Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
0 comments 
Norway is considered one of the greenest countries in the world: 98% of its electricity comes from renewable sources, nine out of ten new cars sold are electric, and the government created a carbon tax in 1991. But the country is also one of the largest oil and gas exporters on the planet, supplying 30% of the gas and 15% of the oil consumed in Europe. Since the beginning of the war in Iran, the Norwegian state has received an additional US$ 5 billion, and the Oslo Stock Exchange has broken records thanks to the fossil energy sector.
There is a country that manages to be, at the same time, the greenest and most contradictory on the planet. Norway is a world leader in electric cars, has 98% of its electricity generated by renewable sources, and was one of the first to create taxes on carbon emissions. But this same country is one of the largest exporters of oil and gas in the world, and the war in the Middle East has made it billions of dollars richer while the environmental discourse that consecrated it begins to crack under the weight of economic reality.
The contradiction has a name: “Norwegian paradox.” While within its borders Norway decarbonizes its economy with impressive speed, its fossil fuel exports fuel the global warming it claims to combat. The country’s famous sovereign fund, fed by oil revenues, had assets of US$ 1.9 trillion at the end of 2025, equivalent to US$ 350,000 per Norwegian citizen. It is this money that finances the generous pension and welfare system that makes Norway one of the most developed countries in the world according to the UN.
The Norwegian paradox: green on the inside, fossil on the outside
According to information released by the BBC portal, Norway has built a clean energy infrastructure that serves as a global example. The hydroelectric network provides almost all of the country’s electricity, tax incentives have made Norway the world leader in electric cars since 2005, and Parliament approved the Climate Act in 2017 to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030. Internally, the country functions as a decarbonization laboratory that demonstrates that the energy transition is possible.
-
NASA placed 11 deaf men in centrifuges, free-fall airplanes, and extreme tests to solve one of the biggest problems of space travel.
-
One of Disney’s most famous former stars dropped everything, stepped out of the spotlight, bet on elite universities, and became CEO of a space startup with an estimated fortune of R$ 240 million.
-
Largest remote-controlled aircraft ever built takes off and lands with impressive precision: a Boeing 747 replica over 12 meters long, with a complete interior, retractable landing gear, and flight so realistic it looks like a real plane in the sky.
-
Smart bin in London tracked pedestrians’ cell phones, used WiFi to measure urban circulation, raised a privacy alert, and showed how a simple bin can become a street spy.
But the same Norway that electrifies its cars and heats its homes with clean energy exports massive volumes of oil and gas which, when burned in other countries, generate the emissions that the Paris Agreement seeks to reduce. Energy sector exports account for more than 60% of total foreign sales and more than 20% of national GDP. The State maintains a majority stake in Equinor, the main operator of the continental shelf, and allocates most of the profits to the sovereign fund that supports the well-being of 5.5 million Norwegians.
The billions that the war poured into the Norwegian coffers
The war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran and the blockade of the strategic Strait of Hormuz have driven up global oil and gas prices, generating enormous and unexpected benefits for Norway. The Norwegian state has received an additional US$ 5 billion since the start of the conflict, and the Oslo Stock Exchange has broken records, boosted by local companies in the energy sector. Public broadcaster NRK columnist Cecilie Langum Becker summarized: “When the world is on fire, money flows into our state budget.”
The dynamic is not new. In 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had already reduced Moscow’s exports to Europe, transforming Norway into the last reliable supplier for a continent in energy crisis. Since then, the country has supplied about 30% of the gas and 15% of the oil consumed in Europe, to which it sends 90% of its exports. Every global conflict that interrupts the flow of fuels from other regions enriches Norway and deepens the paradox.
The debate between environmentalists and the oil industry
The president of the environmental association Friends of the Earth Norway, Truls Gulowsen, does not hide his discomfort. “For a Norwegian environmentalist like me, of course, this is a shameful situation,” he declared. On one side, environmental groups and young activists demand concrete commitments and a timetable to reduce oil activity. On the other, the oil and gas sector defends its importance to the economy and the more than 200,000 direct jobs it creates.
The international context has slowed the trend of decarbonization. The conflicts in Ukraine and Iran have forced even the greenest parties to accept that Norwegian gas is a “necessary evil” for Europe’s energy security. Gulowsen warns that the dominant narrative now is that global instability justifies betting on hydrocarbons, including in sensitive areas like the deep waters of the Arctic, “vulnerable environments where there should be no exploration under any circumstances.”
New exploration licenses and the future of Norwegian oil
Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre’s government recently offered 57 new exploration licenses and promised to continue seeking more oil to supply Europe. Støre is betting on the “development” of the industry instead of establishing exit phases, and is targeting the Barents Sea, the least explored area of the country, to compensate for the decline of current deposits. Despite pressure from the younger sectors of his party, the prime minister has no intention of advocating for a phase-out timetable.
Frode Alfheim, from the Industri Energi union, reinforces the social importance of the sector: “We are talking about more than 200,000 direct jobs. It is not the time to leave Europe without supply.” Analyst Thina Saltvedt, from the financial company Nordea, concludes with a warning that summarizes the Norwegian dilemma: “More and more people realize that there is a sunset on the horizon. But it will be painful.”
What the Norwegian paradox teaches the rest of the world
Norway proves that a country can be internally clean and externally polluting at the same time, and that the global energy transition is much more complex than simply swapping internal combustion cars for electric ones. As long as global demand for oil and gas exists, someone will supply it, and Norway has decided that it prefers to profit from it rather than leave the market to competitors with fewer environmental scruples.
For countries like Brazil, which also has significant oil reserves and energy transition ambitions, the Norwegian case offers an ambiguous lesson. It is possible to be green and rich at the same time, but only if someone else pays the environmental bill. The US$ 1.9 trillion sovereign fund that ensures the well-being of Norwegians was built with money from fuels that warmed the planet, and no number of electric cars circulating in Oslo erases that reality.
Do you think Norway is hypocritical in selling itself as a green country while profiting billions from oil, or is it pragmatic in ensuring the well-being of its people with the resources it has? Tell us in the comments what Brazil should learn from the Norwegian paradox.
Be the first to react!