Climate crusaders celebrating Norway’s proposal to divest its sovereign wealth fund from oil and gas stocks should pause before popping the carbon-neutral champagne.
In fact, the proposed divestment is limited to only include companies solely involved in oil and gas exploration, not integrated majors like BP, Exxon, and Equinor, Norway’s state-owned oil giant. Norway’s proposal would affect about $40 billion in holdings out of a $1 trillion fund.
Also, Norway’s government said Friday the decision was to “reduce the vulnerability of our common wealth to a permanent oil price decline,” and not environmental considerations.
Basically, the country doesn’t want to hold too many oil and gas stocks should the price tank like it did in 2014.
Environmental activists are spinning this as a victory in their war against fossil fuels. Activists said it shattered the “illusion” that fossil fuels would continue to be used for decades, despite global warming.
Huge huge huge win–Norwegian govt (an oil state) is recommending that the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund Fully Divest From All Fossil Fuel. Financial Times: “this will send shockwaves through the energy sector.”https://t.co/PbVWPWOZrE
— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) March 8, 2019
Bill McKibben founded 350.org, an anti-fossil fuel environmental group that pushes for divestment. The group claims more than 1,000 organizations, companies and nonprofits pledged to divest from fossil fuels, collectively worth more than $8 trillion.
BIG NEWS: Today, Norway recommended the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, worth $1 trillion, to divest more than $7.5 billion of holdings from upstream oil and gas industries. https://t.co/MT21RJIGUy pic.twitter.com/8y1DiBKSUp
— 350 dot org (@350) March 8, 2019
350.org includes Norway’s sovereign wealth fund on its divestment list, but the country is not divesting from fossil fuels as McKibben claimed. McKibben and 350.org rose to prominence over their opposition to the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
Norway is trying to insulate itself from price volatility — the country is heavily reliant on petroleum exports and oil revenues. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is the largest in the world and funded through oil and gas revenues.
“The oil business will be a major and important industry in Norway for many years to come,” said Norwegian Finance Minister Siv Jensen, according to The Financial Times.
Jensen did, however, say Norway was looking to capitalize on expected growth in renewable energy. Paradoxically, Jensen suggested the growth in renewables, mainly wind and solar, would be driven by oil majors like BP.
“Everything indicates that almost the entire growth in listed infrastructure for renewable energy over the next 10 years will be driven by companies that do not have renewable energy as their main activity. It is a growth the fund should be able to take part in,” Jensen said.
Norwegian lawmakers will vote on the proposal to divest from oil and gas companies later this year.
Read more at Daily Caller
This whole Divest in Fossil Fuels i total’y political it has nothing to do with any facts its all to do with Politics and Junk Science
Bill McGibben is the nuttiest of the nuts and a nasty piece of work …watched his debate with Alex Epstein who is the epitome of sense and reason. As a regular visitor to Norway for the fishing it is obvious to me that Norway is at greatest risk from the imminent and inevitable little iceage. The climate is only bearable during the short summer and that is getting shorter and colder and with lower winter temps and heavier snow falls. They depend on cheap hydro electricity, well hydro only works when the water is liquid. They are working on Thorium nuclear but not the fused salt sytem which is the best/safest route. Ironically they have protected their arctic cod and halibut stocks from the UK and Russia BUT their unsutainable salmon farming activities are damaging wild fish from chemicals and parsites
Don’t forget that liberals don’t need an action, such as Norway’s divestment companies that are exclusively fossil fuel, to work. All a liberal needs is to feel good about the action being taken. They are not smart enough to know what is effective. History is full of examples, such as President Johnson’s War on Poverty. At the end of the program more people were in poverty than at the beginning. Yet, the liberals felt good because something had been done about poverty.