Kontakt oss

Telefon: 22 03 31 50
E-post: post@framtiden.no
Økernveien 94

Støtt arbeidet vårt

Liker du arbeidet Framtiden i våre hender gjør? Med din støtte kan vi gjøre enda mer.
Bli medlem nå!

Stopp sløsepolitikken!
Skal vi bekjempe klima- og naturkrisa må vi bekjempe overforbruket!
Støtt kravene!

Vi jobber for en rettferdig verden i økologisk balanse

Norwegians common oil fortune is placed in production of nuclear missiles, in spite of the fact that Norway refuses to have nuclear arms placed on the country’s territory.  The investment made into the US arms giant Lockheed Martin makes the Oil Fund a party to the production of the highly advanced Trident II D5 missile.

Last autumn the Social Left Party (SV) had to make a humble appology after having claimed thet the Oli Fund invested in cluster bombs prodution. They really didn't have to do that. For now NorWatch can reveal that the Oli Fund investment into the american weapons giant General Dynamics gives Norwegians cluster-blod on their hands after all.
Norway does not want nuclear weapons placed on Norwegian territory. Still, Norwegian's common oil fortune has been invested in production of nuclear missils and war heads: The vast majority of people in Norway want an international ban on nuclear weapons.
"The Government and Parliament must make a political choice..."
The investments of the enviroment fund is decided by resolution to be increased heavily in the course of the first quarter this year, from 1 billion NOK to 2. This can mean a doubling of Norwegian oil money in tobacco companies and environmental bad guys.
The Norwegian petroleum fund has bought heavily into Canadian aluminium giant Alcan Inc. who is a partner in the controversial Utkal-project in India. That is problematic, both ethically and financially.
Over the past months, fund manager Banco Fondsforvaltning has been aggressively advertising its new "ethical" and "ideal" mutual fund, Humanfond Aksje, in Norwegian newspapers. Two percent of the total assets in this fund goes to non-governmental organisations that endorse the concept. The fund is allegedly "ethical" because the managers avoid investing in those two companies on the Oslo stock exchange that have more than 10% of their activities in breweries or armaments.
When the Ministry of Finance presented the revised national budget, its provisional clarification of the Petroleum Fund's so-called environmental portfolio and its guidelines were also made public.
In the revised national budget, the government presented its proposals to change the guidelines of the National Petroleum Fund. This is supposed to fulfil the demands which have been put forward from many quarters, and also from some of the present members of the government when they were in opposition.
The Government Petroleum Fund's first annual report, which has now been published, provides evidence of the result of lacking ethical and environmental guidelines for the Fund's foreign investments. NorWatch's study of the Petroleum Fund's portfolio leaves no doubt: Norwegian petroleum money is invested in some of the decidedly worst companies, with long lists of sins, not least in developing countries.
Through Opplysningsvesenets Fond (the Norwegian church fund for investments) (OVF) the Norwegian Church and the Ministry of Church, Education, and Research (KUF) have invested in several big companies. On the list we find, among others, Norsk Hydro, Norske Skog, Veidekke, Orkla, and Saga Petroleum. The companies in which the church has invested its money, are involved in many projects which imply forced relocation of indigenous peoples, environmental scandals and arms trade. They are also involved in several countries with regimes which cannot be said to be very much liked by the "ecclesial opinion", such as Libya and Iran.
Storebrand's Environmental Fund has once again invested in a company with a very questionable environment and social record; namely the partly Norwegian-owned Aracruz Cellulose S.A. in Brazil.  When confronted with the native indians' demand to recover their traditional lands from Aracruz, the director of the Environmental Fund, Carlos Joly, completely incorrectly claims that the Brazilian Supreme Court has decided the outcome of the land dispute in favor of Aracruz Celulose.  In addition, the Environmental Fund bases its environmental appraisal of Aracruz Celulose on a study done by the same consulting company that was responsible for the development of the company's plantation and cellulose factory.