Norway Rejects Climate Orthodoxy’s False Choice, Builds Wealth

By Vijay Jayaraj

Norway Minister of Energy Terje Aasland told Reuters that his country will keep developing oil and gas in the Barents Sea irrespective of a European Union (EU) ban on Arctic drilling.

“In today’s geopolitical and security environment … I believe continued activity in the Barents Sea serves both Norwegian and European interests,” said Aasland.

Although not an EU member, Norway is a close ally and Europe’s largest gas supplier, meeting about 30% of the demand across the European Union and Britain. Last year Norwegian gas output ran near record levels and oil production hit its highest mark since 2009.

Without new fields, however, official projections show output dropping sharply after 2030. But Aasland intends to hold production and exports near current levels until at least 2035, and he has said that the Arctic is important to Norway remaining a long-term supplier.

The EU currently backs a ban on new Arctic drilling on environmental grounds, while buying the gas that keeps its factories running. Anders Opedal, CEO of Norwegian multinational energy company Equinor, has said that producers of Barents oil and natural gas will find buyers somewhere else if Europe refuses to buy.

Even Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and a promoter of transitioning away from fossil fuels, has urged the EU to reconsider its opposition to Arctic development for the sake of energy security.

Europe already has suffered economic damage from its “green” pretense. The IEA reports that EU electricity prices for energy-intensive industry averaged more than double American levels in 2025 and were nearly 50% above China’s. A 2024 report on European competitiveness warned that such costs are hollowing out manufacturing.

Here is where the story stops being about the Arctic and becomes about everyone else.

Norway is not a struggling petro-state rationalizing a bad habit. It is among the richest societies ever built, with per capita gross domestic product above $105,000 and a sovereign wealth fund that crossed $2.39 trillion in June. Five and a half million people have converted seabed hydrocarbons into universal healthcare, free universities, and pensions for grandchildren not yet born.

If Norway considers oil and gas indispensable to its economic position, it is unreasonable to demand that poorer countries abandon their own resources. This matters enormously for Africa, South Asia, and other rapidly developing regions. For many African households, unreliable energy can be catastrophic.

Delay of fossil fuel projects costs in ways spreadsheets miss. A gas project blocked by climate posturing means that engineering teams disband, drilling rigs go elsewhere, borrowing costs rise, and the fertilizer plant that would have used the hydrocarbon feedstock never gets built. A decade of compounding benefits is lost to a national balance sheet.

Western proponents of climate orthodoxy declare as immoral the ladder their societies climbed to unprecedented prosperity. Every advanced economy industrialized with coal, oil, and gas. Norway is still doing it with a $2 trillion cushion. Norwegian leaders recognize oil and gas are critical to their nation’s future, unlike their counterparts in the EU, Canada, and Australia.

When ministers from developing nations sit down with lenders and donor agencies, they should place the Aasland interview on the table and ask a single question: If continued Arctic development serves Norwegian and European interests, on what basis does a Nigerian gas plant or a Bangladeshi terminal serve a lesser interest?

Climate alarmists present a false choice between affordable, dependable energy and environmental stewardship. Norway rejects that trap. A country can cut waste, improve technologies, protect ecosystems, and maintain the reliable fuel base that modern life requires.

Energy abundance and human flourishing track together in every dataset anyone has assembled. Norway understands this and acts on it. Poor nations understand it too. What they lack is not evidence but permission, and permission is not something a sovereign state should have to request. Leaders of developing nations should leverage Norway’s example and build on it.

Originally published at PJ Media, September 4th, 2026.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.9 24 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
32 Comments
September 10, 2026 6:42 pm

One word: AI data centers. (Okay, three.)

Reply to  idbodbi
September 10, 2026 6:45 pm

AId-Ata-Centric.
adjective, syn. navelgazermental

September 10, 2026 6:53 pm

Too nordicentric.
Please let’s visit L.-Victoria, Kilimanjaro’s Glacier-Cap, & Ethiopia, its GERD-powered new economy, & its naval port at Somaliland combatting the Houthi Piracy. The Queen of Sheba had nothing on them.
And the Lakes-Uganda, its new oil pipeline to the port at Zanzibar.
From E.-Africa + the Arabian Sea + Lanes-to-Bharat, … Ceylon, & across the Indian Ocean toward to the Strait of Malacca / Singapore.
Let freedom ring all around there, like an equatorial-tropical band of pure black-gold.
The better half-of-humanity, 4-bn-persons strong, depends on these Projects, for their families’ security & prosperity!
Amen.

ResourceGuy
September 10, 2026 7:33 pm

I once told an investment manager for pension funds from Scotland that if they separated from the UK they could do like Norway and become an oil state. Oh well, too bad

michael fellion
September 10, 2026 7:55 pm

Africa is building fossil fuel power plants. It plans an expansion in energy of 57% by 2030. Some during the day will come from solar. Egypt and South Africa have nuclear plants, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia are considering the idea. China is financing and helping build the fossil fuel plants in Africa.

KevinM
Reply to  michael fellion
September 10, 2026 9:41 pm

“Africa is building … It plans”
An entire continent has a plan?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  michael fellion
September 11, 2026 7:32 am

Unless China stays and maintains them, the plants will eventually fail.

Chris Hanley
September 10, 2026 8:35 pm

The Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment is contributing funds to save rainforests and support developing countries in their efforts to address climate change at the same time oil and gas make up ~60% of its goods export revenue.
‘Baptists and bootleggers’? Norway is both, a Baptist on Sunday and a bootlegger for the rest of the week.
On second thoughts Norwegians are Lutherans and contributing funds to ‘fight climate change’ is analogous to buying indulgences, Martin Luther would not approve.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 11, 2026 12:22 am

I think they are just pragmatic for the time being. They know that EVs will dramatically lower oil consumptiom yet they helped making them mainstream. That’s the advantage of having a nationalized oil industry – you don’t have lobbyists trying to hurt everyone for the gain of a few.

SxyxS
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 11, 2026 2:24 am

EV’s won’t “dramatically” lower oil consumption as transportation and Military – the main consumers are incompatible with Vegan energy performance .
But even if they were,
there is an ever growing demand for oil and private cars have only a 20-23% share of
annual global fuel production.

Or as the arabs use to say ” Opec sees oil demand growth explode sixfold in 2027″ – that’s todays news btw.

But you’ll be probably right again for all the wrong reasons, as usual – the permanent war on Oil infrastructure and consumption and a looming global recession as result of debt and wars will decrease the demand for oil.
So there is a high chance that demand may even drop for Norwegian oil if the destruction of Near East and Russian Oil infrastructure is limited.

Reply to  SxyxS
September 11, 2026 3:37 am

So OPEC had to reduce their estimated growth for 2026 already several times to around 400 kb/d. They really bank on China and India for that growth next year.

IEA predicts a demand decline for 2026.
Sinopec predicts a demand decline for china at about 4% for 2026 and their old estimates predicted peak oil demand for china will be before 2027. I would say the war in Iran has made that more likely – not only for china.

Over 60% of our oil usage goes into gasoline and diesel for ground transport – which is already electrifying. You would have to prove that the military uses most of that.

Ethiopa and Laos already banned imports of ICE vehicles.
Delhi plans to ban petrol rickshaws and scooters. 2/3 of the vehicles on their roads. The electrification of two and three wheelers worldwide alread reduced oil demand by an estimated 1 mb/d

For shipping: 40% of cargo is fossil fuels and we already see electric ships being used for river transport and ferries. So the growth there won’t be massive if at all.

Aviation is still a long time away finding alternatives.

The chemical industry won’t have enough growth to counter that.

But you’ll be probably right again for all the wrong reasons, as usual

Countries could refill their reserves that they lost due to trump. That could lead to an increase – although not long term.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 11, 2026 7:40 am

Modern container ships can typically carry between 15,000 and 24,000 twenty foot containers and 7500 – 12,000 forty foot containers. Long long time, if ever, before they are replaced by electrically powered ships

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Dave Andrews
September 11, 2026 8:43 am

They could be replaced by hybrids, which would reduce fuel costs.

Reply to  bnice2000
September 12, 2026 1:49 am

The next type of cargo ship will be run by nuclear power, not huge batteries that take up half the cargo load.

Modern cargo ships have almost no crew. They won’t be happy to pay nuclear technicans to spend weeks on sea.

The whole regulation thing for commercial ports will be a nightmare. It will take ages to agree on international standards and then you still have to deal with pubilc perception.

Ports also won’t be thrilled to have additional equipment, drills and staff to deal with an emergency with these ships. Bigger ports simply won’t accept them because they only make up a small fraction and smaller ports can’t handle the additional costs

Insurance will be a problem and not a small one. Same as dealing with attacks like piracy.

Sorry but this idea is amazingly stupid. Of course trump supports it.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 14, 2026 11:09 am

A shame you spoiled what could have been a rational post with your last sentence.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bnice2000
September 14, 2026 11:08 am

I remain skeptical that commercial shipping will become nuclear powered. It could, but there are many concerns.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 11, 2026 7:29 am

Over I.4bn ICEVs worldwide. Long, long time before these are all replaced by EVs.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 11, 2026 1:25 pm

Norway relies TOTALLY on oil and gas to sustain their economy.

They have plentiful hydro electricity, so they choose to make money selling their oil to many other countries.

They desperately need oil and gas to continue to be the mainstay of all modern energy…

… otherwise their country’s economy will collapse.

KevinM
September 10, 2026 9:38 pm

“his country will keep developing oil and gas in the Barents Sea irrespective of a European Union (EU) ban”

We’re all on the same team until being on the team becomes inconvenient?

September 10, 2026 11:53 pm

Norway has nationalized it’s oil ressources to fund the welfare state. Not something most “free market” evangelists here would like.
They also have really high taxes.

Almost 100% of new cars in Norway are electric.

2/3 of housholds use heat pumps

10% of their electricity comes from solar and wind. Rest is hydro. Something about don’t get high on your own supply I guess?

Norway had one of the first and highest carbon taxes

They are one of the early adopters looking into 15 minute cities

They have a zero growth goal for urban areas

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/ipac-policies-in-practice_22632907-en/norway-s-zero-growth-goal-for-major-urban-areas_3cc592d3-en.html

The Zero-Growth Goal for major urban areas means that any growth in passenger transport shall be absorbed by public transport, cycling and walking. Urban Growth Agreements are in place in four urban areas to implement this goal.

Did I already mention massive welfare state? Bernie Sanders often cites Norway. The US could have had that too if they didn’t use their ressources to enrich a few while the taxpayer is there to clean up

https://www.citizen.org/article/poisoned-wells-u-s-taxpayers-could-be-on-hook-for-up-to-18-billion-well-cleanup-shortfall/

To round this up here is Norway’s climate policy until 2050 (Warning: PDF)

https://files.nettsteder.regjeringen.no/wpuploads01/sites/479/2024/02/The-2050-ClimateChangeCommittee-ENDELIG.pdf

I don’t think this site wants to bring up Norway as a role model.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 11, 2026 12:18 am

Everything in Norway is there because of it’s access to North Sea oil and its access to Hydro electricity due to its terrain.

ALL the welfare is funded by North Sea oil.

They are also massively expanding their access to North Sea oil to keep there socialist lifestyle going…. gotta get funding for socialism from somewhere. 😉

https://www.el-balad.com/17006073 

Norway can do there government socialism because they have a tiny population of only 5.54 million in a very small area of 385,000km².. and HUGE income from North Sea oil.

Essentially, Norway is funded by the petroleum use in many other countries.

70% of its population lives in town, with a very small population density outside those towns.. real cars are not needed for travel

Compare that to the US population of 348 Million, and an area of 9.8 Million km²

Understanding numbers and areas is VERY, VERY hard for leftist stooges like Bernie.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  bnice2000
September 11, 2026 7:37 am

Social welfare is not the same as “Socialist”.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 14, 2026 11:12 am

That is true. However Norway classifies itself as a socialist country.

Some Like It Hot
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 11, 2026 8:36 am

Is it really a welfare state if the benefits are being paid for almost entirely by willing buyers of what it produces and citizens being taxed on what they produce. In Norway, the payers are also the recipients.

The trillions of $$$$ spent on Great Society programs in the US went largely to people who did not pay for them – or – greatly benefit from them. It did create entire industries of fraud that helped no one and enriched and empowered people that the taxpayer borrowed money to pay for. NOTE: Norway does not have a debt problem that must be serviced; they have a very healthy rainy day stash.

The USA has a sizeable underachieving and under-producing demographic that includes parasitic and exploitive leadership whose interest is preservation and growth of the number of “victims” who need “help”.

Jeff Alberts
September 11, 2026 7:33 am

“Energy abundance and human flourishing track together in every dataset anyone has assembled. Norway understands this and acts on it. Poor nations understand it too. What they lack is not evidence but permission, and permission is not something a sovereign state should have to request. Leaders of developing nations should leverage Norway’s example and build on it.”

The so-called “poor nations” don’t need permission, they need effective leadership, not Kleptocrats. And a trained populace that don’t leave for better opportunities.

Tom Johnson
September 11, 2026 8:01 am

“Peak” Oil, as an acronym for the hydrocarbon production limit is ultimately inevitable. (It’s likely that this will happen within decades, not centuries. (It’s likely less than 2 centuries). There is presently NO technology on the table that can feasibly store enough energy to cover the summer-winter-and dunkelflaute gap for wind and solar to replace fossil fuels. batteries cost too much, die to soon and burn occasionally. Pumped hydro has insufficient vertical lift area. Mechanical/thermal storage doesn’t store long enough. In addition, waste and disposal, and life time problems are far too significant to continue many more additions to what’s already installed.

On the other hand, nuclear power can certainly provide sufficient electrical power and cost solutions using already known technology, and is likely to improve considerably in the near future.

It’s time to kill all subsidies for so called “renewable” energy and long term storage. It may even be useful to accelerate development into production of liquid fuels using nuclear produced electricity to fill the gap for aircraft and remaining IC engine fuel. There are feasible means for that now, though they are presently too costly to be useful. That may change with effective research.

kwinterkorn
September 11, 2026 8:02 am

The elites of Europe that signal their moral superiority with suffering on their Green cross are now an embarassment. No one cares. The rest of the world will not follow, preferring prosperity to self destruction.

The AfD success, soon to be followed by Marie Le Pen and Farage, signal a nearing fall from power, a slide into irrelevance.

Reply to  kwinterkorn
September 11, 2026 8:13 am

That’s true, the rise of right wing parties leads to destruction and irrelevance. See the US.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 11, 2026 1:15 pm

Totally WRONG as always.

According to the IMF, USA has a GDP growth of 2.32%,

while leftist countries who kow-tow to the idiocy of net zero :

Germany 0.79%, UK 0.80%

Germany and UK definitely need a good dose of centrism , like La Pen and Farage to boost their performance and save their countries from recession.

Reply to  bnice2000
September 12, 2026 7:00 am

If you think germany is a leftist country and la pen is centrist you lost every sense of reality.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 12, 2026 7:49 am

Unfortunally, he is correct …