[klunger]

We got click-baited by an interesting headline, friends.

Instead of trying to tackle all the problems with this piece, I will just address the most glaring ones:

1) Norway is a nation, not a company. It does not have maximization of shareholder value as it's primary driving force. Yes, there is the sovereign wealth fund. But, that is about managing the assets that have been collected. It has nothing to say about where the assets come from.

The author conflates these things, when they are completely separate. In fact, the wealth fund is in the process of divesting itself from fossil-fuel related entities. [1]

2) Speaking of Norway being a country -- it has 5 million people and dozens of political parties. Most of those people and political parties do not actually support further north sea exploration [2]. Much like in the US and most other countries I suppose, the actions of the government do not represent the will of the majority of the people.

3) Given that Norway is well aware of the climate crisis, they have spent considerable effort trying to make their economy less dependent on oil. Since 2008 or so, the share of oil as a percentage of total exports has been on the decline [3]. This has been the result of a conscious effort and set of policies to diversify the economy. Norway wants to stop being dependent on oil because they know it is shitty for the climate and it is an economically precarious position to be in.

And yet, this piece suggests Norway should just drop oil all at once and further suggests that it has not made any effort at all to do so in the past. In fact, a lot of money and political will is being exerted into this very endeavor [4]

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-swf-oil-idUSKBN1WG...

[2] https://naturvernforbundet.no/lofoten-vesteralen-og-senja/hv...

[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1025405/share-of-crude-o...

[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35318236

[zohch]

> 2) Speaking of Norway being a country -- it has 5 million people and dozens of political parties. Most of those people and political parties do not actually support further north sea exploration [2].

Your citation is about political parties, and the majority of political parties would not translate to the majority of actual voters.

> Much like in the US and most other countries I suppose, the actions of the government do not represent the will of the majority of the people.

Maybe get a better source for the position you claim is held by Norwegian citizens before speculating on this.

[klunger]

The source is a summary of the position of the 9 major political parties on further oil exploration. There are dozens of parties here, yes, but the 9 listed there account for about 92% of the population. They are all the ones that have representation in parliament at the moment.

The views of the parties express anywhere from complete support to complete opposition to further drilling, with some compromise positions as well. If you compare that with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_N... how much each party has representation in parliament at the moment, you will see that a large swath of the population is opposed to it.

However, because of the way that the parliament system works here, this issue is not correctly represented in current policy.

[zohch]

> If you compare that with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_N... how much each party has representation in parliament at the moment, you will see that a large swath of the population is opposed to it.

The only way to show actual public support/opposition for the issue is to do just that, everything else is not really a valid substitute. You may be right about the actual public support, but without actually showing the data for it, it remains speculation.

> However, because of the way that the parliament system works here, this issue is not correctly represented in current policy.

How would you change the system to avoid such a misrepresentation of public opinion in actual policy/legislation? If there is such massive public support, what would be the fallout from just not approving north sea exploration?