Norway’s first oil field started production in 1971 and since 1996 petroleum revenue has been transferred to what’s now called the ‘Government Pension Fund Global’ – often referred to as Norway’s Oil Fund. Today, the fund’s market value is around $884 Billion. For comparison, the updated Norwegian Climate Contribution in ClimatePositions is $16.4 Billion and the climate financing¹ $1.5 Billion. Below are listed some perspectival per capita figures:
- The current market value of Norway’s Oil Fund is around $188,000 per capita (per Norwegian). In 2000 the market value was $11,000 per capita.
- The accumulated Climate Contribution in ClimatePositions is $3,490 per capita.
- The climate financing is $321 per capita (9% of the Climate Contribution which is world record; read this ‘article‘).
- The updated Climate Debt is $3,169 per capita which ranks Norway 15th in the world (see the ‘ranking’).
- The oil production per capita was 6th in the world in 2013, after Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea – in 2000 Norway was 2nd. Norway’s oil production decreased by 46% between 2000 and 2013 … the world production increased by 17% during the same period.
- The natural gas production per capita was 4th in the world in 2012, after Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago and Brunei. Norway’s natural gas production increased by 106% between 2000 and 2012 … the world production increased by 37% during the same period.
The following examines Norway’s CO2 Emissions, Climate Debt over time, GDP(ppp-$) and the investment strategy of Norway’s Oil Fund.
The independent website ‘Climate Funds Update’ provides information on international climate finance initiatives designed to help developing countries address the challenges of climate change. By comparing the present climate funding (money deposited¹ by January 2015) to the accumulated national Climate Contributions (climate debt) in ClimatePositions the mismatch between climate debt and payments are exposed. The 82 countries in the table below are ranked by Climate Funding (financing) as percentage of the Climate Contributions … 48 of the countries have paid zero!
The first diagram shows the nuclear power generation per capita of the two countries. The Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 has caused a remarkable shutdown of generation – while CO2 Emissions from the burning of petroleum, coal and natural gas have increased (from 2011 to 2012 respectively by 6%, 5% and 3%) to close the energy gap. Nuclear power generation produce dangerous radioactive waste to deal with for thousands of future generations (10,000 to 250,000 years) and in ClimatePositions nuclear power is not accepted as a national CO2 Emission reduction instrument (read ‘more’). The following analyzes the indicator trends of Japan and South Korea.
When the necessary climate change financing is secured on a global scale (in our dreams) the paid Climate Contributions must be spent wisely and fair … but how and decided by whom? Well, the incriminated nations that burned fossil fuels excessively for decades knowing that it destroys the climate worldwide can’t be legitimate decision-making participants in the creation of a Global Climate Fund. Only Contribution Free countries can (including those who have paid their climate debt). The opposite seems to be the case in the everlasting and fruitless United Nations COP process.
Manmade climate change leads to increased frequency, intensity and duration of extreme weather events. The global losses due to climate change are of course impossible to quantify but the losses accumulated by global reinsurance companies¹ may provide a clue of the seriousness of the situation. The two diagrams below show statistics of ‘Swiss Re’ (see this ‘release’) and ‘Munich Re’ (from The World Bank Report ‘Building Resilience’). The overall picture is similar: Global losses due to extreme weather events have increased dramatically since the 1980s and are now around $150-200 billion annually.
Since dawn the United States has thwarted a binding global climate agreement – if necessary by the use of illegal spying on countries with opposing plans. The U.S. negotiating line is now the main track at the COP Summits and the rest is sadness. Now, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says that climate change ranks among the world’s most serious problems, such as disease outbreaks, poverty, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (more about his speech ‘here’). But how much money has the United States spent on the so called “war on terror”? … And how much addressing the climate change disaster?
If the United States reduced the CO2 Emissions produced inside its borders and the dirty productions as a competitive consequence moved to China (or elsewhere), the positive impact on the climate would vanish. This obvious dilemma can only be solved if both countries sign a binding climate agreement with solid and fair CO2 Emission targets – which the two countries reject (read more on their COP positions ‘here’). The position of the United States is particularly perverted: 1) Reduction-targets of national CO2 Emissions must be voluntary and 2) Investments in climate actions must be profitable. The bizarre U.S. vision is to create a new global commercial market for voluntary climate investments, a commercial market with parallels to the United States, the homeland of the climate chaos.
The negotiation process during COP19 in Warsaw in November 2013 was frustrating and largely fruitless and the following organizations and movements withdrew from the climate conference in protest: ‘Aksyon Klima Pilipinas‘, ‘ActionAid‘, ‘Bolivian Platform on Climate Change‘, ‘Construyendo Puentes‘ (Latin America), ‘Friends of the Earth‘ (Europe), ‘Greenpeace‘, ‘Ibon International‘, ‘International Trade Union Confederation‘, ‘LDC Watch‘, ‘Oxfam International‘, ‘Pan African Climate Justice Alliance‘, ‘Peoples’ Movement on Climate Change‘ (Philippines) and ‘WWF‘.
First step to understanding the inherent conflicts of interest in the COP process would be to examine the nature of the COP country groups (submission groups) – a detailed study of the complex negotiating proces is another matter.
‘Climate Funds Update‘ is an independent website that provides information on international climate finance initiatives designed to help developing countries address the challenges of climate change. The site is a joint initiative of the ‘Heinrich Böll Stiftung‘ and the ‘Overseas Development Institute‘.
Ecuador was the 68th worst performing country out of 145 in ClimatePositions 2010, but the Climate Contribution (debt) was entirely due to reductions in rainforest since 1990. The diagram shows the forest coverage in percent of the total area in 1990 (49.9%) and 2010 (35.6%). The total national Contribution (debt) was 626 million US$ in 2010.