From economic cost-efficiency to a technological and developmental opportunity? Analysing the Climate Issue in White Paper 13 (2020-2021).

Abstract

In 2021 the Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment wrote a report to the Storting (White Paper) on the efforts needed and the possibilities the country has when it comes to actions to handle the climate issue. It was named “Norway´s Climate Action Plan for 2021-2030” and it provides insight and can function as a tool to better understand what the climate issue is for the state and how they intend to handle it. Existing research has shown that Norway previously has largely focused on economic rationality and top-down initiatives like carbon taxes, international markets for emission reductions and quotas, and flexible mechanisms. However, with new and more ambitious targets in the Paris Agreement, many countries have moved towards a different framing of the issue. To what extent is such a modification present in the Norwegian government´s handling of the climate issue in White Paper 13? This thesis is a practice-oriented analysis of the document “Meld. St. 13 (2020-2021)”. Specifically, I examine whether the document modifies the climate issue and what type of expertise becomes necessary and recognised by the way the issue is portrayed and understood in this document. My analysis draws on several concepts from Science and Technology Studies (STS) like issue framing, issue modification, and hybrid management. I am trying to answer the following research question: Does the St. Meld. 13 (White Paper 13) modify the climate issue, and also modify which expertise becomes relevant for dealing with the issue? My examination of the document has shown that the framing of the climate issue is to a lesser extent focused on cost-efficiency and economic rationality, and to a greater extent focused on transition, transformation, opportunities, and development than what is evident in previous research. The document presents the climate issue as a more compartmentalised issue, where the different emissions categories are treated with different logic and require support from different types of expertise. The economic policy instruments, like the carbon tax, are still the most important but the necessity for other policy tools to reach the goals is communicated.