Will Norges Bank also let fraudsters rob billions?
Ole Henrik Ellestad and Erik Bye November 24, 2025
This is an article originally in Norwegian, by Ole Henrik Ellestad, from the homepage of Klimarealistene and translated by Erik Bye.
A Norwegian climate Conference
On October 21st of this year, Norges Bank, under the leadership of the head of the Norwegian Petroleum Fund, Nicolai Tangen, and the bank's chief executive Ida Wolden Bache, held a climate conference, about future investments in the era of climate disasters. “The Norges Bank Climate Conference explores how climate change and the energy transition affect the macroeconomics and financial markets.”
The President of the European Bank, Christine Lagarde, and earlier Vice President Al Gore were both invited. Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for predictions that have not come true and lost the presidential election to Bush Jr. They were both invited to predict future sensible investments for the Norwegian people's common property, the petroleum fund, in the era of the coming countless climate disasters.
Norges Bank's climate conference without effects
Norway should be best in class. But how can we suddenly make profitable investments in climate measures? The unprofitable elements are transferred to the common man through increased costs, fees, subsidies and taxes. There is significant but little-mentioned “climate measures” in recent expensive time allowances.
On 21.10.2025, Norges Bank arranged a high-level one-day conference to "get a better understanding of how climate change and the energy transition affect the macroeconomics and the financial market". The head of the Norwegian Petroleum Fund, Nicolai Tangen, pointed out that the ambitions are clear. Norway should be in the lead internationally. Good plans are
necessary. In that case, it will be something new. Large costs that appear for the common man via fees and indirectly through subsidies. Higher energy and environmental costs will certainly be further exacerbated but will be shrouded in optimistic phrases and wishes to save our planet. The people will be left with the bill for increased fees, taxes and reduced pensions from the Petroleum Fund (MDG, The Norwegian Party: The Green, proposed 65 billion annually for international climate measures). Spending on climate policy in large and small amounts has been an important contribution to the high cost of living in recent years.
Researcher Bjørn H. Samset, CICERO presented, to the satisfaction of the authorities, his politicized version of the climate status with a bleak future. More politics came through lectures from the President of the European Bank, Christine Lagarde and former Vice President Al Gore who also participated in a debate led by the Director of CICERO, former Minister of Finance and SV leader, (the Norwegian party: The Socialists) Kristin Halvorsen. Governance and politics are always well thought out in the field of climate.
Public statistics and observations provide a completely different and more correct scientific backdrop:
Record crops globally
Norwegian plants/soils convert our CO2 emissions; no increasing tendency for extreme weather; the warming is primarily at night and in winter and generally corresponds to an altitude difference of 150 m.
The Sun has warmed the entire solar system, Mars by 0.5°C (NASA), – but not the Earth according to the IPCC.
The ocean (71% of the Earth's surface) is warmed by the Sun – not by an increased greenhouse effect.
Anyone who knows anything about it knows that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas with only 0.05°C temperature increase per 20 parts per million (about ten years). The other gases, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide are of little importance. Atmospheric inversion (increasing temperature with height) will primarily cause cooling over Antarctica and Greenland; no sea level rise from that, but 1-2 mm per year from natural variations – while Norway's landmasses are rising or are stable.
Much of the warming is linked to reduced cloud cover and more solar radiation. The climate panel's predictions come from exaggerated amplification effects. They do not use the term “climate crisis” which is media rubbish.
Climate Action
When Nicolai Tangen claims that we will be best in class, it is a “mantra” that is almost never realized. A retrospective summary is useful and shows misjudgments, environmental destruction, poor investments, large subsidies, fees and taxes and costs that are passed on to the common man - to save the planet.
Norway's electric car campaign reduced fees by 640 billion kroner in the period 2007-2024 (Ministry of Finance) and even more through free/reduced tolls and public parking. Much has been done to compensate for the VAT values of sky-high electricity prices and surcharges on renewable energies. CO2 emissions from cars have been reduced, but there is debate about how "green" it is when energy for battery production, including waste management, and an increased proportion of particulate matter from heavier cars are included.
Municipal orders to use electric construction machinery increase the cost of projects by millions of NOK. An estimated 15 billion NOK is the cost per oil field for electrification from land, while unused gas is burned by the receiver so that the emissions remain the same. Monster masts over the
Hardangervidda plateau and other environmental damage caused by Nature associated with wind power development are a necessary evil to save the planet. Offshore wind is far more expensive than onshore wind turbines and may need large subsidies or higher electricity prices. Ineffective methane measures are imposed on agriculture.
New industrial areas?
Where did the jobs go – and the money?
What does it look like for the newer areas of activity? The cheapest way to store electrical energy is to pump water back into the reservoir with surplus energy from green energy. This might otherwise destabilize the electricity grid. Battery production is far too expensive and will lead to a massive increase in mining with associated CO2 emissions. The labor, environmental and CO2 emission conditions are not much to shout about in the lecture I heard about cobalt mining in Congo. But that can be downplayed. Where did the ‘cradle to grave analysis’ in the planning phase go?
Regarding battery production, the earlier Minister of Industry Jan C. Vestre stated in 2022:
“If Norway seizes the opportunities, the Norwegian value chain for batteries can employ tens of thousands of people and have a turnover of at least 90 billion NOK by 2030. Global demand is growing exponentially, and Norway has very good conditions to succeed in this race.”
The results so far are that Norway has squandered billions on support for doomed battery projects over the past three years. Innovation Norway awarded one billion to four battery factories in March last year. Following the award, three of these companies have announced that they will move production out of the country. Freyr Battery (a Norwegian company) has put its planned gigafactory in Mo i Rana (a Norwegian city in the north) on hold due to lack of funding, described as: “Freyr has proven to be a bluff that has only produced a lot of millionaires and bonuses and not a single battery”. Where did the jobs – and the money go?
The CCS of CO2
The storage of CO2 from the Sleipner field from 1996 has already cost us tens of billions of NOK. The ‘moon landing’ at Mongstad cost nearly 10 billion in losses. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) will separate, temporarily store, transport to land and sea, compress and inject CO2 into empty reservoirs in the North Sea. In addition to these project costs for several years, we will have the costs for the incineration plant of Oslo and for the cleaning of the cement plant in Brevik. This will add up to 30 billion NOK (in 2023), including 30 billion from the State. This might even increase before it is finished. CCS is beyond expensive and has little acceptance internationally, including by the EU and others. In Norway it has been even more expensive but presented as “promising” and the salvation of the planet by Bellona, a Norwegian Environmental Organization. The report from 4 years ago had omitted energy consumption it is too high to be made visible when it is intended to be used in energy production.
Hydrogen technology is promoted by technological optimists. The safety aspect of an explosive gas that leaks out of the smallest cracks/weaknesses in materials, which can make metal brittle and which, if leaked, produces oxyhydrogen gas, is not technology for the average person. A filling station for cars in Sandvika (a city in Norway) went up in flames a few years ago. Hydrogen has also lost a lot of energy when converting from natural gas. Over-voltages during electrolysis of water have made this hopelessly expensive in all years unless free electrical energy is available at peak grid load.
The Ferry Project
The ferry project Hydra has been named “Ship of the year” in 2021 and is widely referred to as "Hydra shows the way". That way is that hydrogen costs NOK 10 million more annually than planned with transport by tanker from central Germany. The technology is claimed to not be scalable to larger ships. It is described as emission-free with only water vapor coming out of the stack - by far the most powerful greenhouse gas and which the Climate Panel calculates will amplify the effect of CO2 so much that it becomes a problem. The more ferries that are added to the promised free ferry service,
the more expensive this 'guide' becomes for the average person, who covers large additional costs in the final accounts with increased local greenhouse effects.
Document 31.10.25 informs that things are not going any better in other countries. The founder of "Green Steel" in Sweden is quitting and taking the money with him. Canada has spent 158 billion Canadian dollars (1,115 billion NOK) on green transition in the last 10 years with only 68,000 very expensive jobs. This is how we can continue.
Conclusion
A less attractive backdrop for the financial elite. Higher electricity prices increase the possibility of profitability. Some have gone for the glue stick in the past; others are patiently waiting for government guarantees that will take the risk. Hydrogen projects and CCS have little future based on costs, the former with an increased greenhouse effect, the latter without a climate effect at all. Political guidelines with large costs for ordinary people in the short and long term. Increased heating costs, when Nature gradually contributes to colder times, are added.
Ole Henrik Ellestad Former research director and professor (emeritus).