Norway's Finance Minister Is Insane

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

Political posturing, trial balloons, PR positioning—savvy elected officials know that professional survival depends more on voters’ perceptions than actual accomplishments. And so, when Norway’s Finance Minister called for an end to the sale of purely petrol powered vehicles by 2015, it was a major miscalculation. Info consumers are hard of hearing; they perceived Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen’s proposition as a general ban on all gas-powered vehicles (including hybrids) in six years. Halvorsen was forced into damage-control mode, “This is much more realistic than people think when they first hear about this proposal,” she told Reuters. The fact that no politician in their right mind would suggest such a thing clearly occurred to the plucky Norwegian: “Halvorsen knew of no other finance minister in the world who was even arguing for such a goal. ‘I haven’t heard about any ministers. I’m not surprised. We are often a party that puts forward new proposals first.'” That said, Halvorsen has been on the front lines of extreme ideology before; she was forced to rescind her call for a ban on Israeli-made products.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 25 comments
  • NBK-Boston NBK-Boston on Apr 28, 2009

    Martin: A true anti-oil policy would be for Norway to stop pumping and selling the stuff. Anything less (i.e. what they are doing) is window dressing. An anti-domestic-oil-consumption policy is very different from an actual anti-oil policy. Slight -- or even major -- reductions in domestic demand in a country as small as Norway will not affect the world price of oil. For Norway, it would just leave more for export. Which enriches the country -- and the finance ministry -- especially since a very large chunk of national oil profits are put into an investment fund, overseen, of course, by said finance ministry. Traditional conservation measures alone (i.e. mandating higher fuel economy in cars, and such) work against themselves -- reducing demand from its original level causes price to go down (assuming constant production; admittedly OPEC eventually moves to cut production when demand craters, like at present), which will eventually stimulate more demand from some other source -- more miles driven in efficient cars will eventually consume the same amount of fuel as fewer miles driven in gas guzzlers, whether those miles are driven by the original drivers, or by the Chinese and Indians getting in on the motoring habit. Cheap oil can also discourage conversion of electric generation and other flexible industrial applications to other fuels (coal, gas, nuclear, renewables), since the conversion won't generate the same savings as it would if oil remained expensive. Ordinarily, these equillibrating tendencies are considered a good feature of markets, but if we all decide that oil is bad for some reason, and should not be burned, then simple unilateral conservation measures will not to a thing to advance that goal. To pretend otherwise is silly and immature. (Such measures may have other uses, though, such as buffering an economy against a price spike or supply shock, for instance.) The only sure-fire ways to depress oil consumption and keep it low are to (1) destroy industrial civilization, (2) impose a fairly steep excise tax on oil, or (3) invent some technology that does everything oil does, only better and cheaper, so that people naturally migrate away from oil. Number 1 is unacceptable, and number 3 is unpredictable (but it happens all the time, of course -- coal is not much used for directly heating buildings anymore, even though we still have plenty of it, and it's cheap, and flint is not much used for knives either). Number 2 is the only sure-fire method, but you don't see Norway going around advocating a world-wide tax treaty on crude oil, do you? Like I said, Norway is a well-behaved Saudi Arabia. It is generally progressive, democratic, pro-whaling (as a New Englander, I have a soft spot for this) and all sorts of other good things. But it is an oil state, in which a good chunk of its current prosperity is tied to, and insured by, oil. That's not a bad thing, but it must be borne in mind any time one tries to figure out what they are up to.

  • Skor Skor on Apr 28, 2009

    Why does anyone pay attention to anything a politician from a Scandinavian country has to say? The average Scandinavian is so out of touch with reality, these countries will cease to exists in a generation or two. Currently Scandinavian is being overrun by "immigrants" from the Mideast, Africa and the Balkans. If there is one good thing about the coming imposition of Sharia on Scandinavian, it's that feminist twits like Kristin Halvorsen will have to shut their holes, and stay home making babies for her new husband, Abdul.

  • Martin Schwoerer Martin Schwoerer on Apr 29, 2009

    NBK-Earth, I appreciate your civil and detailed way of arguing. When you say Norway is a well-behaved Saudia Arabia -- what does that mean? Do you mean they have Sharia, but they don't support the Mujahedeen? That they are backward, but they don't finance terrorism? I am, quite honestly, baffled. I think you mean they are an oil exporter but are one of the few such countries that are not corrupted by their oil. I'm fine with that. But to say Norway should stop exporting oil, now that doesn't cut the mustard. Nobody is saying that oil is evil. Even Kyoto doesn't say we have to get rid of oil. All Halvorsen says is that transport should not be 100% based on fossil fuel. She's making an exception for hybrids too. What does that mean? It means, she wants a reduction of CO2 in Norway by executive edict, as opposed to by tax. Normal stuff, albeit not ideal, in my mind. And besides, oil has all kinds of uses non-related to transportation. It would be criminal to stop pumping and selling the stuff.

  • GeerHed GeerHed on May 10, 2009

    Okie dokie. For those of you that clicked the link leading to the actual story itself provided both within and below the op-ed above (most likely as it would constitute libel without sourcing properly, given the tone and well, overall, its flagrant misrepresentation) I can appreciate your initiative regarding your political world-view...for those that either missed those links or have, perhaps, never heard of Reuters, allow me to add some balance to the scales. All apologies for my sarcasm, but, God-willing, I'll be marrying a Norwegian this time next year. No offense, but my expert opinion comes directly from a source that makes Reuters look like a basement operation. First, keep in mind that - foreign as it may seem - the purpose of a parliamentary legislature is, for the most part, to ensure that as many citizens as possible have at the very least a voice within the parliament halls. Combine that with the fact that all attention is good attention for a public figure, especially considering the detail to which she explains her motivations for such a sweeping change at such short notice. Regarding her "anti-Semite" rhetoric, I can only implore you to pay closer attention to your own political discussions at work and at home, regarding where to take a stand and where to acquiesce. How are you with Obama in office? Gay marriage? Immigrant labor? Christians, or better yet, Muslims? And regarding Norway's involvement with China and the Sudan...and no doubt dozens of "questionable" bedfellows if you really got into the economic policy of any industrialized nation. The majority of United States' debt is with China, our own home-grown companies exploit the greed of countless totalitarian state for the mere hint of profit for themselves, and we've our own long and sullied history of transparent as well as covert (if not outright illegal) collusion with much more cumbersome bedfellows than our Scandinavian friends. Allow me to direct your attention to a double-handful of Middle Eastern countries that denounce our presence the moment our ambassadors remove the ear buds providing translations for dialects and languages that the average US citizen could neither name or nor understand. And honestly, if we've reached the point where one leftist politician is capable of tarnishing an entire country's reputation here, where anyone might come across this story and its corresponding bickering, then I'll just keep hope alive that these next generations will lack our predisposition to get right down to the muckraking before we even confirm with either of the provided sources (despite having been given somewhat...eh, next-to-nothing, at all, in the way of proper context or necessary elaboration.) And I apologize, but "skor"...friend...you might benefit from a few moments taken to look up the world's current standards of living, modernized health care - and no, the two are not mutually exclusive - not to mention the acceptance or all those "immigrants" that, last I checked, could just as easily be deemed refugees seeking asylum in one of the few countries still willing to assist them - you just named three war-torn regions, so if anything, I'd say they're a touch more "in touch" than most of us...oh, and while we're at it, and least *try* not to denigrate our allies in Afghanistan while you're wishing nothing but a theocratic totalitarian Hell upon an entire society of somewhat different, but the vast majority all quite generous and kind-hearted citizens. My future father-in-law fought to cease the genocide taking place in the same Balkans you mention above, but I wonder - are you familiar with the years following WWI and II? I'd hate to think our nation was literally "overrun" with immigrants - Europeans, working in the glamorous factories and foundries of Chicago and elsewhere, that likely fathered and mothered your parents or grandparents, 'cause I know they did half of mine. The other half have been here since the 1730's, fought for the great men that founded this country, and again for the Union in the 1860's, just in case my loyalty should come into question... Back on topic, if you did or do eventually read the Reuters article -- (bold-type words added for my own emphasis): Your very first line reads: "A proposal to ban sales of new gasoline-powered cars in Norway from 2015 could help spur struggling carmakers to shift to greener models, Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen said Saturday." Further down you'll find: "Hybrids using fossil fuels and electricity, for instance, would still be permitted." And further: "Halvorsen denied that her proposal would undermine the economy -- Norway is the world's number six oil exporter. 'Not at all ... we know that the world will be dependent on oil and gas for many decades ahead but we have to introduce new technologies and this is a proposal to support that,' she said." Do seat belts ring a bell for anyone? If not, keep reading. Minority politicians exist simply to open a discussion that the majority cannot approach for fear of...discussions like this. Surely 1992 and 2000 are still fresh in our memories. Perot and Nader, respectively, while each their own ear-sore as individuals, brought new ideas and/or strategies into the national discussion. There was no real guarantee their ideas would either benefit the nation, or even succeed in a microcosm of society, but it is the minority's job to raise a stink, if not only to obtain the necessary attention to get the idea - regardless of 2015 - into as many televisions and radios as possible. Democracy is compromise. Norway isn't perfect, but exactly since when are we? We're one of the youngest countries in existence, and the excitement is in our progress forward - so I actually applaud Halvorsen's statement. Capitalism and Socialism have their shortcomings, sure, but the two are not perpendicular tangents in basic ideology. Hence, as a major supplier of oil, everything in Norway from your bus to work to your triple-bypass surgery is free, and no, they are quite capable medically - not all Socialist countries are cesspools of health care and preventative medicine. And finally, from Halvorsen via Reuters: "'A lot of people thought that this proposal also would go after the cars we already have. That is not the case, it's the new cars that are bought after 2015.'" --But why in the world would so many think such drastic measures were being undertaken by the government, would you assume? Surely such an unbiased story as above, would only further her cause - not to do away with petroleum products of course...until all traces of medicinal ointments disappear completely from the medical field, and car tires, hoses, gaskets, and other similar, rubber-derived parts are crafted out of...what, wheat? No, there weren't any electric grain harvesters last I looked so...what? Some absurdly expensive polymer, I suppose, and while we're at it - say goodbye to plastic products and asphalt. Welcome to the Renaissance. Hope you're fond of nepotism, art, and, for those of us in the US, nonexistence. Isn't exaggeration wonderful? I'm just astounded that so many went straight past the link to Reuters in order to triple the article's word-count in an uproar of disagreements. Let me give you a little peace of mind, for anyone still reading this thread. Remaining exclusively on the subject of cars, try to list for me a handful of safety features - seat belts, airbags, ABS, crumple zones, coated windshields, anything - that wasn't a result of heavy pressure from any number of "insane" politicians, corporate interests, lobbyists from groups such as MADD, or other social activists - while I'm certainly not a fan, was it not Ralph Nader that ultimately championed the mandate for seat-belt availability and their usage? That's right! Your head remained inside the vehicle, attached to your neck no less, thanks to any number of even more uproarious attempts to force safety legislation upon any number of companies that would more than happily tally us all down as acceptable losses for the sake of the occasional mechanical eureka - that is, of course, should it make any money through its discovery. I'm as much a fan of 170mph here as anyone. But it's a bad reflection upon the site itself when someone joins just to ask firsthand if we're really that unappreciative of our allies, of all people, to post such a misleading op-ed in not just an easily accessible but an internationally visible medium as well. So maybe in the future, think more about the future. Either way, best of luck with whatever this endeavor really is. It's certainly not about either truth or even that much about cars from what I've seen here. But I do appreciate your rights in publishing, and my well-wishes are genuine. Unfortunately, I'm sure you'll genuinely appreciate my absence from your website as well. But I do regret that of all places, Norway caught the extent of your ire. I'm only 26 and knew long before I even met a Norwegian the foundations of different governmental systems, the assistance we receive from dozens of countries that are constantly criticized for even the most mundane and obviously unlikely political positioning. And I know exactly how this sounds, but as with all foreign policy - some of you will likely disregard this as nonsense - it matters none whatsoever what our politicians say when the citizens that put them there feel the need to attack our allies over what is, honestly...none of our business to begin with - just as we'd say to a Norwegian citizen that chose to criticize our way of life. Just try to remember that in the future, even though, like I said - I'll be finding the truth about cars elsewhere, to our mutual relief I'm sure. Best of luck regardless.

Next