Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre
Changes in the Arctic and Impacts Beyond
Washington D.C., 15 June 2006

Address at the Transatlantic symposium on how changes in the Arctic climate are affecting the rest of the world

Senators
Excellencies
Ladies and gentlemen

It is the second time that I have the opportunity to address the critical theme of climate change and the Arctic as Foreign Minister. The last time was just two weeks after taking office, in October last year. I spoke then, as now, here in Washington D.C., and it is a particular honour that this event is being held at such a respected venue as the US Senate.

I would like to thank Senator John McCain, with all his broad dedicated commitment, for being with us and the organisers of this seminar for giving me the opportunity to speak to you on Norway’s perspectives on climate change in the Arctic.

Speaking on this theme in an American setting seems appropriate for several reasons.

One reason is that the United States, like Norway, is an Arctic nation. We both see and feel the impacts of climate changes. As Arctic nations, we both have to face immediate challenges in our respective high norths.

Secondly, we are imploring our American friends to assume leadership in the global efforts to halt climate change. We are being held back in our efforts and will not be able to make progress until the United States engages – not only with all its technological knowledge, skills and talent – but also with its political dedication and leadership.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) drawn up by Dr Corell and his large group of researchers from all of the Arctic states has set out the basic facts about climate change in the Arctic.

It is happening now. The Artic ice is melting. 

We are seeing it with our own eyes – you saw it, Senator McCain, when you visited Svalbard two years ago. The Impact Assessment shows what the figures and tables mean in practice.

Let’s be clear about it: Climate change is taking place on our doorstep.

Time for asking the if-questions are gone.

We are now faced with the how-to-respond questions.

We know that climate change will affect industries, infrastructure, transport and other vital areas of human life.

The Arctic is critical because it tells us what is about to happen further south – in fact not in a distant future, some of these changes may already be happening right now, as the violent hurricanes further south may indicate.

Today, we know that the effects of climate change are first seen in the Arctic, and that these changes will affect the whole of the world. When ice melts, darker land is laid bare and heat absorption increases. So does global warming.

Thus, developments in the Arctic are a clear “early warning” signal to the whole world that should spur dedicated efforts by decision shapers and decision makers from all walks of life, at national, regional and global levels. The message is loud and clear, and it is supported by scientific evidence.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment is a scientific clarion call. Many start to take notice, but I believe that is reminding us about something else. We need science. We need to invest in research and scientific scrutiny to raise awareness and help guide political action.

At the same time, what has taken place during these last years also tell us that the traditional scientific reports are not enough, especially not when their message is detailed and technical. Such reports do not immediately move hearts and minds.

For many people the prospect of an average rise in temperature of two degrees over a number of decades does not seem dramatic to their life outlook. Politicians, focusing on re-election some months ahead may be less inclined to act on challenges that will unfold gradually during a century.

Maybe we need to adjust our approach. On the one hand, we need to invite acting politicians – members of elected parliaments, members of governments – all those who run for office – to take more direct part in the process of elaborating scientific studies on climate and environmental issues.

There can be no compromise as to respecting the strictest of scientific standards. But more can be done to build bridges from the world of science to the world of politics. Political actors need to be involved at an early stage to see the credibility of the evidence for themselves. They need to be involved in the process so that they can start focusing on how society can and should respond, and how burdens can be shouldered. That is their responsibility in democracy.

One more dimension to this. Compelling evidence of scientific reports is one thing. Seeing change happen is another. Seeing is believing.

Senator McCain came to Svalbard, he saw, and he believed that climate change really is taking place. – And ever since your voice has been heard in the American debate and in the international debate.

Last April, I met the newly elected British Tory leader, David Cameron, on a visit to Svalbard. He, too, went to see for himself and concluded that the climate change warnings were worth believing.

We need to narrow the gap between knowledge and political action. Svalbard offers the world’s best viewpoint of the Arctic.

I have proposed to Senator McCain that we organise a visiting programme to give his fellow senators and other elected representatives of the people in the Arctic region the opportunity to come and see for themselves so that they can match their impressions with scientific evidence and gain stronger incentives to move towards political action.

Norway is taking over Presidency of the Arctic Council in October. I believe that contact between politicians, officials and researchers and the networks they develop would help boost relations among Arctic states. Research cooperation between our countries is alive and flourishing, and we will do what we can to keep it that way.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Norway is an Arctic nation. The High North will be the Norwegian Government’s most important strategic area in the years to come. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, Norway’s interests in this region area are as strong as they are permanent. One third of mainland Norway stretches north of the Arctic Circle. Norwegian jurisdiction in the Arctic covers an area six times the size of mainland Norway.

Secondly, the Arctic contains rich and valuable natural resources. The marine ecosystems in the Barents Sea are some of the most productive in the world and are an important source of fish to the European market. These resources must be managed in such a way that they can continue to secure important food supplies, jobs and income for future generations.

Flying into Washington D.C. I passed over New Foundland. In the bestselling book on the Cod – the Fish that Changed the World – we are reminded about what happened there – in the waters outside New Foundland. From being among the most valuable fishing fields in the world, failing management led to a near destruction of the stock of cod.

We are adamant that should not happen in our waters. Norway and Russia manage the Norwegian Arctic Cod together. This far we have succeeded in striking the balance of sustainable management. But the pressure is hard, from illegal fishing and disrespect of quotas. All the more necessary to maintain firm and predictable control from the coastal state, as well as by the port authorities were the fish is landed.

Thirdly, the Barents Sea is emerging as a new European natural gas region. Next year the first tankers of natural gas will be heading for the US east coast from Norway’s and Europe’s northernmost town of Hammerfest. New and expansive plans are developed for Russian production and exports. And we are hopeful to see new discoveries in the Norwegian part of the Barents Sea.

Petroleum production in the Norwegian part of the Barents Sea will be based on a careful assessment of environmental risks and constraints. Operators on the Norwegian continental shelf have to abide by the world’s most stringent environmental regulations. That should indeed be our vision for the entire Barents Sea.

Norway and Russia are expanding their bilateral relations, stimulated and encouraged by closer cooperation and exchange in the High North.

This used to be one of the centre stages of the cold war – where East met West. Today the perspectives are changing, opening up the vision of seeing the Barents Sea emerging as a sea of cooperation.

Environmental challenges emerged after the Cold War. One particular challenge was how to address yet another deadly legacy of the military arsenal on the Russian side – the unsafe storage of nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. A major international undertaking has made a real difference. Speaking here at the US Senate it is my pleasure to pay tribute to the initiative by Senators Nunn and Lugar back in the 1990’ies – and in particular to Senator Lugar’s tireless engagement to take this agenda forward – not only in words but also in action.

In the High North, Norway will continue to engage political allies to help back up a regime of peace, stability and predictability in the region. That requires close political dialogue and the involvement of our friends and partners on both sides of the Atlantic.

In this perspective we need to fully understand the scope of climate change, its implications for activities in the North, and its impacts on the rest of the world and our policy options.

How are we to meet the challenge?

Climate change calls for solidarity and shared responsibilities. While industrialised countries – including Norway and the US – have caused most of the climate change up to now, developing countries continue to pay the highest price in terms of impacts.

Norway wants to see more ambitious commitments for the second commitment period under the Kyoto protocol. We stand ready to take our share.

More states need to be brought along. Those states that have taken on commitments to reduce emissions represent less than one third of global emissions.

And the share is shrinking. More need to see incentives to come on board if we are to reach the ultimate objective of the Climate Change Convention of “preventing dangerous man-made interference with the climate system”.

Norway must do its part. We know that it will be painful. A particular responsibility rests with the major emitters, and especially the United States, which is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

The US must take its own decisions, and I know that joining the Kyoto Protocol will represent a great challenge. But without US involvement – with its technology, its economic drive and its role in the world, there are so obvious limit to what the world can achieve – there are so obvious limits to our ability to persuade large emitters in the developing world to accept emission reduction commitments.

Technology has to play an important role. One niche where Norway may provide a major contribution is within the field of carbon capture and storage.

Norway has almost ten years’ experience of large-scale carbon dioxide storage from the offshore field Sleipner in the North Sea. We now face a realistic future where industry can realise carbon dioxide capture at gas fired power plants, thus providing a major leap forward technologically and environmentally.

Technology is key. But technology cannot replace binding international commitments to limit and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Moving back to the High North, next March will mark the start of the International Polar Year (2007-2008). This will be a boost for international cooperation on research in the Arctic and the Antarctic and I look forward to see close cooperation between Norway and the United States.

We have the right to expect that important new knowledge and expertise will be developed during the Polar Year. The Polar Regions are remote parts of the Earth that have profound significance for the climate, and ultimately environments, ecosystems and human life all over the planet.

We should strive for the establishment of permanent Arctic stations for recording environmental data as a basis for sound research. Monitoring needs to be carried out all round the Pole. In the North, this requires direct engagement by all Arctic states, including Russia with its huge Arctic areas.

Let me end by expressing our gratitude for the vital role the US has played in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment process.

The US initiated the process, the US chaired it and the US made the largest scientific input. I hope that its findings will be taken up by the US political system and lead to action being taken.

The follow-up of ACIA the study be one of our main priorities during Norway’s forthcoming chairmanship in the Arctic Council.

We have been inspired by this experience and we believe that the method of this study could be of interest to other exposed regions of the world. Why not support a similar approach to the region of the Himalaya – confronted with a very dramatic scenario of melting snow and ice – leading first to floods and thereafter to drought – influencing the lives of millions if not billions.

We need to increase research on the driving forces of climate change in the Arctic as well as the impacts.

This is a high priority for Norway.

Not knowing could always be an excuse for not doing. Now we know. The ice is already melting. So time has come to act.

# # #