Not really. Norway gets 80-90% of its electricity from hydro. EVs are a great way of leveraging that natural resource, hence the difference in taxation.

98% [1]

For all practical purposes the electricity here is 100% clean except for emissions occurring during construction. Huge concrete dams add quite a bit of CO2 to the atmosphere when curing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway

Ah, thanks for the correction, I knew it was really up there, just not that high.

But still they are able to subsidize EVs because they heavily tax the oil and make a ton of money exporting oil. If Norway wasn’t oil rich there was no way these subsidies would be economically feasible.

I don't think this has much to do with the oil wealth. These are only subsidies in the sense that there is an absence of a tax that would otherwise roughly double the cost of the car. Almost no Norwegians would normally buy a car with an $80,000 (US) base price; most Tesla buyers would normally go for something less than half of that price. So the lost tax revenues aren't proportional to the price of the car.

Norway's oil wealth mostly goes towards a massive public sector and a very comprehensive social safety net, and it doesn't enter the economy directly -- only in the shape of a 3% dividend from previously invested oil tax money.

> So the lost tax revenues aren't proportional to the price of the car.

So what? It’s still lost revenue for the government. 60% of the car sales won’t give any taxes. And they still have to maintain roads and infrastructure for all those cars.

They are able to afford because the oil industry creates lots of businesses hotels and jobs and they pay taxes on their income. Which is a huge part of Norwegian economy. Imagine the economy of Norway without oil it would not have been so rich. Probably the closest example is Denmark they already abandoned the tax benefits for EVs. Because it’s a huge part of tax revenue the government can’t simply give up.

They aren’t subsidizing EVs, they are just anti-subsidizing ICEs, which they were doing anyways before EVs were a thing.

I agree, it'd be nice of them to stop exporting oil so that other, less clue-having countries (like America), are pressured into making sane decisions for the long term.

It's probably not going to happen when America is led by a president who is making really incisive arguments against renewable energy like

> And you know, don’t worry about wind, when the wind doesn’t blow, I said, “What happens when the wind doesn’t blow?” Well, then we have a problem.

without anyone taking him to task for it.

It's probably the only country that exports oil and is not a shithole (for a lack of better wording), or a dictatorship.

Edit: with oil being the highest export

The US exports oil, so which is it - a shithole or dictatorship according to you?

Can I plead the fifth?

see edit

> It's probably the only country that exports oil and is not a shithole (for a lack of better wording), or a dictatorship.

The wording is not lacking, you just need to try better, or you would sound like an ignorant person.

Canada exports oil. We are neither a shithole nor a dictatorship.

As a progressive and hip vancouverite... the part of canada that exports oil is a bit of a shithole and rather authoritarian when it comes to their dealings with the other provinces (thanks for the pipeline alberta!)

While I don't like the Alberta government, there's nothing authoritarian about them fighting for their own self-interest. Every province tries to do this. Some have more leverage than others.

And it's a beautiful province full of wonderful people, in my humble opinion. (So is B.C. I'm from Ontario, for what it's worth.)

I should have added: country with oil as highest export good.

Canada, US, and the UK all export oil.