From the article:
Norway offers an example of EV policy that reduces emissions. First, increasing purchases and use of electric vehicles in Norway means reduced emissions because they draw electricity from the country’s grid that is
98% renewable (mostly hydroelectric). Second, the centerpiece of Norwegian policy is to make gasoline cars more expensive. Gasoline cars are subject to a carbon tax, weight tax, and 25% sales tax. These can add up to a
roughly 50% tax rate, while
EVs are completely exempt. There are plenty of soft incentives as well, from cheaper parking to reduced tolls and access to public transit lanes.
Is this replicable?
In some ways, perhaps. But most countries (including the U.S.) lag far
behind Norway in their financial disincentives for gasoline cars and do not have the ready access to clean energy that Norway enjoys.
Norway is also relatively small and sparsely populated. It has a population of 5.4 million, which is less than the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and a footprint of ~385,000sq-km (149,000sq-miles), in comparison, Texas is 695,000sq-km (268,000sq-miles) with 29 million people.
Large-scale hydro simply isn't viable everywhere, that's obstacle number 1, and sources that do work to effectively reduce emissions from fossil fuels have been white elephants (Vogtle for example) in recent years. Quebec flooded an area the size of the state of Florida for the James Bay Project, so it isn't like large scale hydro doesn't have environmental impacts either.
Carbon taxation is a controversial subject and really only makes sense if you are already in a position where the forcing of people into alternatives via this mechanism are:
A. Not crippling economically (cheap electricity, cheap EV's)
B. Sufficient charging and electricity infrastructure are in place to support it (this is clearly not the case in most places at this time)
C. The grid is suitably low emissions for this to make sense.
Achieving all three of these goals simultaneously is exceedingly difficult. California has insane electricity prices, wickedly high fuel prices and a grid that's a disaster. It's failing on all three of these fronts.
Charging an electric vehicle in colder environments can emit more CO2 than driving an equivalent gasoline car. Scientists have known for years that ambient temperature can dramatically affect the battery range of electric vehicles. One main reason is that battery charging is
less efficient in cold temperatures, with energy losses between 15% and 20% at 19°F. Furthermore, EV heating and cooling is drawn from the same battery as EV propulsion, so when the temperature is cold, the battery range can be reduced by as much as
25% to 60%. In places such as Minneapolis, where winters are cold and coal is the marginal source of electricity generation, driving a mile in an electric vehicle can be
worse for the climate than driving a gasoline car.
And in some places it doesn't, despite the cold. Alberta for example, where the largest source is gas, followed by coal and they see below -30C regularly probably isn't a great place to be pushing, let alone subsidizing EV's. Quebec on the other hand, which sees similar temperatures, has a very low emissions grid and extremely low electricity prices, so it isn't surprisingly that this is one of the places with the highest uptake of EV's despite these limitations (impact on range from running the heat for example, and cold temperature in general).
The embedded link mentions C2G emissions, which is discussed in more depth in somewhat recent thread of mine.
