[moonfern]

It's not that petrol cars will be forbidden but buying a new non zero emission car in 2025 will be financially not beneficial, according to Norwegian press.

99% of the electricity in Norway comes from hydro power plants, it's a huge exporter of gas and oil and it's rich.

That makes it easier to make such a progressive decision but congrats for setting the first deadline.

[janvidar]

The average car tax in Norway is on average 102%. Electric cars, and Hydrogen cars have no tax.

The effect is that the Tesla model S cost roughly the same as a BMW 5-series, or Mercedes E-class.

Non-zero-emission cars aren't exactly financially beneficial already. However, long-term they would want to tax ZE cars as well (at least the standard 25% VAT), so hence the fossil cars will need to become even more expensive.

[digi_owl]

Their problem is that once more they can't think beyond the capitol. There already are all kinds of silly taxes and such to try to get people to drive less etc.

But outside of the biggest cities public transport only runs during office hours. End result is that owning and using a car i vital to continued survival.

So expect this to turn petrol cars into something of a Giffen good, if not an outright Veblen good.

[tyfon]

You can still own a car just not a polluting one. Personally I have a petrol car that I use to drive to and from an island called Hidra (south in Norway, about 400 km from here), but there is absolutely no need for a petrol car to do this. The only reason I didn't buy a tesla is because the build quality of that car felt really bad when I did a test drive, however in 2025 I suspect there to be long distance electric cars made by proper car companies like mercedes or audi.

And even on that island with only ferry connection and 600 residents there is an hourly bus going the whole day to the local mainland town.

How far into the woods do you live? ;)

[digi_owl]

Not far geographically, but the buss stop going at 17.

[Skinney]

Chances are, by 2025, you can buy a hydrogen car if EV doesn't get you far enough. That being said. EV should get you pretty far in 2025.

[wil421]

It's nice that they can use hydro power for themselves but if they are still exporting oil and gas they are still contributing to the problem.

Its like a drug dealer that doesn't do his own drugs. You're still part of the problem. Out of sight out of mind.

[vpeters25]

This sounds like a more balanced approach than the linked article which claims an outright ban on oil-based vehicles.

I think banning any technology is a bad idea. Imho, the problem with climate change is not the burning of oil or carbon, but the emissions from doing it.

[jschwartzi]

Why can't we ban fuel-burning cars? They have a more direct impact on the environment than just climate.

I live next to a busy road and I frequently have to sweep noxious dust off my balcony. Not to mention that the sky at sunset is not naturally orange, but is tinted by the haze.

We banned CFCs because they were removing the UV filter from our atmosphere, so there is precedent, and decades later nobody misses them.

[vpeters25]

My opinion is rather than outright banning fuel-burning, we should just ban releasing their emissions to the atmosphere.

While this would ban current fuel burning technology, it might allow for someone to come up with a car engine or coal turbine that doesn't release anything.

[dredmorbius]

Non-fossil-based hydrocarbon fuels would be an environmentally viable option.

Economically viable is another question, but there's some possibility that this may be the case.

[geon]

The US should do it too, if only for ending it's dependency on imported oil.

[dogma1138]

The US is a net exporter of Oil, but like with many other products it imports as almost much as it exports.

Just be aware that the US imports 40% of it's Oil from Canada if it stops doing so it will have a major impact on Canada's economy which is a thing no one wants especially considering the current issues with the Canadian economy. However it if wanted too it could stop importing oil all together today since it has more than enough local production, it would however increase the cost of gas and other petroproducts in the US since the US often imports considerably cheaper oil from OPEC and Canada while exporting fairly expensive US crude.

[to3m]

The EIA weekly status report has domestic production at 8.7mbpd, imports at 7.4mbpd and exports at 0.5mbpd, which doesn't really count as a net exporter (or I don't think so at any rate).

There are more exports of finished products than there are imports, but that's not really the same thing... refinery capacity is much more a function of money than oil production.

(as an additional point: 40% of the total US oil consumption is a lot more oil than Canada produces each day! - I expect 40% of the total imports are from Canada.)