I do not believe this is law yet.
Other countries have similar proposals but, as far as I know, none have been enacted into law yet.
Yep, same as the 13 year old and free energy this guy has posted....but
Have you heard about the moon !
Now if they would just stop exporting their North Sea oil and gas for the rest of the world to pollute with, we could really say hooray for Norway.
Not gonna happen.
Will gonna happen
Elon likes it:
They should focus on the toxic fumes(NOx,soft particles etc) that ICE cars emanate which kill and sicken so many people, if attempts to ban ICE fail it's because they focus just on CO2, stupid people.
You said "if attempts to ban ICE fail it's because they focus just on CO2, stupid people."
Please provide some reasoning for this statement.
I cannot think of any sensible reasoning myself.
bb0tin All this CO2 talk has made people think that cars emit only CO2 which is dramatic, when people realize that car pollution kills them now not only that it will heat the atmosphere in the future then they will do something about it.
There's also a need for CO2 obsessed people but you're overdoing it.
Excellent news. With cool EVs like Teslas it is a no brainer. Very possible. They even include heavy trucks.
CO2 increases warming, but is not toxic. NOx and microparticles do not increase warming but impair health. CO2, NOx and microparticles generate large extra costs to society/humanity/earth not covered by the gas cost. Only governments can regulate such problems, usually with taxes and laws. Norway can be proud to lead in showing other countries what they should do.
Your post does not address why your statement "if attempts to ban ICE fail it's because they focus just on CO2, stupid people" could be true, which is what I requested.
Interesting to witness Elons reply to this news on Twitter :-) vperl U ARE AN IDIOT !!!! The papers I am referring to IS NOT my words, I am ONLY the reporter !!! Elon took the job to translate the message, U didnt !!!
An update. This will happen, possibly sooner than later, due to the fact that 90% of the norwegaian parlamant want this to happen ! This will be with reference to only new cars sold !
danielpf: First it gets warmer, THAN the CO2 increases !
Norway contemplating banning sales of ICE engines is good news. Whatever momentum there is in this effort should be harnessed toward implementing similar legislation in other countries.
bb0tin CO2 is not the way to promote ICE ban because it solves a future problem, it's the cancerous,killing and .sickening pollution that ICE emanate which should be promoted.
Now everybody thinks CO2 is the only pollutant of cars when actually CO2 is not immediate pollution, it will warm the atmosphere in the future but like I said, people need to know it kills and sickens them now.
The CO2 ICE ban is like promoting ban of resources that will dry up in 50 years, not very successful, this is why cars today emit so much pollution but less CO2, because of CO2 obsessed people like you.
I think I understand you now, you might live in some rural area in the mountains where the real pollution does not get you but the climate changes have changed the landscape and weather of where you are and you don't like it.
Well come in a polluted city to live 24/7 and see what real car pollution does to your quality of life.
While these type of proposals have not yet made into laws and have opposition, they will likely still be adopted as some form of derivatives, e.g. some percentage of cars will be non ICE.
A lot of people are sceptical because Oil and ICE have powerful entrenched interests. While this is true, and there are powerful entrenched interests, there are other countries which don't have car industries at all, yet still have to pay high health related costs caused by emissions from cars made elsewhere.
This model won't work forever. In fact it will fall apart as soon as electric cars become affordable.
When Tesla opened up its patents, the move was not for simply philanthropic reasons. The rational was to promote interest to electric cars. There are quite a few places where people may not be happy with status quo.
You still have not explained how your statement "if attempts to ban ICE fail it's because they focus just on CO2, stupid people" could be true.
You said "Now everybody thinks CO2 is the only pollutant of cars"
I could mention that most of the people living in massively polluted cities due to vehicle emissions around the world world would disagree with you, but it seems you discount them as nobodies.
You said "because it solves a future problem" and "when actually CO2 is not immediate pollution and "it will warm the atmosphere in the future".
You are incorrect in the implication that CO2 is not a present problem. It has warmed the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, it is causing problems right now, and will cause far greater problems in the future.
You said "you might live in some rural area in the mountains"
You are incorrect.
You said " but the climate changes have changed the landscape and weather of where you are and you don't like it."
You just contradicted your previous statements that Climate Change is not a present problem.
You said "Well come in a polluted city to live 24/7"
In summary your post consists of a plethora of incorrect statements and falsehoods.
You said "When Tesla opened up its patents, the move was not for simply philanthropic reasons. The rational was to promote interest to electric cars"
The promotion of electric cars is the philanthropy.
The rest of your post did make sense though.
@bb0tin CO2 is not a present but a FUTURE problem in polluting countries because the significant climate changes that have happened so far, paradoxically are not happening in major polluting countries, do some research.
The most polluting countries are also the richest ,only those can make the change from ICE to EV but if they don't see a immediate problem they won't act.
CO2 is a fashion for richer countries and it has seen a big backlash, with incentives for renewable going away.
Teaching people the real danger of pollution would have far better results, like taxing it appropriately.
We can do BOTH.
You said "because the significant climate changes that have happened so far, paradoxically are not happening in major polluting countries, do some research."
You mean like the repeated record rainfall and flooding in Texas, like the worsening high tide flooding in Florida, you mean like the spreading bark beetle caused tree die offs in North America, you mean like the increasing wildfires in North America?
You said "with incentives for renewable going away."
It no longer really matters. New wind and solar are now cheaper than new coal and gas and will only get cheaper still.
You said "Teaching people the real danger of pollution would have far better results, like taxing it appropriately."
The real danger is Climate Change. The cost is far higher than the local pollution costs. Local pollution can be solved within years or decades of making the effort. Climate Change cannot be solved for thousands of years. What we do now regarding GHG will affect generations for hundreds of years. They do not get the chance to to what is required. We do.
All the propose countries to ban ICE are very small in geographic size and population.
What China emit in one day will make more difference than Norway ban all ICE car. Industrial pollution and commercial building energy usage is what important but let everyone jump on the bandwagon to ban ICE.
Some people miss the forest for the tree.
You said "All the propose countries to ban ICE are very small in geographic size and population"
India is proposing to do so.They have the 2nd highest population in the world and over 1/6th of the world's population.
I would not underestimate importance of Norway.
1. It is important market for Tesla
2. Even more so when you realize its size of population is less than say Texas or Michigan's
3. It shows claims the EV-s won't work in cold climate is BS
4. It shows that claims EV-s can't make up large share of total car fleet is BS too
5. It is important case for EV-s for legislators in other countries, some of them pretty big. Possibly as big as Germany.
6. It is important to demonstrate you can be oil rich in fact make most of money from oil and be EV friendly. It is all about how you invest money made from oil.
7. This latter may be important for what Saudi Arabia does. And what Saudi Arabia does is important for the oil world. Period.
8. And it also shows concerns what will happen after EV incentives phase out may be irrelevant. After EV-s incentives phase out, there may be even stronger disincentives against ICE in place.
India is proposing to go 100% electric by 2030. I will believe it when it happen. They trying to give their people Arab vehicle for free. Nothing indicate banning the sales of ICE. Btw, Norway article is also wrong. They didn't say Norway to ban ICE as that is a typo.
See this article.http://cleantechnica.com/2016/06/04/norway-netherlands-austria-india-ver...
Stupid auto correct again, it is suppose to be electric vehicles not Arab.
Believing that comes before the seeing is called "faith".
Believing in religion is also faith, so let it be.
It's all part of the Tesla master 'secret' plan. small steps lead to big journeys. It's working and many don't even know it.
My point is that India is going completely electric whether they say they will or not. They have few energy resources internally, so they are forced to go with the cheapest, which is solar and wind.
Your "belief when you see it" is axiomatic. Except for faith, definitionally.
Norway is an exporter of North Sea oil (and natural gas?) for now--but it will run out in +/- a decade. Not as quickly as profligate Britain did with their Brent field, which was boom to bust in 12 years flat and now Britain is back to importing over 95% of their oil from the same shady folk as before.
Oddly enough, that +/- decade is about the same time frame to be out of the business of selling new gasoline and diesel vehicles in Norway. I guess the same actual smart people running Norway who figured out that Norway had "...one chance, and one chance only, to be rich..." and so socked away all the oil wealth in an untouchable $trillion sovereign fund, for all the future generation of Norwegians instead of spending it all at once, have also figured out that not being dependent in the least on OPEC or its heirs would be a Very Good Thing Indeed.
So, I don't mind in the least if Norway continues to sell the diminishing drips and drabs of the last of their North Sea oil if it is in the long term and better cause of leading the way to an all non-fossil-fuel national transportation system, that can be held up at the very least as an example to other countries worrying where their oil will come from in the future, and how will they pay for it, and what deals with the Devil they will have to make. In other words, it just doesn't have to be oil at all.
New article: some doubt it is signed off by all parties, in any case Norway is heading there with natural progression.
http://mashable DOT com/2016/06/06/norway-car-ban-elon-musk/#aV_lQ4zNsZqD
Unfortunately even if all cars are 100% EV, Oil will still be extracted and used at a level of around 35% compared to today by the petrol-chemical industry.
That is if oil based plastics and oil asphalt bitumen don't get banned and only plant based ones are allowed, case in which oil will be almost useless.
France is banning some oil based plastic bags and allowing only plant based ones, incrementally in a few years.
Just try a plant based plastic bag and it feels so good to the touch compared to a oil based one.
Europe now imports 90% of its oil and in 10 years the small reserves in (Norway,UK,Romania) will almost run out ,no EV's will mean 98% imported oil, what a opportunity for more prosperity but slow to catch on.
You said "Unfortunately even if all cars are 100% EV, Oil will still be extracted and used at a level of around 35% compared to today by the petrol-chemical industry."
I would be interested in reading the source of this statement. What is the link?
@bb0tin at present around 15% of all the oil in the world is used for plastics,asphalt, lubricants,waxes,petroleum coke,oils.
But when oil will stop being used for gasoline,diesel,kerosene the price will drop to less than 10$ per barrel (Saudi Arabia produces oil at 5$ per barrel) and all the plastics, chemicals etc that are now made from natural gas will start to be made from oil which will be much cheaper than gas since gas will still be used as heating fuel for a long time to come so its price will stay high thus oil will reach 35% usage compared to today.
Not to mention plastics,asphalt,oils and all chemicals related will get much cheaper so their usage(rather say ,waste) will increase.
Of course the 35% prediction compared to 15% today is just a guess of mine, from long years of research on the matter :)))
Won't be a CO2 problem, don't worry.
Oh the around 15% of oil from today usage is from wiki, or just google the matter.
You did not supply a link to support your 35%.
You then tried to reason your way out of the 35% by saying it is 15% now but you guess it will be 35% in the future. Your reasoning does not hold water since you had said "at a level of around 35% compared to today".
This is a link which provide numbershttp://alternativeenergy.procon DOT org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001797#uses
I agree that non-combustible use from oil is 15%, but not 35%. We don't care about non-combustible products from a Climate Change perspective, and we are not going to run out of oil for those products.
What is your point?
I have to say I've never seen a more CO2 obsessed person.
Now it's 15% but since oil should get 5 times cheaper the chemicals from natural gas will be made from oil and there are A LOT of chemicals now made from natural gas, this will double 15% to 30% oil usage compared to today.
Plus extra demand for them since those chemicals should get cheaper as oil gets cheaper, 30% plus 5% = 35%.
Chemicals made from "natural" gas are as bad as oil ones, it was just a statement that oil reserves will still have some value in the future even if EV's will be 100% of cars like Norway wants.
I have enough knowledge to make my own predictions ,I don't just read and regurgitate what other people's "research studies" say like you do with your CO2 "studies"
My point is that i care about pollution as a whole, I don't want the food,air,water,the whole environment to be filled with fossil fuel derived chemicals, I know you would rather want that to happen but the CO2 level of industrial human activities to be zero but I am not delusional like you, fossil fuel derived chemicals have a detrimental effect on nature, A LOT more than human fossil industrial CO2 warming of the atmosphere, and on me more directly.
If these chemicals are not stopped it won't matter if the Earth warms because of humans use of fossil, there will be nothing to care about, and you're saying they're not a problem since we will not run out of oil for them???!!!!
I'm tired of arguing with you, you just see red when CO2 is not center stage.
Your statement about it being 35% was incorrect. It is 15%, but really, so what?
I asked what your point was, and I still don't know what it is.
Are you suggesting that we should stop using oil to produce plastics, fertilisers, lubricants, asphalt etc?
Are you suggesting that they cannot be produced in a non-polluting manner?
Are you suggesting that it is a bad thing to produce them at all, o matter what the source?
Honestly, I do not know what your point is.
The point is that that even though ICE are getting banned , Oil based chemicals should also be banned,if not then oil will still have value in the future when cars are 100% electric,so Norway will not have useless oil reserves in the future.
ALL Oil based chemicals can be made from plant based sources(waste wood,grass,potatoes etc) , 100% natural but at a little higher cost than oil based ones.
Another point is that besides ICE ban, Oil based chemicals should also be banned for the environment's and especially my health's sake.
You have no knowledge other than CO2 related stuff.
You are making plenty of assumptions. E.g. that oil is bad. Or that if oil usage drops by half, the other half will get five times cheaper. And so forth. Not clear where this is coming from. But both assumptions are pretty much incorrect.
Plastics is a big problem to, but there is no solution yet. Tree based plastic bags may be cool, but I don't think we can afford cutting trees for plastic.
Unlike plastics, EV as a solution is already there.
@Al1 the 35% or whatever it will be in the future is not very important, I just wanted to point out that Norway does not go totally against it's own oil reserves by banning ICE cars, actually Norway is very smart but I won't go into that because it also involves a lot of assumptions but it has to do with their hydro power potential.
No need to cut trees for plastics, they can be made from plant waste from agriculture, in Brazil they make incredible amounts of biodiesel from plants, if they would make plastics instead of biodiesel that would be enough for many countries.
I'm not against banning of ICE, my GOD, what the f**k ?!! I was just saying after that more can be done.
BBotin contradicts any legislation to ban any kind of pollution if it does not involve CO2 reduction, it's really annoying.
English is the 3rd language that I learned ,maybe I don't make myself very clear in my comments...so there is that
You said "The point is that that even though ICE are getting banned , Oil based chemicals should also be banned,if not then oil will still have value in the future when cars are 100% electric,so Norway will not have useless oil reserves in the future."
There is nothing wrong with many oil products like lubricants and fertilser, if produced cleanly, and used properly. It seems you want all oil based products to be banned. I do not see that happening, nor the reasoning why it should happen.
You said "You have no knowledge other than CO2 related stuff."
You have no knowledge of my knowledge.
@bb0tin oil based lubricants and fertilizers are carcinogenic, there's bio fertilizer =manure,widely used before oil ones ,and also there are bio lubricants made from natural oils and fats. Won't matter if the atmosphere heats up if I have cancer, will it??I won't give a f**k, nobody would.
True I have little knowledge of your knowledge, I only know what you've posted here and from what you posted you have no knowledge other than CO2.
PS: I don't want all oil products to be banned, NO NO, just the human processed ones, I hear there's a CRUDE oil hair treatment for baldness,I have to try it.
You said "oil based lubricants and fertilizers are carcinogenic"
Would you provide reputable links that oil based fertilisers, as opposed to natural fetrilisers, are carcinogenic please. I will read them.
Would you also so the same for lubricants used properly, and I will read them too.
You said "I only know what you've posted here and from what you posted you have no knowledge other than CO2."
You need to read more of my posts.
Google them, I don't want to do all the work.
Why do you think in bio agriculture all oil based fertilizers,insecticides,pesticides are not allowed??
Why do you think for example when oil based car lubricants(engine and gearbox oils,brake fluids) are changed they need to be put in hazardous material containers and disposed off by specialized firms with anti-hazard equipment etc It's not because you can put those oils in your salad !!! And consider that many in "poorer" countries change their own oil and dump it right in the environment!! Even in rich countries many car shops dump it in the environment to save cost and time.
Man made CO2 does not affect me directly,pollution does.