Overlapping consensus versus discourse in climate change policy: The case of Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund

Abstract

Abstract This paper is motivated by the mismatch between emission of greenhouse gases and effective mitigation policies. Science now calls for every tool to be considered in order for radical changes to mitigate the situation more effectively. This paper considers Norway's huge Sovereign Wealth Fund which, although withdrawing investment from firms causing severe environmental damage, does not categorize climate change as ‘severe environmental damage’. The main reason is a basis of overlapping consensus, which also hinders argumentation for this practice. Overlapping consensus is part of the broader theory “Justice as Fairness” as conceived by John Rawls. The consensus is with regard to having a socially just system. The word ‘overlapping’ refers to people having different reasons for supporting the system. However using overlapping consensus for investment-strategies represents an extension beyond its original intention, and moreover, removes mitigating climate change from the agenda. Removing the basis of overlapping consensus opens up scope for value-based discourse conceived by Habermas’ communicative action and discourse ethics. The immense severity of climate change demands value-based and substantial arguments from powerful sovereign wealth funds, to consider the acceptability of their practice.