Abstract
Abstract The Arctic is both a place disproportionately affected by climate change and a place that has been, and continues to be, subject to large-scale oil-and-gas development. Production and subsequent combustion of these resources would compromise the treaty-established target of keeping global warming ‘well below’ 2°C. The global regulatory efforts on climate change are centred on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel consumption, almost ignoring the supply side. In the absence of universal and strict emission-reduction targets, petroleum exports and carbon leakage jeopardize the effectiveness of the climate change regime. Through the examination of treaties and national practice, this paper argues for the establishment of accountability for the production of Arctic petroleum in light of climate change.
Highlights
The ipcc’s Fifth Assessment Report stated that the ‘the estimate of the total fossil fuel reserves and resources[1] contains sufficient carbon to yield, if released, via free access accountability for fossil-fuel supply radiative forcing above that required to limit global mean temperature change to less than 2°C.’2 In order to meet climate goals, a third of the oil reserves and half of the gas reserves must remain unused.[3]
Through the examination of treaties and national practice, this paper argues for the establishment of accountability for the production of Arctic petroleum in light of climate change
This article explores the reasoning of the court and potential avenues for accountability for the climate effects of Arctic petroleum production
Summary
The ipcc’s Fifth Assessment Report stated that the ‘the estimate of the total fossil fuel reserves and resources[1] contains sufficient carbon to yield, if released,. Arctic Oil, two environmental ngos argued that the Norwegian government’s decision to award production licenses in the Barents Sea violates the right to a healthy environment recognized in the Norwegian Constitution and is incompatible with Norway’s obligations under the climate change treaties, notwithstanding the fact that Norway exports most of the petroleum it produces.[16] The case had been decided in favour of the government.[17] While the Court of Appeal, in January 2020, confirmed the holding,[18] the judgment does not in principle dispense with the possibility of accountability for what might be called exported emissions, and it offers some insights on the inclusion of entailed climatic effects at the planning stage. Aside from climatic concerns, Arctic petroleum development raises a number of questions on the role of international law in effectively regulating maritime delimitation,[89] shipping,[90] marine pollution,[91] and indigenous rights.[92]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
