Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelangerman | Hacker News Reader

Now all we have to do is convince the politicians in the US to walk away from their (perceived) oil as well off the coast of Alaska.

View on HN

This is actually excellent news for America's drillers, as reduced global supply will bolster prices and motivate more drilling in the U.S. And that is all this Norwegian decision will actually do: move production from one place to another. The people of Texas, North Dakota, Alaska, and a few other states, extend their thanks to the Norwegian parliament.

Sure, in the short term, it will not have much effect apart from

a) protecting the sensitive environment around the Lofoten islands

b) increasing the cost of oil slightly

c) leaving the oil around Lofoten for future generations if necessary

All three are quite positive effects of this decision, with a+c) being more limited to Norway and b) potentially having an effect world-wide. It will also make it easier to tax "dirty" oil imports (such as from sensitive natural environments) and all goods produced using such oil into the EU if no internal player is doing the same.

If it increases prices, then fewer people will buy oil, causing less oil to be drilled.

That doesn't mean less people need fuel, though...

It potentially means fewer people will need petroleum fuels.

Petroleum fuels are only the only game in town for some of their applications. For everything else, raising or lowering the price relative to the alternatives will cause switching to or from petroleum fuels. This is going to be lagging (because there are usually capital costs associated with the switch, so it doesn't make sense to switch if you won't recoup the expense, so the fuel cost difference needs to be substantial), complex (because the switching will actually be based on the perceived future price difference, not the current price difference) and somewhat sticky.

It might, if higher fuel costs cause people to, eg. buy an electric car

Increasing price of oil incentivizes increased oil production.

If oil prices fall because supply was increased too much, then demand will increase in response to the lower prices of oil.

The other side of this being that we want oil to be drilled in the jurisdictions with the best environmental protections. Grading aside, a barrel of oil from Alberta, Texas, Niger, Venezuela, or Norway all carry different environmental costs.

In that regard, I think Norway not drilling may be a net loss for the environment since they have some of the better protections. It may even be a net global loss, even if it means a localized win.

The combination of people fighting oil production in their own countries while making very few meaningful changes to their consumption patterns is a massive example of NIMBYism

While the average consumption of a Norwegian is still too darned high, Norwegians have certainly been changing their consumption patterns in the last years:

- Highest proportion of electric vehicles of any country in the world: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/08/19/top-electric-car-countr...

- Establishing new onshore windmill farms: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-wind-idUSKCN1RD27H

- The rules for the government pension fund (aka. the oil fund) have become much more strict about investments in coal recently: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...

Full disclosure: I am a Norwegian.

Code blocks don't wrap and are limited to a very narrow width on mobile, making prose difficult to read. I suggest putting each list item in a separate paragraph instead of using code blocks.

Done.

Are Norwegians buying electric cars because of tax savings (cheaper) or because they want to save the environment?

Tax savings, no doubt. The motivation behind the reduced taxes is to bring economy and ethics in balance, so they're working as intended.

Sounds like rent seeking on the part of the electric vehicle companies.

Could be, but given the much larger influence that the state oil company Equinor (previously Statoil) exerts on the government, I'd not think it's likely.

One factor is that the price of gas is about $1.6/L (~$6/gallon), while electricity still is very cheap. Most people also don't generally need to drive all that far, so a shorter-range electric car is perfect for daily driving. There are TONS of Nissan Leafs out here in the suburbs where I live. In 2018 the Nissan Leaf was the most sold car in Norway.

Buying an electric car in Norway also gives you much more than just tax savings (but they do have a lot of those). You don't have to pay road tolls, you can use the highway lane reserved for taxis and busses, you can park and charge for free in government provided parking spaces, you have 50% off tickets for ferries, cheaper mandatory yearly road insurance, and some shopping centres previously had free charging while you shop.

The right to drive in the bus-lanes was changed to only with at least one passenger during rush-hour, as they became so clogged that busses were stuck in traffic as well. The free road toll will be changed to 50% off this year, and the exemption from sales-tax is up for review in 2020. The free charging on government provided parking will be limited to 4 hours this year, and a fee per hour will be introduced. You can still park for free though, but those spots with charging stations are too popular.

Very easy to be green if you're rich. Teslas aren't cheap

Don’t pretend that Tesla is the only EV.

Tesla is by far the most popular car in Norway, and the highest per capita ownership in the world.

Don't expect people to change their consumption patterns when the economics so strongly favor one set of behaviors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com