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

[email protected]

they're also completely ignoring the ongoing (environmental) costs of operating a gas vehicle compared to an EV. Even if initial costs might be higher, they are almost immediately paid off, sometimes as soon as six months of driving.

[email protected]

I live in the arctic circle and there's a lot of EVs. Mine is petrol, I don't know why everyone has to be diesel unless you really like listening to the starter go hnnng.

[email protected]

Are you saying a slaughterman that is vegetarian could be proud of his choice? While he still runs his slaughterhouse and kills animals?

[email protected]

Norways crude oil product amount to less than 2.5% of the global production.

People don't seem to complain as much about the US who produces just over 16%, or Russia at about 14%.

They do complain a lot about Saudi Arabia who are also at 14%

[email protected]

There are plenty of EVs in the arctic of Norway.

I the antarctic, where the south pole is, there is limited electric production, so it is easier to use ICE vehicles.

[email protected]

If you think we actually invest in infrastructure, you are sorely mistaken.... I mean yes, we have a decent charging infrastructure. Driven by Tesla purchase and gas stations following through in order to retain EV customers. So some infrastructure is needed to support that.

But we don't even have good enough infrastructure to distribute an abundance of hydro electricity from North to the South, while at the same time we export electricity down to central Europe from the South, so prices fluctuates a crap ton.

Don't get me started on train lines being neglected for the past 50 years. And as most countries we are realising that all our sewage and water lines need a massive renewal....

Maybe we should use more of the oil fund for these tasks, but I believe there would be large inflations if we tossed the oil fund around to fix everything....

[email protected]

They're also ignoring Cobalt, Lithium and other valuable battery cathode materials are recovered from recycling NMC and NCA chemistry batteries at something like 90% to 98% efficiency, so not even all Cobalt going into a new battery is absolutely sourced with human rights concerns.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

So, you‘re saying that the slaughterhouse must continue killing animals in order to reduce killing of animals at all.

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.

Because if this very slaughterhouse won‘t operate and kill, a different would do.

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.

Best is to keep killing animals as long as the butcher is vegeterian everything is fine. ROFL

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.

Edit: Quick google - the slaughterhouse is going to be expanded next years. More animals get killed

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.

[email protected]

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?

[email protected]

Take emobility for example

No thank you. I already took your slaughterhouse example and dismantled it cleanly. We don't need another tangent.

I didn‘t get your last point. You are saying that Norway is producing more petrol and gas, are you?

You were saying that. You cited a source. I didn't disagree with it.

And then you claim, that it‘s not that bad because Russia reduced its oil production? Wtf is this? Whatsaboutism?

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.

In the slaughterhouse image you arguing with the consumer-demands-industry-follows-argument. That is way too easy and not true.

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!

agnos.is Forums

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