The incentives (no purchase tax, cheaper road tolls, can use the bus lane) have been great at boosting adoption. It has had it's own problems, though. The incentives have mainly been beneficial to the affluent who already had money to buy expensive cars, saving them money and letting them get ahead of traffic.
There are now so many electric cars, and have been for a few years, that buses are getting blocked in their own lanes. And the incentives have resulted in buying lots of new cars, and people driving as much as before, instead of doing things that could help much more. The quote from our former PM sums it up nicely: “It is the most important thing you can do personally and privately to help reduce climate emissions.” Yeah, increased consumption is surely the way to reduce your footprint!
The EV subsidies cost about 40 billion NOK in 2022. Think what that money could have done for public transport! And it's quite ironic that if I buy an EV, I pay no tax, but for a bike or e-bike I pay 25%.
This seems bizarrely negative in its framing even though most of the facts mentioned are world leading success stories.
> Norway’s incentives have unquestionably reshaped the country’s car market and reduced carbon emissions. EVs’ share of new vehicle sales surged from 1 percent in 2014 to 83 percent today. Around one in four cars on Norwegian roads is now electric, and the country’s surface transportation emissions fell 8.3 percent between 2014 and 2023.
> Everyone agrees that 100 percent of cars should be electric. That’s not the question,”
> Oslo’s elimination of street parking and creation of pedestrian-only streets, for instance, nudge Norwegians away from driving, but they also diminish EVs’ usefulness.
Isn't that the point? I struggle to parse this last paragraph because it seems so obvious yet in context has a tone that suggests it's a gotcha or contradiction?
The Norwegian government wasn't trying to get people into EVs as an end in itself, they were trying to clean up the local and wider environment, which well designed cities also achieves?
2 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 14.8 ms ] threadThere are now so many electric cars, and have been for a few years, that buses are getting blocked in their own lanes. And the incentives have resulted in buying lots of new cars, and people driving as much as before, instead of doing things that could help much more. The quote from our former PM sums it up nicely: “It is the most important thing you can do personally and privately to help reduce climate emissions.” Yeah, increased consumption is surely the way to reduce your footprint!
The EV subsidies cost about 40 billion NOK in 2022. Think what that money could have done for public transport! And it's quite ironic that if I buy an EV, I pay no tax, but for a bike or e-bike I pay 25%.
> Norway’s incentives have unquestionably reshaped the country’s car market and reduced carbon emissions. EVs’ share of new vehicle sales surged from 1 percent in 2014 to 83 percent today. Around one in four cars on Norwegian roads is now electric, and the country’s surface transportation emissions fell 8.3 percent between 2014 and 2023.
> Everyone agrees that 100 percent of cars should be electric. That’s not the question,”
> Oslo’s elimination of street parking and creation of pedestrian-only streets, for instance, nudge Norwegians away from driving, but they also diminish EVs’ usefulness.
Isn't that the point? I struggle to parse this last paragraph because it seems so obvious yet in context has a tone that suggests it's a gotcha or contradiction?
The Norwegian government wasn't trying to get people into EVs as an end in itself, they were trying to clean up the local and wider environment, which well designed cities also achieves?