Norway has never been “blessed” with an auto industry, save for its role as provider of parts to car makers throughout Europe, not exactly in demand these days. With an international auto industry threatening to file for bankruptcy, drastic measures have been made to keep it afloat, both in terms of governmental bailouts and [...]]]>

Norway has never been “blessed” with an auto industry, save for its role as provider of parts to car makers throughout Europe, not exactly in demand these days. With an international auto industry threatening to file for bankruptcy, drastic measures have been made to keep it afloat, both in terms of governmental bailouts and a massive reorientation towards environment-friendly cars.

One would think that electric vehicle producers have a field day, all things considered. In Norway not so. In spite of the country’s apparent financial success amid global recession (I suggest you read this NYT article on the matter), electric vehicle manufacturer Think, on the outskirts of the capital, lacks funding to uphold its production. With order books brimming, the company finds itself unable to meet the demand – at all. Not a single car leaves the factory, while Norwegian authorities have turned down a popular plea for financial support, unlike what we’ve seen in other countries.

I was appalled to learn this from the TV news the other day, but decided against acting on it, blogging, that is, until I’d had time to give it some thought, but have landed on the same conclusion again:

While our government eagerly advocates a viable and environmental friendly economy, there’s no getting around the fact that it also profits immensely on continued exploitation of the country’s oil and gas resources, thereby eliminating any trace of credibility in environmental matters (continues under picture).

Norway's PM Jens Stoltenberg (Labour). Photographer: Guri Dahl/PM's office.

Has it occurred to them that EV manufacturing could become a great source of income, too? A viable one at that.

Shame on you, Mister Stoltenberg.

See also Norwegian car making: Contradiction in terms (15 December 2008).

Photo: The Think Ox

A bill proposed by the Norwegian government today suggests that the marine and land-based environment be treated differently, with nature at sea entitled to less protection than on land.

Undoubtedly, this will have a huge impact on marine life, not least the vast corral reefs discovered on the [...]]]>

Undoubtedly, this will have a huge impact on marine life, not least the vast corral reefs discovered on the Lofoten coast two years ago:

[...] The world’s largest cold water coral reef was found off Lofoten, the scenic archipelago that stretches into the Norwegian Sea west of Narvik. It lies at a depth of 300-400 meters about 110 kilometers west of Røst. The reef itself is about 35 kilometers long and three kilometers wide.

Environmental groups are also keen to preserve the coral reefs, with more than 1,000 of them lying outside Træna. WWF Norge claims they’re endangered even though they’re large, and is demanding better monitoring and protection for them.

The proposed bill has had locals and environmentalists seriously worried, as it ignores such considerations. Even the coalition government, made up by Labour, the Centre party and the Socialist Left part, is divided here, with the latter two dead set against it.

Norway's PM Jens Stoltenberg (Labour). Photographer: Guri Dahl/PM's office

However, the bill proposal has been forced through (link in Norwegian) by the PM’s office and the Ministry og petroleum and energy (incidentally lead by a Centre party minister), leaving Socialist Left party voters frustrated over the party’s continued acceptance of Labour party override.

“[This is] the most important bill on nature ever proposed in Norway,” minister of the environment Erik Solheim stated in a press release issued on Wednesday.

The bill will be presented in a press conference in Oslo at 12:30 PM (local time) today.

The government’s blatant lack of consideration for marine life in Lofoten, for instance, is easily explained by existing plans to explore Lofoten oil reserves, having large segments of the population infuriated that commercial considerations weigh heavier than that of the environment.

If passed, the bill will have a huge impact on the vast Lofoten fish population, among which we find enormous amounts of cod. Scenes such as these will be highly unlikely in the future:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoke5G4j1Mw

On the surface (or above the ocean surface, as it were) the Norwegian government may appear to be environment conscious, but like beauty, it only seems to be skin-deep. At least when financial considerations come into the picture.

Late addition: The Ministry of the environment issued an extensive press release on the matter Friday afternoon, portraying the proposed bill as a step forward. As can be expected.

Top photo: Reine, Lofoten, seen from top of Reinebringen. Photographer: Michael Haferkamp/Wikipedia

After 69 days in office, US president Barack Obama is preparing a European tour for long-awaited talks with leaders of selected countries. About time, some would say, but the president simply couldn’t ignore the immediate business at hand, as domestic – and global – finances crumbled amid the otherwisely festive “honeymoon”.

In recent days [...]]]>

After 69 days in office, US president Barack Obama is preparing a European tour for long-awaited talks with leaders of selected countries. About time, some would say, but the president simply couldn’t ignore the immediate business at hand, as domestic – and global – finances crumbled amid the otherwisely festive “honeymoon”.

In recent days we’ve seen him play down the Iraqi problem, while putting equal emphasis on Afghanistan, planning to deploy thousands of personnel, of which several civil advisers. He’s gearing up to take a lead in environmental questions, scheduling a late April conference i Washington DC, including

• Australia
• Brazil
• Canada
• France
• India
• Indonesia
• Italy
• Japan
• China
• Korea (I assume South)
• Mexico
• Russia
• Germany
• Great Britain
• South Africa
• Denmark
• The EU
• The UN

More on the president’s environmental agenda here.

The Washington Post’s Michael D. Shear has an interesting article today, sounding these concerns, among numerous others:

[…] But if the U.S. president thought his popularity would cause foreign governments to fall quickly into line behind a new American leadership, experts warn, he could be in for a rude awakening.

The German government has resisted calls to deploy more combat troops to Afghanistan. Russia is pushing back against a NATO missile defense system in Poland. And the Czech prime minister last week described the U.S. plans for global economic recovery as the “road to hell.”

Russian nuclear cruiser Peter the Great.

Thereby touching on the very core of one of our time’s most critical problems; A very plausible revival of the cold war.

As a Norwegian, residing in a country sharing borders with Russia, I can’t even begin to describe the insecurity invoked by Russia’s current military build-up – undoubtedly in response to the NATO missile defence system, in addition to the country’s obvious need to re-enter the global stage as the super power it once was.

However, the days of super powers are counted. The 21st century has brought about a far much more diversified global economy, sporting near super powers, such as China and India, alongside several emerging economies not to be ignored. President Obama is aware of this, as is Dmitry Medvedev (or, really Vladimir Putin). Re-establishing the old-time balance of powers may simply not be the way to go, and yet, in Northen Europe, Russia’s threat is very real, very tangible.

Even if the old super power model has played its role, there’s no denying that America still plays a leading role. Perhaps even more so now, that the country has a president the rest of us respect.

We can only hope for Obama’s willingness to seize that oportunity.

Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama (D).

Tonight, between 8:30 and 9:30 PM, local time, is the global Earth hour, of which I’m sure you’ve already heard, but in case you haven’t, here’s a little info:

[...] In 2009, Earth Hour is being taken to the next level, with the goal of 1 billion people switching off their [...]]]>

Tonight, between 8:30 and 9:30 PM, local time, is the global Earth hour, of which I’m sure you’ve already heard, but in case you haven’t, here’s a little info:

[...] In 2009, Earth Hour is being taken to the next level, with the goal of 1 billion people switching off their lights as part of a global vote. Unlike any election in history, it is not about what country you’re from, but instead, what planet you’re from. VOTE EARTH is a global call to action for every individual, every business, and every community. A call to stand up and take control over the future of our planet. Over 74 countries and territories have pledged their support to VOTE EARTH during Earth Hour 2009, and this number is growing everyday.

Visit Earthhour.org now for further details!

Even though the impact of a billion people switching off their lights tonight is considerable, the long-term effect of that action is highly limited. But consider the impact of that reminder, making us remembering the effect on saving on a daily basis. That’s why I find the earth hour useful.

That, plus: It can’t possibly hurt to put the effect of one hour’s massive cut in energy spending on display.

How about making it a daily event? Then we’d really be talking.

Please join in tonight!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CRs-7lRlPo

Late edit: We’re past 09:30 PM in Norway. Go here for Norwegian Earth Hour pictures (in Norwegian, obviously).

Top photo: The Earth hour global office in Sydney (Flickr)

In this day and age, with greenhouse gases engulfing the planet amid a financial crisis likely to bury the auto industry (which in all honesty ought to be long-since buried anyway) we need to explore the alternatives, of which one has been available for decades. The first streamlined high-speed trains, with a 130 km/h [...]]]>

In this day and age, with greenhouse gases engulfing the planet amid a financial crisis likely to bury the auto industry (which in all honesty ought to be long-since buried anyway) we need to explore the alternatives, of which one has been available for decades. The first streamlined high-speed trains, with a 130 km/h average speed and a more than 160 km/h top speed were introduced in Europe and the United States as early as 1933, as a matter of fact, and yet, some countries, such as Norway, are still hopelessly behind.

I pondered these things travelling from Oslo to Bergen and back, visiting family for the holidays – an altogether 496 kilometre stretch both ways, with ample chance to enjoy fabulous sceneries while you work, read – or enjoy the relaxation of your choice. Personally I find the opportunity to work en route, now that more and more trains offer wireless Internet connection, most enticing, even though I’ve preferred trains for years already. And yes, I do feel a little guilty for leisure travels even by train, unnecessarily spending electricity that I’m convinced could be put to better use, but the alternative, going by plane, is simply too unheard of.

Not an environmental issue – alone

Having said that, I must admit that my concern for the environment probably isn’t my chief rationale for preferring trains. Contrary to popular belief, travelling by train is so much more convenient. Think of it: If I were to fly to Bergen, I’d first have to go by local train to the Oslo central station, whence I’d have to take the (expensive) airport express train. By the time I arrive on Oslo Airport Gardermoen, an hour or so will already have passed. Pressing on, we check in, stay in line for a security check, walk for quite a stretch, only to find that departure’s been postponed, due to unforeseen reasons (in reality the airlines skip flights in order to fill up another one). Then you queue up in front of the gate, and wait on board for quite some time before take-off. By which time I will have reached almost halfway to Bergen by train. Late edit: If you’re not yet convinced, I actually quite forgot that a crucial element remains: Waiting for luggage and getting from the Bergen airport to Bergen itself. Add an extra hour to the equation.

I think you get the picture. Speaking of pictures: Which airlines offer these kinds of sceneries, anyway?

Norwegian ski resort Geilo as seen from the window of the Bergen line. Mobile photo: Jarle Petterson

Even so it just will not do. With high-speed trains I’d be in Bergen long ago by the time the air plane took off. That’s what I call competition. Look at Japan’s Tokaido Shinkansen, opening back in 1964, France’s TGV, The European Eurostar! From what I understand, even Spain is pretty well covered by high-speed trains, the so-called AVE (Alta Velocidad Española).

The centennial perspective

We’re about to turn another year. On 27 November 2009 the above mentioned Bergen Line marks its 100th anniversary. To think what investments we were willing to make at a time when Norway’s finances were very slim, to say the least, compared to today’s unspeakable wealth and paralysis… Certainly, there’s been much talk of a high-speed rail in Norway over the last years, but very little is expected to happen in the nearest decades. In fact, chances of seeing a high-speed rail materialise in these parts is likely to happen in yet another 100 years, rather than a couple of decades. That’s how decisive Norwegian politicians are. After all, and as you can imagine, for a country like ours money simply is no object.

Think of the environmental implications of reducing air traffic to a minimum. There’s little doubt that, with a two-hour fare from Oslo to Bergen or Trondheim, it’d most certainly be the preferred means of transportation for most business travellers, who, just to top it all, is offered online services as well, facilitating two very productive hours – in preparation of a meeting, perhaps. Freight and cargo not withstanding.

An economy with an expiration date

During these last 100 years since the Bergen Line was opened, it soon became clear that we geared up to catch up on the automotive revolution. The development of Norwegian infrastructure has been extremely car-centred this last century, whereas rail roads have been put on hold, more or less. Granted, we’ve seen a modernisation in rail road equipment, trains included, but the infrastructure as such… Zip, zilch and nada, save for an extra track here and there. All very much in line with the overall economy, which, to say the least, is everything but visionary. We’re building roads instead. Knowing Norwegian politics, I can only speculate as to why that is so, but here’s an educated guess:

Cars need fossil fuel. Norway is a considerable provider of fossil fuel. If it’s good for the automotive industry, it simply has to be good for Norway, no?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve always thought there’s something fishy about economies based on a commodity with an expiration date. All the more cause for concern, then.

Substantial savings

I interviewed top executives in The Federation of Norwegian Industries in relation with just high-speed rail earlier this year, who were adamant that high-speed trains would improve the industry’s conditions considerably, not only in terms of reduced emissions, but also substantial cost reductions – and really, it isn’t that hard to understand why.

There’s little doubt that the investments will be sizable, but the return on investment is likely to be colossal.

Honest to God, I’m not sure I understand how they think… Are they per chance under the impression that harvesting is feasable quite without the element of sowing?

It would appear so – in too many questions, I’m afraid.

Anyway, here’s what we’re missing out on. A German ICE3 passing a station at 300 km/h:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yp8kIl_EYg

Top photo: The Oslo Airport Express (Mick Tully).