Norway and the United States in the 21st Century

Check against delivery

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you, Dean Atwood, for inviting me to speak here today and for your warm words of welcome.

Let me start with a very personal reflection. Last week I spent a few days of my Easter holiday up in the Norwegian mountains, at our family cottage in Tunhovd, in the valley of Numedal, located in the northern part of the county of Buskerud.

These are very traditional Norwegian moments, going skiing in the eternal and peaceful mountains, reflecting on so many things. Then on Good Friday I went to the local church in Tunhovd. Outside the entry a modest stone has been erected bearing a telling inscription: “Senator Herbjørn Strøm – 1846–1917, North Dakota”.

For the rest of those Easter days, I kept reflecting on the life of Herbjørn Strøm. The view of the valley I had from the mountain tops must be almost the same as the one young Herbjørn saw from those same mountain tops in the 1850s.

And I asked myself: How was it to grow up in Tunhovd in the middle of the 19th century? What made him leave his childhood valley, what were his dreams and fears?

What did he encounter on the other side of the Atlantic, and what was he made of – this son of Norway who rose to such a high office in his new home state of North Dakota?

There were many more like him. Their emigration shaped the country they left behind – as it shaped the country they reached.

Today Norwegian-Americans outnumber Norway’s own population of 4.6 million. So in a way I feel that I am not so much in “Little Norway”, but rather in the centre of “Greater Norway”.

And it feels good. It is indeed a great privilege for me to address you here at the renowned Hubert H. Humphrey Institute. As a Norwegian I feel proud to recall that Minnesota has fostered two great vice presidents of Norwegian-American descent – Hubert H. Humphrey and Walter Mondale. Their ascent to top government offices – and that of young Herbjørn Strøm – testify to the determination and hard work that characterised Norwegian immigrants to the United States.

Dear friends,

There are two main topics that I would like to highlight this afternoon.

Firstly, a further reflection on the special ties between Norway and the United States, and why this partnership matters so much to us.

And secondly, I would like to address a few of the international issues that lie ahead of us and that require the best efforts that international partnerships – such as ours – can mobilise.

Let me return to that extraordinary period of emigration. Most of the people who left were poor, but they established a history that was rich in adventure.

I thought about it as I spent those Easter days with my wife and children. My three sons are growing up in one of the richest countries of the world. Herbjørn Strøm and Vice President Mondale’s grandparents left one of Europe’s poorest countries. What a profound change in a couple of generations.

Between1900 and 1910 alone, a total of 190 000 people emigrated from Norway, most of them to the United States. And this was out of a total population of little more than 2 million.

If we look at the local perspective, at the end of the 19th century around 180 people were living in the village of Tunhovd in Numedal. During the latter part of the century more than 200 had left for the United States. Imagine what that did to the village.

The country they had left was poor, and there were great social disparities. There were, for example, more children registered as industrial employees in Norway than in Sweden, the UK or the US.

Most Norwegians came to the Midwest, embraced their new fatherland and at the same time retained their own identity. North Dakota Senator Herbjørn Strøm wrote two books about his emigration from the valley of Numedal.

Since then the Midwest has been fertile ground for the extensive bonds and wide range of ties between our two countries: between families, friends, schools and businesses. All these contacts – with their strong human dimension – have proven to be a firm pillar in what is Norway’s unique relationship with another country.

In short, our strong ties with the United States are based on a shared history and culture and common values. This is reflected in our close cooperation in all areas of importance. We know each other well, which makes it easy to further develop our relations. And sometimes, when we do disagree, we do so on friendly terms, like friends, as democracies do.

Inspired by all these bonds of history, we need to look ahead. How can we further develop our partnership? How can we transform what served us well in the past into modes of cooperation and interaction that will grasp the opportunities of the future?

A modern government needs to ask such questions constantly, an observation which brings me to the question of representation – of official Norway’s presence right here in Minnesota and other states in the Midwest.

Let us make no secret of it – this is an issue that has engaged Norwegian-American friends on both sides of the Atlantic during recent months. I have received and answered many letters, emails and phone calls, and I have received delegations in my office.

And I have been looking forward to this opportunity to say very clearly to you:

Norway is not “closing down” in the Midwest. We are building a new and robust representation to serve common interests for new generations. 

There is so much to build on: a history full of dedication and effort, a presence full of activity and commitment, and a future full of ambition and opportunities.

Right here, in the Midwest, Norwegians and Americans have invested together – in education, in research, in culture and in business. These are investments for the future, and I promise you that we will be here with you to reap the benefits – and to invest further.

The key notion is that of partnership. As Foreign Minister, responsible for Norway’s diplomatic service, I – like other Foreign Ministers – have to adapt our resources and put our diplomats to work where there are problems to be solved and diplomatic challenges to be addressed.

It is my responsibility to identify where the challenges and tasks do not specifically require “diplomatic resources”, but where other kinds of experience, expertise and resources are not only needed but perhaps even better placed to do the job.

So here is our approach: We will tailor a presence here in the Midwest that will develop and deepen the partnerships we all value.

No one better personifies this ambition than Vice President Mondale. Norway is proud and honoured that he has agreed to serve as Norway’s leading representative in the Midwest.

Vice President Mondale and I have agreed to create a “Consulate General for the 21st Century”: a modern office that is innovative and focused on partnerships. We will be investing a great deal of effort in it, from Oslo and from our embassy in Washington D.C. And we will invite our US friends and partners to join us.

When Vice President Mondale takes up his duties on 1 August 2008, he will be joined by Mr Gary Gandrud. I am very pleased that he has accepted our offer to be our Honorary Consul.

To support the mission we will appoint a special assistant to assist the Honorary Consul in his work. We will then seek to engage two experts to follow up projects in the fields of higher education and research, innovation and business development. And I hope and believe one of them will be a Norwegian.

With Mr Mondale and Mr Gandrud and the team we will build together – actively supported by Ambassador Strømmen and his mission in Washington DC – we will have a set-up here in the Midwest that will continue to serve not only as a bridge, but also as a source of inspiration and new initiatives.

In this picture, it is vital to maintain the close academic ties between Norway and the US, which both our countries have benefited from for so many years.

15 years ago almost 2 500 Norwegians studied in the US, but now the figure is less than 1 500. We need to reverse that trend.

Three years ago the US and Norway signed a bilateral agreement on cooperation in the field of science and technology. A consortium of US colleges and universities has been established with a view to increasing the number of student exchanges.

A Norwegian Centennial Interdisciplinary Chair has also been set up, in collaboration between the University of Minnesota and the University of Life Sciences at Ås. The University of Minnesota has also been very generous in granting in-state tuition to students from Norway. 

There is no easy answer to the question of how to increase the number of Norwegian students in the US. But let us be creative: A web portal to aid recruitment and better financial arrangements may be part of the answer. I am pleased to learn of some recent initiatives that have already taken by the University of Minnesota.

We must do what we can to create a connection between new generations from Norway and the US, further building the special relationship.

Then there is business, research and financial investments. And there is our common desire to nurture both history and traditions now that we have moved into the third century since the first emigration.

Believe me, we share your ambition to value, deepen and further develop all of these opportunities.

Dear friends,

Let me then devote the rest of my address to a few perspectives on key political challenges that lie ahead for both Norway and the United States – and where our cooperation could and should help make a difference.

And let me briefly start with your upcoming presidential elections. There is an old saying in Norway that a US presidential election is more important to Norway than Norway’s own parliamentary elections.

I have always thought that this was an exaggeration. But the events of American democracy inspire so much interest, including in my country. What an extraordinary interaction of politics, ambition, dedication and campaigning.

And, of course, the results of the November elections will matter far beyond the United States. They will matter to the whole world – and they will matter to Norway.

Please take the following observation as praise to the capacity of the United States: I can think of no global challenge that can be adequately addressed without the active engagement of the United States.

In order to meet almost all key global issues today, we need the engagement of America’s political strength, the engagement of America’s innovative potential and the engagement of America’s ability to mobilise the contribution of other countries.

We need to turn the tide of climate change, to lift the left-behind millions out of poverty, to fight the scourge of international terror, to prevent and contain the spread of disease, to secure effective non-proliferation, to safeguard a reliable disarmament regime, to engage in the settlement of armed conflicts and to create energy security and climate security at the same time.

No nation can face these challenges alone.

No single state, no matter how big and powerful, can mobilise the sustained effort that is needed to address each and every one of the survival issues of our times.

I believe that foreign policy-makers from most corners of the world reflect on very similar questions: how can we enable the international system to respond to global challenges? How can we mobilise the necessary strength to share the burdens and make a real difference?

Acting alone will not do. But we need better systems for doing the jobs together.

My point is this: the challenges of the 21st century can only be met through collective action. Yes, the nation-state is still the key player in world politics. And yes, there is always the chance of sliding back into traditional rivalry and positioning between nation states.

But this kind of approach will do little to help us address climate change, fight poverty, deal with energy security and meet global health threats.

Because dealing with all these challenges successfully requires participation by nearly all state players, and by many non-state players as well, and it requires a system for sharing burdens equitably.

*****

Let me then now focus on climate change and energy security – two issues that are so closely linked together. How we address them will be key to the future of our civilisation. It will challenge our political will, our capacity for technological innovation, our readiness to change our lifestyles and again: our ability to share the burdens.

Because the challenge is urgent – and the evidence is compelling.

In two days another great Minnesotan, Will Steger, the first Explorer-in-Residence with the National Geographic Society, will set out on a 1400-mile expedition to Ellesmere Island by dogsled, following the footsteps of legendary polar explorers, including Norway’s Otto Sverdrup.

Mr Steger’s aim is to document environmental change caused by global warming. We are proud to be one of the sponsors of the expedition, which is bringing together five young polar explorers and researchers. The expedition and its findings will be followed by schoolchildren here in the US and by many Norwegians.

This project is an important way of making a large number of people more aware of the impacts of climate change.

Seeing is believing – and the human eye can observe the ice melting in the Polar Basin – which will have such profound consequences for humanity.

I told you about how I went skiing during Easter holiday in the Norwegian mountains. In the evenings I had time to read in front of the fireplace. One book in particular caught my attention – Coal. A Human History, by Barbara Freese. As some of you know, Ms Freese worked as environmental attorney for the state of Minnesota.

In 2003 she wrote this masterpiece about coal as an energy source and social transformer. A social transformer because energy means life, work, a stable income, food on the table. In short: security.

Barbara Freese calls the story about coal “a heartbreaking drama”. She writes: “Like a good genie, coal has granted many of our wishes, enriching most of us in developed nations beyond our wildest pre-industrial dreams. But also like a genie, coal has an unpredictable and threatening side – and we are just beginning to realise how far-reaching this dark side is.”

So this is perhaps the most extraordinary task ahead of us: How to reach agreement on turning the tide against climate change. How to draw the right conclusions from the abundant evidence of research and science that tells us how the rise in global temperature is related to human activities, to the burning of coal and other fossil fuels.

This will be one of the major issues facing a new US president early next year. We urgently need to see the US engage – in the run-up to the Summit in Copenhagen and the adoption of the follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol. We need to see all the engagement throughout the United States be reflected at the very highest political office.

Today, the Kyoto Protocol includes countries that represent 30% of global emissions. The large and growing economies must join. Mechanisms for burden sharing must be sophisticated and effective. Renewable energies must be stimulated. New technologies must be supported.

The power of market forces must be put at the service of the climate. Climate change resulting from the way our economies work must be addressed as what they are: a symptom of market failure. It is our job as governments to correct market failures, and we have no time to lose.

Today, Europe is in the process of implementing a system of emission trading. It will help bring emissions down in a cost-effective manner. The US has broad experience in emission trading. We now need to see the US expand this experience to the field of greenhouse gases.

And so must China and other emerging economies. But they will not make the necessary move if we – the industrialised nations – do not take a decisive lead.

Scientists and economists have documented that all of this can be done. That our efforts need not be costly. That we can create new jobs. That we can offer energy to those economies that need to grow in order to lift their populations out of poverty. That we need to share technology with those emerging economies, so that they do not take all the same polluting steps that we have taken.

*****

Energy is key, as Barbara Freese documents so well. And today, Norway is part of that global energy equation – as the world’s 3rd largest exporter of natural gas and 5th largest exporter of oil. Let me therefore share with you some of our thinking on this issue.

Energy relations are relations of interdependence:

Producers have to trust the market to make the necessary investments. Consumers have to trust producers to sign long-term contracts. And all parties have to trust transit countries to keep the energy flowing in accordance with transparent and predictable regulations and contract conditions.

There are signs of distrust in today’s energy markets. This is a major challenge considering the backdrop of resource depletion in several regions. And it is a major challenge, since the way we produce and consume energy will determine the way we deal with climate change.

How then is energy consumption expected to develop in the coming years? And what does this mean for our goal of reversing climate change?

The International Energy Agency estimates that fossil fuels will remain the dominant source of energy in the foreseeable future. In 2030, oil, natural gas and coal will continue to account for more than 80% of overall energy demand – about the same proportion as today.

The use of renewable sources is growing, some of them very fast. But the point is that they are starting at such low levels that it will take time to mobilise the greater potential.

So here is the troubling fact: In 2030 80% of energy consumption may still come from fossil fuels. But by then global energy demand is projected to have increased by around 50%.

This is not sustainable. Addressing this challenge is our most daunting political task today. In my view, we need to pursue a triple strategy:

Firstly, we need to reduce carbon emissions from the fossil fuels we extract and use. This can be done, technologies do exist, but they need to be further refined.

Secondly, we need to increase energy efficiency and the proportion of energy we draw from renewable sources.

And thirdly, we need to continue to search for and produce adequate amounts of fossil energy resources in order to prevent energy deficiency and energy poverty – while constantly developing cleaner methods for production and use.

Where is Norway in this picture?

As I said, Norway is among the world’s largest exporters of oil and gas. Today, we have an annual oil production of approximately 2.5 million barrels per day and gas production of 85 billion cubic metres per year. Early in the next decade, our gas exports will have increased by 50%, to an estimated 130 billion cubic metres per year. Russia, by comparison, currently exports approximately 150 billion cubic metres per year to Europe.

In Europe, exports from Norway account for nearly a third of natural gas consumption – or enough to cook every third meal in France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

Most of Norway’s gas goes to Europe through an elaborate network of offshore gas pipelines. But as we speak, yet another transatlantic bridge is about to be built: the new liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant at Melkøya off Hammerfest in the Barents Sea will ship increasing volumes of LNG to the Cove Point terminal in Maryland.

And as the resources of the Barents Sea are produced, more gas may move in the direction of the US. This is indeed an exciting region. In the decades to come, the Barents Sea could become the new European petroleum province.

However, you may ask – and you should ask – isn’t there a paradox here?

How can Norway be a significant producer of fossil fuels and at the same time be so concerned about global climate security?

You are right. Yes, it is a paradox. But it is not only Norway’s paradox, it is a global paradox.

Because this is the challenge: Regardless of the breakthroughs made in renewable energies, the world will continue to need fossil fuels for decades to come.

If Norway were to reduce our exports of natural gas today, the energy needed would not be provided by wind power. It would be provided by coal. And the climate would be even worse off.

So what we need is a combination of political, economic and technological measures, within a framework of international cooperation.

I would like to pay tribute to the impressive targets set by the state of Minnesota for phasing in the use of renewable energy. I understand that 25% of the state’s energy is to come from renewable sources, such as wind and biomass, by 2025.

And here too we can do a lot together, not least in this region. I have read about the Norwegian wind energy company Havgul, which recently established a subsidiary, V & D Energy Inc., with offices at the University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. They plan to build a windmill park in the area, and a number of American experts and partners are involved.

And I have taken note of the extensive cooperation between the Norwegian University of Life Sciences and the University of Minnesota on renewable energy sources, particularly biomass.

A few days ago The Star Tribune ran an article entitled “Minnesota, Norway and a clean-energy future”. Managing Director Lois Quam wrote about how our shared heritage brings together similar values and approaches. Yet another illustration of our common opportunities.

Norway’s policy for reducing CO2 emissions is built on three pillars.

Firstly, Norway aims for a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020 as compared with our emissions in 1990. Two-thirds of this reduction will be made in Norway.

Secondly, by 2012, the end date of the first Kyoto commitment period, we aim to reduce our emissions by an additional 10% on top of our initial Kyoto Protocol commitment.

And thirdly, looking further ahead, our overriding goal is to make Norway carbon-neutral by 2030. That means a substantial effort to reduce our own emissions. And it means an obligation to offset what remains of emissions with measures taken both nationally and internationally.

However, Norway’s emissions of greenhouse gases account for only 0.2% of global emissions. In terms of figures alone, our emission cuts will not constitute the watershed that is needed.

So here lies Norway’s particular challenge and opportunity: to may make an impact far beyond reducing our own emissions.

Norway was the first country to introduce a CO2 tax on petroleum production in the early 1990s. What we have learned since then is that environmental regulations and taxation have spurred technological innovation and made our industry more, not less, competitive in world markets.

As CO2 was priced, industry received an incentive to cut costs. Today, the Norwegian continental shelf is the most energy-efficient petroleum producing region in the world. The CO2 emissions there are less than a third of the global average per unit produced.

But more should be done.

The International Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) has found that carbon emissions could be reduced by 20% by means of carbon capture and storage, i.e. by extracting the CO2 from the natural gas and re-injecting it into safe structures to prevent its release.

Our experience is with gas; we have been testing it in the North Sea under the seabed in the Sleipner gas field for more than ten years. But UNDP maintains that carbon capture and storage will also enable us to generate power from coal with near-zero emissions. It is thus considered a key breakthrough technology.

Prime Minister Stoltenberg has called this Norway’s version of a moon-landing project. Our ambition is to establish a full-scale gas-fired power plant with complete capture and storage of CO2.

To put it short, this means that the plants will produce electricity from gas with no emissions of greenhouse gases. 

Later, we believe, if we succeed it should be possible to apply this technology to coal-fired plants. And then we can help make these technologies available to emerging economies.

Think about it: China opens one coal-fired power plant almost on a weekly basis. With no capture and storage of CO2. We truly need to move ahead.

*****

Let me go back to Will Steger on his dog sledge heading north in a few days’ time. One of the starkest images of climate change is the melting ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic. We have seen enormous sheets of ice breaking into pieces, and a single polar bear alone on a small piece of ice far out at sea.

2008 is the International Polar Year, a huge international research effort that will give us vital new knowledge about climate change and its consequences.

Again, we see the significance of international cooperation. Research projects will be realised that could not have been undertaken by one or a few countries alone. Vast amounts of data will be collected, which will serve as a basis for research for years to come.

The Polar Year is also another arena for cooperation between Norway and North America. Norway is providing funding for Polar Year projects of more than 58 million US dollars over a period of four years. Among the 26 research projects financed through the Research Council of Norway, all but one have partners from the US and Canada.

Dear friends,

Let me sum up. To address today’s pressing challenges, we need the contributions of more than one – we need the efforts of many. Addressing climate change is one striking example, but there are many more.

My ambition for Norway’s relations with the United States in the years to come is that we will seize these opportunities to make a difference together. We are partners in security, in NATO, and right now we are working side by side to help Afghanistan onto its feet.

We have such an extraordinary common ground for meeting contemporary challenges: our history and heritage, our ties of friendship, our exchanges of students and experts, our willingness to cooperate and – not least – our determination to find solutions. A good understanding. A common ground.

Our meeting of minds here Minnesota and in the broader Midwest encapsulates our opportunity.

We will do everything we can to maintain the close relations we have today and to develop them further as we look ahead to the future.

Nobel Laureate and former Vice President Al Gore said in his Nobel lecture on climate change in Oslo last December, “remember, political will is a renewable resource”. We are ready to mobilise this resource – in our bilateral relations with the United States and in our very special relationship with the Midwest.

So let me end where I started, with my reflections on the life of Herbjørn Strøm. His journey to America in the second half of the 19th century took 30 days. It took me eight hours to get here on a flight from Amsterdam.

Herbjørn Strøm went back to Norway in 1907 to visit his native Tunhovd. He wrote about it as a very moving reunion.

I was there in the mountains surrounding Tunhovd last weekend. And I thought about what it would be like if the two of us – Herbjørn Strøm and I – were to meet on some mountain top in virtual time to share our perspectives.

That too, I believe, would have been a moving reunion. Because although his life experience differed so much from the life that I am living right now, I feel somehow that we would have experienced a meeting of minds. We would have sensed a bond between generations, a bond between continents and countries and a bond of shared values.

In short, the bonds that make the US-Norwegian relations so special.

Thank you.