Climate Politics and the Norwegian Language (1,2)

Sigve Tjøtta and Erik Bye

August 14, 2025

Introduction:

Imprecise language opens the door for utopean climate policy

Language “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts”, wrote George Orwell in Politics and the English Language in 1946 (Orwell, 2000, p. 349). He gave a piece of language advice to sharpen our thinking:

Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in the press (Orvell, 2000, p. 359).

Figure 1 shows the increased use of the words “klimakrise” which translates to “climate crisis and “grønne skifte” which is similar to “green shift” in Norwegian media over the past 20 years. If we follow Orwell’s advice, we should therefore be careful about using such types of terms.

When the words “green shift» are used frequently, the words lose meaning beyond the fact that green shift means something desirable. Frequent use of the green shift dulls the mind. The writer does not have to make an effort to

find arguments. He knows that when a policy is part of the green shift, it must be good. The reader does not have to make an effort either; she knows that when the proposed policy is part of the green shift, it must be good.

The same is true when using the word “climate crisis”. Frequent use of the word climate crisis reduces the meaning of the word beyond the fact that the word means something undesirable. The writer may use the word because he knows that the reader also perceives it as something undesirable. It becomes unnecessary for both the writer and the reader to ask questions such as: Have human emissions of greenhouse gases created a crisis in the past? Will continued greenhouse gas emissions create a crisis in a hundred years? Can scientists really predict what will happen in a hundred years?

Figure 1: Annual use of the words “klimakrise” and “grønneskifte” in Norwegian media from 2000 to 2021, measured in thousand mentions. Media includes print newspapers, online newspapers, radio and TV. Data from Atekst, April 14, 2023.

Sloppy language facilitates utopian climate policy. In my opinion, subsidies for electric cars are an example of utopian policy. The subsidies are linked to reduced tax revenues from the purchase and use of electric cars. According to this year's Norwegian state budget, total state subsidies for electric cars amount to NOK 39.4 billion in 2022 (Prop. 1 LS (2022), Box 1.1, p. 185). The subsidies have increased by NOK 10 billion a year in the last two years. With the same increase, electric car subsidies will be NOK 50 billion in 2023. In addition, there are municipal favoritism for electric cars such as lower toll rates and parking fees than for gasoline and diesel cars. An argument for subsidizing electric cars is that the subsidies increase demand for electric cars and that this increased demand drives innovation in electric cars. There will be more cars on the roads, but fewer gasoline and diesel cars. The hope is that this will reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions. But electric car subsidies also reduce demand and thus the incentives for innovation in alternative means of transport. Innovation in bicycles, electric bicycles, petrol cars, car sharing, and public transport becomes less profitable. What is the effect of Norwegian electric car subsidies on greenhouse gas emissions? Michael Hoel (2020, p. 33) considers that the subsidies do not contribute to reducing global emissions, but adds that “the world is too complicated for such a bombastic conclusion to be drawn”.

I share Hoel's assessment. Fifty billion NOK in annual subsidies to get people to drive electric cars with little or no effect on global greenhouse gas emissions is, in my opinion, utopian climate policy. Politicians spend more money to get people to drive electric cars than to take trains. The state budget for 2023 plans to spend 31.5 billion kroner for railway purposes, of which 5.2 billion will be used to subsidize train tickets (The Annual Budget, Norway (2022–2023), p. 29). The intention was to phase out electric car subsidies, but the tyranny of the status quo makes it difficult to reverse the subsidy policy. People get used to subsidized private cars, and it becomes politically difficult to remove the subsidies. Other examples of utopian climate policy are electrification of the shelf and subsidies for wind power, see my assessment in Tjøtta (2010).

Adam Smith explains in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, first edition published in 1759, the emergence of utopian policies. The use of scaremongering takes people’s real concerns and inflates them to the “madness of fanaticism,” and he continued that the leaders of discontented such movements never give plausible explanations of what to do with these concerns. Instead, they propose to change the system altogether. Concerned people easily become “intoxicated with the imaginary beauty of this ideal system, though no one has any experience of it” (Smith, 1759, VI.ii.2.15, p. 232). Smith went on to warn against the establishment of utopian policies.

Some may be surprised that Smith wrote about this. This year marks 300 years since Smith was born. His theories are old, but they are still relevant. Smith published his first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS), when he was a young professor of 36. The second and final book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), was published when Smith was 53. Smith himself valued TMS more highly than the two books. He worked on it until the end. A significantly expanded edition of TMS was published in 1790, just before he died at the age of 67.

TMS is a theory of how we morally judge each other and ourselves; it is not a theory of moral conduct. Smith’s and his time’s understanding of the word morality is more comprehensive than it is today. Morality includes ethics, but also aesthetics and opinions. TMS thus explains the process of political opinion formation, which opinions are right and which are wrong. The basis for opinion formation is emotion or sentiment, not reason. Sometimes political utopias can gain a foothold with devastating effect, even if that is not the intention.

In the following, I will first review the use of crisis metaphors and utopian metaphors. I will then argue that it is the human search for conformity that paves the way for woolly language, and which in turn lays the foundation for utopian climate policy. Finally, I will discuss how to break out of

conformity.

Crisis metaphors

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said at the opening of COP27 in Sharm el Sheikh that “we are on a highway to climate hell,” referring to an AC/DC hit from 1979, not to research.

The UN Panel on Climate Change’s goal is to synthesize climate research. The first report was published in 1992, the sixth in 2022. The panel is divided into three working groups. The first group synthesizes scientific research, the second summarizes the consequences of climate change, and the third summarizes action research. Each working group writes a summary report for decision-makers. I searched for variations of the words “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” in the summary reports. I found none. The Panel on Climate Change does not use the words climate crisis in its summary reports to decision-makers.

One explanation for the absence of the words climate crisis is that climate models for emission are “projections and are neither predictions nor forecasts” (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, AR6 WGIII, 2022, p. 21). The Panel on Climate Change has been explicit about the lack of predictive power of climate models since its inception. Bert Bolin (1925–2008), the IPCC's first chairman from 1988 to 1997, writes in his book about the history of the IPCC. He writes that the word prediction should be used with caution because people can be misled into believing that such models can say more about the future than they actually can.

This distinction between predictions and scenarios is still not adequately appreciated and has sometimes misled the public, journalists, and politicians … The word «prediction» should indeed be used with great care (Bolin, 2007, p. 66, my italics).

The Climate Panel uses the word projections for climate simulation, not predictions, to emphasize that the models do not predict likely future climate developments (WG1, SAR, 1995, p. 39).

The terminology of the Climate panel shows that the panel is a political institution, not a truth-seeking research institution. By institution, I mean formal and informal rules for how scientists behave in scientific communities and how scientists behave in the climate panel. Disagreement, questioning, and open discussion are the ethos of truth-seeking science. Scientists must question a claim regardless of how many people agree with the claim. The ethos of the UN Panel on Climate Change is consensus. The members of the Panel on Climate Change should agree among themselves on what to report to decision-makers. As the members of the Panel will of course differ in their assessments, they agree to report the degree of consensus as “low, medium, or high”. An example: “For most economic sectors, the impacts of drivers such as changes in population, age structure, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, and governance are projected to be large relative to the impacts of climate change (medium evidence, high agreement”, (AR5, WGII, SPM, p. 19, original bold). The sentence is heavy. Translated into simpler language, it could be as follows: "The panel members agree that the economic impact of climate change is relatively small compared to other conditions."

The head of the Norwegian Petroleum Fund, Nicolai Tangen, said at the World Economic Forum in Davos that “in the future, the fund will promote its own climate proposals in companies where the boards are not active. We will be clearer in our language towards companies that are slow in this area. To put the climate issue at its core: In a world that is uninhabitable due to climate change, the value of the Norwegian Petroleum Fund is zero” (Aftenposten, January 17, 2023). The head of the Norwegian Petroleum Fund is clear in his language. But his claim that the planet will become uninhabitable deviates from the Climate Panel’s summary that the economic effects of climate change are small. The head of the Norwegian

Petroleum Fund’s statements show that politicization has reached the institution of Norges Bank.

Utopian metaphors

The word “bærekraft”, which we translate to “sustainability”, was used 25,630 times in Norwegian media last year, an increase from 45 times in the year 2000. “Sustainability manager” was first registered in 2012 and had a peak in 2021 when it was used 226 times (Atekst, January 31, 2023).

Should a company take social responsibility? Hire a sustainability director? Because people know that when a company hires a sustainability director, the company wants to do something good. Whether it is really good, neither the board or the people have to think about.

Green shift was used 4,614 times in 2021, an increase from 37 in 2000. In the government's Climate Status and Plan (Prop 1 Special Attachment), variations of the word “green” are used 186 times, most of the time as an adjective. Some examples:

The government is focusing on "green transition, green innovation, green value chains, green value creation, green industrial development, green industrial boost, and Norway as a green industrial and energy nation".

The government is also focusing on "new green industries, green shipping, green transition in agriculture, green transition in all sectors, and green transition of working life".

The government is working for "a green shift and a greener future".

Using the adjective green shows that the government wants to do something good. The writers and readers of the plan do not have to deal with questions about the effects of spending money on green things. Since it is green, it must be good.

“The myth lies in the small words,” wrote Georg Johannesen in his review of the government’s Long-Term Program 1990–1993 (Johannesen, 1992, p. 113). In the 2022 state budget, in a section that begins with the government stating that the transport system of the future requires “emission-free transport both on land, at sea and in the air,” this sentence appears:

“For some vehicles and vessel segments, zero-emission technology is not sufficiently mature to be used on a large scale yet” (St meld, p. 6, my emphasis)

What do the small words actually say? The last word, “yet,” gives hope and a promise of change. Drop the word “yet”; the sentence gives less hope. The word "some" says: relax, this only applies to a few technologies, fortunately, not many zero-emission technologies. The words "sufficiently ripe" give associations to the apple harvest. The apple is not ripe yet, but when the gardening government takes good care of the apple trees, the apples will be ripe for picking in the fall. Delete the small words and replace "ripe" with "privately economically viable," and the sentences will become clearer.

For some vehicle and vessel segments, zero-emission technology is not privately economically worthwhile.

In other words, the government considers that most vehicles with existing zero-emission technologies are privately economically viable and that a few technologies are privately economically unviable. The government hopes that subsidies will make these few technologies economically viable one day.

Does the government believe that most existing zero-emission technologies are privately economically viable? Why is it necessary to subsidize the few technologies that are not privately economically viable?

As shown in Figure 2, the use of the term “zero-emission vehicle” has increased significantly over the past ten years. The government calls electric cars zero-emission vehicles and uses the term “zero-emission vehicle” 25 times (Prop. 1 Special Appendix, p. 24). Are electric cars emission-free? No. Electric cars pollute the environment; the government writes in another part of the state budget. External costs – excluding CO2 –associated with driving electric, petrol, and diesel cars are approximately the same (Prop. 1 LS (2022), p. 180). Electric cars emit CO2 indirectly, both in the production of the car and the battery, and in charging the car battery. Norwegian electricity grids are connected to Europe’s grid, and on the margin, there are CO2 emissions from producing electricity as long as the electricity is produced with oil, gas, or coal. If the marginal CO2 emission comes from coal-fired power plants, CO2 emissions are higher for electric cars than for gasoline cars; if it comes from natural gas, it is lower (Holtsmark, 2020, p. 62).

The government is responsible for describing electric cars as zero-emission vehicles in the Government's climate status and plan (Separate appendix to Prop. 1 S (2022–2023)). What responsibility do writers in the Ministry of Climate and Environment have? It may be that the writers actually believe that electric cars are zero-emission vehicles. But it may also be that the writers know – when they think about it – that it is untrue but still write it. Why? Because people seek conformity.

Figure 2: Use of the word "zero-emission vehicle"(“nullutslippskjøretøy” in Norwegian) in Norwegian media 2000–2022. Data from Atekst, January 17, 2023.

The paralyzing effect of conformity

Adam Smith explains in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) how people seek conformity. People are social and want to belong. Adam Smith explains – as a post-rationalization, not a reason – that conformity is necessary for people to function together. People expect us to keep appointments; if we have agreed to meet at one o'clock, we strive to keep the appointment and apologize if we fail to do so. In a discussion, people are expected not to talk over each other, to raise their hands when they have something to say, and to follow the rule "take the ball, not the man."

But Smith warns that conformity can be paralyzing. Conformity can inhibit new thinking and political innovation. Smith also explains how conformity can be broken. Smith’s explanation is the same as in Vaclav Havel’s story about the greengrocer in Prague

The paralyzing effect of conformity and how to break out of it is the theme of Vaclav Havel’s essay The Power of the Powerless (1978). Havel tells about the greengrocer who places the sign “Workers of the world, unite” in his window among the onions and vegetables. Why does the greengrocer do that? What is it that he wants to say to the world? Is he genuinely excited about all the workers of the world uniting? Does his excitement run so deep that he simply has to tell everyone else? Has he really thought about how such a union of the workers of the world would work and what this would mean?

The same questions can be asked about companies and organizations that declare that their social mission is to contribute to the green transition and sustainability. Why do banks, insurance companies, and cultural centers declare that their social mission is to contribute to sustainability goals? Is it an expression that the board members' genuine enthusiasm is so fundamental that they just have to tell everyone? Has the bank board really thought through how the bank will contribute to realizing the sustainability goals? Have they really thought through how the bank will contribute to the first and second sustainability goals of eradicating all poverty and hunger in the world? Or how the bank will contribute to achieving Goal 14 of stopping climate change?

The sustainability poster is used because everyone else is doing it. Displaying the poster is adapting to other people's expectations of what is right. Displaying the poster is being part of the conformist movement.

If people refuse to display the poster "We are committed to sustainability", they will get into trouble. The banks can lose money. Worse still, the members of the bank board lose social standing. Are you on a board that doesn't want to contribute to sustainability? How petty! You bankers are now always thinking only about money.

In applications to the Research Council of Norway, applicants are required or encouraged to describe how their research can impact the UN's

Sustainable Development Goals. In other words, the application must include the poster "My research supports the Sustainable Development Goals". Researchers who genuinely believe in the words of the poster have no problem placing the poster in their application. Researchers who are skeptical do so anyway because, without the poster, they do not get money and what comes with it. In order to be able to live a life of research and to continue the research he is interested in, he places the sign in his application. The case manager at the Research Council checks whether the poster is in the application; that is her job. If an application does not contain the word sustainability, the application is not processed. She risks unpleasant things at work if she had processed it. She will also live a life as a bureaucrat without too many problems.

The greengrocer's message to the outside world by putting up the poster "We contribute to sustainability" is to say "I live here in this society, I know what I have to do, I am obedient, and therefore I have the right to be in peace and to sell my vegetables." If the greengrocer is forced to put up the poster "I fear being socially excluded, I fear losing money, and therefore I am obedient," he will not be indifferent to the words on the poster, even if the words are true. The greengrocer will feel ashamed of being forced to put up such a poster in the window. After all, the greengrocer is a human being with decency.

Why did the greengrocer have to declare his loyalty by putting up the sign? It seems pointless to demand that the greengrocer put up the sustainability sign in the window. People overlook the greengrocer's sustainability sign because they see the same sign in the bank, the insurance company, on the bus, at school, and in the concert hall. The sign is everywhere.

The greengrocer displays his sustainability sign, not because anyone will read it or be convinced by it, but because by displaying the sign, the greengrocer says that he belongs to the community. He does as everyone else does; he wants to be socially included. If he one day takes down the

sign “we are committed to sustainability”, people may question whether he really belongs here. He fears breaking the rules of the game and thereby risking being socially isolated in society.

The real meaning of putting up the sign “we are committed to the green shift” has nothing to do with the text on the poster. The real meaning is that the greengrocer declares his loyalty to the green utopia. But by doing so, he becomes a player in the game and makes it possible for the game to continue. The bank manager, the researcher, and the caseworker at the research council, who initially doubted the words of the poster, become part of the game by following conformity.

This type of conformity opens the door to utopian climate policies. Conformity can lead to the idea and opinion not only falling outside the morally accepted, but also to the person expressing it being immoral. People who question the imagined consensus can be labeled immoral, as when the then UN Special Envoy for Climate Change Gro Harlem Brundtland, said that the science is settled and that it is immoral to raise questions about the seriousness of the situation (Brundtland, 2007). The lack of critical voices makes it easier to implement utopian climate policies.

Conclusion: How to break out of conformity

People who worry about climate change should also worry about utopian climate policies. An example of utopian climate policies is 50 billion NOK a year to subsidize electric cars. The effect of 50 billion NOK on global greenhouse gas is negligible if there is any effect at all. Alternatively, these billions in subsidies could be spent on hospitals, schools, and culture.

In order to achieve a realistic climate policy, it is necessary to break conformity by sharpening the language by following Orwell's language advice not to use words like green shifts, sustainable development, and climate crisis. And when you, as a reader, come across such words, be

critical; the words probably hide unclear thoughts. This will make it more difficult to implement utopian climate policies.

Sharpening the language requires a few people to break conformity. It takes a few people to stop putting the sustainability sign in the window. The greengrocer refrains from placing the sign in the window; he wants to concentrate on delivering good vegetables at a good price to his customers. The bank board says that we do not need a sustainability director; the bank's goal is to help its customers by realizing their wishes. Researchers can refrain from putting the sustainability poster in the application to the research council. Bureaucrats in the Ministry of Climate and Environment can say that it is inappropriate to write that electric cars are zero-emission cars.

When people start to speak their minds, they reject the rules of the game. People say that the emperor is naked. And since the emperor is actually naked, it may happen that other people wake up, and it is more difficult to implement utopian climate policies.

Sigve Tjøtta, Professor, Department of Economics, University of Bergen, Norway. email: sigve.tjotta@uib.no

This is a translation of the published article in Samfunnsøkonomen (Journal of the Norwegian Association of Economists): “Klimapolitikk og det norske språk” (2023, 3, 16-22) by Sigve Tjøtta. The link to the paper is: Klimapolitikk og det norske språk - Samfunnsøkonomen.

https://www.samfunnsokonomen.no/aktuell-kommentar/klimapolitikkog-det-norske-sprak/

Tjøtta wants to thank Hans K. Hvide, Martin Langlo, Nina Serdarevic and Kjell Vaage, and Samfunnsøkonomen’s editor Jan Yngve Sand for comments and input on versions of the Norwegian article. Erik Bye has translated the main text and had the idea to publish it in this Global project.

References

Bernheim, B. D. (1994). A Theory of Conformity. Journal of Political Economy, 102(5), 841-877.

Bolin, B. (2007). A history of the science and politics of climate change: the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

Brundland, G. H (2007). Brundland’s speech at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development.

Havel V. (1978). The Power of the Powerless. Downloaded here: thepower-of-the-powerless.pdf (nonviolent-conflict.org)

Hoel, M. (2020). Nasjonalbudsjettet: Utsikter for petroleum, klima og elbiler. Samfunnsøkonomen, 5, 29-33.

Holtsmark, B. (2020). Elektrifisering av veitransporten – hvaer miljøeffektene og kostnadene? Samfunnsøkonomen, 4, 50-65.

Johannesen, G. (1992). Retorikkens tre ansikter. Cappelens Forlag, Oslo.

Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English Language, Horizon, 13(76), 252265 from Orwell (2000, 348-363).

Orwell, G. (2000). George Orwell: Essays. Penguin Books, London. UK

Prop.1 LS (2022). Skatter, avgifter og toll 2023. Det kongeligefinansdepartementet, Oslo.

Prop. 1 S (2022). Statsbudsjettet 2023, Det kongeligefinansdepartementet, Oslo.

Prop. 1 Særskilt vedlegg til Prop 1 S (2022). Regjeringasklimastatus og –plan. Klima- og miljødepartementet, Oslo.

Smith, A. (1759/1976). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. The Glasgow Edition, Liberty Fund, Indiana.

Smith, A. (1776/1976). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations. The Glasgow Edition, Liberty Fund, Indiana.

Tjøtta, S. (2010). Grønn tragedie i Hardanger. Samfunnsøkonomen, 6, 2023.

Tjøtta, S. (2020 a). Nei til politisering av norske universiteter. Samfunnsøkonomen, 3, 6-12.

Tjøtta, S. (2020 b). Akademisk vasking av grønn politikk. Samfunnsøkonomen, 5, 71-73.

Tjøtta, S. (2023). Klimapolitikk og det norske språk. Samfunnsøkonomen, 3, 16-22.