Rather remarkably, the Bondevik government did not falter on big issues such as the labour market, health, or tax reform, which provide ample fire for the political debate in Norway, but on the simple question of whether an existing permit for the building of one or two gas-fired power stations should be amended. Of course, we are not the only observers to note that the power stations might not have been the real issue. Norway might well be like other countries after all. But first consider the issue of the power stations. A discussion over the environmental consequences of the power stations has been raging ever since with varying intensity.
All electricity currently produced in Norway comes from hydropower, and hence is emission free.
Gas-fired power stations would mean a considerable increase in greenhouse gas emissions, at a time when politicians and the public are increasingly aware of the climate change issue. A sizeable increase in emissions from another source is understandably unwelcome at the time. That is also why, in a country which, contrary to casual observation, is still mildly committed to free enterprise, a building permit for power stations could not be withheld, but was given with extremely stringent emission restrictions. In practice this meant either that something altogether different from natural gas would have to be burnt, or that the CO2 from the burning of natural gas would have to be injected into an off-shore oil reservoir, as suggested in 1998 by Norsk Hydro. So far, so good, if it the story only involved Norway.