Norway, like any other country, has its slew of environmental issues and challenges that it must faced in order to progress forward into a more sustainable and responsible way of life for its citizenry. The most pressing of issues, listed by degree of most sever to least are that of climate change, the management of hazardous materials, and the conservation of biological diversity(norway.org). None of these issues are unique to Norway, of course, but the method in which it handles these pressing matters can be felt by its neighboring Scandinavian countries and must work with them in order to achieve true progress. Also, the Norwegian people as a whole have to come to the realization of the fact that climate change and the mismanagement of hazardous materials is a very real and imminent danger and that the main waste created by modern everyday life has to be taken care of, but bringing the public eye onto it and sparking public action is no simple task in this Nordic country.
Norway's government has been working to keep inline with its plan laid out in line with the Kyoto Protocol, in that they are pushing to reduce their 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by the year 2020. This isn't the only goal, but it stands as a message to the global community that they are willing to work on changing the current methods and means of production and manufacture in order to move towards a more sustainable method of industry. Norway is keenly affected by climate change in the way of the strain placed on their agricultural and livestock sectors. Climate change has a real effect on the severity of their winters, the varying fluctuations of of needed inclement weather such as the rains and snow melt which become increasingly more erratic in the past 50 years. However, even though the government and the media has taken its stance on the reality of climate change and the effects it has on the nation there is still some delay in action by the public.
According to Norgaard, the public response from the Norwegian people to climate change and environmental issues has been an issue in of itself. Bringing the spotlight to these issues hasn't been enough in the way of making the citizenry take to hear the potential danger that damage to the environment can cause for them. In her article she draws out how concern for the effects of climate change dwindled over the years despite that proof for climate change has accumulated and become much more reliable. In response to this, Norway needs to make for a much public face and emphasize its stance on climate change, not only with neighboring countries and international environmental allies, but that it must strengthen its base. Mobilizing its citizenry in meaningful and effective ways to show the real issues of climate change and the dangers it poses might bring them to take more active roles. Promoting awareness isn't enough in this arena, there needs to be a real drive to involve them in the action.
When the question of hazardous chemicals and toxic waste is brought up, there is no need to look further then to the further reaches of Norway's mountainous regions. Northern areas have turned into “geographical dumping grounds,” due in no small part to chemicals produced within Norway. This isn't the only factor, as pollutants also flow in via ocean currents and wind currents, ultimately dropping off waste within this region. From this aspect, Norway has to work both internally with its people to carry on a more sustainable lifestyle, but it must also turn its attention to the international scene and make its stance known that they aren't a dumping ground for other nations. Norway has taken to the international arena in the form of taking part in various organizations and the adoptions environmental protocols such as those of Kyoto and Cartegena meaning that it isn't dragging its feet in respect to the dangers of chemicals.
Chemicals have become a necessity in the Norwegian modern lifestyle, but the health risks associated with them are nothing to take lightly. Norway has put into effect several policies on the issues on the chemicals known to be hazardous in the past.
“However, new hazardous substances, including organic pollutants such as brominated flame retardants and PFOS, are being detected in the Norwegian environment. Some of this pollution is of local origin, but a substantial proportion is transported from other countries with winds and ocean currents(environment.no. “Hazardous Chemicals”).”These new issues must be addressed as well in order to mitigate and prevent the serious impacts that the chemicals can have on the health of people and further the degradation of current natural environments. In reference to the dumping grounds, there is much information about Northern Norway and the strain that has been placed on the grazing lands and mountain areas as it is a place of concentration for hazardous chemicals that have a direct link to Norway's food, making it a very important issue(Löffler). The effects on pasture lands is something that comes into danger not only with climate change and chemicals, but also in the way that Norway handles its livestock, which carries its own consequences on the the biological diversity of the region.
The Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre in November 2010 published their “Red List” denoting over 3800 species of animals that were in danger of extinction (environment.no. “Biodiversity”). However, this does come into a degree of conflict with a section of Norwegian whaling culture. One key area of controversy is that of the inordinate pressure coming from the conflict between the local Norwegian whaling industry, marine biologists, and the whaling tourism industry. We see here that Norway is no way a country blameless in its share of overfishing and adding considerable strain to the environment off its shores. The fact that this has become an issue with whaling nations like Norway show that there has been a long standing move towards progress in these areas, and anti-whaling campaigns have carried on for the past couple of decades and continue to do so(Ris). A few ways that this has been handled in the way of tourism is the proposal of whale-watching centered tourism instead of that of the celebration of a now globally demonized whaling culture. Marine areas not wholly out of mind, Norway has been and is officially committed to sustaining biological diversity and upholding the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety, which ingrains itself in the responsible handling of living modified organisms, which directly affect the of life in Norway, even if the effects are not always readily observable.
environment.no. “Biodiversity,” “Hazardous Chemicals,”
Löffler, Jörg. “High Mountain Ecosystems and Landscape Degradation in Northern Norway”. Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Nov., 2000), pp. 356-363
Norgaard, Kari Marie. “'We Don't Really Want to Know' Environmental Justice and Socially Organized Denial of Global Warming in Norway.” Organization Environment. 2006 19: 347
norway.org. “International Environmental Cooperation”
Ris Mats. “Conflicting Cultural Values: Whale Tourism in Northern Norway.” Arctic, Vol. 46, No. 2, Community-Based Whaling in the North (Jun., 1993), pp. 156-163