Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[@ccess] Sustainable politics in Norway (energy)

Expand Messages
  • eric.britton@ecoplan.org
    Kjell Dahle has just sent this note which I think is close enough to the interests and competence of a number of you to be of interest - and perhaps you may
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 11 7:14 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Kjell Dahle has just sent this note which I think is close enough to the
      interests and competence of a number of you to be of interest - and perhaps
      you may have some feedback for him as well.
      This plus tomorrow's Sustainable Transport Referendum in Switzerland begin
      to suggest that we might do well to consider crating a Sustainable Politics
      Forum somewhere under The Commons.

      From: kjell.dahle@... (Kjell Dahle)
      To: wfsf-l@..., tp2000@egroups.com
      Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:40:02 +0100

      Dear colleagues and friends,

      As some of you know, I have been the secretary general of the Centre party
      (one of the three coalition partners in the present Norwegian minority
      government) the last year, thus being one of the few futurists directly
      involved in practical politics.

      As some of you might know, this government has now just resigned as the
      result of an environmental dispute over whether to allow gas-fired power
      plants in Norway.

      The government position was to postpone gas-fired power plants until new
      technology makes it possible to decimate carbon dioxide emissions. (The
      proposed plants would produce about as much pollution as 1/3 of the
      Norwegian cars! )

      What happened, was the following:
      1) National pollution authorities turned down the application from a
      state-owned (sic!) company called "Environmental Power" (sic!) to build
      gas-fired power plants based on present, polluting technology.
      2) Our government (which controlled only 25% of the seats in parliament)
      supported the decision of the pollution authorities.
      3) A majority in Parliament (Labour and the right wing parties) wanted to
      instruct the government to reverse this decision.
      4) The government presented a report from the experts of the Ministry of
      Justice, claiming that it would be against the pollution law if
      politicians reversed the decision of the pollution authorities.
      5) The opposition parties then wanted to change the law, trying to
      instruct the government to initiate an amendment of the pollution law.
      6) The government made it clear that it would only initiate amendments
      that made the law more environmental-friendly.
      7) Labour and the Conservatives said they would vote against such a
      proposal from the government.
      8) The prime minister said that his government would rather resign than
      initiate liberalizing amendments in the pollution law.
      9) The government lost the parliamentary vote of confidence and resigned.

      This is the first time in history that a Norwegian government resigns as a
      result of losing an environmental dispute. Now my question is:

      Do any of you know other cases anywhere in the world where governments
      have resigned after having had the choice between resignation and
      implementation of decisions they consider as harmful to the environment ?
      (Independent of whether they have been voted down in Parliament or through
      referendums.)


      Best wishes

      Kjell Dahle
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.