Financial crisis? Pollution is a greater threat<?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Despite the ongoing financial crisis, you think that the fight against climate change is currently the most important issue. Why does this area deserve the greatest emphasis?
The preservation of the environment is a topic that is here today and it is much more important, deep and permanent than the financial crisis. There is no chance that it will disappear on its own, the world leaders must respond to it. We can see it on the news – stronger hurricanes in the Caribbean, floods on large rivers... We can already feel the consequences in Norway, too – the weather has got worse and the glaciers in the northern part of the country are melting. The world leaders must get together in Copenhagen (ed. note: at the UN Climate Change Conference at the turn of November and December) to find a recipe for tackling this problem. We have to set strict emission reduction targets in Europe. We know that some governments have doubts about this, but this is normal in a process like this. In any case, strict emission reduction targets need to be set throughout the developed world. Norway has set the goal to cut down 1990 emissions by 30 percent by 2020.
Key for achieving success in Copenhagen are American leaders – the U.S. President has to take the main initiative, Europe cannot win this fight alone. Climate issues can only be resolved in the U.S. – Europe – China triangle. China will join if the U.S. take the lead. And I am sure that Obama will not stand aside. Funding is also essential, enormous resources are needed. These can be raised from the market. If two percent of the trade in carbon dioxide emissions is used for the fight against climate change, this will be twenty billion dollars. But I do not rule out other proposals either.

Europe itself is not united over this issue and countries such as Romania and Poland, which are using their coal reserves, are against it.
I would rather not comment the concerns of the Poles, but every country has its own specific interests and it is always necessary to seek a compromise. Drawing on its past experience, the European Union is able to find solutions for specific concerns of individual Member States. It is important to realise that even countries such as the U.S. and China, not to mention the third world countries, have concerns regarding effective methods of countering climate change. The situation with respect to the approach to solutions in specific countries also varies. Here in Norway, there are voices saying that we should not fight with carbon dioxide reduction at home but in China, where there is very much to do. In the United States, they are of a different opinion – they want to spend their money at home, not on the other side of the world. The methods of countering environmental changes must arise from a consensus and be acceptable to everyone.

Photo: Martin Kóňa - Hospodárske noviny

Can the current financial crisis reduce politicians’ willingness to fight climate change? At the moment, voters are more interested in keeping their jobs than in action to preserve the environment, which could in turn pose a threat to their jobs.
I think that the financial crisis cannot serve as an apology for doing nothing for the environment. Some leaders who speak about this topic were not willing to deal with environmental issues even before the crisis came. Countries should make use of the current developments to transform their economies. A green global economy should come out of the crisis. Otherwise, although we will resolve this crisis, we will find ourselves in a much greater and more costly one – the climate change.
Two ideals have died due to the financial crisis. The first is the opinion that markets can cure themselves. This ideal has died just like Communism did in 1989. Also dead is the widespread opinion from George W. Bush’s first term of office that the U.S. can resolve global issues. We can see that even the world’s largest economy needs to draw new strength. The U.S. were not even able to resolve their own domestic financial problems and neither can they resolve the problems of Iraq or Afghanistan. Key global issues can only be resolved by the major powers and economies of the world working together with support from smaller nations. This is positive information.

How can Norway be of help in the fight for a better environment?
We are a small country but I can see a number of areas where we can be active. One of them is shipbuilding, where we are number five in the world. Another area are the issues related to the Arctic and Antarctica. I have invited the world leaders to visit Svalbard to see the scope of climate change for themselves. The storage of carbon dioxide is also an interesting topic. Unfortunately, we have the most up-to-date facility of this kind in the world in Mongstad (ed. note: a refinery nearby the port of Bergen). I’m saying unfortunately, because we would be much happier if there were dozens of such facilities built all over the world. We need this technology, but it has to be commercially attractive. Another interest of ours is the conservation of rain forests; we have committed ourselves to contributing six hundred million dollars annually to the preservation of the forests over the next five years.

You have a special carbon dioxide tax in Norway. Does it help you in the fight for a better environment?
Yes, this tax applies to the oil and gas industries. We introduced it in 1990 and it has been a very good lesson. At the time it was introduced, enterprises complained that it would put them out of business. It proved so good, however, that a number of politicians are now arguing over the authorship of this idea. The tax has helped the industry to be more competitive in the long run. I think this is also a good lesson for the times of a financial crisis – Mr Berlusconi is wrong when he says that the industry should not change. Why is Toyota much more successful than General Motors today? Because in the 90s Toyota chose the path of change, while General Motors were sending delegations to Washington to lobby against changes. This is a fundamental difference – only companies capable of adapting to new environmental challenges will be successful. And they will deserve it.

Do you expect a conflict in connection with the new natural resources in the Arctic region?
Certainly not a military one, but I do expect tough discussions on this topic. When the ice in the Arctic disappears, commercial exploration for new oil and gas deposits will become much cheaper. Moreover, there will be new sea-ways. The shortest route from Rotterdam to Yokohama or Shanghai is through the northern pole. It is just slightly more than half the distance of the route through the Suez Canal. This obviously involves the risk of environmental damage, but also much greater opportunities for commercial utilisation of the Arctic region. There are parts of the North Sea that have yet to be discussed with the Russian party. Nevertheless, we believe that we will gradually come to an agreement and that international developments in the area around the northern pole will take a similar direction.

There are also opinions that global warming is a consequence of natural cycles and it is not man made in essence. Aren’t you concerned that this opinion will be more comfortable for world politicians?
Obviously, there are many stupid politicians around the world. Still, the problem of climate change needs to be dealt with today because it will be much more evident and much more expensive in the future. This is a very strong argument and there is no doubt that the key European leaders, such as Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown or Nicolas Sarkozy, are aware of this and personally believe in scientific evidence of human impact on the environment. In his second term of office, George W. Bush also tried to correct his mistakes from the first four years. I believe that his successor will be much more willing to co-operate with other world powers. The situation today is completely different – who would have thought in 2003 that in five years the United States would be dependant on help from the rest of the world?