Norwegian Wealth Fund Rejects Elon Musk’s $1 Trillion Compensation Package for Tesla

Norway’s sovereign wealth fund has declared its intention to oppose Tesla’s proposed $1 trillion (£765 billion) compensation package for Chief Executive Elon Musk.

The largest national wealth fund stated that it acknowledges “the remarkable value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary leadership” but will vote against his performance-based award.

“In line with our stance on executive compensation, we are worried about the total remuneration, dilution, and the absence of risk mitigation for essential personnel.” “We remain eager to engage in constructive discussions with Tesla on this and other matters.”

The alert from Norges Bank, Tesla’s seventh-largest single shareholder with $17 billion in stock, arrived just two days prior to Tesla’s annual shareholder meeting.

On Thursday, shareholders are expected to vote on an extraordinary incentive proposal that could propel Elon Musk to become the world’s first trillionaire.

If Musk escalates Tesla’s valuation from approximately $1 trillion to $8.5 trillion over the next decade, he would be granted new shares, and his ownership stake would increase from nearly 16% to over 25%.

This would boost the wealth of the world’s richest man to over $2 trillion.

Tesla Chairman Robin Denholm emphasized that this vote is crucial to retaining Musk, 54, as the company’s CEO, stating in a letter to shareholders that the company might lose “significant value” should he depart.

Last year, the Norwegian Oil Fund opposed Musk’s $56 billion compensation plan, which was the largest in U.S. corporate history at the time. Although it was approved by shareholders in June, a Delaware court later rejected it a second time in December.

Nikolai Tangen, the chief executive of the Norwegian fund, had invited Musk and other CEOs to a dinner in Oslo last year, but Musk declined after the fund voted against the $56 billion compensation package.

Text exchanges between Tangen and Musk were disclosed in a Freedom of Information request by Norwegian business magazine DN. The newspaper reported that Musk texted Tangen in October last year: “It’s not often that I ask you for a favor and you say no. Then you shouldn’t ask me for a favor until I do something more than make up for it. A friend is a friend.”

Skip past newsletter promotions

Shareholders are split on the proposed deal, with two significant shareholder advisory firms, Glass Lewis and ISS, both advising investors to reject the $1 trillion package.

Several major pension funds are also against the pay structure, including the American Federation of Teachers and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest public system in the nation.

Musk, being Tesla’s largest single shareholder, also has a vote on the proposal.

Last month, Tesla’s president stated on the social media platform X, which he acquired in 2022, “Tesla is worth more than all the other car companies combined. Which CEO would want to run Tesla? It wouldn’t be me.”

Tesla was approached for comment.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Minister Rejects Lords’ Attempts to Force AI Firms to Disclose Use of Copyrighted Material

The Minister employs obscure parliamentary tactics to block amendments to data bills that demand artificial intelligence firms to reveal their use of copyrighted material.

Last week, the government removed the transparency amendment, backed by their colleagues in the House of Representatives. Consequently, there is no budget allocated for new regulations during the Commons discussion on Wednesday afternoon.

This amendment would have compelled tech companies to specify the copyrights utilized in their models.

168 members opposed, whereas 297 lawmakers voted for the elimination of the amendment.

Data Protection Minister Chris Bryant acknowledged that this situation “feels like an apocalyptic moment” for many in the creative sector, but he argued that a revision on transparency wouldn’t solve the core issues, emphasizing it “should be done comprehensively, not just piecemeal.”

Bryant stated that the more data bills are approved, the quicker he can move to update copyright laws.

Mrs. Kidron remarked that the Minister then responded with a roundtable session and misleading queries about technical solutions.

“It’s astonishing that the Labour government is abandoning the workforce of the entire sector. My inbox is flooded with messages from individual artists and global companies expressing that the government allows widespread theft and is comfortable with being associated with thieves. Yet, this government has chosen to disregard these concerns.

“Throughout the creative and business communities, as well as in Congress, people are bewildered by the government’s maneuvering over issues that affect their livelihoods.”

Skip past newsletter promotions

Kidron plans to propose a rephrased amendment next week, ahead of the bill’s return to the Lords, setting the stage for another round of contention. This proposal entails eliminating references to regulations or disregarding implemented timelines.

Owen Meredith, CEO of the News Media Association, commented: “It is regrettable that the government has overlooked the serious concerns of the creative sector, especially news publishers, regarding democratic values.

“Instead, the government has utilized Parliamentary measures to dismiss industry concerns, rather than seizing this critical opportunity to promote transparency that could enhance the UK’s vibrant licensing market for valuable creative content. The time remains for Parliament to support the UK’s creative industry while granting AI companies access to high-quality data. The focus is shifting towards the Lords. The government must acknowledge the urgent necessity to wield the required powers now.”

Recently, hundreds of artists and organizations, including Paul McCartney, Jeanette Winterson, Dua Lipa, and the Royal Shakespeare Company, urged the Prime Minister to “not sacrifice our work for the interests of a few powerful foreign tech companies.”

The government’s copyright proposal is set for consultations this year, but opponents of the plan are leveraging the data bill to voice their dissent.

The primary government proposition is to permit AI companies to utilize copyrighted works for model training without prior consent from copyright holders unless they choose to opt out.

The government contends that the creative and tech sectors are being hindered and that new legislation is essential to address this issue. They have already made one concession to the data bill by pledging to conduct an economic impact assessment of their proposal.

A spokesperson for Science, Innovation and Technology stated: “We aim to enable both the creative industry and AI companies to flourish. That’s why we’re negotiating individual packages of measures that we hope will benefit both sectors. We are not rushing into decision-making or advancing with legislation until we are confident we have a viable plan to achieve each objective.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Trump Administration Rejects Author of the National Climate Assessment

The Trump administration has dismissed numerous scientists and experts who were working on the federal government’s key report regarding the impacts of global warming on the nation.

This decision, which is obligatory in Congress, poses significant risks to the future of the National Climate Assessment, according to experts.

Since 2000, the federal government has released an in-depth report every few years detailing how rising temperatures influence human health, agriculture, fisheries, water resources, transportation, energy generation, and various aspects of the U.S. economy. The latest climate assessment was published in 2023. This report is utilized not only by state and local authorities but also by private enterprises, assisting in preparations for extreme weather events, floods, droughts, and other climate-related challenges.

On Monday, researchers nationwide began the preparation for the sixth National Climate Assessment, scheduled for early 2028, only to receive an email indicating that the report’s scope is “currently under review” and all contributors have been dismissed.

“We are now liberating all existing assessment contributors from their roles,” the email stated. “As the evaluation plan progresses, there may be future chances for contribution or involvement. Thank you for your service.”

For some authors, this felt like a devastating setback for the next report.

“This could signal the end of the assessment,” remarked Jesse Keenan, a professor at Tulane University specializing in climate adaptation and a co-author of the previous climate assessment. “If we eliminate all involved, there will be no advancement.”

The White House has not yet responded to requests for comments.

Climate assessments are generally compiled by volunteer scientists and expert contributors from across the nation. The process involves multiple reviews by 14 federal agencies and a public comment period. Oversight is provided by the Global Change Research Program, a federal entity established by Congress in 1990, with support from NASA.

During the Trump administration, this process faced significant upheaval. Recently, NASA terminated its major partnership with ICF International, a consulting firm that supplied much of the technical support and staffing for the Global Change Research Program, which coordinates the contributions from numerous sources.

President Trump has consistently downplayed the risks associated with global warming. Russell Vert, the current head of the Office of Management and Budget, noted in a pre-election document that the next president should “reorganize” the global change research program, as scientific reports on climate change were often utilized in environmental litigation that restricted federal actions.

Vought advocated for the separation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the agency responsible for the government’s largest climate research unit, termed the “climate warning.”

During Trump’s first term, the administration made efforts to undermine the national climate assessment. When the 2018 report was released, which found that global warming posed an imminent and catastrophic threat, the administration published it the day after Thanksgiving to lessen its impact.

In February, scientists submitted a comprehensive summary of the upcoming assessment to the White House for initial review; however, that review has been halted, and the agency’s comment period has been delayed.

It remains uncertain what will happen next with the assessment, which is still mandated by Congress. Some scientists worry that the administration may attempt to draft an entirely new report from scratch, potentially downplaying the dangers of rising temperatures and contradicting established climate science.

“These are the most effective strategies to assist us,” said Mead Crosby, a senior scientist in the Climate Impact Group at the University of Washington, who has contributed to the assessment. “The real question is whether it accurately reflects reliable science and has a tangible impact on our community in preparing for climate change.”

Scientists previously involved in climate assessments assert that the report is crucial for understanding the effects of climate change on daily life in the United States.

Catherine Hayho, a climate scientist at Texas Tech, stated this month, “we are considering that global issue and making it more relevant to us.” “If you care about food, water, transportation, insurance, or health, this is what climate change signifies for residents in the Southwest or the Great Plains. That’s the importance.”

Numerous state and local policymakers, along with private companies, depend on these assessments to comprehend how climate change impacts various regions of the United States and how they can adapt accordingly.

While the scientific understanding of climate change and its repercussions has not dramatically shifted since the last assessment in 2023, Dr. Keenan from Tulane noted that research is continuously advancing regarding what communities can do to mitigate rising sea levels and other issues exacerbated by increasing temperatures.

Scientists indicated that decision-makers responsible for the final assessment would likely rely on outdated information regarding effective adaptations and mitigation measures.

“We risk losing our fundamental report, which is intended to communicate the dangers of climate change and propose advancements,” stated Dustin Mulbany, an environmental studies professor and author at San Jose State University. “That would be quite devastating.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

OpenAI rejects $97.4 billion bid from Musk, asserts company is not for sale

The recent opening rejected a $97.4 billion bid by a consortium led by billionaire Elon Musk for ChatGpt makers, stating that the startup is not up for sale.

This unsolicited offer is Musk’s latest attempt to thwart a startup co-founded with CEO Sam Altman.

“Openai is not for sale. The board unanimously turned down this latest attempt to disrupt Musk’s competition. Openai emphasized that their mission is to ensure that AGI benefits humanity and mentioned the possibility of a reorganization as a nonprofit organization.”

Altman confirmed in an interview with Axios that Openai is not for sale, and he responded to Musk’s offer with a simple “no thanks,” prompting Musk to call him a “swindler.”

A consortium, including Musk-led AI startup Xai, stated that they would withdraw their bid for Openai’s nonprofit status if plans to become a for-profit organization were removed, as per a court application filed on Wednesday.

Two days ago, the consortium introduced new terms in the proposal through a court filing. The filing exposed that the client’s “published ‘bids’ were not actual bids at all.” The Openai board communicated their position to Musk’s lawyer on Friday.

Other investors in the consortium include Valor Equity Partners, Baron Capital, and Hollywood Power Broker Ari Emanuel.

Altman and Musk have been in conflict for several years.

After Musk’s departure in 2019, Openai established a for-profit division that attracted significant fundraising, leading Musk to claim that the startup was deviating from its original mission and focusing more on profits than public good.

Musk filed a lawsuit against Altman, Openai, and their major supporter Microsoft in August last year on grounds of breach of contract.

In November, Musk requested a preliminary injunction from a US district judge to prevent the transition to a for-profit structure.

Source: www.theguardian.com

California rejects test of cloud-brightening technology

The Alameda, California City Council decided not to permit ongoing controversial experiments related to technology that aims to brighten clouds. The project involves spraying saltwater onto a former aircraft carrier’s deck at the city’s pier to test devices that can create and measure aerosol plumes. This research could lead to marine cloud brightening, a form of climate intervention aimed at making clouds more reflective to send heat back into space and help mitigate global warming. Despite the potential long-term benefits, the council unanimously voted against continuing the experiments.

This decision placed city officials in the midst of a national debate about geoengineering and whether testing such technology should be allowed. The council’s vote does not reject the science or the concept of geoengineering but rather criticizes the lack of transparency, safety vetting, and misguided approach of the researchers. The researchers from the University of Washington had already begun the experiment on the USS Hornet in Alameda without proper public disclosure. The experiments aimed to study the effects of increasing water droplets in clouds to make them more reflective to sunlight, which could help reduce global warming.

The council’s concerns focused on potential health risks to the community surrounding the experiment site, lack of regulatory measures, and insufficient transparency from the project leaders. Despite claims of safety from the researchers, city leaders stopped the experiments, prompting a discussion on the risks and benefits of geoengineering.

While project organizers expressed disappointment with the council’s decision, outside environmental groups warned about the broader implications of geoengineering, fearing unintended consequences that could impact global climate efforts. The debate highlights the challenges of advancing geoengineering research in the face of skepticism and concerns about the potential risks associated with altering natural systems.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Elon Musk seeks shareholder approval for $56 billion payout from Tesla, judge rejects request

Tesla is seeking shareholders’ re-approval for CEO Elon Musk’s hefty $56 billion compensation plan from 2018, which was previously rejected by a Delaware judge in January for being excessive and unjustified.


Musk’s compensation, tied to Tesla’s market value increase to $650 billion over the next decade, currently stands at over $500 billion, according to LSEG data, excluding salary or cash bonuses.

The rejection from Delaware Court of Chancery’s Kathleen McCormick criticized the board’s decision, deeming the compensation “incalculable” and unfair to shareholders.

Tesla’s move for a fresh shareholder vote appears to bolster support for Musk’s pay package and challenge the court’s ruling, which disapproved the largest corporate pay package in America.

In response to the court’s decision, board chair Robin Denholm expressed disagreement, stating that the ruling did not conform to corporate law principles.


In 2023, Musk’s compensation was recorded as $0, as he does not draw a salary but is compensated through stock options. The court case also mentioned Musk’s involvement in an attempt to disrupt Twitter Inc.’s acquisition deal.

Tesla is suggesting a re-vote on the original 2018 compensation package, contemplating legal considerations, as well as seeking approval from shareholders to relocate its state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas.

Ahead of the market opening, shares of the leading automaker rallied by 1%.

This year has been challenging for Tesla, with reports of underperforming against market expectations and observing its first decline in deliveries in four years, prompting a workforce reduction of 14,000 employees. The broader electric vehicle industry has also experienced a slowdown, with major players like Ford revising their plans.

Meanwhile, Apple scaled back its self-driving electric car project, leading to layoffs, indicating a shifting landscape in the electric vehicle sector.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Court Rejects Craig Wright’s Claim of Inventing Bitcoin as a “Brazen Lie”

The High Court has heard that an Australian computer scientist’s claim to be the author of Bitcoin’s founding documents is a “blatant lie”. Craig Wright, a 53-year-old who claims to be the pseudonymous author Satoshi Nakamoto, is being sued by a group of cryptocurrency exchanges and developers, with Twitter founder Jack Dorsey’s Crypto Patent Alliance (Copa) seeking a “negative declaration” that Wright is not Nakamoto.

The President of Copa, Jonathan Hough KC, told the High Court that Wright’s claims were “a brazen lie and an elaborate false narrative backed by industrial-scale fabrications.” Hough also mentioned that elements of Wright’s conduct, including his alleged use of ChatGPT to create fabrications to support his claims, were reminiscent of a “farce”. These claims, according to Hough, have “deadly serious” consequences for individuals who faced litigation based on Wright’s claims. He stated, “Dr. Wright has consistently failed to provide genuine evidence that he is Satoshi. Instead, he has repeatedly presented documents that clearly show signs of falsification.”

Both experts agreed that the original white paper was written in OpenOffice software, while the version Wright provided was created using software called LaTeX. Additionally, Wright’s claims to be Satoshi are met with widespread skepticism within the crypto community. Mr Wright’s barrister, Lord Grabiner KC, stated that he published the white paper after “spending many years researching and researching the concepts underlying Bitcoin” and has a “rare combination of interdisciplinary talent” and extensive experience in the field, which Nakamoto has “uniquely brought together” in the white paper.

The trial before Judge Mellor is scheduled to begin with Wright testifying on Tuesday and is expected to conclude next month with a written judgment expected at a later date.

Source: www.theguardian.com