[Norway's] Environment Minister Bjoernoy said she saw no contradiction between showing off the impacts of global warming in the Arctic when many oil companies, such as Norway's state-controlled Statoil, are hoping for new finds as the sea ice recedes.-- from Arctic Islands Invite Tourists To See Climate Woes. Tourists spent a total of 70,000 nights in the islands last year, up from almost zero 20 years ago. "Bergstrom said tourists were rich", the article continues, "and so could be influential [in the drive to tackle climate change] when they returned home."
Norway wants more world action to fight global warming and last month set the toughest national goal in the world, to become 'carbon neutral' by 2050, with no net emissions of greenhouse gases that come mostly from burning fossil fuels.The article describes Norway as the world's fifth largest oil exporter. But the US EIA lists it in third equal position (along with Iran and UAE) in 2006, with net exports of 2.5 million barrels per day.
That's 912.5 million barrels per year. The first two rough estimates I have to hand say that burning a barrel of 'average' oil releases between a sixth and an eighth of a tonne of carbon. So while Norway goes for 'carbon neutrality' at home, it is likely to be profiting from the release of 114 to 152 to million tonnes of carbon per year by consumers of its products even if oil exports remain static.
(for something on my own experience on Svalbard see here and here)