– It will benefit the poor in the world who receive the aid, and not least Norwegian taxpayers who will get the most out of the money they pay to the state. That’s what project manager Hans Jacob Huun Thomsen says at the Civita think tank. Together with Maria Bakken, they have prepared a note. There they advocate for, among other things: Bifurcation of the development policy: Support a bifurcation of the development policy, in line with the Sending committee. At least 0.7 per cent of gross national income (GNI) must go to traditional poverty eradication and humanitarian aid. Using the Oil Fund: Set aside 0.25 per cent of the Oil Fund annually for climate finance. – It can sound a lot, and controversial. But we think this is very correct, because climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our time. Hans Jacob Huun Thomsen is project manager at Civita and deputy manager at Unge Venstre. Photo: Enok Grova / Private Climate finance is financial support and investments that are given to developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This could be, for example, rainforest protection or renewable energy development. Big sums Today, the Oil Fund is worth a staggering NOK 18,000 billion. This amounts to NOK 3.24 million per Norwegian. Thomsen believes that 0.25 per cent of this money should be used annually on climate finance abroad. In 2024, it would have been NOK 46 billion. Today, Norway gives NOK 58 billion in aid. We are the only OECD country to reach the target of donating one percent of GNI. No one beats Norway in terms of aid, now we spend 60 billion a year which will go towards poverty eradication. Why then does our tax money go to rock clubs in Bosnia? Is it in our own interest If Norway were to spend 0.25 per cent of the Oil Fund on climate finance and keep the one per cent target, a total of NOK 100 billion would be spent on aid and climate finance. – 100 billion is an amazing amount. Is it reasonable? – Yes, I think so. To quote Kåre Willoch: “we will discover that an effective climate policy costs a trifle compared to the huge damage we risk creating if we do not pursue an effective and somewhat expensive climate policy”. Thomsen believes that climate change will be able to destabilize the world economy, which in turn will lead to the Oil Fund’s value falling massively. CLIMATE KÅRE: Former Prime Minister for Høgre, Kåre Willoch, said that it is cheaper to prevent climate change than to pay for the damage. Photo: Berit Roald / NTB – There is no shortage of people who want to use the Oil Fund for good purposes. Is it the right use of our joint pension fund? – Although we should be critical of using our joint pension fund for all good purposes, climate finance is a rare exception. Primarily because this is an acute problem that can lead to irreversible damage. Unlimited need for climate finance Development Minister Anne Beathe Tvinnereim (Sp) agrees with Huun that it is a good idea to spend more money on climate finance. – There is no limit to what the world needs in terms of climate finance, she says. Photo: Amanda Iversen Orlich / n654171 – But I think it is up to the Norwegian Parliament to discuss the size of the aid budget. And then we must also be able to use these funds sensibly. She believes that Norway already gives large sums. The Støre government doubled climate funding from 2020, and spent NOK 16.5 billion on this last year. She is also skeptical of the proposal to split the aid in two, as advocated by Norad CEO Bård Vegar Solhjell, among others. – It is an attractive thought, and I understand the intention of Civita. However, there is still a long way to go before this will work in practice. She points out that there is no international definition of what constitutes a so-called global common good. In addition, she also believes that there is a large overlap between poverty eradication and climate. – A great deal of the aid we use for climate finance is also directly poverty-reducing. Supports the proposal Economics professor Steinar Holden at the Institute of Economics in Oslo believes the proposal has something to do with it. – We are a rich country with great resources, and we have spent a lot of money on oil. And that means that we should also have a responsibility to contribute to mitigating climate change. Photo: Berit Roald / NTB scanpix He clearly believes that it is economically profitable for the world to do more to prevent the worst climate changes. – What may be more uncertain is whether it will pay off for the individual country. For many countries, it can probably pay to be a free passenger, where you try to sneak away from paying your share. Hello! Do you have any tips for what I should write about? I have previously written about how parliamentary politicians have lost trust in the media and about Equinor’s plans for net zero in 2050. I am generally interested in artificial intelligence, politics, economics and energy. Feel free to send me an e-mail or a message on Signal +47 917 44 070. Published 02.08.2024, at 05.50
ttn-69