The government has put forward the first klimalov – Aftenposten

the Climate and miljøminister Vidar Helgesen send Tuesday out the country’s first klimalov at the hearing.

the Point of the law is according to the minister, to regulate the relationship between the government and the Parliament in climate policy.

In the bill that Aftenposten have seen, it states explicitly that the law does not give individuals the opportunity to use the law to take legal action if klimaloven is broken.

But because the future members of parliament and governments are under a legal obligation, it will contribute to the predictability and long-term climate policy, it states further.

What can be the consequences for a government that in 2030 fails to meet the klimaloven?

– It will be up to the Parliament to consider. So it is with laws that are not complied with, correspond Helgesen.

the Law shall ensure that Norway’s climate objectives for adaptation to a lavutslippssamfunn in 2050 is implemented.

For 2030 is set a goal of at least 40 percent emission reductions compared to Norwegian emissions in 1990. The goal can be carried out together with the EUROPEAN union. For 2050, there is not defined any percentage for how much to cut.

Every year, the government put forward an overview of the development in greenhouse gas emissions for the Parliament, as well as projections for emissions and a statement of the objectives of klimaloven.

an Annual, it should also be reported how the Uk can be prepared and adapted to climate change and an overview that shows utslippsbaner for various sectors.

Statsbudsjettene shall in the future show what klimaeffekten of the budget is.

This is the goal

If klimaloven passed by the Parliament, lovfester the Norway in 2030 will cut 40 percent of greenhouse gases compared with 1990.

It also says in the bill that Norway shall be a lavutslippssamfunn in 2050, without that there are no concrete figures for emission reductions through the first half of the century.

– It is unusual with such tallfesting, but we do it for 2030, for it is already reported as a liability in connection with the Parisavtalen, says Vidar Helgesen.

He refers to that lavutslippssamfunn in different contexts is defined as between 80 and 95 per cent klimagasskutt.

– We must have the ability to adapt, both about the new information from the Un intergovernmental panel on climate change and new international regulations, continues the minister.

What must be in place for Norway to get a lavutslippssamfunn in 2050?

– Then we have come very far in dekarboniseringen (much lower emissions of CO₂. journ.anm.).

Believes the minister the law really necessary?

It goes with the story that the Climate and miljødepartementet was not finished with a report on whether there was a point with a klimalov, when the Storting decided that the Government should put forward such a law.

On the direct question whether the minister believes that this law can affect climate policy so that it becomes less greenhouse gas emissions, respond Helgesen neither yes or no, but that it “is a helpful framework and it will help to increase the obligation.”

He points out that there are concrete decisions in the climate policy which means that emissions will go down.

If you could choose, would you rather used the resources of the ministry on anything other than to make this law?

– It seems I am not is an interesting discussion. And what are your views, I as a lawyer have for about this is suitable for legislation, I shall not speak to me about.

In contrast to the united Kingdom, which introduced the klimalov in 2008, proposes that the Norwegian government is neither an independent klimakomité to ensure that the government follows the law, or the regular carbon budgeting for how much to be cut in order to reach the targets in 2030 and 2050.

Helgesen believes that Miljødirektoratet makes the job of a klimakomité could have done.

When it comes to the lack of carbon budgeting, he answers that it would have been messy. It is because the Uk for whatever will get a kuttplan of the EU, because Norway should be a part of the Eu plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions until around 2030.

Strong criticism from MDG

Rasmus Hansson from Miljøpartiet de Green has been the premier advocate for klimaloven in Parliament. But based on what he currently has set on the new klimaloven he is not impressed at all.

– It sounds unfortunately like the Government has made the law as approximate and non-binding as possible.

Hansson miss both concrete utslippstallmål for 2050, carbon budgeting and an independent klimakomité.

It is particularly ominous about the law not be applicable for Norwegian citizens, says Hansson, and refers to the constitution miljøparagraf §112, which gives Norwegian citizens the right to an “environment that ensures the health, and to a nature where’s productivity and diversity is preserved”.

Based on Aftenposten’s interview with Helgesen believes Hansson it is not promising that a minister is “so resounding uentusiastisk” for the law.

If he will not answer whether the law will make any direct difference, underpins it all scepticism towards the design of it, says stortingsrepresentanten.

WWF-Jensen surprised over the lack of Helgesen-cheers

Nina Jensen, secretary general at WWF, believes that it is “fantastic” that we get a klimalov.

But for it to be effective, must have clearer and measurable numbers, ” she says with the proviso that she did not read the entire bill yet.

She will also have milestones that must be met in each stortingsperiode, not only the goals of 2030 and 2050.

– We have not been witness to the drastic reductions in Norway, so we must also have clear figures for various sectors, such as oil – and gas-socket, in traffic and in agriculture.

As the comment to that Helgesen could not say a clear yes to that klimaloven can affect to lower greenhouse gas emissions, ” says Jensen:

It is fascinating that the minister who is responsible for getting emissions down, not to do everything he can to bejuble a klimalov when it first comes. If the minister cannot promise that emissions will go down as a result of the law, has Parliament a solid job in front of them to create a law that will actually work.