THE NORWEGIAN PEOPLE GOTACRAPPACK!
Erik Bye
November 3, 2025
This article is from the Home Page of the Norwegian organization Klimarealistene (i.e., The Climate Realists), written by its Chairman, Professor Emeritus Olav M. Kvalheim. I translated the document.
Background
Ap/H (*) was afraid that FrP (**) might come into government after the election and not acceptAp/H's climate policy. Out of fear for the voters,Ap/H therefore wanted to bind its policy to a law. The leader of Klimarealistene, Olav Martin Kvalheim, writes about such a crap package in this post.
(*)Ap is The Social Democrats or The Labour; H is The Conservatives. (**) FrP is The Progress Party.
Introduction
At one of the last meetings of the previous Parliament’s term of office, theAp/H pair ensured that a new law was passed that bound future Parliaments to implement "forever" what Ap/H passed just before the Parliament was dissolved in mid-June 2025. They were in a hurry because they were afraid of losing the election in September.
The policy can be changed by a future Parliament, but then the Paris Agreement must be terminated.
In practice, this is an example of politics being removed from the traditional democratic arenas and moved into courtrooms, and decided by judges.And there is no doubt that this is whatAp/H wanted to ensure. The laws become political, throwing balls that are passed and repealed in an ongoing process, while a random majority can hope that not all laws are repealed with changing government majorities.
This urgent decision, just before an electionAp/H could lose, is called by the chairman of the Climate Realists, Olav Martin Kvalheim, apt for a crap package before the election, a climate policy crap package. TheAp/H parties feared a possible FrP government, and therefore wanted, with the support of the climate parties MDG, V, SV and Rødt (*), to prevent the new Parliament from pursuing a policy that a majority of the voters want. This political assault, this crap package, is what Chairman Kvalheim writes about in this post. Editor of Klimarealistene.
(*) MDG is The Green Party; V is The Liberal Party; SV is The Socialist Party; Rødt is The Red Party.
The Government and the Parliament’s summer greetings to the people:
Aclimate policy crap package: 70-75% CO2 cut by 2035
With an uncertain election result in sight and a possible FrP-led government in sight, the Parliament was in full swing with many decisions on the climate front before the Parliament took its vacation in mid-June.Among many urgent decisions was yet another intrusive EU directive that will cost homeowners hundreds of thousands of NOK if implemented.
The government has sent a controversial EU directive for consultation in Norway.
Even worse was that most of the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party decided to tighten climate policy by adopting a target of 70-75% CO2 cuts by 2035. The parties on the left wanted to go even further, demanding that most of the cuts be made nationally instead of buying climate quotas. The only sober party in the Parliament was the FrP. They have not been involved in raising the cut target to more than 40%, while the other parties raised the target to 55% as late as 2022. Since leaving the Solberg government (Erna Solberg (H) was the prime minister), the FrP has also proposed that CO2 absorption in forests should be included in the CO2 accounting. This would provide over 30% direct cuts in Norwegian emissions now and increase to 85-90% cuts over the next 50 years
(Past and future climate effects of the Norwegian and Swedish forest-based sector, Peter Holmgren, June 2024).
From policy to law - Climate cuts become law
70-75% CO2 cuts by 2035, i.e., 70-75% CO2 cuts compared to 1990 levels, were also made law in the ClimateAct, and as if that were not enough, the Labour Party government was lightning fast in getting this included in the Paris Agreement. Since it is not possible to reduce the level of ambition that has been included in the ParisAgreement, the government has thus tied all future Parliaments and governments to this goal.
In this sense, one can argue that the emergency decision just before the dissolution of the Parliament in mid-June was directly undemocratic.
And it will cost us dearly. In their eagerness for Norway to be the best in the world in CO2 reduction, these politicians may also have ensured that Norway is left with yet another black mark. These goals may end up being more ambitious than what the EU will submit to the ParisAgreement.
Parliament and the Labour Party government do not follow up on these unrealistic emergency decisions with extremely expensive CO2 cuts. In their eagerness for Norway to be the best in the world in CO2 reduction, these politicians may also have ensured that Norway is left with yet another black mark, in that these goals may end up being more ambitious than what the EU will submit to the Paris Agreement, according to Magnus Blaker in Nettavisen (ANorwegian Newspaper, 2025):
Norway is committed to enormously expensive reductions. What happens if we do not achieve our climate goals?
This is what happens when politicians with a Messiah complex, "we must save the planet", and a large state pension fund to scoop off, are at the helm.
Many voters will probably rightly feel that they have been deceived by these politicians. This is because the size of the bill increasingly materializes with increased taxes and costs for ordinary people and businesses. This might appear as lost competitiveness and industrial death, loss of jobs, and welfare for the population.
(Will the Parliament adopt new unrealistic climate goals during the Spring? –Climate Realists.)
And on top of this, the same politicians have adopted a regulation for CO2 absorption in forests so that it does not contribute positively to Norway either, but, on the contrary, will cost tens of billions of NOK.
Either out of the ParisAgreement, or Norwegian industry dies
Since it is not possible to reduce the ambitions in the Paris Agreement, only termination of the agreement can save us from industrial death, nature destruction and welfare loss. This will probably be a good election campaign issue for FrP and possibly Sp (*) if they get rid of the Labour Party tie before the next election in 2029.
In this parliamentary term, the most important thing will be to mobilize against new climate measures.And use all platforms available to inform the population and contribute as best as possible to slowing down and preventing the start of new measures. Then one can hope that the climate parties will also contribute to their own downfall with unpopular measures such as increased taxes on fuel, road tolls, and other climate taxes that contribute to increased living costs and reduced welfare for the population.
(*) Sp is The Center Party.