Escaping the Carbon Curse: Climate Policymaking in Norway, Canada, and Australia

For consideration for the International Political Economy of Energy Transitions Panel Norway is often perceived to be an indisputable climate policy leader among its fossil fuel-producing peers, such as Canada and Australia. The Nordic nation is an outlier: an early climate policy innovator that has steadily expanded its suite of climate policies. A carbon tax on its oil and gas industry has been in place since 1991, which is now one of the highest carbon taxes in the world. A global leader in climate diplomacy, carbon offsetting and electric vehicle usage, Norway’s climate policies have long been the envy of policymakers in major fossil fuel-producing states. Australia and Canada are both late to the game and have historically had narrowly scoped climate policies. Given this considerable gulf in climate policy, one would expect Norway to have reduced substantially its carbon emissions, compared to Canada and Australia. Ironically, this is not the case; despite clear policy variation in timing and scope, all three countries have seen no substantial decrease in emissions. Whatever the differences are in the climate policies, they are not resulting in what ultimately matters - absolute emission reductions. Norway’s emissions have increased 3% since 1990 from 51 Mt to 53Mt of CO2eq, Canada has increased its emissions 16% from 600 Mt in 1990 to 700 Mt of CO2eq and Australia has increased emissions 25% from 400 Mt in 1990 to 500 Mt of CO2eq. What explains the differences in the climate policies of these three similarly situated fossil fuel exporters, and why have all three sets of policies failed to reduce emissions? In responding to these questions, I seek a single explanation for both climate policy variation and the shared failure to decarbonise. For Australia, Canada and Norway, there is little incentive for these governments and fossil fuel companies to forego fossil fuel-related revenues to limit carbon emissions. This economic imperative shapes the interests of actors engaged in policy networks. Through process tracing using 115 elite interviews and documentary analysis, my research shows that policy networks are key sites of policy formation. By examining the differences in policy networks, I demonstrate how Norway has been able to secure durable climate policy through consistent network membership. Further, I find that opening the access of these networks to include a more diverse range of voices enabled more ambitious climate policy to be implemented in Australia and Canada than what had been implemented in the past. Despite the lack of decarbonisation, this comparative case study generates policy relevant knowledge to hasten transformative change in advanced industrial states with major fossil fuel export industries. With context and contingency in mind, policymakers can re-design how policy networks and the interests behind them shape climate policy outcomes.