Norway is set to become the first country to fully transition to electric vehicles

[kecessa@sh.itjust.works]

Most things have a 25% sales tax on them + 22% flat rate for income tax. How much taxes are billionaires paying in the US?

Again, blame the fund all you want, in the end the problem is other countries not jumping at the opportunities presented to them to build a similar fund.

It was inspired by Alberta's heritage fund (which obviously existed before Norway's), Alberta has a much bigger oil reserve and has extracted way more oil than Norway. How much do they have in their version of the fund? Less than CAD $30B. Instead of investing for the future they decided to cut all sales taxes and to lower income taxes as much as they realistically could while still offering public services.

The same logic can apply to any government that has natural resources to manage and decides not to nationalize it to invest for the future.

[johnedwa@sopuli.xyz]

No clue, I'm from Finland where our VAT is 25.5%, income tax is higher than in Norway, and our vehicles are some of the most expensive, and also the oldest, in Europe

[bstix@feddit.dk]

What is the efficiency of an internal combustion engine in cold weather, for comparison?

At least the EV starts every damn time.

[frezik@midwest.social]

Also Norway is cold and EVs do not do well in the cold. Especially with current battery technology.

HOLY SHIT WHY HAS NOBODY SAID THIS BEFORE OR ADDRESSED IT IN ANY WAY!!!!!

[lipilee@feddit.nl]

and, shocker, it was even less than "less than 1%" before electric cars were invented!

[bronzie@sh.itjust.works]

Close.

Every NOK over 500k is now with VAT. They changed it last year.

The selection under 500k is still quite good, so I’m not gonna pretend the deal is horrible, and you only pay on the amount over, so a 600k car is still artificially cheap compared to most places.

[mats@lemmy.world]

This thread is so fucking funny. Its not like we started driving EV's in Norway this fall, and then in winter they all stopped working . I am telling my EV it's not working, but god dammit, it just won't listen to me.

[partial_accumen@lemmy.world]

Yepp, it’s odd to celebrate the milestone to emobility if one knows it’s paid all by carving carbon out of the earth.

A nation converting nearly 100% to EV means less carbon needing to be carved out of the Earth. How is that not something to celebrate for those that like less carbon being carved out of the Earth?

[drunkenpirate@feddit.org]

Because this very nation makes tons of money by selling oil and gaz (carbon emissions)

Same joke if Saudi Arabia would go 100% emobility and keeps selling oil (carbon emissions)

[partial_accumen@lemmy.world]

I've read through your all of your arguments on this thread and it looks like you're reading lots of papers, looking at a particular finding under specific circumstances, then using that as a blanket answer as to why EVs aren't viable. The problem is that these are mostly devoid of real world usage of EVs where viability is ultimately determined. Here's one example:

Also it’s not a 20% loss at 0°C. It’s closer to 50%. Which would be most accurately described as a “significant” loss of efficiency.

If an EV driver is only using a fraction of their range to accomplish 100% of their driving needs, then the temporary reduction in battery capacity is completely irrelevant. I can't say I know any EV drivers that have a 80 mile commute and only buy an EV capable of driving 80 miles under perfect conditions. Would that person exist, you'd have a valid point, but I would guess that person would be a statistical anomaly and shouldn't be used to derive policy or guidance for the majority of people. Most EV drivers are driving EVs with 200+ mile range and only using a small fraction of that for daily usage, so even with the most extreme temporary reductions its little to no impact on their driving ability.

In another post you called out that EV batteries use Cobalt which is typically derived from questionable human rights locations. Again, true on paper, but not all EVs use NMC or NCA chemistries which use Cobalt. Many EVs today use LFP and many in the years ahead will be Sodium based, neither of which use Cobalt at all in the batteries. So again, you found one particular finding and applied it to all EVs.

Any arguments you have about how dirty the extraction and transport methods used for EV materials fall apart immediately when the alternative is petroleum exploration, extraction, refinement, and distribution which need to occurr on an ongoing basis to keep fueling ICE vehicles.

I don't think anyone is claiming EVs are completely perfect from a user experience or environmental impact, however, compared to the alternative of ICE vehicles and the ongoing environmental and geopolitical impacts of the needed petroleum extraction needed to continue their use, EVs are a dream come true.

[partial_accumen@lemmy.world]

Are you saying you would prefer they sell tons oil and gas (carbon emissions), as well as have their nation producing even more carbon emissions from ICE vehicle tailpipes? That seems to contradict your desire to have fewer carbon emissions.

[canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org]

Also, solar panels are worse for the environment than burning coal and windmills make everyone nearby sick because they spin and disturb the atmosphere.

Literally things I've heard IRL from people who went looking for a personally affirming worldview.

[drunkenpirate@feddit.org]

No I‘m not saying this

[nutsack@lemmy.world]

it's very cool to not drive in that country because you don't need to and you wouldn't because you're not fat

[partial_accumen@lemmy.world]

There only appears to be two realistic choices, and I've enumerated them both. Feel free to clarify your position then.