4 ms·

I was speaking to a Norwegian friend last night and she confirmed it. There are so many incentives like paying less/no vehicle tax and yeah, they are 100% hydro

I was speaking to a Norwegian friend last night and she confirmed it. There are so many incentives like paying less/no vehicle tax and yeah, they are 100% hydroelectric so they are perfect place. Might have to move there!

burntoutfire 7y ago
The Teslas are not more affordable there than in the US, they're just less of a bad option - petrol cars are taxed so heavily in the Nordics that it makes an electric a good value for money. You're still better off in the US though, where electric costs the same, but you have an option of reasonably priced petrol cars.
- mikeash 7y ago
  Unfortunately, you don’t have the option of not breathing in the exhaust of everyone else’s petrol cars.
- Synaesthesia 7y ago
  Well that’s good that they’re racing petrol cars and I applaud them for doing it. They’re wealthy enough to be able to afford it. It’s what’s necessary to move away from carbon.
  - burntoutfire 7y ago
    It makes cars less affordable for everybody. Not everyone lives in an area with good (or any) public transport. This is effectively a very heavy tax to "save the planet", which won't have much of an effect (Norway is too small to have any impact on global CO2 emissions), except for Norwegians having to work more in order to pay off this tax.
  - close04 7y ago
    > It’s what’s necessary to move away from carbon. You hear that a lot and yet the second someone poses the hypothetical question of whether everything should be taxed according to its actual “carbon lifecycle”# (and perhaps even beyond carbon) you usually get a “weelll... buuuuttt...”. #That [whatever] that came on the most polluting cargo ship humans could build? Add $xxx to the price tag.
    - SECProto 7y ago
      I gather you are referring to the oft-quoted stat about the cargo ship being "more polluting" than so many millions of cars? That is referring specifically to SOx I believe. It definitely is not referring to carbon emissions. Container ships have the lowest gCO2/(km*kg)
      - close04 7y ago
        It was more generic than that (see mention of beyond carbon). Otherwise we’d still be heavily promoting diesel as the clean alternative to gasoline. The cargo ship was just something to exemplify the point of taxing for destroying the environment. You’re free to pick any example you feel suits better and the principle will still apply.
        SECProto 7y ago
        I'm all in favour of carbon tax to reduce emissions. They would result in pressure for electric vehicles of all sorts, improve the economics for renewable electricity, maybe increase funding availability for carbon capture research. Cargo ships would likely stay the same for a long time in the future (but might implement fuel reduction techniques that are at a lower TRL (thinking specifically of a long lead parasail/kite that I read about a couple years back)
- alkonaut 7y ago
  Nordics is actually too general. Denmark and Norway do this, Sweden does not. (Guess which one has a car industry)
  - varjag 7y ago
    Denmark also taxes vehicles heaviest of all, with no relief for EVs.

burntoutfire 7y ago

The Teslas are not more affordable there than in the US, they're just less of a bad option - petrol cars are taxed so heavily in the Nordics that it makes an electric a good value for money. You're still better off in the US though, where electric costs the same, but you have an option of reasonably priced petrol cars.

mikeash 7y ago
Unfortunately, you don’t have the option of not breathing in the exhaust of everyone else’s petrol cars.
Synaesthesia 7y ago
Well that’s good that they’re racing petrol cars and I applaud them for doing it. They’re wealthy enough to be able to afford it. It’s what’s necessary to move away from carbon.
- burntoutfire 7y ago
  It makes cars less affordable for everybody. Not everyone lives in an area with good (or any) public transport. This is effectively a very heavy tax to "save the planet", which won't have much of an effect (Norway is too small to have any impact on global CO2 emissions), except for Norwegians having to work more in order to pay off this tax.
- close04 7y ago
  > It’s what’s necessary to move away from carbon. You hear that a lot and yet the second someone poses the hypothetical question of whether everything should be taxed according to its actual “carbon lifecycle”# (and perhaps even beyond carbon) you usually get a “weelll... buuuuttt...”. #That [whatever] that came on the most polluting cargo ship humans could build? Add $xxx to the price tag.
  - SECProto 7y ago
    I gather you are referring to the oft-quoted stat about the cargo ship being "more polluting" than so many millions of cars? That is referring specifically to SOx I believe. It definitely is not referring to carbon emissions. Container ships have the lowest gCO2/(km*kg)
    - close04 7y ago
      It was more generic than that (see mention of beyond carbon). Otherwise we’d still be heavily promoting diesel as the clean alternative to gasoline. The cargo ship was just something to exemplify the point of taxing for destroying the environment. You’re free to pick any example you feel suits better and the principle will still apply.
      - SECProto 7y ago
        I'm all in favour of carbon tax to reduce emissions. They would result in pressure for electric vehicles of all sorts, improve the economics for renewable electricity, maybe increase funding availability for carbon capture research. Cargo ships would likely stay the same for a long time in the future (but might implement fuel reduction techniques that are at a lower TRL (thinking specifically of a long lead parasail/kite that I read about a couple years back)
alkonaut 7y ago
Nordics is actually too general. Denmark and Norway do this, Sweden does not. (Guess which one has a car industry)
- varjag 7y ago
  Denmark also taxes vehicles heaviest of all, with no relief for EVs.