It does not seem so, the artcile indicates the court focused on procedural issues related to the impact assessment required for the permits to build the new oil locations. The issues seems to be focused on the fact they weren't done, or were incomplete. I would imagine only pump locations with similar deficiencies would be in trouble.
> combustion emissions [from] petroleum extraction are such a significant and particularly characteristic consequence of such projects that they must clearly be considered indirect climate impacts within the meaning of the (EU) Project Directive
It didn't seem particular to the locations. Under this ruling, if the oil gets shipped to India and burned there they would now need to include it in the local impact assessment.
Maybe they just need to resubmit with a new impact assessment? But it does seem like the precedent they are trying to set is to reject all projects based on emissions.
It may functionally stop all new projects (although I doubt that it will get that far).
I don't see anything implying that existing projects approved under the old framework would need to be re-assessed and shutdown though. That was my main point.
If there is legal precedent that carbon emissions from sovereign oil sources potentially violate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, there's no reason to believe there would not immediately be new cases opened up against existing projects on the same grounds.
They could open the cases, but this decision hinged on the permitting process not following the law that it needed to consider emissions, which the Rights of the Chile was a component of.
It is not a given the reasoning used in this decision could be used for oil and gas projects that followed a proper permit process at the time they were granted. There is more reason to believe this case would NOT apply in that situation.
I can’t speak intelligently about the relationship between the pension fund and the wealth fund (it is complicated), but I think you overestimate the share of upcoming revenue from oil over the on-going benefit from operating a fund that is betting on sustainable solutions. Someone smarter than me should correct the record here.
However, the key information here is neither side of that contradiction, but that Norway has found a very large deposit of Phosphorous. Until now, Marocco has the largest reserves (by so much it’s actually daunting, confusing really, how they didn’t end up like the Saudi Arabia of bird poop, which is essential for growing food, so a tad more essential than burning donuts).
Norway seem keen to leverage that the way they leveraged fossil fuels, so I’d expect that fund to grow bigger, faster, and without the discomfort of selling something that could, and most likely will, end up drowning Norwegian towns.
that's not exactly correct given the inflationary nature of printing to "spend into existence." History is filled with crumbled societies printing their own money as mention.
that's a big question, however at a first order, its arguable that no "new" money is necessary. Wealth (not money) is created out of human effort, i.e. labor.
What do you mean by spend into existence? If they collect much more money in taxes and investments than they spend (which they ary), are they then really spending anything into existence?