How should Norway spend its cash? Solve global problems, says citizen panel
By Gwladys Fouche
OSLO (Reuters) -Norway's $1.8 trillion wealth fund, the world's largest, should invest more money in sectors addressing global challenges such as climate change and health and accept it may get lower returns on these investments, a citizens' panel said on Tuesday.
The initiative, a nationwide consultation on what the country should do with its wealth, was the brainchild of seven non-governmental organisations who wanted to bring into the public debate voices from society that are not usually heard.
The 56 Norwegians selected to represent the population - based on age, gender, place of residence, education and attitude towards climate change - met between January and May to create recommendations for lawmakers.
They discussed how to spend the cash from the fund, which pools state oil and gas revenue and has a current value equivalent to each man, woman and child owning $326,000.
"A specific percentage of the oil fund should be set aside for sustainable investments where we accept higher risk and lower returns to promote social and economic development in developing countries," said the panel's report, seen by Reuters.
Other advice included having guidelines on how the fund should be spent in times of crises, such as pandemics and wars, and having new guidelines on how the fund should be used in the national budget.
Currently up to 3% of the fund's value can be used in the budget without specifying what it should be spent on.
The panel said it should be spent on "fundamental social structures" such as education, research and innovation, and not on "administrative expenses".
The fund should also move faster to invest the 2% of its value earmarked for direct stakes in renewable projects abroad, like wind and solar farms. It has spent just 0.1% of its value on such investments.
"The idea was that we were different people from different parts of the country. My experience is that we had all the same fundamental values," panellist Lill Synnoeve Ludvigsen, a 17-year-old high school student, told Reuters in a phone interview from her home in Trondheim, Norway's third-largest city.
The fund divests from companies deemed in breach of its ethical guidelines adopted by parliament.
On Sunday, it divested from Israel's Paz Retail and Energy for supplying fuel to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, as well as from Mexico's Pemex for what it called an unacceptable risk that it is involved in corruption.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
6 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Stock Movers: ON Semi, Norwegian Cruise, Brown-Forman
On this edition of Stock Movers: - ON Semi (ON) rallied Tuesday as members on its management team spoke at the Bank of America 2025 Global Technology Conference. At the conference, CEO Hassane El-Khoury discussed that non-AI chips - which ON focuses on - could be heading toward a rebound. It was the best performing stock in the S&P 500. - Norwegian Cruise (NCLH) shares were among the best performing stocks of the week. Investors sent the stock higher as the company's booking trends seem to be improving. - Brown-Forman (BF/B) shares plummeted the most since 2008 after it reported results that trailed expectations while projecting a sales decline for the current fiscal year. The owner of Jack Daniel's brand also sees organic net sales, which strip out items such as currency fluctuations, declining in a low-single digit range for the fiscal year that runs through April 2026. Brown-Forman is anticipating a challenging operating environment this year, 'with low visibility due to macroeconomic and geopolitical volatility as we face headwinds from consumer uncertainty,' the company said in the earnings statement. The firm also cited potential impact from tariffs not yet in place.
Associated Press
7 hours ago
- Associated Press
Southern California air regulators weigh a plan to phase out gas furnaces and water heaters
DIAMOND BAR, Calif. (AP) — Air quality regulators in Southern California heard impassioned public comments Friday before an anticipated vote on proposed rules that would curb harmful emissions from gas-powered furnaces and water heaters. The rules aim to reduce emissions of smog-contributing nitrogen oxides, also called NOx, a group of pollutants linked to respiratory issues, asthma attacks, worse allergies, decreased lung function in children, premature death and more. Burning natural gas is also one of the primary drivers of climate change. The South Coast Air Quality Management District estimates that the rules, if passed, will lower NOx emissions from gas-fired furnaces, preventing about 2,490 premature deaths and 10,200 new asthma cases over a 26-year period in the region. The district regulates air quality for 16.8 million people in Southern California, including all of Orange County and large areas of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties — one of the smoggiest areas in the U.S. The proposals come as California moves aggressively to reduce the state's reliance on planet-warming fossil fuels and ahead of a 2045 mandate for the state to have net-zero carbon emissions. The rules would set targets that aim to phase out the sale of gas-powered furnaces and water heaters starting in 2027. It does not apply to gas stoves. The sales target would start at 30%, then grow to 50% in 2029 and end at 90% in 2039. The rules would not be mandated, but manufacturers would have to pay fees ranging from $50 to $500 if they sell gas-powered appliances. That's a significant rollback from the original proposal, which would have required residential buildings to meet zero-emissions standards beginning in 2029 when appliances need to be replaced. The agency amended the rules after strong opposition from Southern California Gas and other businesses. The regulations would impact more than 10 million appliances in an estimated 5 million buildings, most of them residential. Officials and supporters say the rules would reduce air pollution and substantially improve public health. But opponents — including property owners, industry professionals and natural gas companies — fear they could raise costs for consumers and businesses, and strain the power grid by adding more electric appliances. During a packed board meeting Friday, clean air advocates held signs reading 'Clean Air Now,' 'Vote 4 Clean Air, Vote 4 Justice' and 'Let SoCal Breath!' Before public comments, board chair Vanessa Delgado thanked the more than 200 people who signed up to speak about the rules, which took more than two years to craft. 'I don't believe that there's necessarily a good or right answer about these rules. I believe that it is very complicated and I know that every single one of these board members are doing what is right to move forward air quality goals in our region,' she said. Lynwood City Councilmember Juan Muñoz-Guevara said the rules would be a long-overdue step toward environmental justice for communities like his. 'I've seen firsthand how families in my community are forced to live with the health consequences of dirty air. Our children grow up with asthma, our elders struggle with respiratory illness, and too many lives are cut short,' he said. 'Gas appliances in our home are one of the largest sources of smog-forming pollution in the region. We cannot meet clean air goals without tackling this.' Peggy Huang, a member of Yorba Linda's City Council, urged the board to reject the rules. 'As someone who's been advocating for affordable housing, this will increase costs for us to meet those goals,' Huang said. Chino's mayor pro tem, Curtis Burton, echoed some of Huang's concerns. He said the rules would 'create an additional financial burden on residents and businesses.' But air quality regulators say the rules would save consumers money by reducing energy bills.
CNN
9 hours ago
- CNN
Analysis: Why Trump can't just quit Musk
A few years ago, when Elon Musk was turning heel to people worried about climate change, joining forces with Republicans and breaking up with Democrats, I wrote about how the government couldn't just quit him. It's still true now that Musk is breaking up with President Donald Trump, on whose candidacy Musk spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $300 million. Musk got a literal golden key to the White House and the opportunity to take a chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy from Trump in exchange for the friendship that campaign coin bought him. The Trump-Musk bromance, which burned hot during the campaign and for the first few months of Trump's second term in the White House, has now experienced what SpaceX might euphemistically call a 'rapid unscheduled disassembly.' Even if Trump all but demands that key back and the relationship can't be put back together again, a permanent divorce would necessarily be messy and drawn out. At one point as they were lobbing shots at each other on their respective social media platforms, Trump suggested canceling Musk's government contracts. Musk suggested not letting NASA use his SpaceX's Dragon Spacecraft. Both have retreated from those suggestions. As I wrote back in 2023: 'NASA needs his rockets. The Pentagon needs his satellites. The government needs for electric vehicles to access his network of chargers. Officials need his social media platform — Twitter, now called X — to communicate with people.' It's all still true, although Trump has no interest in electric vehicles, and a standoff over whether a massive tax bill should continue to incentivize Americans to buy electric vehicles may have contributed to their beef. There are still a growing number of Americans buying electric vehicles, and Tesla's charging network is a part of that infrastructure. If anything, the intervening years have made the government even more dependent on Musk and particularly SpaceX, which not only provides rockets to NASA, but also has the Starlink internet system, which is key to the Pentagon and has been floated as an option to improve coverage for rural America. SpaceX has gotten more than $20 billion in contracts from NASA and the Pentagon, according to CNN's Chris Isidore. Isidore also explains Trump can't just go to another rocket company. Replacing SpaceX on those contracts, however, is not realistic. That's because there is no other company available to replace it. For example, Boeing, the only other company able transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS), had problems on its only crewed flight last year. That required its Starliner spacecraft to return to Earth without two astronauts, who were stranded at the ISS for nine months instead of the planned trip of a handful of days. CNN's Jackie Wattles, who covers space, told me the government's reliance on SpaceX goes much further. 'It's hard to understate how crucial SpaceX's capabilities are for civil and military space endeavors,' Wattles said. 'NASA not only relies solely on SpaceX to get astronauts to and from the International Space Station, the space agency awarded SpaceX nearly $1 billion last year to develop a way to safely drag the ISS out of orbit when it's decommissioned — a move expected to happen in the early 2030s if not sooner.' She ticked off a number of ways in which the US relies on SpaceX: If the US does end up wanting to go to Mars, SpaceX's Starship, which is still in development, is the only vehicle designed for the purpose. The US is paying SpaceX $4 billion for moon landings. It's relying on SpaceX to dispose of the International Space Station in the future. SpaceX carries more payload for the military than any other company. It launches most US spy satellites, and the Pentagon plans to count on Starlink for connectivity. Plus, Starlink is now working on updating the technology the Federal Aviation Administration uses to manage US airspace, something that raised questions about conflicts of interest when it was announced, but now seems like one more thing binding the government to Musk. Musk's companies are at the mercy of federal regulators, as we explored with a look at the ethical minefield created by Musk's involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency. His Neuralink, which aims to implant chips in the brains of humans, will have to deal with the Food and Drug Administration. SpaceX has to deal with the FAA and other agencies. X, formerly Twitter, features in the oversight of the Federal Communications Commission. Tesla has been investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Trump's administration has shown no reluctance to use the cogs of government to go after perceived enemies. Just ask Harvard. But if Trump were to use government to attack Musk, it would be like something out of Vladimir Putin's playbook in Russia, where oligarchs rise and fall based on whether they are in favor with the government. 'Trump can go after (Musk's companies), but then it'll be pretty explicit that's what he's doing,' said the tech journalist Kara Swisher, appearing on CNN's 'The Situation Room' Friday. 'Then he'll look exactly like what people accuse him of, which is an autocrat,' Swisher said. It would hurt the country if Trump did target Musk, she said. In additoin to Tesla, SpaceX and Neuralink, she pointed to the importance of Musk's forays into AI. 'We really do need cogent, important guidance on AI as it goes forward,' Swisher said.
