Their wealth and ability to buy electric cars at home is largely dependent on that massive oil income. They don't refine oil locally and would have to buy back gasoline, so electric cars still make economic sense too.
Norway is a beautiful country that the rest of the world often tries to emulate, but their economy is rooted in a darker side.
[1] https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Energy/Oil/P...
Per capita doesn't mean % of GDP though. It means relative to the population.
Norway exports like $50B / yr of petroleum (and another $120B of natural gas). Saudi Arabia exports like $170B / yr of petroleum.
Saudi Arabia population is like 7x larger, so per Capita oil and gas is larger in Norway even if you subtract out all the natural gas.
There, now your GDP is just 50% oil.
[1]: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/okonomi-og-budsjett/norsk...
For sure, it's a huge part of Norway and shouldn't be overlooked, but it's specious to compare it directly to a country like Saudi Arabia.
There is a refinery at Mongstad capable of processing 10 mill. tons of crude oil per year. It could have provided all the gasoline used in Norway, but probably not all the diesel.
More relevant is probably that there is a significant hydroelectric production, so there is no need to use petroleum to generate the electricity for the cars.
Perhaps check Siberia per population as a fair reference.
Would the world be better off if Norway drilled no oil and ran its energy like everyone else?
Fix renewable energy, invest in the R&D, etc.
Climate change is a slow train wreck happening over a century. it’s a bit embarrassing that we’ve done so little.
We burn more coal now than ever before.
https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set...
The one remaining issue is consistency but I'm countries with much hydro that's also a solved problem.
The issue is more the installed base of fossil consumption, like vehicles. Also, for some categories like airplanes there's no viable alternative yet.
Aviation? Please look up the emissions for aviation va coal power.
> Yes, because the price of oil would go up and there'd be more incentive to reduce oil consumption
That's a pretty over-simplistic analysis of "better off." By that logic, I could make us "better off" by bombing all the oil infrastructure, causing the price to go up even more, meanwhile hundreds of millions or more die because the modern economy and trade links collapse.
That's an extreme example to prove a point: it's pretty important to consider what else would happen.
But if every person travelled like a Norwegian, oil demand would be down. Extrapolating per capita mechanics of a small country like this doesn't make sense.
It's valuable because of the systems we've created around it. Whale oil sits unmolested in the oceans. Meanwhile American coal is becoming a stranded asset amidst falling demand, production and prices [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Stat...
We rarely burn peat any more too as another example of a 'valuable resource' that is left in situ rather than collected now.
I remember peat still being burnt in Shetland when I was young, and compared to coal or even wood it gave off very little heat.
There is still plenty of peat to be taken 'for free' as a fuel using traditional methods, but very little is burnt now, as it is easier and cheaper to heat your home, with wood, coal or more likely gas or electricity.
You mean with Russian gas? Probably not.