The fund's international speculative investment portfolio has seen positive YOY growth, and it was only recently that the NBIM has decided to go ahead with actively tackling social and environmental issues.
And Norway's petroleum engineering is top notch.
Frankly I think the moral superiority is justified -- they have an opportunity to make a positive contribution to the world and they didn't sabotage the planet or employ slave labor to get here.
What do you imagine was done with all of that oil that they sold? Do you think it wasn't put into combustion engines? Do you think that Norwegian oil that was sold somehow wasn't emitted in the form of C02 into the atmosphere?
If they hadn't sold it, there'd be more money and power flowing to other oil-producing countries, many of whom have had a considerably worse impact on the world than originating Barbie Girl.
Higher oil prices discourages use. By participating in the market they are indirectly encouraging use. There is no way to wash your hands of selling oil.
The difference is that there's currently no large-scale acceptable replacement for oil, so ditching oil would be committing a global suicide (or genocide, if you will), while ditching coal in the presence of nuclear, wind, solar and hydro plants that can replace it much more seamlessly is merely a reasonable thing to do at this point.
In addition, this is apparently an investment fund and the coal stocks are tanking, what would you do with the money of the people who turned it over to you for safekeeping? Keep it there?
They just seem to be following new regulations, regulations that, apparently, aren’t even uncontroversial.
The fund is not the Norwegian government, the Norwegian government is not the Norwegian parliament. This article doesn’t even say anything about what the fund thinks about this. It’s just matter of fact reporting on regulation changes and consequences. (All we know is that a majority in the parliament is in favor – and that’s why this law exists – and the minority government was “reluctant” concerning this law.)
The article doesn’t even explicitly say anything at all about motives.
Arguably, all of modern capitalism was built on the back of some very dirty and polluting technology. Would you say, then, that the capital of all the developed world is tainted?
Except, in Norway, their pension and economy are STILL getting built on O&G.
I think your claims are too extreme.
edit: adding quote from European Commission data
"Norway is in the global top 5 exporters of crude oil. The oil
and gas sector constitutes around 22% of Norwegian GDP and 67%
of Norwegian exports." [1]
That said, you're not fairly representing the context of my comment. The parent comment made this exaggerated critique, saying that "all of modern capitalism" can be considered tainted based on PRIOR behavior (assuming the grandparent's comment were valid.)
This is not only a strawman, but absurd.
I'm pointing out that it isn't limited to prior behavior for what we're talking about. Here, we have a petro-state with 2/3 of its exports STILL in O&G (aka "dirty technology") taking a stance on coal because coal's not Environment Friendly™. This contrasts with countries that were built on "dirty tech/slavery/whatever" and are no longer utilizing similar means.
To clarify, nobody's saying NOR can't change course or exhibit environmental leadership. I'd argue NOR's investment implications and the $2.3B change in allocation aren't significant.
Not to mention significant amounts of slave labor, child labor, war profiteering, fraud, outright theft, etc.
In other words, by similar logic it could be called “holier-than-thou” for westerners to have any standards whatsoever about investment choices, because our wealth is built on all kinds of unsavory sources.
And you will see the likes of China pull that card whenever there is some kind of international talk about something that will affect their industries.
In other words, by similar logic it could be called “holier-than-thou”
for westerners to have any standards whatsoever about investment choices,
because our wealth is built on all kinds of unsavory sources.
I also find it ironic that "westerner" in your world doesn't seem to include Norwegians ;-).
I recall seeing a documentary about the start of Silicon Valley, where a lot of the early money came from Rockefeller and other "east coast" money. Does that mean that the current tech industry owes a debt to Standard Oil? Probably. Is it relevant? Probably not.
You'd like them to improve people's lives by continutuing to invest in coal? You think that forgoing a minuscule return (or actually probably increasing return) to dampen an industry that is demonstratably harming people in the present and probably harming people into the future is helping people?
