Jorge Costa Oliveira
Like other European countries, Norway has adopted a strategy for a low-carbon economy by 2050, with emission reduction targets that are even more ambitious than those of the EU. While it is behind on meeting these goals, it is far less so than most EU countries.
In addition to generating 92% of its electricity through hydroelectric power, Norway leads the world in electric vehicles (EVs) per capita. To a great extent due not only to a generalized green conscience but to generous government subsidies for the purchase of EVs and harsh penalties on the sale of new engine combustion vehicles.
Portugal ranks 6th in the EU for renewable energy production, but it doesn’t have Norway’s natural conditions for hydroelectricity. Despite a strong environmental consciousness among the population, EV consumption remains low due to their high cost and the government’s inability to provide generous incentives (or penalties).
Portugal and Norway are among the European countries with the largest maritime exclusive economic zones and continental shelves. Norway, a country of 5.5 million people with no natural resources and a harsh climate, realized around 1960 that leveraging its marine economy was a unique opportunity. As a result, it promoted oil and gas exploration on its continental shelf and became a pioneer in offshore wind farming.
The exploitation of oil and gas by Equinor (67% controlled by the Norwegian state, previously known as Statoil) led to the creation of two Oil Funds, one (small) that can be used for normal government policies, and another (large) as savings for the next generations; these Oil Funds own 1.5% of all publicly traded companies worldwide. These Oil Funds provide financial resources that support a model social market economy, while also ensuring that future generations will have available generous financial resources.
In Portugal, a small Southern Europa country with limited resources and low-mid range income per capita (for EU standards), even the mere attempt to prospect what minerals, oil, gas or other resources may exist in the continental shelf has been blocked. How is it possible that even the mere assessment of the resources existing in its continental shelf is boycotted? Without assessing such resources and the potential environmental impact of its exploitation – and means of limiting it – it is not possible to have a serious discussion on the pros and cons of exploiting the continental shelf.
This position stems from a wide-spread idea that the maritime continental shelves should be overprotected in order to avoid environmental harm. Although the departing point is correct, it makes no sense to pre-decide not to have any exploitation of any part of the continental shelf irrespective of an assessment on the environmental impact involved.
Let us not forget that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (to which Portugal is a signatory) allows for such exploration and that the International Seabed Authority has been authorizing exploration (including deepsea mining) in “The Area” (continental shelves beyond national jurisdictions). In Portugal, after 20 years of speeches, the “commitment” of successive governments is the 16 years spent on selectively collecting geological samples from Portugal’s extended continental shelf with just one ROV (remotely operated vehicle).
Norway is a good example of how it is possible to reconcile maritime resources exploitation with green public policies aimed at a sustainable development.
Future generations of Portuguese (and other European) will greatly benefit if its elites (and governments) abandon their [impoverished] aristocratic complexes and follow Norway’s example.
linkedin.com/in/jorgecostaoliveira
No Comments