Summary

Norway is on track to become the first country to eliminate gasoline and diesel cars from new car sales, with EVs making up over 96% of recent purchases.

Decades of incentives, including tax breaks and infrastructure investments, have driven this shift.

Officials see EV adoption as a “new normal” and aim for electric city buses by 2025.

While other countries lag behind, Norway’s success demonstrates the potential for widespread EV adoption.

  • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Geology and geography are also helping a lot.

    Norway is also a very wealthy nation, which thanks to its huge oil and gas exports, has a sovereign wealth fund worth more than $1.7tn (£1.3tn). This means it can more easily afford big infrastructure-build projects, and absorb the loss of tax revenue from the sale of petrol and diesel cars and their fuel.

    The country also has an abundance of renewable hydro electricity, which accounts for 88% of its production capacity. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg52543v6rmo

    • Trashcan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      If you think we actually invest in infrastructure, you are sorely mistaken… I mean yes, we have a decent charging infrastructure. Driven by Tesla purchase and gas stations following through in order to retain EV customers. So some infrastructure is needed to support that.

      But we don’t even have good enough infrastructure to distribute an abundance of hydro electricity from North to the South, while at the same time we export electricity down to central Europe from the South, so prices fluctuates a crap ton.

      Don’t get me started on train lines being neglected for the past 50 years. And as most countries we are realising that all our sewage and water lines need a massive renewal…

      Maybe we should use more of the oil fund for these tasks, but I believe there would be large inflations if we tossed the oil fund around to fix everything…

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      They don’t withdraw much from that fund though and have an annual ceiling of 3% of its value, they still pay a good amount of taxes (22% on income, 25% sales tax). Blaming the oil fund just shows how lacking other countries management is.

      • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        They don’t withdraw a lot, but having it means they don’t have a need to tax all the things just in case either and they can take a hit today to plan for a better future. That is to say, EVs in Norway are exempt from vehicle taxes, import duties, registration fees and get all kinds of other benefits too making them way cheaper in comparison to ICE cars.

        That fund has something like $200 000 per Norwegian in it.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          Most things have a 25% sales tax on them + 22% flat rate for income tax. How much taxes are billionaires paying in the US?

          Again, blame the fund all you want, in the end the problem is other countries not jumping at the opportunities presented to them to build a similar fund.

          It was inspired by Alberta’s heritage fund (which obviously existed before Norway’s), Alberta has a much bigger oil reserve and has extracted way more oil than Norway. How much do they have in their version of the fund? Less than CAD $30B. Instead of investing for the future they decided to cut all sales taxes and to lower income taxes as much as they realistically could while still offering public services.

          The same logic can apply to any government that has natural resources to manage and decides not to nationalize it to invest for the future.

          • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            No clue, I’m from Finland where our VAT is 25.5%, income tax is higher than in Norway, and our vehicles are some of the most expensive, and also the oldest, in Europe :)

        • Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Close.

          Every NOK over 500k is now with VAT. They changed it last year.

          The selection under 500k is still quite good, so I’m not gonna pretend the deal is horrible, and you only pay on the amount over, so a 600k car is still artificially cheap compared to most places.

    • DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yepp, it’s odd to celebrate the milestone to emobility if one knows it’s paid all by carving carbon out of the earth. The goal of Emobility is to reduce carbon emissions - as far as I know.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        Yepp, it’s odd to celebrate the milestone to emobility if one knows it’s paid all by carving carbon out of the earth.

        A nation converting nearly 100% to EV means less carbon needing to be carved out of the Earth going forward. How is that not something to celebrate for those that like less carbon being carved out of the Earth?

        • DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Because this very nation makes tons of money by selling oil and gaz (carbon emissions)

          Same joke if Saudi Arabia would go 100% emobility and keeps selling oil (carbon emissions)

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Are you saying you would prefer they sell tons oil and gas (carbon emissions), as well as have their nation producing even more carbon emissions from ICE vehicle tailpipes? That seems to contradict your desire to have fewer carbon emissions.

              • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                12 hours ago

                There only appears to be two realistic choices, and I’ve enumerated them both. Feel free to clarify your position then.

                • DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 hours ago

                  Are you saying a slaughterman that is vegetarian could be proud of his choice? While he still runs his slaughterhouse and kills animals?

                  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    50 minutes ago

                    Not exactly analogous to our scale here with Norway, but if the goal was less meat consumption by the population, my answer would be: yes. There would unambiguously be one fewer meat eater. Norway’s achievement is many more orders of magnitude greater, meaning real change, and real impact on fewer emissions being generated.

                    I think you’re under the mistaken impression that if Norway shut off all petroleum exports that emissions would fall and stay down. They wouldn’t. Other petroleum producers would simply ramp up production to fill the gap in supply. So what you’re proposing is the worst of outcomes. You appear to have Norway not transition to EVs, but shut down petroleum production.

                    You’re proposing an outcome of higher emissions, which is contradictory to your goal of fewer emissions.

    • ironsoap@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m not saying they aren’t downplaying it, but it’s also a population of 5.5 million of highly educated and high per capita income, which makes easier to implement. Small population and people who can afford it.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Maybe but so far in the us, it’s not the large population or lack of affordability blocking EV adoption, as much as politics, conservative backlash, Facebook science, outrage culture. If we could put aside our toxicity, spite, narcissism, and come together for a better future, we could be pretty far down that road too

        • ironsoap@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Certainly valid that there isn’t a cultural norm for it in the US. With that said, the US still has about 3.3 million EVs on the road. Norway has about 3.4 million cars on the road total.

          So it’s a heck of a lot easier to enable 5.5 million people to replace their cars then 330 million people. Size matters as much as the identity we have with it on this one.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            That works both ways. Norway doesn’t have a large base of car manufacturers who can follow their guidance, but the US does, including Tesla who did so much to popularize EVs and used to dominate

            Any large transition need guidance, incentives, motivation to happen in a reasonable time. Norway did that. Meanwhile the us is an inconsistent mess spewing FUD, lobbying by entrenched interests, and very short term thinking. Of course we only have the early adopters who could wade through all that resistance and now with Musks jump to the right we have a whole new obstacle.

            • how did Norway get chargers? We just now started government funding and it’s likely cancelled
            • when did they provide incentives to help encourage expensive purchases? Us again just recently started a federal incentive, it has been inconsistent and likely will be cancelled
            • I’ve ready that Norway had incentives at registration, parking, toll roads. US still hasn’t done those and several states make EV registration more expensive
            • too many in the US still claim EVs are impractical or more polluting, even in the face of all evidence to the contrary, while Norway did it
            • does Norway have things like “rolling coal” or “ICEing”? Vandalism for copper scrap? What kind of toxic trash does that?
            • tyler@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 hours ago

              the article points out that due to norway not having a major automobile manufacturer, there was pretty much no lobbying against the laws, so that’s a bit of a tick in the opposite direction. the US has numerous very powerful lobbies making it as hard as possible to pass these laws.

            • ironsoap@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              And this is the nuanced answer that begins to give context to the issue.

              Absolutely correct.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Sure, but Norway also has decent active/public transit. So, if residents can’t afford an EV, there’s a good chance they just don’t own a car at all, and can still get around okay.

        • ironsoap@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          As I’m here now, I can attest to the great public transit. However I will also say the large and dispirit nature of their population means the car will still likely rule. Yes many may not afford it, and some prefer the bike (even now in winter) but they seem to love their cars as much as the US given the traffic.