Yesterday the tabloid newspaper Dagbladet printed[1] a small article by me[2], dealing with how Norwegian newspapers have reported on the climate crisis and the science of climate change over the last few years.

My argument in the text is basically that Norwegian newspapers in the period 2002-2008 have failed in their communication on the subject, feeding it’s readership with a combination of non-constructive skepticism and dramatic encounters with natural disasters. Meanwhile they have neglected to report on potential action-strategies for individuals and the lack of concrete action by Norwegian politicians. Compared to the coverage in our favourite country of comparison, Sweden, this is striking – the swedish newspapers have frequently reported on these matters throughout the period.

What could explain the differences? And more importantly, what implications could this have for the general debate and future Norwegian policies? I can only speculate, of course. On the first point – perhaphs it is difficult to sell criticism of a practice that has, after all, made us filthy ritch, whereas this is easier in Sweden? On the second point – I think the Norwegian debate has been more colored by the so called “sceptics” than the case has been in Sweden, making the very existence of anthropogenic climate changes a question of debate, rather than finding a way forward to “solve” the matter. In terms of policy I guess this could cause some delay in important decisions, as well as giving lifesupport to a certain populist party (whose name we shall not speak).

[1] Yes, printed. Hope they eventually publish it online as well, not much 2.0 communication going on in the printed paper.

[2] Well, I have written it, but this was a seriously cut-down (and thus somewhat tabloid) edition of it. The editors did a failry decent job keeping the point intact, though…