Hello, Torbjørn Røe Isaksen , I read that you think it is challenging to prepare for employment when you are confronted by demanding environmentalists.
Let me give you a little insight in how it looks from our point of view:
When we point out the huge utslippsveksten from the Norwegian air traffic, we are told that it is better that Norway and Avinor creates flyvekst, for here in the country we use biofuels (which make up far less than 1% of the fuel in the day, and in the long term, it is highly uncertain whether we can increase consumption in a sustainable way) and develop elfly (which might, within a femtenårs time, will be able to take over innenrikstrafikken in Norway, but not the long-polluting flights).- They shall not kill the fjord. Not a damn Newspaper Plus
When we say we must produce and consume less meat because it causes major emissions and resource consumption, we are told that it is much better with the meat, it has less antibiotics and lower emissions than other countries (even if the beef has approx. 22 times as high CO2-footprints for example, beans).
When we say we can't pump up more oil, because the world has already found more than we can get out to keep us under the 1.5 degree warming, then we'll hear that Norwegian oil is so much cleaner than anyone else's oil (even though over 97% of the emissions come from the combustion of oil, not the production itself).
When we say we can't build the mines that go out of reindeer farming and dumping toxic waste in fjords, we are faced with the fact that it is much better that we do it, than under the horrific conditions in the Congo (as if there is less emissions here because of it, and as if we should give up to take responsibility for the working conditions in the production country).
Look at these the cases are isolated, one can argue that Norway is doing something that is a little cleaner and a little better than other countries. But see the cases collected, and looking at the overall picture, the question becomes rather: if not, we should change the us, then who?
And we need to look at the overall picture.
the World has 11 years to halve the world's emissions. We will bring down resource consumption from the current level where we consume somewhere between 2-3 jordkloder, to a level within the one planet we actually have. How should we do it and what should be Norway's role?
Norway can not continue to say that we must be allowed to grow and consume ever more. Do all the countries in the world to do the same, push us in practice, our planet off the cliff. What the world needs now, is that someone goes in front.
your Question , about what we do, what we are really supposed to live off in the future, is probably the most important issue of our time. All people should have a safe and good job to go to, and the jobs we have must have a sustainable footprint and be viable in a world that when klimamålene. But what is your answer to the important question you travel?
We in the environmental movement believe that the starting point for how we organize our society must be the planet's levels. Then we can not produce and consume goods with a reduced footprint, and otherwise consume just as much and in the same way as before. It must be right that we also consume differently than in the past. We need to consume fewer products and generating less waste; things must last longer, could be repaired, we need to share more and phase out the use of hazardous substances.
What I ask from you , is that you even answer the important question you travel. What will Norway live off in the future? I ask that you take a much more proactive role in finding out how we can perpetuate it works, and do it that don't work in a completely different way than today.
You're absolutely right in that the electrification of the world's energy systems requires a lot more minerals. But what about all the minerals we have already extracted? Can Norway go in front to find smarter ways to extract and recycle minerals that are in use – in everything from batteries, building materials, wind turbines and electric cars?
You mention aquaculture; if the Norwegian seafood shall be a real contribution to the world's food production must fish give back more nutrition than the eating itself, and the statistics cover a sample must stop polluting the fjords and go out of other production.
Here there are many possibilities, among other things, to develop sustainable, circular fôrråvarer here in Norway. When you need to and the government get on the court, and require sustainability in the statistics cover a sample, otherwise they will continue to import highly problematic, but cheap soy from Brazil.
How is the strategy , measures, regulations and avgiftssystemet to make the Uk the circular – where business and industry do not take out more resources from the earth than they give back, where our net impact on the planet goes in the plus, rather than minus?
this is where we must come. If you want to talk solutions here, we are contributing more than happy.Green? The minister will poison the bay in klimaets name Leader