NORWAY’S DEEP-SEA MINING DECISION:

Norway, the land of stunning fjords, amazing skiers, legendary Vikings, and now apparently deep-sea mining. Norway has decided to grant exploration permits for deep-sea mining in the Barents Sea and the Greenland Sea, despite facing significant opposition from the public and civil society organizations. Because who needs untouched ocean floors when you get to extract copper, zinc, cobalt, and uranium. According to a recent resource assessment conducted by the Norwegian Oil Directorate, millions of seabed mineral reserves have been identified in the Norwegian waters off the Arctic Ocean. The warnings and precautions voiced by numerous environmentalists as well as the assessment provided by the Norwegian government’s own Environment Agency, highlighting the potential impacts of such activities, fell on deaf ears, because Norway’s enthusiasm for digging up these minerals seems deeper than the ocean itself. It is almost as if they have found gold! Oh sorry, I meant cobalt.

Let’s not kid ourselves, this is not like sticking a toe in the water to see how cold the water is. This decision certainly would go beyond the exploration level and would not remain confined to limited areas. It represents just the tip of a massive iceberg plaguing the Norwegian environmental politics. It is like they looked at the debacle around the controversial, human-rights violating wind parks in Fosen, and said: “Hold my beer!”

While such decisions disappoint, it should not come as a surprise once we look at the way policies are made. In theory, the public policy process follows a neat progression, starting with agendasetting, then formulation, adoption, and feedback. But let’s face it, reality is a lot messier than that. Instead of a smooth process, we’ve got a wild bunch of players with varying levels of power pulling the strings. Basically, those with the most sway get to call the shots on what gets on the agenda. That’s why stakeholders often team up in coalitions to boost their political muscle, even sometimes unknowingly. And yeah, there’s usually one big dog in the yard.

In our case, the deep-sea mining fan club was the big dog in the yard which resulted in the decision to allow deep-sea mining exploration activities in Norway. However, this outcome did not arise solely from formal coalitions based on agreements and behindthe-scenes negotiations among parties such as Arbeiderpartiet, Senterpartiet, Fremskrittspartiet, and Høyre. Beneath the surface of these coalitions, there is a battle of narratives that shape how we interpret things, and the way things are interpreted has a big say in how we respond to those issues. In the Norwegian public policy, the prevailing narrative embraces ideals like green growth, sustainable development, and decarbonization through technology and management as key solutions to environmental degradation. For example, the Oil and Energy Minister of Norway blames the imperative of cutting emissions as the reason why we need to extract minerals from the ocean floors. Unfortunately, this narrative is embraced as a belief system by most political parties in Norway, setting the stage for the acceptance of deep-sea mining as being part of the so-called green transition. Even parties like Miljøpartiet De Grønne, who oppose deep-sea mining, find themselves entangled in these normative principles.

We are stuck in this, let’s call it, bad religion. We are singing beautiful hymns about sustainability while we are drilling deeper than ever. Simply put, in this belief system, decarbonization is not understood as reducing emissions and scaling down, but rather as economic growth with a sprinkle of recycling and a dash of electric cars. So, the question is: how did we end up tangled in this bad religion? Crises and the public perception of issues often create openings for policy shifts. Take climate change, for instance: we (or at least some of us) have known that we must take action to mitigate climate change, and this meant policy change, shifting away from business as usual. Instead of tackling it headon, the growth worshippers were able to strategically get green growth and sustainable development adopted as policy solutions to environmental degradation. Meanwhile, other alternatives get pushed to the sidelines until the next opportunity arises. This is why deep-sea mining is on the spotlight as a policy solution while solutions envisioned by non-growth thinking never see the light of day.

On top of that, policymaking is also characterized by some sort of inertia—a resistance to drastic shifts in direction. Take the example of fossil fuels as a clear illustration of this inertia. Despite knowing very well the urgency of phasing out fossil fuels, our commitment has been hindered by the significant investment poured into this industry. This resulted in a path dependency that has complicated the shift to other sources of energy. The last thing we want is another dangerous path dependency with substantial ecological impacts. Sadly, our unwavering pursuit of economic growth, often sugarcoated with sustainability rhetoric, has led us down a path where we are often bound to very specific policy avenues. Norway’s deep-sea mining adventurism can be another big step towards committing us more to this harmful path.

So, here we are! Norway, embracing marine extractivism like it is the panacea to all our problems. This decision cannot be divorced from our bad religion replete with flawed assumptions and antiecological values. This decision should act as a wakeup call, stopping us from walking down this misguided trajectory of our recent policymaking in response to environmental degradation. Perhaps we can seize this challenge as an opportunity to subvert the prevailing altar of endless growth, making room for alternative policy pathways to finally grab the mic.

NORWAY’S DEEP-SEA MINING DECISION: ANOTHER NOT SURPRISING DISAPPOINTMENT