No it couldn't have? The article is about an oil heiress who has spent her adult life working with and bankrolling various leftist causes, and is a long examination of how that kind of person fits into those causes. As the article puts it:
> When libertarian or right-wing plutocrats buy influence—fossil-fuel executives pushing for deregulation, hedge-funders who want lower taxes—it’s easy enough to understand what they’re up to. But leftist class traitors are harder to pin down. They can always be suspected of performative reputation-laundering, or dilettantism, or dual loyalty. The left is wary of them for having been born into an obscene level of privilege; the right resents them for not having the common sense to shut up and enjoy it. It’s one thing to be a rich liberal—acknowledging your unearned privilege, endeavoring to leave the world a little better than you found it—and another to be a rich anti-capitalist radical, galvanized by the conviction that you are complicit in a historic injustice.
Norway's oil fund, as far as I know, was started to exchange the country's hydrocarbon revenues for less volatile income and, in more recent years, avoid investing in places and companies that it deems unethical. It is still basically about growing investments, and its ethical choices are much more conservative and institutional than those covered in the article. I don't see how anybody could actually read this article and think it's asking a question that Norway's oil fund answers.
> When libertarian or right-wing plutocrats buy influence—fossil-fuel executives pushing for deregulation, hedge-funders who want lower taxes—it’s easy enough to understand what they’re up to. But leftist class traitors are harder to pin down. They can always be suspected of performative reputation-laundering, or dilettantism, or dual loyalty. The left is wary of them for having been born into an obscene level of privilege; the right resents them for not having the common sense to shut up and enjoy it. It’s one thing to be a rich liberal—acknowledging your unearned privilege, endeavoring to leave the world a little better than you found it—and another to be a rich anti-capitalist radical, galvanized by the conviction that you are complicit in a historic injustice.
Norway's oil fund, as far as I know, was started to exchange the country's hydrocarbon revenues for less volatile income and, in more recent years, avoid investing in places and companies that it deems unethical. It is still basically about growing investments, and its ethical choices are much more conservative and institutional than those covered in the article. I don't see how anybody could actually read this article and think it's asking a question that Norway's oil fund answers.