Main moments
In DN the other day we advocated to Cut electric car subsidies of £43 billion and spend it on effective climate action abroad. Such a prioritisation will lead to many more emissions cuts than if we continue with current policies.
However, State Secretary Sigrun Gjerløw Aasland (Ap) at the Ministry of Climate and Environment criticises us for to have a short-term perspective. If we are to reach the climate targets, all Norwegian emissions must be cut. Then it is important to preserve the electric car subsidies,” says Aasland.
If the government's main objective is to reduce everyone Norway emissions by 2050, it is perhaps understandable that the government will preserve the electric car subsidies. To that end, even the least cost-effective means can be used. But climate policy is not a national contest.
Nor do we have an infinite amount of resources to spend on climate action.
The only way the world community can overcome the climate problem is if the measures are consistent with the problem. Norway and other countries must prioritise those measures that cut the most emissions, regardless of where they occur. In other words, we need to think globally and act effectively.
Even the government cannot claim that the electric car subsidies are effective climate policy in 2024. If we had used the electric car subsidies to buy allowances in the EU, it would have resulted in ten times the reduction in emissions, if we added the government's own estimates for the effect of the electric car subsidies on the basis.
Green investments outside the EU have an even greater impact. Norfund's green investments of just under NOK 1.6 billion last year are calculated to lead to emission cuts that are more than twice as large This is what Norway has done since 1990. If the government's goal was effective climate policy, we should rather expect 43 billion to be spent on green investments abroad and 1.6 billion on subsidies for Norwegian motorists.
Aasland has a good point: that Norwegian climate policy can be an export commodity. We hope, like Aasland, that others can learn from Norwegian electric car subsidies, which have been important in ensuring that Many people have bought electric cars in Norway. But there is nothing standing in the way of telling the world about a scheme we have discontinued. Rather, it will strengthen electric car subsidies as an export commodity if we also show that measures that were effective can be cut when they no longer are.
It is not just climate considerations that advocate spending more money on helping other countries make a green transition. Increased access to renewable energy in developing countries reduces other forms of pollution, creates jobs and acts as a multiplier on the local economy. The World Health Organization estimates that seven million people die every year as a result of air pollution, mainly due to the burning of fossil energy.
Replacing Norwegian fossil cars with electric cars does not have the same effect.
Effective means of reducing global emissions are long-term policies. A step in the right direction is to cut electric car subsidies and spend the money on effective climate action abroad.
