Norway is amongst the world leaders in electric vehicle (EV) deployment. This reinforces the country’s image of being an environmental and climate leader. Norway’s sustainability initiatives – like increasing EV capacity – however stand in stark contrast to the country’s continued production of oil and gas, which in 2020 accounted for over 40% of the total value of Norwegian exports of goods. Some have termed this duality Norway’s ‘schizophrenia’ others, like Norwegian anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen, refer to it as the “double-bind”. With this Hylland describes the chasm between continued hydrocarbon production and environmental and climate initiatives. This article examines how Norwegian electric vehicle deployment reinforces on the one hand Norway’s image as a climate leader, and on the other hand raises questions about the country’s dual role as a carbon polluter.
Upon a quick web browse on electric vehicles in Norway, the Norwegian government’s page appears in the top searches. In bold letters the site declares:
No other country in the world has more electric vehicles per capita than Norway: 54 per cent of all new cars sold in Norway in 2020 are electric, more than 12 per cent of our total car park is now electric, and the car with the highest sales in Norway in 2020 is an electric car […].
The Norwegian tourist information website further entitles the country as “EV capital of the world” Indeed, some have described Norway as “electric car paradise” , particularly as it aims to be the first country to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2025. Behind this ambitious target stands the government’s large-scale subsidisation project, which exempts EVs from most of the taxes imposed on their fossil fuel counterparts. This makes most electric cars cheaper compared to similar diesel or petrol powered models despite higher import fees.
Owners of electric vehicles enjoy exemptions from annual road tax, and – with slight differences depending on municipal variations – free parking, use of bus lanes, and reductions of road tolls. Many companies also offer their employees free electric charging in the office parking lots, making the ownership of an electric vehicle a convenient and price-competitive choice. Norway’s efforts in electrifying transport have been recognised around the world. Yet they raise the question whether carbon reducing measures like increasing EV capacity can justify the country’s continued national production of fossil fuels – most of which are exported and thereby allow for the continued use of diesel- or petrol-powered cars elsewhere.
Moreover, I ask myself whether the ownership of electric vehicles is a mere pragmatic choice for Norwegians? Or does the government’s push for electrification of transport inspire further and other reflexive, sustainable measures in the long run? And, does the heavy subsidisation of electric vehicles risk masking their environmental impacts?
Luxury Purchases
During 18 months of ethnographic fieldwork in Norway’s capital Oslo between 2018-2020, I had the chance to speak to many electric vehicle owners. While my research project on energy leaders and experts in Norway only tangentially relates to EVs, most of my interlocutors owned an electric car. It must be noted that they occupied top leadership and expert positions in some of Norway’s largest hydrocarbon, renewable and mixed energy businesses and as such enjoyed rather privileged modes of life. Therefore, it may come as no surprise that many of them opted for luxury electric vehicles; a popular choice was Teslas but increasingly many opted for newer, more luxurious models that were introduced to the growing Norwegian EV market.
As one person once told me: “I want to buy a luxury electric car, but I’m not going for a Tesla. Everyone has a Tesla. I’m going to buy the new electric Jaguar or Porsche”. Indeed, big car brands launched luxury e-models particularly targeted towards Norwegian consumers. Their advertisements aim at appealing to a sense of ‘Norwegianness’ by depicting the luxury EVs in the middle of snowy mountaintops, long Fjords and fresh lakes and forests. This is the targeted marketing for the costumers of the ‘electric car paradise’.
Examining the People’s Choice
When asking my interlocutors why they chose to buy an electric car most noted as their primary reasons the practicality; the low-tax, easy parking, traffic-avoiding, and lower-cost aspects. Others – particularly those who invested in a luxury model – highlighted their love for technology and the prestige they associated with such a car. Only a handful of people listed EV’s low-carbon emissions as a primary purchasing motivator. Moreover, most of my interlocutors owned more than one car; they had an EV for the city and their daily work lives. The electric car allowed them to get to work efficiently and economically; driving on the bus lanes allowed them to escape rush hour traffic, and at the same time they benefited from low road tolls. However, to get to their summer or winter cabins, to move their yachts or boats around, and in and out of the Oslofjord, most had at least one car powered by fossil fuels.
“My Tesla is good, but especially in the harsh winter months or the difficult mountain roads it has its limitations”, I would often hear. “You know, we need both cars”, I was also often told.
Soon, I understood that electric vehicles were for most of my interlocutors not primarily a conscious choice towards more sustainability – as perhaps may be presumed – but mostly a pragmatic, financial consideration. Carbon reduction was the environmental side-effect, a sort of “feel-good” factor that further justified the economical and practical choice of electric car ownership.
A Paradise with Environmental Footprint?
The environmental impacts of electric vehicles however, were rarely problematised – neither by official government communication nor by most of the EV owners I knew. The few people I encountered who did question the impacts of electric cars for the most part worked in the oil industry. They criticised lithium extraction, battery longevity, and carbon impact of assembly and production of the car. Yet – due to their positionality in oil – their criticisms were interpreted by others in the industry as a means to lobby for fossil fuels.
The strong sense of identity some associate with an oil-fuelled life can be illustrated with the following excerpt. The CEO of a hydrocarbon supplier company shared with me the push-back he received from his friends and peers in the oil industry upon telling them his plans to buy a Tesla. In conversation with me he explained:
I’ve always been positive to electric cars.
Enthusiastically he continued:
I started to talk about that a long time ago and said that my dream is to buy a Tesla because I just love the innovation and technology of this car. But people got really angry with me, and not just angry, they got aggressive because I was different; they felt I was moving away from gasoline and mechanical parts.
This excerpt shows that choosing an EV for some is more than a practical decision; it is a question of identity, choice and allegiance that – as I found out throughout my fieldwork – is intimately tied to the way people envision energy futures. While the criticisms from oil leaders and experts towards EVs’ environmental impact were not without cause, their positionality limited the reach of their challenge.
Similarly however, a few of my interlocutors working in renewables expressed their concerns with EVs: they too were worried about their environmental impact particularly regarding the required critical minerals like lithium for battery manufacturing. They often noted that electric vehicles are amongst the prime examples of renewable technology that begs the question of how ‘clean’, ‘green’ or sustainable low-carbon tech really is. While those leaders and experts working in renewables noted the climate benefits of electric cars, they saw EVs not as an end point, but as a technology that required continued innovation and increased sustainability.
Concluding Remarks
Considering these brief insights into the motivations and reflections behind electric car purchases, it may appear that Norway’s EV paradise is merely ornamental; another measure to underscore the image of a climate supporter, and a move away from an association with fossil fuel related carbon emissions. I would not be as drastic in the conclusion of my observations. Though I do want to note that considering the persisting limitations and impacts of EV technology, it is important to educate consumers about its environmental impacts. Moreover, in an effort towards long term sustainable solutions, I would hope that EVs do not become fast-fashion trends that fuel rampant consumerism, but that enable people to reflect more deeply about the role of private transport in an age of increasing carbon emissions and climate change. Perhaps rather than accelerating consumption patterns, one should consider the necessity, impacts, and consequences of large scale EV capacity. Until now, there is no ‘energy utopia’, and a sustainable ‘EV-paradise’ still lies a long road ahead.
Anna Rauter
Anna Rauter is currently working on her PhD in Social Anthropology at the Centre for Energy Ethics based in the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. Her thesis examines how energy elites – the leaders and experts of Norwegian energy companies – imagine energy futures. Her research is based on 18 months of ethnographic fieldwork in Oslo within the Norwegian energy industry.