Norway’s newly unveiled Climate Report, presented on Thursday, sets a bold goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 70–75% by 2035 compared to 1990 levels. While the government lauds this as a step forward from its previous 55% target for 2030, the plan has drawn widespread criticism for a glaring omission: it does not specify how much of the reduction will happen within Norway.
Broad political and environmental criticism
The absence of clear national targets has triggered reactions across the political spectrum, as well as from environmental groups and public institutions.
“We cannot just continue the Norwegian tradition of setting long-term goals and dropping all measures to achieve our near-term targets,” said Guri Melby, leader of Venstre (The Liberal Party).
According to Statistics Norway (Statistisk sentralbyrå, SSB), Norway has reduced its CO₂-equivalent emissions by only 9.1% since 1990, far from the 55% target set for 2030. Despite this, the new climate report omits a national roadmap, and instead leans heavily on the use of EU carbon credit systems to bridge the gap.
Miljøpartiet De Grønne (MDG) leader Arild Hermstad denounced the approach:
“The government has scrapped the goal that future emission cuts should happen in Norway. Instead, they plan to rely even more on expensive climate quotas.”
Karoline Andaur, Secretary-General of WWF Norway, called the decision “incredible,” warning that “the government is delaying the necessary green transition.”
Opposition parties demand national accountability
Lars Haltbrekken, deputy leader of Sosialistisk Venstreparti (SV), voiced concern about the lack of accountability. “In a turbulent world, we need a steady Norway that takes responsibility for its emissions. Setting a national reduction target would have created certainty for businesses needing to adapt.”
Rødt (The Red Party) called the plan “irresponsible.” MP Sofie Marhaug added: “Relying on carbon quotas when we need fair domestic cuts is a thin soup.”
Meanwhile, Senterpartiet (Centre Party) has taken the opposite stance, arguing the 70–75% target is overly ambitious. Party parliamentary leader Marit Arnstad said, “It’s possible to meet our long-term commitments without setting such a high bar for 2035.”
Høyre (The Conservative Party), on the other hand, emphasized efficiency and innovation. Energy and climate spokesperson Bård Ludvig Thorheim stated, “Green transition and business competitiveness go hand in hand. We must use the market to serve the climate, invest in new technology and renewable energy, and deepen EU cooperation.”
Government: “We are on track”
Despite the criticism, Climate and Environment Minister Andreas Bjelland Eriksen defended the plan, saying current policies will already achieve a 47% reduction by 2035. An additional 20% would come via cooperation with the EU, he claimed.
“The emissions we’re targeting are primarily from fossil fuel combustion, which accounts for two-thirds of Norway’s emissions. We will systematically work to eliminate them,” Eriksen said.
The government has introduced measures to support municipalities in reducing emissions, including:
- Establishing zero-emission zones for electric and hydrogen vehicles.
- Proposing a ban on peatland development.
- Allowing stricter climate requirements for construction projects.
- Exploring land-use fees and nature impact targets.
Timeframes and international commitments
One notable change is the introduction of “timelines” to guide the phasing out of fossil fuels in heating and road transport. These, according to Eriksen, will provide long-term clarity for industry stakeholders.
The new climate target will now be submitted to the United Nations as part of the Paris Agreement process. All participating countries must announce updated goals ahead of the upcoming COP30 summit in Belém, Brazil, this November. As of now, only the United Kingdom has submitted a more ambitious 2035 target than Norway.
Still, environmental organizations remain skeptical. Truls Gulowsen, head of Naturvernforbundet (The Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature), summed up the discontent: “Once again, the government delivers a climate target without teeth—weak, non-binding, and full of loopholes.”
