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.
No I‘m not saying this
There only appears to be two realistic choices, and I’ve enumerated them both. Feel free to clarify your position then.
please clarify what you are saying.
Are you saying a slaughterman that is vegetarian could be proud of his choice? While he still runs his slaughterhouse and kills animals?
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.
So, you‘re saying that the slaughterhouse must continue killing animals in order to reduce killing of animals at all. Because if this very slaughterhouse won‘t operate and kill, a different would do.
Best is to keep killing animals as long as the butcher is vegeterian everything is fine. ROFL
Edit: Quick google - the slaughterhouse is going to be expanded next years. More animals get killed https://www.climatechangenews.com/2023/06/29/norway-fossil-fuels-oil-gas-fields/
„Norway’s government said on Wednesday it has given approval for oil companies to develop 19 oil and gas fields with investments exceeding $18.5 billion, part of the country’s strategy to extend production for decades to come“ Bless god, Norwegians ride electric.
I’m not saying it must continue. I’m saying continuing or discontinuing doesn’t decrease the killing of animals. If your goal is fewer animals killed this action would be completely neutral neither increasing nor decreasing the killing of animals.
Another would. If there is only a single possible supply in the entire world, then you might have a valid argument. However there is no practical limit to the number of places that can extract petroleum or kill animals.
Not “best”, better. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. If your goal is to reduce the killing of animals for food, then you’re not going to achieve that by reducing the supply of animals in one place. You do it by reducing the demand for slaughtered animals. If the butcher him/herself has chosen to stop eating meat, that reduces slaughtered animals. Companies that slaughter animals won’t do so unless there is a person buying the meat. The butch, in your example, would now be reducing the number of animals slaughtered because he/she wouldn’t be consuming it.
Fewer actually, if you look at real numbers. In this case geopolitics caused a large producer, Russia, to no longer be able to bring their oil to market. Norway increasing is only replacing a fraction of what Russia produced. The net result is fewer (petroleum) animals killed Check it out. There is less oil being produced now than there was 3 years ago:
source
See, you can’t zoom in so far on one thing. You miss the big picture. You’re so upset about oil you’re not even able to recognize you’re getting your way. Less oil is being produced and used! Yet here you are making claims its getting worse. Its not.
In the slaughterhouse image you arguing with the consumer-demands-industry-follows-argument. That is way too easy and not true. Take emobility for example: did it scale because customers demanded it? Or does it because it was subsidued by the Government tonlower prices AND incentivized with tax reduction and special traffic permits?
No, emobility was enforced and engaged by the Government. Neither customers nor industry was the lead. So, is the way with petrol and gas.
I didn‘t get your last point. You are saying that Norway is producing more petrol and gas, are you? And then you claim, that it‘s not that bad because Russia reduced its oil production? Wtf is this? Whatsaboutism?
Same as we produce mountains of carbon every year through oil and gas production. But it‘s not that bad because we all ride electric cars?
No thank you. I already took your slaughterhouse example and dismantled it cleanly. We don’t need another tangent.
You were saying that. You cited a source. I didn’t disagree with it.
The world NET TOTAL OIL production is lower. With Norway producing more oil on its own, there is still LESS OIL BEING PRODUCED WORLDWIDE. I don’t know how much simpler it is to explain that.
Gotcha, you’re lacking basic understanding of supply and demand. You need to learn some basic concept before you’re going to understand how the world works. In this case I’d recommend you look into basic Micro and Macro economics studies. Read a book and learn, then come back and we can continue our conversation. I’m done.
Have a great day!