Today, there is a separate rule that determines how much money from the Norwegian piggy bank, the oil fund, that politicians can use in the annual state budgets. It is currently 3 per cent of the fund’s value. This code of conduct was established over 20 years ago and has worked well under changing governments. But now two things make it necessary to revise the rule, says fiscal policy spokesperson Kari Elisabeth Kaski from SV. One is that the oil fund has become gigantically large, the other is a precarious need to succeed in rapid climate change. RENEWABLE: Norway should spend more oil money on expanding solar energy in poor countries, says SV’s Kari Elisabeth Kaski. The picture is from Doma in Nigeria. Photo: AFP – I propose that we get a rule of action that is divided into two – one for the interior and one for abroad, says Kaski to news. Concretely, she wants, as today, to have one rule for the annual use of oil money in the Norwegian state budget. In addition, Kaski will have its own rules of procedure for using money from the oil fund on “international climate finance”. It can be about pure climate cuts or building out renewable energy or power grids in developing countries. – If we do not succeed in cutting greenhouse gas emissions faster in the next few years, the whole world is facing a climate disaster. That is the one enormous challenge we have, she says. – Voldsom earnings SV is the government’s permanent budget partner in the Storting. Kaski is launching his proposal at a conference on aid in Oslo today. The proposal will be incorporated into SV’s work on a new party program in the lead up to the election in 2025. The main problem is that Norway currently spends too little money on helping poor countries to cut emissions and become more climate-friendly, Kaski believes. She suggests that her new operating rule may be 0.25 per cent of the fund. Today, that would mean around NOK 30–35 billion. The SV peak indicates that Norway has a special role to play in reducing emissions, due to the way Norwegian wealth is built up. – We have an additional responsibility through the fact that our oil fund has been created through the export of oil and gas over many decades, says Kaski. Not least after Russia invaded Ukraine in full two years ago, Norway has earned large sums from high energy prices. – Can this proposal be read as a response to claims that Norway is a war profiteer? – That criticism has come even stronger internationally. More and more countries, not only developing countries, but also other western countries, see the paradox in Norway’s enormous earnings, which have been greatly enhanced by the war in Ukraine. – Not wise The Ministry of Finance and economists warn against spending even more oil billions over the national budget than what the politicians are already doing. The reason is that it can contribute to increased speed, and thus increased interest rates and increased price growth, in the Norwegian economy. But there has been no shortage of proposals to use more money from the oil fund in other ways, either “under the line” domestically or abroad, as Kaski is now doing. And those who advocate spending more oil billions abroad point out that this spending will not affect the Norwegian economy, precisely because the money is spent abroad. SKEPTICAL: The Center Party’s fiscal policy spokesperson Ole André Myhrvold. Photo: Jon Petrusson / news The Center Party’s Ole André Myhrvold is nevertheless very skeptical of Kaski’s proposal. He fears such a new rule could lead to demands for the use of oil billions in other areas as well, such as aid or Ukraine aid. – This is quite recognizable from SV. To me, this does not appear to be a new proposal, but I do not think it is any wiser for that reason, he says to news. – The big advantage of the action rule is that it is very simple and has been easy to manage. I think we should stick to that, says SP’s fiscal policy spokesperson at the Storting. He reminds that the government already contributes to climate investments abroad, through the rainforest fund and the UN climate damage fund.
ttn-69