable environment. The district court acknowledged this right but ruled that the awarding of licenses did not breach that right. The groups appealed that ruling, and in […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Colorado Judge Rejects Oil Companies’ Attempt to Move Climate Case
  • Biden’s DOJ Could Help Swing Momentum Around Climate Cases
  • Supreme Court Questions Oil Companies’ Tactics to Shake Climate Cases
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?

Most Popular

  • Climate Case Gets Green Light from European Union Court
  • What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline
  • Court: Climate Impacts of Pipeline Projects Cannot Be Ignored
  • Richmond Battles Chevron, Its Biggest Employer, in Two Important Lawsuits
  • France, Home of the Paris Agreement, Faces Lawsuit for Lack of Climate Progress

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.