3 ms·

It may seem ironic that the ecological policy is enabled by riches derived from extraction of their sizable oil reserves. Nonetheless this is the pattern we've

by dexen 8y ago

It may seem ironic that the ecological policy is enabled by riches derived from extraction of their sizable oil reserves. Nonetheless this is the pattern we've seen repeat time and time again through history: the more surplus (energy, power, human effort, etc.) is available, the more people can improve their living conditions. And people indeed show strong preference to have nature in healthy, beautiful state. It's all matter of having strong, efficient economy.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Norway's Sovereign fund is very much the exception from surplus. Most countries have achieved far less future proofing. The pattern we see again and again is using a surplus in a very short-term, short-sighted manner. Round about the same time as Norway was setting up their fund, the UK was deciding not to. UK's dividend from similarly sized oil reserves was nothing. It was all given away in tax cuts, realistically not much noticed. Effectively all spent on people buying a 26" CRT TV, a holiday, maybe a Sony Walkman etc.
- TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
  Tax cuts and unemployment benefits for the massive numbers of people losing their jobs.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  The population of the UK is considerably larger while they had less oil reserves and their oil is more costly to extract.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    We'd have potentially ended up with a similarly sized fund but around a tenth per-capita. That would have been around $20k or $30k for every man woman and child - hardly trivial. Certainly not a reason not to bother or feel we got anything resembling a benefit from the resource dividend.
    - dogma1138 8y ago
      Hindsight is always 20/20, the Norwegian fund was setup because the country went bankrupt and needed to save its pensions a similar fund in the UK would’ve been about half of the total endowment the Norwegians had with 12 times the population it’s not that clear if it would’ve made any difference in the long term.

by dexen 8y ago

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Norway's Sovereign fund is very much the exception from surplus. Most countries have achieved far less future proofing. The pattern we see again and again is using a surplus in a very short-term, short-sighted manner. Round about the same time as Norway was setting up their fund, the UK was deciding not to. UK's dividend from similarly sized oil reserves was nothing. It was all given away in tax cuts, realistically not much noticed. Effectively all spent on people buying a 26" CRT TV, a holiday, maybe a Sony Walkman etc.

TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
Tax cuts and unemployment benefits for the massive numbers of people losing their jobs.
dogma1138 8y ago
The population of the UK is considerably larger while they had less oil reserves and their oil is more costly to extract.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  We'd have potentially ended up with a similarly sized fund but around a tenth per-capita. That would have been around $20k or $30k for every man woman and child - hardly trivial. Certainly not a reason not to bother or feel we got anything resembling a benefit from the resource dividend.
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    Hindsight is always 20/20, the Norwegian fund was setup because the country went bankrupt and needed to save its pensions a similar fund in the UK would’ve been about half of the total endowment the Norwegians had with 12 times the population it’s not that clear if it would’ve made any difference in the long term.