WEBVTT - The Black Thread, Ep 3: Challenging the Narratives 0:00:07.760 --> 0:00:10.760 Hello and welcome back to Drilled. I'm Amy Westervelt. Today 0:00:10.800 --> 0:00:13.960 we're bringing you the third part in the four part 0:00:14.000 --> 0:00:19.239 mini series from Communicating Climate Change podcast host dick and 0:00:19.360 --> 0:00:24.759 Bombickstone and Norwegian nonprofit KLIMA Cool Tour The Black Thread, 0:00:25.079 --> 0:00:29.320 about Norway's conflicted identity as both an oil state and 0:00:29.400 --> 0:00:34.480 a progressive leader in the world today. Episode three challenging 0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:38.080 the narratives. Much of the ability of Norway's oil industry 0:00:38.120 --> 0:00:41.640 to maintain its influence and continue with business as usual 0:00:41.920 --> 0:00:45.640 comes from the lack of questions being asked about its 0:00:45.720 --> 0:00:49.920 ideas and about how the world works. In this episode, 0:00:50.040 --> 0:00:53.640 The Black Thread steps away from that norm and challenges 0:00:53.720 --> 0:00:55.320 industry rhetoric head on. 0:00:56.320 --> 0:00:56.760 Enjoy it. 0:01:02.240 --> 0:01:05.720 Welcome back to The Black Thread, a podcast unraveling Norway's 0:01:05.720 --> 0:01:10.880 complex relationship with prosperity, identity, and responsibility in a warming world. 0:01:11.440 --> 0:01:14.920 I'm Dickon, a climate communications expert based in Oslo, the 0:01:14.959 --> 0:01:19.479 Norwegian capital, Tracing the Black Thread oil through Norway, society 0:01:19.560 --> 0:01:23.680 and culture. Last time we delved into petroganda in Norway, 0:01:23.959 --> 0:01:27.480 hearing how critics perceive the industry's strategic use of sponsorships, 0:01:27.520 --> 0:01:31.000 advertising and storytelling work to uphold a narrative of oil 0:01:31.000 --> 0:01:35.480 normalization and acceptability. We learned how oil interests are embedded 0:01:35.480 --> 0:01:39.479 in the boards of cultural institutions, government agencies, and even 0:01:39.520 --> 0:01:42.720 the nation's schooling whilst what many consider to be faded 0:01:42.760 --> 0:01:48.040 journalistic scrutiny contributes to the erosion of public awareness and debate. Plus, 0:01:48.200 --> 0:01:50.600 we heard how oil and climate are often treated as 0:01:50.640 --> 0:01:54.120 separate issues in policy, and how this shapes the limits 0:01:54.160 --> 0:01:58.560 of public discourse. Yet both critics and industry voices agreed 0:01:58.600 --> 0:02:02.760 about one thing. Norway needs open discussions about its future 0:02:03.120 --> 0:02:07.720 grounded in facts. In this episode, we'll explore where the 0:02:07.760 --> 0:02:10.480 facts do and don't match up to the stories being 0:02:10.480 --> 0:02:14.040 told by Nory's fossil fuel industry, amplified by its government, 0:02:14.240 --> 0:02:18.040 and legitimized through a wealth of public outreach. We'll hear 0:02:18.120 --> 0:02:21.200 experts challenge some of the most familiar narratives that keep 0:02:21.200 --> 0:02:25.120 Norwegian oil and gas pumping, and industry voices will explain 0:02:25.160 --> 0:02:28.720 the logic behind their rhetoric. Along the way, we'll try 0:02:28.720 --> 0:02:31.919 to find answers to questions like was Norway really poor 0:02:31.960 --> 0:02:34.680 before oil? Will it be poor if it stops pumping 0:02:34.680 --> 0:02:37.919 fossil fuels today? What will happen to the famous Norwegian 0:02:37.919 --> 0:02:41.520 welfare system, won't. Lots of people lose their jobs and 0:02:41.680 --> 0:02:45.240 many more. As we've heard in previous episodes, oil has 0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:48.400 become important to the Norwegian identity and plays a major 0:02:48.480 --> 0:02:51.320 role in public perceptions of the country's success as well 0:02:51.360 --> 0:02:55.120 as its wealth. But Norwegian attitudes towards oil haven't always 0:02:55.120 --> 0:02:59.120 been unwavering. In the early days, there was caution and concern. 0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:03.680 Kick things off by exploring this shift in perspective. Author 0:03:03.880 --> 0:03:07.000 journalist and project leader at the Norwegian Climate Foundation an 0:03:07.080 --> 0:03:10.960 A Current Satha, explains how Norway's first oil discoveries were 0:03:10.960 --> 0:03:13.160 met with careful consideration. 0:03:13.200 --> 0:03:17.639 In the beginning in the nineteen sixties and the nineteen seventies, 0:03:18.360 --> 0:03:23.040 it was a lot of criticism actually towards this new industry, 0:03:23.400 --> 0:03:26.160 and that's not part of the story, funny enough, but 0:03:26.280 --> 0:03:30.600 people were asking, why should we do this? Isn't it dangerous? 0:03:30.760 --> 0:03:35.040 And what's actually happening? People were skeptical. I guess it 0:03:35.120 --> 0:03:39.000 was only in the eighties when we were sort of prouder. 0:03:39.200 --> 0:03:45.160 It was established as something in the Norwegian debate and consciousness. 0:03:45.720 --> 0:03:48.960 Even though oil and gas have become central to Norway's economy, 0:03:49.000 --> 0:03:52.080 and identity. It's worth noting that this influence has taken 0:03:52.160 --> 0:03:55.600 shape in just a few decades. According to our experts, 0:03:55.840 --> 0:03:59.760 Norwegians weren't automatically on board with this new national venture. 0:04:00.200 --> 0:04:03.160 To learn more, I asked bord Land from the University 0:04:03.160 --> 0:04:06.680 of Oslo's Oil and Society Research Network to expand on 0:04:06.760 --> 0:04:08.520 how the industry was first perceived. 0:04:09.320 --> 0:04:13.120 The discussions about oil and gas policy and kind of 0:04:13.120 --> 0:04:16.640 how to govern Norwegian oil and gas resources tended actually 0:04:16.680 --> 0:04:21.520 to be much more critical during the first couple of decades. 0:04:21.800 --> 0:04:25.480 And this whole kind of success story about the Norwegian 0:04:25.839 --> 0:04:29.479 only Aventa, the oil adventure, the oil fairy tale, and 0:04:29.640 --> 0:04:32.600 this whole idea that Norway has been so good at 0:04:32.640 --> 0:04:35.839 handling and managing the wealth from the oil and gas. 0:04:35.880 --> 0:04:39.560 All of these things are quite new constructs, and so 0:04:39.720 --> 0:04:43.840 the idea that oil is overwhelmingly positive to Norwegian society 0:04:44.279 --> 0:04:48.279 is something that to some extent appeared alongside the Oil Fund. 0:04:48.520 --> 0:04:51.360 The discussions about the role of oil in Norwegian society 0:04:51.440 --> 0:04:54.359 were actually much more hesitant, and you even see it 0:04:54.360 --> 0:04:58.080 in official documents. They are definitely highlighting the wealth and 0:04:58.160 --> 0:05:01.039 the prosperity that oil might bring, but there also skeptical 0:05:01.120 --> 0:05:05.320 towards the downsides and the problems and the potential tensions 0:05:05.320 --> 0:05:07.320 that might arise due to this new industry. 0:05:08.360 --> 0:05:11.599 So, according to Board, it wasn't always a fairy tale 0:05:11.640 --> 0:05:14.200 of fate and fortune, as we're often led to believe 0:05:14.360 --> 0:05:17.560 in Norway. He points out that this narrative of oil 0:05:17.600 --> 0:05:21.400 as an unmitigated success only really took shape once climate 0:05:21.480 --> 0:05:24.320 change became a core issue. Based on what we've heard 0:05:24.320 --> 0:05:27.839 in the previous episodes about industry efforts to shape public perception, 0:05:28.440 --> 0:05:31.400 even targeting young people to ensure a future generation of 0:05:31.440 --> 0:05:35.320 oil positive citizens, it's worth considering whether this story emerged 0:05:35.440 --> 0:05:40.480 organically or whether it was ceded strategically. With both Board 0:05:40.560 --> 0:05:43.880 and Anakarn claiming that the narrative around Norway's oil discovery 0:05:43.880 --> 0:05:47.200 has changed over time, we have to ask how this 0:05:47.279 --> 0:05:50.360 has happened. When I spoke to Anna Karin, she identified 0:05:50.520 --> 0:05:53.520 three myths that she says have contributed to this shift 0:05:53.600 --> 0:05:54.280 in perspective. 0:05:54.800 --> 0:05:57.680 The first is that we have climate friendly oil and 0:05:57.720 --> 0:06:03.080 gas production. We have less during extraction due to an 0:06:03.160 --> 0:06:09.080 early ban on flaring and electrification of the installations offshore, 0:06:09.800 --> 0:06:13.760 and since Nowechan oil and gas have relatively lower emissions 0:06:14.000 --> 0:06:17.680 than the average in the world. It will be good 0:06:17.680 --> 0:06:20.000 if you use nowech and oil instead of oil and 0:06:20.040 --> 0:06:22.600 gas from other places. So that's why they have been 0:06:22.600 --> 0:06:26.640 calling it climate friendly or clean oil and gas. But 0:06:27.279 --> 0:06:30.160 the thing that is not so much talked about in 0:06:30.200 --> 0:06:34.479 this area in strategic communication, you sort of put a 0:06:34.520 --> 0:06:36.960 lot of light on some parts of the story and 0:06:37.080 --> 0:06:40.120 others are put in the shade. And what is put 0:06:40.360 --> 0:06:42.800 in the shade when it comes to this is that 0:06:43.279 --> 0:06:46.920 the production counts up to something like two or three 0:06:47.000 --> 0:06:50.920 percent of the total of emissions. What counts is when 0:06:51.040 --> 0:06:55.039 you combust the oil and gas, that's like ninety seven percent. 0:06:55.360 --> 0:06:58.680 And if you have a fossil fuel car a petrol 0:06:58.760 --> 0:07:01.599 car and you drive it on the highway, it doesn't 0:07:01.600 --> 0:07:05.479 really matter if the petrol comes from Norway or Nigeria 0:07:05.800 --> 0:07:09.560 or other countries. The emissions will be just as big. 0:07:10.400 --> 0:07:13.160 The first of Anikarin so called oil myths is that 0:07:13.200 --> 0:07:16.920 Norway's oil is climate friendly. We've heard that one before. 0:07:17.200 --> 0:07:19.720 In fact, it's a line that comes up often from 0:07:19.800 --> 0:07:22.680 all kinds of sources. But just as we found with 0:07:22.720 --> 0:07:26.920 the industry communication discussed in the previous episode, important context 0:07:26.920 --> 0:07:29.280 that would reveal the true nature of such a claim 0:07:29.680 --> 0:07:32.280 tends to be left out, but let's hear some more 0:07:32.320 --> 0:07:33.040 from Anikarin. 0:07:33.440 --> 0:07:36.400 The second one is that gas from Norway replaces coal 0:07:36.640 --> 0:07:40.840 in Europe. Since Europe can use gas instead of coal, 0:07:41.000 --> 0:07:44.880 we can contribute to lowering emissions in Europe. And the 0:07:45.040 --> 0:07:49.480 oil industry has used data showing us how much emissions 0:07:49.520 --> 0:07:54.040 will be reduced in Europe if our gas replaces coal. 0:07:54.200 --> 0:07:58.000 But that's not what's happening because there's just a little 0:07:58.000 --> 0:08:02.200 bit of the gas that is actually going into power 0:08:02.400 --> 0:08:05.920 generation and that's where they compete oil and gas with 0:08:06.320 --> 0:08:10.080 renewables and with energy efficiency. But that's not part of 0:08:10.120 --> 0:08:15.520 the story. And gas may replace coal in the short run, 0:08:15.680 --> 0:08:19.960 but it will lock us to gas infrastructure, and it 0:08:20.000 --> 0:08:24.080 will hinder the energy transition. It will sort of stand 0:08:24.120 --> 0:08:27.920 in the way for more renewables, and that's not part 0:08:27.960 --> 0:08:29.720 of the story unfortunately. 0:08:30.360 --> 0:08:33.080 So the second of Ana carn so called oil myths 0:08:33.360 --> 0:08:36.360 is that replacing coal with gas is a climate solution. 0:08:36.960 --> 0:08:38.120 But let's hear the last one. 0:08:38.400 --> 0:08:41.720 The third myth is that we must stand on the 0:08:41.760 --> 0:08:46.640 shoulders of today's petroleum industry in order to succeed in 0:08:46.679 --> 0:08:50.520 the green transition, and as with all myths, you could 0:08:50.640 --> 0:08:54.000 argue that it is some truth in it, because offshore 0:08:54.120 --> 0:08:58.080 know how from the petroleum industry is useful when we're 0:08:58.200 --> 0:09:02.320 to build offshore win like it was useful back in 0:09:02.360 --> 0:09:06.480 the days to have a maritime industry history when we 0:09:06.520 --> 0:09:10.680 started off with oil and gas. But it obscures the 0:09:10.800 --> 0:09:13.960 fact that we're standing at the crossroad and that we 0:09:14.080 --> 0:09:17.720 have to make a choice. Do we go into even 0:09:17.760 --> 0:09:21.160 more oil and gas or do we go into more renewables. 0:09:21.280 --> 0:09:24.640 It's actually a choice, and by saying that we have 0:09:24.679 --> 0:09:27.040 to stand on the shoulders of oil and gas, you 0:09:27.160 --> 0:09:29.480 sort of say that we can just continue, we can 0:09:29.520 --> 0:09:32.120 build upwards, we can just do more of the same 0:09:32.280 --> 0:09:35.400 and somehow one day wake up and be in a 0:09:35.440 --> 0:09:40.960 renewable society. It's so deep in the Norwegian debate, this 0:09:41.160 --> 0:09:45.240 last one. It's fascinating, But we can't do two things 0:09:45.320 --> 0:09:50.400 at the same time. You have a limited amount of expertise, 0:09:50.679 --> 0:09:57.920 employees and available money to invest, So there's obviously problems 0:09:58.360 --> 0:10:00.160 with all this story. 0:10:01.360 --> 0:10:04.360 The third of anakharinsarth that's so called oil myths is 0:10:04.400 --> 0:10:07.080 that the fossil fuel industry is essential to a green 0:10:07.160 --> 0:10:11.200 transition together. She claims these myths shape a story in 0:10:11.240 --> 0:10:13.960 which Norwegian oil and gas come across as not just 0:10:14.040 --> 0:10:17.840 acceptable but even good, a story that makes the industry 0:10:17.880 --> 0:10:21.240 appear more compatible with climate action than it might really be, 0:10:21.840 --> 0:10:26.440 and that helps justify continued drilling. To many, such messaging 0:10:26.520 --> 0:10:29.320 might sound too convenient to be taken at face value, 0:10:29.559 --> 0:10:32.679 But how does the industry itself explain and defend it. 0:10:33.280 --> 0:10:36.600 To explore the logic behind these narratives and the paradox 0:10:36.600 --> 0:10:39.800 of the Norwegian identity they help sustain, I spoke with 0:10:39.840 --> 0:10:44.240 and Catharine vorga climate policy manager at Offshore Norway, the 0:10:44.320 --> 0:10:48.400 organization that represents companies operating on the Norwegian continental shelf, 0:10:48.960 --> 0:10:52.440 many with a direct stake in oil and gas. As 0:10:52.480 --> 0:10:55.640 someone whose role is shaping climate policy whilst at the 0:10:55.679 --> 0:10:59.040 same time advocating for the very industry that that policy 0:10:59.080 --> 0:11:02.720 is meant to regulate, her perspective is especially useful for 0:11:02.840 --> 0:11:05.760 understanding how the industry squares its climate ambitions on the 0:11:05.760 --> 0:11:08.800 one hand with its dependence on fossil fuel production on 0:11:08.840 --> 0:11:09.200 the other. 0:11:09.840 --> 0:11:13.680 My role as a climate policy manager is to give 0:11:13.720 --> 0:11:19.760 advice and input to the authorities on climate policies and regulations. 0:11:20.200 --> 0:11:25.040 When oil and gas are burned, considerable emissions are released 0:11:25.120 --> 0:11:30.800 to the atmosphere, contributing to the global warming and climate change. 0:11:30.960 --> 0:11:34.040 And I think that's why the work with the climate 0:11:34.080 --> 0:11:37.840 policy within the oil and gas industry is so important. 0:11:38.600 --> 0:11:42.720 We must both reduce emissions linked oil and gas, but 0:11:42.920 --> 0:11:46.320 at the same time we must increase the production of 0:11:46.440 --> 0:11:50.360 renewable energy also not gaz. Together with our partners, we 0:11:50.400 --> 0:11:54.560 have established very ambitious climate targets and we aim to 0:11:54.640 --> 0:11:58.319 reduce emissions from the oil and gas production by fifty 0:11:58.360 --> 0:12:02.240 percent in twenty third thirty and to near zero in 0:12:02.320 --> 0:12:06.760 twenty fifty and this will be very challenging. We are 0:12:06.960 --> 0:12:10.839 engaged in reducing emissions from the use of the oil 0:12:10.880 --> 0:12:14.160 and gas by capturing the C two and storing it 0:12:14.640 --> 0:12:16.760 or by producing blue hydrogen. 0:12:18.120 --> 0:12:21.040 Let me quickly help here. Blue hydrogen is a fuel 0:12:21.120 --> 0:12:25.360 created using methane derived from fossil gas. Now back to 0:12:25.400 --> 0:12:26.200 and Catherine. 0:12:26.240 --> 0:12:29.560 We are also heavily engaged in the development of offshore 0:12:29.760 --> 0:12:33.920 wind sector in Norway and the policy measures that are 0:12:33.960 --> 0:12:38.559 needed for the energy transition from fossil fuels to the renewables. 0:12:39.240 --> 0:12:42.800 So I wouldn't say that there are tensions between working 0:12:42.840 --> 0:12:46.280 with climate policy and working in the oil and gas sector. 0:12:46.600 --> 0:12:50.120 On the contrary, climate policies is actually a full of 0:12:50.160 --> 0:12:53.920 integrated part of shows activities. 0:12:54.480 --> 0:12:57.080 And Catherine points to efforts to reduce emissions from oil 0:12:57.080 --> 0:12:59.880 and gas production to zero by twenty fifty as evan 0:13:00.160 --> 0:13:03.920 of the industries taking responsibility for its actions. But as 0:13:03.960 --> 0:13:06.959 we just heard, only three percent of the total emissions 0:13:06.960 --> 0:13:10.360 from oil and gas are associated with their production. Even 0:13:10.400 --> 0:13:13.280 if the industry hits its twenty fifty targets, that doesn't 0:13:13.320 --> 0:13:16.160 help with the ninety seven percent of emissions released into 0:13:16.200 --> 0:13:19.400 the atmosphere when Norwegian oil is burned at the use phase. 0:13:19.920 --> 0:13:22.720 At the same time, while she highlights the likes of 0:13:22.840 --> 0:13:27.079 CO two capture, blue hydrogen production and offshore wind development 0:13:27.120 --> 0:13:30.080 as ways that the industry is contributing to both dealing 0:13:30.080 --> 0:13:32.440 with those use phase emissions on the one hand and 0:13:32.559 --> 0:13:35.320 transitioning away from oil and gas towards renewable energy on 0:13:35.360 --> 0:13:39.400 the other, critics contend that neither carbon capture and storage 0:13:39.679 --> 0:13:43.040 nor blue hydrogen are anywhere near developed enough to make 0:13:43.040 --> 0:13:48.200 a meaningful impact. In fact, Equinor and others recently scrapped 0:13:48.240 --> 0:13:51.280 plans to export blue hydrogen abroad due to a lack 0:13:51.320 --> 0:13:55.840 of demand for fossil based fuels compared to their renewable counterparts. However, 0:13:56.280 --> 0:13:59.760 despite this demand and ambitious goals to develop Norways off 0:13:59.760 --> 0:14:03.480 shore wind capacity, earlier this year, Equinor, who are perhaps 0:14:03.520 --> 0:14:06.240 best placed to make strides in the sector, and several 0:14:06.280 --> 0:14:10.000 of their peers, also rolled back their offshore wind targets too. 0:14:10.920 --> 0:14:14.199 So while Anne Catherine claims that climate policy is fully 0:14:14.240 --> 0:14:17.920 integrated into oil and gas activities, the messaging seems to 0:14:17.960 --> 0:14:22.000 be moving much faster than the technologies it's highlighting. Next, 0:14:22.040 --> 0:14:24.880 I asked how the planned expansion of Noua's oil and 0:14:24.920 --> 0:14:27.920 gas industry could be even remotely in alignment with the 0:14:27.920 --> 0:14:31.760 international obligations set out by the Paris Agreement. It's here 0:14:31.920 --> 0:14:35.720 in Ane Catherine's response that the black thread becomes a knot, 0:14:36.160 --> 0:14:40.560 a tightly wound tangle of industry led narratives, strategies and claims. 0:14:41.080 --> 0:14:43.840 As Anakar and Sath from the Norwegian Climate Foundation told 0:14:43.880 --> 0:14:47.800 us earlier, in strategic communication, some things are brought into 0:14:47.800 --> 0:14:50.720 the light and others are left in the shade. So 0:14:51.200 --> 0:14:53.640 as we listen to Ann Catherine's answer to my question, 0:14:54.040 --> 0:14:58.120 it's worth asking ourselves what's left out? How are her 0:14:58.160 --> 0:15:01.600 claims framed to make oil gas appear more compatible with 0:15:01.600 --> 0:15:05.200 climate goals than perhaps they actually are, and which so 0:15:05.360 --> 0:15:07.480 called myths does she invoke along the way? 0:15:08.040 --> 0:15:12.320 An increase of the total oil and gas production will 0:15:12.520 --> 0:15:17.000 obviously lead to more emissions, and it is not in 0:15:17.080 --> 0:15:21.000 line with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Aill oil 0:15:21.040 --> 0:15:24.000 and gas have the same amount of emissions when you 0:15:24.120 --> 0:15:27.200 use it, but emissions link to the production and the 0:15:27.240 --> 0:15:32.320 transportation of the oil and gas differ significantly, and using 0:15:32.360 --> 0:15:35.840 oil and gas from Norway instead of using oil and 0:15:35.840 --> 0:15:39.640 gas from other countries can then lead to less emissions 0:15:39.640 --> 0:15:43.840 as we have less emissions from the production side, and 0:15:43.920 --> 0:15:47.680 therefore be in line with the aim of the Paris Agreement. 0:15:48.480 --> 0:15:51.920 But also replacing coal with oil and gas will have 0:15:52.120 --> 0:15:57.360 a significant effect on emissions. So if the expansion of 0:15:57.480 --> 0:16:02.600 the oil and gas production replaces alternatives with more emissions 0:16:03.120 --> 0:16:08.480 and leads to actual total lower emissions, that is in 0:16:08.520 --> 0:16:11.080 line with aim of the Peri's agreement to reduce the 0:16:11.120 --> 0:16:12.520 greenose gas emissions. 0:16:13.480 --> 0:16:16.080 Did you catch that we just heard two of the 0:16:16.120 --> 0:16:19.680 so called oil myths, first the idea of Norwegian oil 0:16:19.760 --> 0:16:23.440 being climate friendly and second that replacing coal with oil 0:16:23.480 --> 0:16:26.680 and gas is a climate solution. As we've discussed, the 0:16:26.720 --> 0:16:31.160 climate friendly oil framing highlights production efficiency but doesn't account 0:16:31.200 --> 0:16:34.480 for the total emissions from consumption or the long term 0:16:34.480 --> 0:16:38.840 lock in effects of continued fossil fuel dependence. Similarly, replacing 0:16:38.920 --> 0:16:41.360 coal with oil and gas might reduce emissions in the 0:16:41.400 --> 0:16:45.320 short term, but it still locks in carbon intensive energy infrastructure, 0:16:45.520 --> 0:16:49.120 as Anakarr and Sather explained earlier, delaying the shift to 0:16:49.360 --> 0:16:53.600 genuinely renewable sources. But let's keep listening. Here's and Catherine 0:16:53.640 --> 0:16:56.760 Vorga again moving on to the expansion of noise oil 0:16:56.760 --> 0:16:57.680 and gas activities. 0:16:58.200 --> 0:17:00.400 The outlook for the production of the oil and gas 0:17:00.440 --> 0:17:03.600 in Norway is that in some years we will reach 0:17:03.760 --> 0:17:08.320 peak production and then we will see a significant decline. 0:17:08.840 --> 0:17:13.399 So the exploration for new resources will ensure that the 0:17:13.480 --> 0:17:18.120 downward production curve will not be steeper than the demand curve. 0:17:18.840 --> 0:17:22.200 So exploration for more oil and gas in Norway as 0:17:22.240 --> 0:17:25.679 we see today will not be an expansion from the 0:17:25.720 --> 0:17:29.440 current level. Almost all of the oil and gas produced 0:17:29.440 --> 0:17:33.080 in Norway alsold to uk and ere and the Russian 0:17:33.119 --> 0:17:38.359 invasion of Ukraine has clearly demonstrated how dependent Europe is 0:17:38.400 --> 0:17:42.160 of the energy from Norway, and EU has now decided 0:17:42.200 --> 0:17:45.480 to stop the import of oil and gas from Russia, 0:17:45.880 --> 0:17:49.800 and their main priority is of course to replace this 0:17:50.160 --> 0:17:55.479 by investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. But it 0:17:55.480 --> 0:17:59.560 takes time to build new renewable capacity, and in the 0:17:59.600 --> 0:18:02.920 short medium term the oil and gas from Russia will 0:18:02.960 --> 0:18:06.440 have to be replaced by oil and gas from other countries, 0:18:07.040 --> 0:18:10.640 and in climate perspective, oil and gas from Norway are 0:18:10.720 --> 0:18:14.280 produced with lower carbon footprint than oil and gas from 0:18:14.280 --> 0:18:14.920 other contries. 0:18:15.800 --> 0:18:18.160 In this part of her response, we hear the familiar 0:18:18.160 --> 0:18:22.760 petroganda narrative of energy security, as discussed in the previous episode. 0:18:22.840 --> 0:18:26.200 While valid in the context of Europe's immediate needs, this 0:18:26.320 --> 0:18:29.240 argument can also be read as a justification for maintaining 0:18:29.280 --> 0:18:32.600 production levels in the longer term, even when the broader 0:18:32.640 --> 0:18:37.000 climate context calls for a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, 0:18:37.240 --> 0:18:40.320 a transition we've already heard is made all the more 0:18:40.359 --> 0:18:44.480 difficult if we continue investing in the oil industry. Meanwhile, 0:18:44.560 --> 0:18:47.840 on the expansion issue, my understanding of what and Catherine's 0:18:47.840 --> 0:18:50.960 saying is that we shouldn't worry too much, because she 0:18:51.200 --> 0:18:55.439 argues any such activity isn't about increasing overall use of 0:18:55.480 --> 0:18:59.240 fossil fuels, but instead about ensuring that there'll be enough 0:18:59.280 --> 0:19:02.600 to get us through the forthcoming energy transition in line 0:19:02.640 --> 0:19:05.119 with the projected decline in demand for oil and gas 0:19:05.280 --> 0:19:08.680 from the likes of Europe and the UK. However, a 0:19:08.800 --> 0:19:11.800 twenty twenty four report found that if the EU curbs 0:19:11.800 --> 0:19:15.480 demand in line with its targets, existing oil and gas 0:19:15.520 --> 0:19:20.000 projects and contracts will be sufficient to meet declining European needs, 0:19:20.160 --> 0:19:23.719 which means there's no need for more Norwegian oil and gas. 0:19:24.200 --> 0:19:26.920 But let's hear the final part of and Catherine's response. 0:19:27.200 --> 0:19:30.240 The main driver in the energy market is the demand 0:19:30.359 --> 0:19:35.879 for energy. Society needs enough and affordable energy, and to 0:19:35.960 --> 0:19:39.399 limit the climate crisis, the energy must be as clean 0:19:39.680 --> 0:19:45.280 as possible, So both UK and THEY asset ambitious targets 0:19:45.359 --> 0:19:49.920 for transition of their energy mix away from fossil fuels 0:19:49.960 --> 0:19:54.160 and towards for renewables. But even in the scenarios where 0:19:54.200 --> 0:19:58.000 they reach their climate goals, they will need more oil 0:19:58.000 --> 0:20:02.840 and gas than Norway from over prognosis can deliver. So 0:20:03.280 --> 0:20:06.080 in the case where UK and E need oil and 0:20:06.119 --> 0:20:09.439 gas as a part of their energy mix, this Shurrado 0:20:09.560 --> 0:20:12.800 coom from more production in our Way than from other 0:20:12.840 --> 0:20:17.199 producing countries, and that's also from a climate perspective. 0:20:17.440 --> 0:20:19.840 Right, So then we're back to the idea that Norway's 0:20:19.840 --> 0:20:22.800 oil and gas is simply filling the British and European demand, 0:20:23.040 --> 0:20:25.800 but with the added twist that assumes Norwegian oil and 0:20:25.840 --> 0:20:29.040 gas will substitute products from other providers based on the 0:20:29.080 --> 0:20:32.200 logic of it being cleaner. It's a lot to take in, 0:20:32.359 --> 0:20:35.400 and that's kind of the point. Each of these industry 0:20:35.480 --> 0:20:39.200 narratives builds on or intertwines with the next, which, according 0:20:39.240 --> 0:20:43.640 to the industry's critics, complicates any effort required to challenge them. 0:20:43.800 --> 0:20:48.000 And while the arguments are pretty straightforward, Norwegian oil has 0:20:48.000 --> 0:20:51.320 a lower production footprint than other imports, replacing coal with 0:20:51.440 --> 0:20:55.200 gas can reduce emissions, and Europe's current energy situation makes 0:20:55.200 --> 0:21:00.200 Norwegian supply important. These strategic framings, as are experts of expan, 0:21:00.800 --> 0:21:05.280 often present partial truths or short term solutions as evidence 0:21:05.280 --> 0:21:08.720 of alignment with climate goals, but seen through the lens 0:21:08.720 --> 0:21:11.560 of the oil myths and the petroganda narratives we've heard 0:21:11.560 --> 0:21:15.320 about from expert observers and voices critical of oil industry rhetoric. 0:21:15.800 --> 0:21:19.119 Such communication seems to reinforce a story that makes fossil 0:21:19.160 --> 0:21:25.280 fuels seem necessary, acceptable, and even beneficial, while obscuring broader 0:21:25.359 --> 0:21:28.880 context and the structural challenges of a full energy transition. 0:21:29.760 --> 0:21:32.479 So we now have a better understanding of the logic 0:21:32.560 --> 0:21:35.680 behind the communication coming out of NOI's fossil fuel industry, 0:21:36.160 --> 0:21:38.480 much of which seems to rest on this idea or 0:21:38.680 --> 0:21:42.440 myth of climate friendly oil. I was curious to learn 0:21:42.520 --> 0:21:45.239 more about this, so I asked Cilia ask Lundberg from 0:21:45.320 --> 0:21:49.359 research and advocacy organization oil Change International for her take. 0:21:49.800 --> 0:21:52.679 We've had so many different slogans that are connected to 0:21:53.000 --> 0:21:56.160 how we frame it. It's like, it's the green oil, it's 0:21:56.160 --> 0:21:59.680 the climate friendly oil. Now it's the democratic oil. So 0:22:00.119 --> 0:22:02.600 it just keeps on filling it with all of these 0:22:02.640 --> 0:22:06.520 wonderful words, basically just to be able to continue to 0:22:06.560 --> 0:22:10.280 say that we should be the last country on Earth 0:22:10.520 --> 0:22:13.160 to produce oil and gas, which is like the narrative 0:22:13.200 --> 0:22:16.480 that is being built by the industry, and unfortunately that 0:22:16.640 --> 0:22:18.880 is accepted by a lot of politicians. 0:22:19.640 --> 0:22:23.639 Indeed, many politicians, including the Norwegian Minister for Climate and 0:22:23.680 --> 0:22:27.280 the Environment, have repeated these lines about climate friendly oil, 0:22:27.760 --> 0:22:31.119 and all of Anakharan's so called myths can be identified 0:22:31.160 --> 0:22:34.919 in the Norwegian government's recent climate strategy, alongside a number 0:22:34.920 --> 0:22:38.680 of Drilled media's petroganda narratives discussed in the previous episode. 0:22:39.160 --> 0:22:42.800 Tocillia's point and echoing an Catherine Vorga from off Shore 0:22:42.800 --> 0:22:45.800 Norway's position. In an interview with The New York Times, 0:22:46.040 --> 0:22:49.919 Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Garstura said, I believe that 0:22:50.000 --> 0:22:52.840 the change here will have to come from the demand side, 0:22:53.359 --> 0:22:56.399 and it cannot be by having political decisions to cut 0:22:56.480 --> 0:23:00.320 the supply side. I asked Oslo based author, journalist and 0:23:00.440 --> 0:23:04.240 climate data expert Catan Joshi what he thinks about this 0:23:04.359 --> 0:23:05.120 kind of reasoning. 0:23:05.520 --> 0:23:09.240 Something that's important to note is that countries that supply 0:23:09.600 --> 0:23:11.919 a large amount of fossil fuels to other places in 0:23:11.960 --> 0:23:16.600 the world are very emotionally centered on making sure that 0:23:16.640 --> 0:23:20.920 people burn those fossil fuels. We as a country that 0:23:21.000 --> 0:23:25.800 supplies fossil fuels, frame ourselves as passive or somewhat neutral. 0:23:26.480 --> 0:23:29.680 We just happen to have been born on top of 0:23:30.080 --> 0:23:32.920 a whole bunch of oil and gas, and it's therefore 0:23:33.040 --> 0:23:37.000 our neutral and unbiased responsibility to pick it up out 0:23:37.000 --> 0:23:40.000 of the ground and transfer it elsewhere. What happens in 0:23:40.040 --> 0:23:43.960 reality is that when you are invested in supplying fossil fuels, 0:23:44.200 --> 0:23:46.280 you will go out of your way to come up 0:23:46.320 --> 0:23:50.800 with stories and lines of argument that encourage people to 0:23:50.880 --> 0:23:53.399 burn them. A nice example, of course, has been the 0:23:53.520 --> 0:23:58.040 energy crisis in Europe. Russia invaded a neighboring country, and 0:23:58.080 --> 0:24:01.240 as a consequence, a lot of the countries in Europe 0:24:01.240 --> 0:24:05.040 that buy its gas products decided to try and reduce that. 0:24:05.800 --> 0:24:08.600 Norway stepped up and said, hey, don't worry about all 0:24:08.640 --> 0:24:14.119 the electrification and the demand reduction and energy efficiency. Just 0:24:14.240 --> 0:24:17.320 swap it out with Norwegian gas instead. We can supply 0:24:17.400 --> 0:24:20.320 it. It's all good. And then we take that argument and 0:24:20.359 --> 0:24:24.439 say we are providing energy security where the real energy 0:24:24.440 --> 0:24:28.920 security for Europe would have been reducing reliance on important fuels. 0:24:29.520 --> 0:24:33.560 And so not only are we compelled to tell the 0:24:33.600 --> 0:24:36.439 world different ways that they can feel good about burning 0:24:36.440 --> 0:24:39.520 our products, we feel proud about it. We sort of 0:24:39.520 --> 0:24:41.840 present it as if we're sort of doing a heroic 0:24:41.880 --> 0:24:44.320 thing for the rest of the world. This is the 0:24:44.320 --> 0:24:47.520 headspace of the fossil fuel exporterer. It's a line of 0:24:47.640 --> 0:24:52.720 argument that allows the maintenance of prolonged fossil fuel extraction. 0:24:53.640 --> 0:24:56.800 Katan believes that, as we've discussed in the previous episode, 0:24:57.000 --> 0:25:01.480