[DasIch]

There is no need for the government to set up a system to make sure older vehicles are taken out of service. You just use a combination of taxes and subsidies. You tax gas, vehicles based on their emissions or both to make old cars unaffordable, so people will take them out of service. On the other hand you make electric cars more affordable and usable through subsidies on electric cars and infrastructure for them.

If you want to push the industry further, you could also make money available for research into electric cars, batteries and related technology. You want do to the latter probably anyway because you need energy storage in order to make renewable energy work.

Modern cars are all tested for emissions by the manufacturers because of US and EU requirements. I'm sure Norway has regulation for that as well. Cars that are so old that they're untested, you could just assume as having the worst possible grade in tests. That's probably not far from the truth.

Much of that is already happening. In the EU gas is taxed quite heavily for example. Germany has environmental zones to combat air pollution that certain cars aren't allowed to enter due to their emissions. Germany has also plans on subsidizing electric car sales.

[CuriousSkeptic]

They should probably skip subsidies though.

Taxing emissions makes sense because emissions are a direct externality. But when you subsidies replacements you are essentially betting on the most efficient solution, not at all certain it would be the best, you also introduce new externalities for people to profit on unfairly.

I'm guessing it would be much more effective to tax emissions, do so aggressively, and then just pass back the money directly as a public dividend. This way the market has full freedom to pick a way forward, any way.

[Skinney]

We tax emissions. This way, a plug-in hybrid is cheaper than a diesel-car, and a pure EV is cheaper than a plug-in hybrid.

We also have some special privileges for EV cars. Like free parking on state/county-owned parking places and the option of driving in the public transport lane. Special privileges are supposed to go away in a couple of years though, due to the increase in EV owners.

We've had some problems with this after the "emission-test-cheating" scandal though.

[CuriousSkeptic]

Point being that EVs might be the wrong thing to promote. Perhaps that market would decide to get rid of commuting altogether, or improve other means of transportation like trains. Perhaps an infrastructure for EVs turns out to be worse in other areas, but now a new dependence on its existance instead of oil, again crests a situation very expensive to get out of?

That was what I meant with betting, the reason we have free markets in the first place (as opposed to central planning) is because we simply can't plan such things without them, it's to complex.

[Skinney]

Assuming that there is a totally free market in the first place. Norway is a socialist country. All public transportation (and infrastructure) is owned by state or county. That will change somewhat soon, as private companies will be allowed to compete with the national train company. However, the state will still own the train cars and the tracks.

Public transportation is promoted way more than EV. And special EV privileges will disappear over the next couple of years. EV, hydrogen and hybrids will still be cheaper due to us taxing emissions, however.

Not to indicate that Norway doesn't have a free market, it mostly does. Exceptions are alcohol and public transit (state secured monopolies).