Political posturing, trial balloons, PR positioning—savvy elected officials know that professional survival depends more on voters’ perceptions than actual accomplishments. And so, when Norway’s Finance Minister called for an end to the sale of purely petrol powered vehicles by 2015, it was a major miscalculation. Info consumers are hard of hearing; they perceived Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen’s proposition as a general ban on all gas-powered vehicles (including hybrids) in six years. Halvorsen was forced into damage-control mode, “This is much more realistic than people think when they first hear about this proposal,” she told Reuters. The fact that no politician in their right mind would suggest such a thing clearly occurred to the plucky Norwegian: “Halvorsen knew of no other finance minister in the world who was even arguing for such a goal. ‘I haven’t heard about any ministers. I’m not surprised. We are often a party that puts forward new proposals first.'” That said, Halvorsen has been on the front lines of extreme ideology before; she was forced to rescind her call for a ban on Israeli-made products.
As a Scandinavian, it so embarrasses me that the proud Vikings have devolved into such pantywaist moonbats.
Choice of words is very important. Instead of calling for a BAN on purely gas vehicles, she could have called for all vehicles to be hybrid or flex-fuel by 2015. I bet the reaction would have been different.
Norway is rich and debt-free. Norwegians take pride in their independence, i.e. their ability to form public policy they way they want to, without undue influence of the auto lobby or oil lobby.
If you believe in anthropogenic global warming (I for one am not yet convinced), then Halvorsen’s stance is consequential and quite sane. America’s policy of living above its means and bankrolling its oil-producing enemies, in contrast, is what you could call crazy, if you wanted to employ inflammatory expressions.
Halvorsen is merely catering to the radicals in her party. The current government consists of several parties, and her party, the socialist left, has had to make several concessions over the past 4 years. (it got approx. 8% of the votes)
She has to say stuff like this every now and again in order to please the rest of the party. A gasoline vehicle ban in 2015 is obviously not going to happen.
She’s not crazy, I think she knows exactly what she’s doing, even if it is a bit ridiculous at times.
I find myself in the strange position of defending Mrs. Halvorsen, something I rarely do. As Will Rogers said: I am not a member of an organized political party – I’m a Democrat …
While I have never voted for Halvorsen’s party, they’re not consistently moonbat.
What they did decide, at their recent national convention, is that EVs and Hybrids should be promoted as preferred vehicles to be sold by 2015, and that gasoline only cars would be disadvantaged, through heavy fees. And if they can get support for a ban, they’ll be most pleased.
This is for new cars only – and it’s not a ban against driving cars with gasoline only engines. But it’s a way of phasing them out.
(She did, however, encourage consumers to boycott goods from Israel.)
Although her proposal seems not only untenable but also unattainable, it is nonetheless easy to understand. Just dig a little bit and see who stands to profit from her proposal. Then everything will become crystal clear.
Politicians say things all the time that are a little over the top. I’m sure I’ve heard way more insane things come from the mouth of some guy running for office here at some point, this seems rather minor to me. Hell, CARB comes up with ideas that are nearly as goofy as this one.
“Although her proposal seems not only untenable but also unattainable”
What is no unattainable about requiring all new cars in a small market like Norway to be at a minimum flex-fuel capable? The modifications to make a vehicle flex-fuel capable cost, at most, a few hundred dollars. Unattainable is far too strong a word for her proposal.
if she wants to be really “green” she should suggest norway end exports of fossil fuels by 2015.
oil producers are the real bad guys, the crack dealers of the petrol economy, hummer drivers are just their unfortunate victims, addicts who need understanding, a hug and a nice cup of tea.
Meh. Let’s all get together in 2015 and then we’ll see if my choice of words was apropos or not.
Hell, CARB comes up with ideas that are nearly as goofy as this one.
Don’t sell CARB short, their ideas are just as wacky. During the rolling blakouts in California several years ago now, they were not going to allow water systems to operate their emergency generators in some locations to protect the air, which would have resulted in the loss of water to literally millions of people. Luckily push never came to shove.
As a half-Norwegian myself, this annoys me. If by “petrol” she means “gasoline”, then she is just pushing cars into diesel — certainly something the Norwegians will continue to profit from. To the extent the current advances in diesel engine technology can be mated with a reliable biodiesel alternative, then ok — but currently no major manufacturer will certify their diesels for more than a B5 blend mostly because of a wide disparity in biodiesel quality. To the extent she is advocating ethanol as the fuel of the future, that’s great but the effect on food prices of ethanol-favoring fuel policies has been dmore than adequately demonstrated and that doesn’t solve the CO2 emissions problem, which is probably the more pressing given the incredible advances in cleaning up gas and diesel engine emissions in the past 10 years. Nor does reliance on biodiesel help the CO2 / global warming issue.
Hybrids still carry with them an environmental problem — what to do with those toxic batteries?
I understand and am sympathetic to the desire to promote efficiency. But arbitrarily picking technologies to attain effieciency isn’t good government policly. Legislating the end goals of emissions cleanliness and fuel efficiency is much better approach, leaving the market to figure out how best to do that. But as someone from the Socialist Left Party, I wouldn’t expect her to try a solution that might rely on the market to come up with the means that will attain the legislated ends.
“… she was forced to rescind her call for a ban on Israeli-made products.”
Great, she’s anit-Semite as well as anti-car (I don’t think of non-ICE vehicles as true cars).
I’m in total agreement with Ashy Larry’s last paragraph–two comments above this one. Between that and the proposed ban on Israeli products, Halvorsen sounds like a knee-jerk. As punishment, I suggest that she be forced to ride in the back of a Corvette on a very twisty track with a very highly skilled driver at the wheel.
If the opinion of a majority of the world’s finance ministers actually carried any weight then the world financial situation wouldn’t be in the shape it’s in. I applaud her vision.
Why exactly do cars have to be petroleum powered, much less in a small, sensibly planned country like Norway? Maybe they like the instant heat that comes from an electric car instead of waiting 10 minutes for the engine to warm up.
@ Ashy Larry, batteries are simply laminated layers of highly refined metals, it makes absolutely no sense not to recycle them at end of life and none of their contents would escape from the usage loop, unlike the pollutants that are emitted from a gas burner. Think has an assembly line ready to churn out Norwegian made vehicles for the home market but for lack of a few million bucks, an indigenously made ICE car could never be made for the same investment.
As much as I’d like to respond to the idea that the not supporting the political implementation of Zionism is somehow anti-Semitic, that’s way beyond the scope of TTAC.
An anti-car, antisemetic politician from Europe. Shocker.
“We are the government and we know what’s best for you.”
Being against Israel’s brutal foreign policies is not anti-Semitic. Phosphor bombing of civilians is not in the Torah.
MIT has made a breakthrough in battery charging times. If it’s commercially viable things could really change.
Just put in a subwoofer with a 425 soundtrack and we could all be happy.
@midelectric
Whether batteries will be recycled at the end of their lives depend on the cost of doing so versus the cost of obtaining their metals by other means. As most demand for the metals in question is from the battery industry, the outcome of this can easily become dependent on battery technology continuing to rely on pretty much currently used metals in the future.
In a tightly controlled, oil rich country like Norway, the government likely can influence this more than in most places, but it’s still not a given that recycling will be universal or nearly so.
A bigger issue with statements like this, is that it gets government officials directly involved in the business of picking which technologies should be the preferred vehicles for achieving the goals the politicians are ostensibly trying to achieve. If reducing CO2 emissions is the goal, and wealth transfers are, as in Norway, popularly accepted; reduce CO2 by transferring wealth from high emitters to low one’s, and let the means by which emissions are being reduced be decided on by individuals. Even in a country as homogenous and collectively minded as Norway, I suspect not everyone faces the exact same circumstances with respect to how they can easiest reduce their CO2 footprint.
Advocating behaviour that, if practiced, will inevitably result in loss of wealth and work available to an overwhelmingly jewish population, could be considered, at a minimum, well aligned with antisemittic goals. On the other hand, it’s not really that different from politicians encouraging ‘buy American’, as in; boycott goods made anywhere else, including in Israel.
Martin Schwoerer writes:
Norway is rich and debt-free. Norwegians take pride in their independence, i.e. their ability to form public policy they way they want to, without undue influence of the auto lobby or oil lobby.
Earth to Martin: Norway is an oil-state. That’s what allows them to be so rich, debt-free and independent-minded in the first place. I view them as well-behaved Saudis, and certainly not independent of the oil game.
Also, boycotting Israeli goods cannot be good for Norway’s position as a neutral broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians, such as Norway was in the 1990s, during the Oslo peace process. So maybe Halvorsen doesn’t care for Norway to carry on in those efforts. Perhaps she’d rather be PC (i.e. anti-Israel) than actually attempt to contribute to peace.
@probert:
Singling out one country that just happens to be Jewish is antisemetic. By way of comparison, the finance minister hasn’t stated any issue with China or Sudan, two other trading partners with Norway. Maybe she has no problem with China’s use of violent repression of Tibetans or their policy of execution of political prisoners, nor any concern with her country’s ongoing support of Sudan’s oil exploration in Darfur – action directly related to the genocide STILL taking place.
But then, maybe it just slipped her mind…
NBK-Boston / Earth,
Norwegians are not independent of the oil game, you say. So that’s why their finance minister proposes an anti-oil policy? I don’t get it.
Folks, this is not Nigeria and it sure ain’t Saudia Arabia. We are not talking about one of those petro-kleptocracies. Norway is a civilized, legitimate country with democratically elected officials. I disagree with Halvorsen’s proposition, but to question her sanity is over the top.
Martin:
A true anti-oil policy would be for Norway to stop pumping and selling the stuff. Anything less (i.e. what they are doing) is window dressing. An anti-domestic-oil-consumption policy is very different from an actual anti-oil policy.
Slight — or even major — reductions in domestic demand in a country as small as Norway will not affect the world price of oil. For Norway, it would just leave more for export. Which enriches the country — and the finance ministry — especially since a very large chunk of national oil profits are put into an investment fund, overseen, of course, by said finance ministry.
Traditional conservation measures alone (i.e. mandating higher fuel economy in cars, and such) work against themselves — reducing demand from its original level causes price to go down (assuming constant production; admittedly OPEC eventually moves to cut production when demand craters, like at present), which will eventually stimulate more demand from some other source — more miles driven in efficient cars will eventually consume the same amount of fuel as fewer miles driven in gas guzzlers, whether those miles are driven by the original drivers, or by the Chinese and Indians getting in on the motoring habit. Cheap oil can also discourage conversion of electric generation and other flexible industrial applications to other fuels (coal, gas, nuclear, renewables), since the conversion won’t generate the same savings as it would if oil remained expensive. Ordinarily, these equillibrating tendencies are considered a good feature of markets, but if we all decide that oil is bad for some reason, and should not be burned, then simple unilateral conservation measures will not to a thing to advance that goal. To pretend otherwise is silly and immature. (Such measures may have other uses, though, such as buffering an economy against a price spike or supply shock, for instance.)
The only sure-fire ways to depress oil consumption and keep it low are to (1) destroy industrial civilization, (2) impose a fairly steep excise tax on oil, or (3) invent some technology that does everything oil does, only better and cheaper, so that people naturally migrate away from oil.
Number 1 is unacceptable, and number 3 is unpredictable (but it happens all the time, of course — coal is not much used for directly heating buildings anymore, even though we still have plenty of it, and it’s cheap, and flint is not much used for knives either). Number 2 is the only sure-fire method, but you don’t see Norway going around advocating a world-wide tax treaty on crude oil, do you?
Like I said, Norway is a well-behaved Saudi Arabia. It is generally progressive, democratic, pro-whaling (as a New Englander, I have a soft spot for this) and all sorts of other good things. But it is an oil state, in which a good chunk of its current prosperity is tied to, and insured by, oil. That’s not a bad thing, but it must be borne in mind any time one tries to figure out what they are up to.
Why does anyone pay attention to anything a politician from a Scandinavian country has to say? The average Scandinavian is so out of touch with reality, these countries will cease to exists in a generation or two. Currently Scandinavian is being overrun by “immigrants” from the Mideast, Africa and the Balkans. If there is one good thing about the coming imposition of Sharia on Scandinavian, it’s that feminist twits like Kristin Halvorsen will have to shut their holes, and stay home making babies for her new husband, Abdul.
NBK-Earth,
I appreciate your civil and detailed way of arguing.
When you say Norway is a well-behaved Saudia Arabia — what does that mean? Do you mean they have Sharia, but they don’t support the Mujahedeen? That they are backward, but they don’t finance terrorism? I am, quite honestly, baffled. I think you mean they are an oil exporter but are one of the few such countries that are not corrupted by their oil. I’m fine with that.
But to say Norway should stop exporting oil, now that doesn’t cut the mustard. Nobody is saying that oil is evil. Even Kyoto doesn’t say we have to get rid of oil. All Halvorsen says is that transport should not be 100% based on fossil fuel. She’s making an exception for hybrids too. What does that mean? It means, she wants a reduction of CO2 in Norway by executive edict, as opposed to by tax. Normal stuff, albeit not ideal, in my mind.
And besides, oil has all kinds of uses non-related to transportation. It would be criminal to stop pumping and selling the stuff.
Okie dokie. For those of you that clicked the link leading to the actual story itself provided both within and below the op-ed above (most likely as it would constitute libel without sourcing properly, given the tone and well, overall, its flagrant misrepresentation) I can appreciate your initiative regarding your political world-view…for those that either missed those links or have, perhaps, never heard of Reuters, allow me to add some balance to the scales. All apologies for my sarcasm, but, God-willing, I’ll be marrying a Norwegian this time next year. No offense, but my expert opinion comes directly from a source that makes Reuters look like a basement operation. First, keep in mind that – foreign as it may seem – the purpose of a parliamentary legislature is, for the most part, to ensure that as many citizens as possible have at the very least a voice within the parliament halls. Combine that with the fact that all attention is good attention for a public figure, especially considering the detail to which she explains her motivations for such a sweeping change at such short notice.
Regarding her “anti-Semite” rhetoric, I can only implore you to pay closer attention to your own political discussions at work and at home, regarding where to take a stand and where to acquiesce. How are you with Obama in office? Gay marriage? Immigrant labor? Christians, or better yet, Muslims? And regarding Norway’s involvement with China and the Sudan…and no doubt dozens of “questionable” bedfellows if you really got into the economic policy of any industrialized nation. The majority of United States’ debt is with China, our own home-grown companies exploit the greed of countless totalitarian state for the mere hint of profit for themselves, and we’ve our own long and sullied history of transparent as well as covert (if not outright illegal) collusion with much more cumbersome bedfellows than our Scandinavian friends. Allow me to direct your attention to a double-handful of Middle Eastern countries that denounce our presence the moment our ambassadors remove the ear buds providing translations for dialects and languages that the average US citizen could neither name or nor understand.
And honestly, if we’ve reached the point where one leftist politician is capable of tarnishing an entire country’s reputation here, where anyone might come across this story and its corresponding bickering, then I’ll just keep hope alive that these next generations will lack our predisposition to get right down to the muckraking before we even confirm with either of the provided sources (despite having been given somewhat…eh, next-to-nothing, at all, in the way of proper context or necessary elaboration.)
And I apologize, but “skor”…friend…you might benefit from a few moments taken to look up the world’s current standards of living, modernized health care – and no, the two are not mutually exclusive – not to mention the acceptance or all those “immigrants” that, last I checked, could just as easily be deemed refugees seeking asylum in one of the few countries still willing to assist them – you just named three war-torn regions, so if anything, I’d say they’re a touch more “in touch” than most of us…oh, and while we’re at it, and least *try* not to denigrate our allies in Afghanistan while you’re wishing nothing but a theocratic totalitarian Hell upon an entire society of somewhat different, but the vast majority all quite generous and kind-hearted citizens. My future father-in-law fought to cease the genocide taking place in the same Balkans you mention above, but I wonder – are you familiar with the years following WWI and II? I’d hate to think our nation was literally “overrun” with immigrants – Europeans, working in the glamorous factories and foundries of Chicago and elsewhere, that likely fathered and mothered your parents or grandparents, ’cause I know they did half of mine. The other half have been here since the 1730’s, fought for the great men that founded this country, and again for the Union in the 1860’s, just in case my loyalty should come into question…
Back on topic, if you did or do eventually read the Reuters article — (bold-type words added for my own emphasis):
Your very first line reads:
“A proposal to ban sales of new gasoline-powered cars in Norway from 2015 could help spur struggling carmakers to shift to greener models, Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen said Saturday.”
Further down you’ll find:
“Hybrids using fossil fuels and electricity, for instance, would still be permitted.”
And further:
“Halvorsen denied that her proposal would undermine the economy — Norway is the world’s number six oil exporter.
‘Not at all … we know that the world will be dependent on oil and gas for many decades ahead but we have to introduce new technologies and this is a proposal to support that,’ she said.”
Do seat belts ring a bell for anyone? If not, keep reading. Minority politicians exist simply to open a discussion that the majority cannot approach for fear of…discussions like this. Surely 1992 and 2000 are still fresh in our memories. Perot and Nader, respectively, while each their own ear-sore as individuals, brought new ideas and/or strategies into the national discussion. There was no real guarantee their ideas would either benefit the nation, or even succeed in a microcosm of society, but it is the minority’s job to raise a stink, if not only to obtain the necessary attention to get the idea – regardless of 2015 – into as many televisions and radios as possible. Democracy is compromise. Norway isn’t perfect, but exactly since when are we? We’re one of the youngest countries in existence, and the excitement is in our progress forward – so I actually applaud Halvorsen’s statement. Capitalism and Socialism have their shortcomings, sure, but the two are not perpendicular tangents in basic ideology. Hence, as a major supplier of oil, everything in Norway from your bus to work to your triple-bypass surgery is free, and no, they are quite capable medically – not all Socialist countries are cesspools of health care and preventative medicine.
And finally, from Halvorsen via Reuters:
“‘A lot of people thought that this proposal also would go after the cars we already have. That is not the case, it’s the new cars that are bought after 2015.\'”
–But why in the world would so many think such drastic measures were being undertaken by the government, would you assume? Surely such an unbiased story as above, would only further her cause – not to do away with petroleum products of course…until all traces of medicinal ointments disappear completely from the medical field, and car tires, hoses, gaskets, and other similar, rubber-derived parts are crafted out of…what, wheat? No, there weren’t any electric grain harvesters last I looked so…what? Some absurdly expensive polymer, I suppose, and while we’re at it – say goodbye to plastic products and asphalt. Welcome to the Renaissance. Hope you’re fond of nepotism, art, and, for those of us in the US, nonexistence.
Isn’t exaggeration wonderful? I’m just astounded that so many went straight past the link to Reuters in order to triple the article’s word-count in an uproar of disagreements. Let me give you a little peace of mind, for anyone still reading this thread.
Remaining exclusively on the subject of cars, try to list for me a handful of safety features – seat belts, airbags, ABS, crumple zones, coated windshields, anything – that wasn’t a result of heavy pressure from any number of “insane” politicians, corporate interests, lobbyists from groups such as MADD, or other social activists – while I’m certainly not a fan, was it not Ralph Nader that ultimately championed the mandate for seat-belt availability and their usage?
That’s right! Your head remained inside the vehicle, attached to your neck no less, thanks to any number of even more uproarious attempts to force safety legislation upon any number of companies that would more than happily tally us all down as acceptable losses for the sake of the occasional mechanical eureka – that is, of course, should it make any money through its discovery.
I’m as much a fan of 170mph here as anyone. But it’s a bad reflection upon the site itself when someone joins just to ask firsthand if we’re really that unappreciative of our allies, of all people, to post such a misleading op-ed in not just an easily accessible but an internationally visible medium as well.
So maybe in the future, think more about the future. Either way, best of luck with whatever this endeavor really is. It’s certainly not about either truth or even that much about cars from what I’ve seen here. But I do appreciate your rights in publishing, and my well-wishes are genuine. Unfortunately, I’m sure you’ll genuinely appreciate my absence from your website as well.
But I do regret that of all places, Norway caught the extent of your ire. I’m only 26 and knew long before I even met a Norwegian the foundations of different governmental systems, the assistance we receive from dozens of countries that are constantly criticized for even the most mundane and obviously unlikely political positioning.
And I know exactly how this sounds, but as with all foreign policy – some of you will likely disregard this as nonsense – it matters none whatsoever what our politicians say when the citizens that put them there feel the need to attack our allies over what is, honestly…none of our business to begin with – just as we’d say to a Norwegian citizen that chose to criticize our way of life.
Just try to remember that in the future, even though, like I said – I’ll be finding the truth about cars elsewhere, to our mutual relief I’m sure.
Best of luck regardless.