IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v20y2020i8p997-1009.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From oil as welfare to oil as risk? Norwegian petroleum resource governance and climate policy

Author

Listed:
  • Guri Bang
  • Bård Lahn

Abstract

Norwegian welfare and prosperity have thrived in step with a growing petroleum sector dominating Norway's economy. However, new knowledge about the limits of the world's carbon budget and how this might render some fossil fuel reserves ‘unburnable’ now presents carbon as a potential risk. Carbon risk may be climatic, in that petroleum extraction contributes to global greenhouse gas emissions; or it could be economic, as current investments might end up as ‘stranded assets’ in a world seeking to move beyond oil. Since at least 2013, policy advocacy coalitions have employed the carbon risk concept to challenge two fundamental institutions in Norwegian petroleum resource governance: the licensing of offshore exploration areas and the petroleum tax policy. Drawing on official documents and media statements, as well as workshops and interviews with a broad range of stakeholders in Norwegian climate and petroleum policy, this paper analyses policy processes in which notions of carbon risk have been at the centre of disagreements between opposing advocacy coalitions challenging or defending the status quo of Norwegian petroleum resource governance. We identify a growing mismatch between a discernible change in Norwegian public discourse, on the one hand, and inertia in the petroleum resource management regime, on the other. Increased rhetorical connections between carbon risk and petroleum policies have caused tension and debate that challenge the governance of Norwegian petroleum production.Key policy insights Petroleum policy and climate policy have been institutionalized into separate policy fields at the national level in Norway.This separation is increasingly challenged by advocacy coalitions pointing to the climatic and economic risks of future oil and gas production.While the coalition highlighting economic risks has been more successful than the one pointing to climatic risks of oil production, neither has so far had material effects on the practices of Norwegian petroleum governance.The existing international and EU-level climate policy regime helps legitimize a continued separation between climate- and oil policymaking in Norway.

Suggested Citation

  • Guri Bang & Bård Lahn, 2020. "From oil as welfare to oil as risk? Norwegian petroleum resource governance and climate policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 997-1009, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:20:y:2020:i:8:p:997-1009
    DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2019.1692774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14693062.2019.1692774
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14693062.2019.1692774?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tine S. Handeland & Oluf Langhelle, 2021. "A Petrostate’s Outlook on Low-Carbon Transitions: The Discursive Frames of Petroleum Policy in Norway," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Sælen, Håkon Grøn & Aasen, Marianne, 2023. "Exploring public opposition and support across different climate policies: Poles apart?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    3. Francisco Haces-Fernandez & Mariee Cruz-Mendoza & Hua Li, 2022. "Onshore Wind Farm Development: Technologies and Layouts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-25, March.
    4. Loewen, Bradley, 2022. "Revitalizing varieties of capitalism for sustainability transitions research: Review, critique and way forward," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:20:y:2020:i:8:p:997-1009. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.