Successes, Failures, and the Road to 2030 - A Study of Emissions from the Norwegian Transport Sector

IMPERIAL
COLLEGE
LONDON

Faculty
of
Natural
Sciences

CENTRE
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY

Successes,
Failures,
and
the
Road
to
2030
–

A
Study
of
Emissions
from
the
Norwegian
Transport
Sector

By

Rebecca
Linn
Haukland
Briedis

A
report
submitted
in
partial
fulfillment
of
the
requirements
for

the
MSc
Environmental
Technology

September
2015

2

DECLARATION
OF
OWN
WORK

I
declare
that
this
thesis,

“Successes,
Failures
and
the
Road
to
2030
–

A
Study
of
Emissions
from
the
Norwegian
Transport
Sector”

is
entirely
my
own
work
and
that
where
any
material
could
be
construed
as
the

work
of
others,
it
is
fully
cited
and
referenced,
and/or
with
appropriate

acknowledgement
given.

Signature:.....................................................................................................

Name
of
student:
REBECCA
LINN
HAUKLAND
BRIEDIS

Name
of
supervisor:
ALEX
WALKER

3

AUTHORISATION
TO
HOLD
ELECTRONIC
COPY
OF
MSc
THESIS

Thesis
title:
Successes,
Failures
and
the
Road
to
2030
–
A
Study
of
Emissions

from
the
Norwegian
Transport
Sector

Author:

Rebecca
Linn
Haukland
Briedis

I
hereby
assign
to
Imperial
College
London,
Centre
of
Environmental
Policy
the

right
to
hold
an
electronic
copy
of
the
thesis
identified
above
and
any

supplemental
tables,
illustrations,
appendices
or
other
information
submitted

therewith
(the
“thesis”)
in
all
forms
and
media,
effective
when
and
if
the
thesis
is

accepted
by
the
College.

This
authorisation
includes
the
right
to
adapt
the

presentation
of
the
thesis
abstract
for
use
in
conjunction
with
computer
systems

and
programs,
including
reproduction
or
publication
in
machine-‐readable
form

and
incorporation
in
electronic
retrieval
systems.
Access
to
the
thesis
will
be

limited
to
ET
MSc
teaching
staff
and
students
and
this
can
be
extended
to
other

College
staff
and
students
by
permission
of
the
ET
MSc
Course

Directors/Examiners
Board.

Name
printed:
REBECCA
L.
H.
BRIEDIS

Signed:
__________________________

Date:
__________________________

4

ABSTRACT

This
study
aims
to
analyze
the
effectiveness
of
Norway’s
political
system
in
facilitating
the

reduction
of
greenhouse
gas
emissions
from
the
transport
sector.
The
objectives
included

identifying
current
measures
in
place
to
reduce
emissions
and
their
impact,
evaluating

Norway’s
political
system
in
this
effort,
and
exploring
the
feasibility
of
reducing
emissions

further
in
the
future.
Such
a
study
is
important
because
it
highlights
issues
that
could
have

contributed
to
the
poor
progress
on
decreasing
emissions
to
date.
Without
a
firm

understanding
of
the
transport
sector,
and
its
overarching
components,
and
history,

emission
cuts
may
never
happen.
To
understand
how
emissions
can
be
reduced
in
the

future,
one
needs
to
understand
where
improvements
can
be
made,
and
what
mistakes

should
be
avoided.

The
research
approach
adopted
in
this
study
consisted
of
a
literature
review
and
one-‐on-‐
one
interviews
with
a
range
of
knowledgeable
experts
from
government,
industry,
and

citizen
action
groups.
Semi-‐structured
interviews
were
carried
out
in
order
to
solicit

opinions
on
Norway’s
transport
sector.
The
findings
from
this
research
show
that

Norway’s
transport
emissions
have
been
flat
since
2007,
due
to
an
increasing
number
of

kilometers
driven
each
year,
just
balanced
by
a
decrease
in
the
average
emissions
level
per

kilometer.

The
chief
success
has
been
the
skyrocketing
sales
of
electric
vehicles.
The

market
is
booming
as
a
result
of
subsidies
rewarding
positive
behavior.
Freight,
on
the

other
hand,
has
been
recognized
as
a
problem-‐area
for
many
years,
yet
improvements
are

still
few
and
far
between.
Freight
has
been
down-‐prioritized
because
of
technical,
financial

and
commercial
challenges.

Holistic
thinking
has
been
missing
and
implemented
policies
and
measures
have
not
been

linked
together,
leading
to
many
inefficiencies.
There
is
an
observed
lack
of
willpower

from
the
political
system
in
many
areas.
The
policy-‐makers
have
been
over
relying
on
the

influx
of
new
technologies,
sometimes
believing
that
they
are
the
only
option
available
for

cutting
emissions.
Collaboration
between
the
different
levels
of
government
has
been

lacking.
Future
development
is
likely
to
be
steered
by
individuals
and
businesses
from
a

bottom-‐up
approach.
If
they
can
work
together
with
the
authorities,
where
the
top-‐down

approach
meets
the
bottom-‐up,
they
will
be
much
more
effective.

The
main
conclusions
drawn
from
this
research
are
1)
the
policy-‐makers
have
made

praise-‐worthy
achievements
in
reducing
emissions,
but
they
have
been
piecemeal,
and

lacking
big-‐picture
integration,
2)
they
have
been
over
relying
on
technology

developments,
and
not
been
tough
enough
on
implementing
restrictive
measures,
and
3)

holistic
thinking
has
been
lacking
in
many
decisions
and
there
is
little
encouragement
for

all
levels
of
society
to
contribute.
This
study
recommends
a
strict
reinforcement
of
the

‘polluter
pays
principle’.
The
challenge
will
be
to
get
people
to
accept
these
changes
and

adapt
to
them.
There
needs
to
be
a
clear
path
between
targets
and
the
measures
and

policies
implemented.
Companies
and
individuals
should
take
a
leadership
role
in
a

bottom-‐up
approach
by
investing
in
environmentally
friendly
solutions.

5

TABLE
OF
CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
......................................................................................................................
7

LIST
OF
FIGURES
..................................................................................................................................
8

CHAPTER
1:
INTRODUCTION
...........................................................................................................
9

1.1
BACKGROUND
.............................................................................................................................................
9

1.2
RESEARCH
FOCUS
...................................................................................................................................
10

1.3
OVERALL
RESEARCH
AIM
AND
INDIVIDUAL
RESEARCH
OBJECTIVES
...........................
11

1.4
VALUE
OF
RESEARCH
............................................................................................................................
12

1.5
STRUCTURE
OUTLINE
...........................................................................................................................
12

CHAPTER
2:
BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
.............................................................................
15

2.1
CONFERENCE
OF
PARTIES
AND
THE
PARIS
NEGOTIATIONS
(COP
21)
..........................
16

2.2
NORWAY
AND
THE
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
(EU)
–
THE
EEA
.........................................
16

2.3
NORWAY’S
INDCS
AT
COP
21
.............................................................................................................
17

2.4
THE
POLICY
CYCLE
AND
PAST
POLICY
DEVELOPMENTS
.....................................................
19

CHAPTER
3:
METHODOLOGY
........................................................................................................
22

3.1
INTRODUCTION
.......................................................................................................................................
22

3.2
RESEARCH
STRATEGY
..........................................................................................................................
22

3.3
DATA
COLLECTION
................................................................................................................................
23

3.4
FRAMEWORK
FOR
DATA
ANALYSIS
...............................................................................................
24

3.5
LIMITATIONS
AND
POTENTIAL
PROBLEMS
...............................................................................
24

3.6
DEFINITIONS
AND
EXCLUSIONS
......................................................................................................
25

CHAPTER
4:
LITERATURE
REVIEW
–
NORWAY’S
TRANSPORT
SECTOR
........................
26

4.1
INTRODUCTION
.......................................................................................................................................
26

4.2
PAST
AND
FUTURE
EMISSIONS
FROM
NORWAY’S
TRANSPORT
SECTOR
.....................
28

4.3
REFLEXIVE
GOVERNANCE
..................................................................................................................
32

4.4
THE
EU’S
INFLUENCE
ON
NORWAYS
TRANSPORT
SECTOR
................................................
35

4.5
IMPLEMENTED
MEASURES
IN
THE
TRANSPORT
SECTOR
...................................................
37

4.5.1
Automobiles
...........................................................................................................................................
37

4.5.2
Railway
Network
.................................................................................................................................
43

4.5.3
Public
Transport
and
Infrastructure
..........................................................................................
45

4.6
DISCUSSION
OF
EXISTING
POLICIES
...............................................................................................
46

4.7
PUBLISHED
REPORTS
ON
NORWAY’S
TRANSPORT
SECTOR
..............................................
49

4.7.1
Past
Achievements
in
Norway’s
Transport
Sector
................................................................
49

4.7.2
Suggestions
to
Further
Reduce
Emissions
from
Transport
in
the
Future
...................
50

CHAPTER
5:
EMPIRICAL
RESEARCH
FINDINGS
.......................................................................
53

5.1
INTRODUCTION
.......................................................................................................................................
53

5.1.1
The
Electric
Vehicle:
A
Success
Story?
........................................................................................
53

5.1.2
Freight:
A
Forgotten
Avenue?
........................................................................................................
54

5.2
PAST
ACHIEVEMENTS
IN
NORWAY’S
TRANSPORT
SECTOR
...............................................
55

5.2.1
Where
has
the
Focus
been?
.............................................................................................................
55

5.2.2
Has
the
Governing
System
Performed
Well
Enough?
..........................................................
61

5.3
FUTURE
EMISSION
REDUCTIONS
–
CAN
NORWAY
LEAN
BACK
AND
RELAX?
.............
63

5.3.1
Is
it
Easier
to
Implement
Policies
Today
than
it
was
5-‐10
Years
Ago?
........................
63

5.3.2
Will
a
Bottom-‐Up
Approach
Play
a
Large
Role
in
the
Future?
........................................
64

5.3.3
How
should
Norway
Move
Forward?
..........................................................................................
65

CHAPTER
6:
CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
.......................................................
71

6.1
INTRODUCTION
.......................................................................................................................................
71

6.2
SUMMARY
OF
FINDINGS
AND
CONCLUSIONS
............................................................................
71

6

6.2.1
Research
Objective
1:
Identify
current
measures
in
place
to
reduce
emissions
and

their
impact.
......................................................................................................................................................
71

6.2.2
Research
Objective
2:
Evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
Norway’s
political
system
–

how
effective
have
they
been
in
reducing
emissions,
and
could
they
have
done
more?
..
72

6.2.3
Research
Objective
3:
Explore
the
feasibility
of
reducing
emissions
further
in
the

future
–
and
how
can
the
political
system
best
facilitate
it?
.......................................................
73

6.3
RECOMMENDATIONS
............................................................................................................................
74

CHAPTER
7:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
.........................................................................................................
76

CHAPTER
8:
APPENDIX
...................................................................................................................
83

8.1
INTERVIEWS
AND
INTERVIEW
QUESTIONS
...............................................................................
83

7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First,
and
most
of
all,
I
would
like
to
thank
my
dad,
Nowell
Briedis,
for
his
invaluable

support
and
for
providing
me
with
unconditional
love
and
encouragement
throughout
this

project.
He
was
never
more
than
a
phone
call
away
and
would
always
assist
me
whenever

I
hit
a
wall,
or
found
myself
lost
in
the
middle
of
all
the
chaos.
With
admirable
strength,
he

has
stood
by
me
through
all
the
highs
and
lows
of
this
project,
and
it
would
never
have

turned
out
as
well
without
him.

I
am
particularly
grateful
for
the
assistance
given
by
my
supervisor,
Alex
Walker,
for

providing
enthusiastic
encouragement,
assistance,
guidance,
and
constructive
suggestions

during
the
planning
and
development
of
my
project
work.

I
would
like
to
express
my
deep
gratitude
to
those
individuals
who
took
valuable
time
out

of
their
day
to
impart
their
knowledge.
Their
contributions
to
this
project
have
been

invaluable
and
have
provided
me
with
a
thorough
understanding
of
Norway’s
transport

sector
and
all
of
its
components.

My
special
thanks
are
extended
to
Renée
van
Diemen
for
inspiring
me
both
inside
and

outside
the
library’s
four
walls.
Thank
you
for
helping
me
survive
the
stress
and
not
letting

me
give
up.
I
could
not
have
done
it
without
you.
You
da
bomb.

I
am
thankful
for
all
my
close
family
and
friends
who
put
their
faith
in
me
and
kept
on

urging
me
to
do
better.

8

LIST
OF
FIGURES

FIGURE
1
-‐
TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP
OF
NORWAY
INCLUDING
MAJOR
CITIES.
.............................................................................
15

FIGURE
2
-‐
EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS
IN
NORWAY
BY
SECTOR
WITH
A
GLOBAL
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
THE
2-‐DEGREE

LIMIT
(MTCO2
2015-‐2050).
THE
PERCENTAGE
SHARE
OF
TOTAL
EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS
IN
2050.
MOST

CUTS
ARE
EXPECTED
TO
HAPPEN
IN
THE
TRANSPORT
SECTOR
..................................................................................
18

FIGURE
3
-‐
TOTAL
EMISSIONS
OF
GREENHOUSE
GASES
IN
NORWAY
SINCE
1990
DIVIDED
BY
SOURCE
(SSB).
............
20

FIGURE
4
-‐
DISTRIBUTION
OF
PASSENGER
TRANSPORT
METHODS
IN
NORWAY
IN
1960
AND
2011
(SSB).
...............
26

FIGURE
5
-‐
EMISSIONS
OF
GREENHOUSE
GASES
(PER
CENT)
FROM
ROAD
TRANSPORT
DIVIDED
INTO
GROUPS
OF

VEHICLES,
2011
(SSB).
..................................................................................................................................................
27

FIGURE
6
-‐
NUMBER
OF
PASSENGER
KILOMETERS
TRAVELLED
PER
CAPITA
PER
DAY
FOR
THE
LAST
50
YEARS.
AIR

TRAVEL
IS
NOT
INCLUDED
(SSB,
2012).
......................................................................................................................
29

FIGURE
7
-‐
REGISTERED
CARS
IN
NORWAY
BY
FUEL
TYPE.
....................................................................................................
29

FIGURE
8
-‐
DISTRIBUTION
OF
CAR
SALES
IN
NORWAY
IN
2012
AND
THE
AVERAGE
FOR
THE
EU
IN
2010.
................
30

FIGURE
9
-‐
NATIONAL
FREIGHT
TRANSPORT
FROM
1946
-‐
2012.
.....................................................................................
31

FIGURE
10
-‐
LOW-‐EMISSIONS
SCENARIO
FOR
PASSENGER
TRANSPORT
IN
NORWAY
(TONS
OF
CO2).
...........................
32

FIGURE
11
-‐
THE
FOUR
PHASES
OF
TRANSITION
(BOTMANS
ET
AL.
2000
AND
2001).
..................................................
34

FIGURE
12
-‐
THE
DEVELOPMENT
OF
CARBON
EMISSIONS
FROM
NEW
CARS
(MEASURES
IN
AVERAGE
G/KM)
IN

CERTAIN
COUNTRIES
AND
FOR
THE
EU
ON
AVERAGE.
.................................................................................................
38

FIGURE
13
-‐
NUMBER
OF
ELECTRIC
VEHICLES
ON
NORWEGIAN
ROADS
2000
-‐
2013.
...................................................
38

FIGURE
14
-‐
EV
AND
PLUG-‐IN
HYBRIDS
(PHEV)
REGISTRATIONS
IN
VARIOUS
COUNTRIES
(NUMBER
OF
VEHICLES

SOLD)
AND
THE
TOTAL
SHARE
OF
REGISTRATIONS
(PERCENTAGE)
IN
THE
FIRST
QUARTER
OF
2015.
..............
39

FIGURE
15
-‐
EMISSIONS
INTENSITY
FOR
NEW
CARS
IN
NORWAY
FROM
2006
-‐
2012.
...................................................
40

FIGURE
16
-‐
PRICE
STRUCTURE
FOR
UNLEADED
FUEL
IN
2012
(YEARLY
AVERAGE)(NOK
ØRE
PER
LITRE).
..............
41

FIGURE
17.
A
LINE
MAP
SHOWING
THE
NORWEGIAN
NATIONAL
RAIL
NETWORK
.............................................................
44

9

CHAPTER
1:
INTRODUCTION

1.1
BACKGROUND

The
21st
Conference
of
Parties
will
take
place
in
Paris
in
December
where
world
leaders

will
be
discussing
reductions
in
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
the
creation
of
a
binding,

global
agreement.
Lack
of
progress
in
the
climate
policy
sector
and
the
steep
growth
in

emissions
observed
in
the
21st
century
are
reasons
for
acknowledging
this
meeting
as

perhaps
the
world’s
last
chance
of
coming
to
an
agreement
in
reducing
greenhouse
gas

emissions.
The
UN
Secretary
General,
Ban
Ki-‐moon,
stated
at
a
conference
in
Washington

D.C.
that
a
global
agreement
is
vital,
but
in
order
to
reach
the
set
targets,
political
and

economic
dimensions
need
to
be
in
place
to
support
them.1

Norway
is
committing
to
reduce
its
greenhouse
gas
emissions
by
40
per
cent
by
2030

compared
to
1990
levels.
It
also
intends
on
achieving
a
carbon-‐neutral
society
by
2050.2

This
pledge
will
call
for
improved
climate
policies
in
the
country,
and
Prime
Minister
Erna

Solberg
has
stated
that
Norwegian
society
needs
to
be
transformed
to
adhere
to
this

commitment.3
Increased
social
demand
for
green
initiatives
and
sustainable
development

have
contributed
to
political
consensus
that
Norway
needs
to
take
responsibility
for

reducing
its
emissions.4
Agreements
reached
within
the
Norwegian
government
in
2008

and
2012
have
formed
the
basis
of
Norwegian
climate
policy.5

Electricity
generation
in
Norway
comes
mostly
from
hydroelectric
power.
As
a
result,
the

main
sources
of
greenhouse
gas
emissions
are
from
industry
and
transport.6
Emissions

from
Norway’s
transport
sector
constitute
25.5
percent
of
total
domestic
emissions,
and

have
increased
by
32
per
cent
since
1990
(1990-‐2013).7
Road
traffic
dominates
and

accounts
for
66.6
per
cent
of
transport
related
emissions.8
Although
various
instruments

and
measures
have
been
implemented
to
‘guide’
the
public
towards
choosing
greener

options
–
public
transport,
cycling,
and
electric
cars
for
instance
–
emissions
have

continued
to
rise.
In
order
for
Norway
to
reach
its
target,
emissions
from
transport
must

be
reduced
by
30
percent
in
the
next
15
years.

1
Ki-‐moon,
B.,
“Statement:
Secretary-‐General’s
Remarks
at
Spring
Meetings
of
the
World
Bank
and

2
Office
of
the
Prime
Minister.
“A
New
and
More
Ambitious
Climate
Policy
for
Norway”.
Norwegian

Government.
February
4
2015.
Available
at:

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/ny-‐og-‐mer-‐ambisios-‐klimapolitikk/id2393609/

3
“Norway”,
Climate
Action
Tracker,
accessed
July
12,
2015.

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/norway.html

4
CICEP
and
FME,
CICEP
Annual
Report
2014:
Strategic
Challenges
in
International
Climate
and

Energy
Policy.
2015

5
Norwegian
Ministry
of
the
Environment,
Meld.
St.
21
(2011-‐2012)
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy

(Oslo,
2012)

6
Norwegian
Environment
Agency,
Statistics
Norway,
and
Norwegian
Forest
and
Landscape

Institute,
Greenhouse
gas
emissions
1990-‐2012,
National
Inventory
Report
(Norwegian
Government,

2014),
M-‐137.

7
Fridstrøm,
Lasse
and
Alfsen,
Knut
H.,
Norway’s
Path
to
Sustainable
Transport,
research
report

prepared
for
Institute
for
Transport
Economics
(1321,
2014)

8
Ibid.

10

A
general
principle
of
Norwegian
climate
policy
has
been
to
ensure
that
each
sector
takes

responsibility
for
reducing
emissions.9
There
are
a
number
of
national
policies
in
place
to

tackle
domestic
emissions
from
transport,
however
Norway’s
transport
sector
is

complex.10
There
are
many
transport
mediums
with
a
wide
range
of
emission
intensity

levels.
The
government
has
aimed
at
prioritizing
public
transport,
and
securing

environmentally
friendly
freight-‐
and
passenger
transport
in
a
hope
to
reduce
emissions.

However,
despite
of
this
goal,
emissions
from
transport
have
been
increasing.

A
number
of
initiatives
implemented
by
the
Norwegian
government
have
analyzed

Norway’s
potential
to
reduce
emissions.
In
2010
the
Office
of
the
Auditor
General
in

Norway
published
a
report
aimed
at
assessing
Norway’s
achievement
in
climate-‐related

matters.
The
report
suggests
there
will
be
need
for
reinforcement
if
targets
are
to
be

reached
by
2020.
The
Klimakur
report
from
2010
considered
possible
means
and

measures
to
fulfill
the
climate
targets.11
5
years
after
this
account,
many
suggested

measures
have
yet
to
take
effect.12
Has
Norway
performed
well
in
trying
to
reduce

emissions
from
transport?
Why
has
there
been
a
lack
of
progress
since
these
reports
were

published?
Have
instruments
and
measures
in
place
limited
emissions
sufficiently?
There

are
many
overarching
factors
that
come
into
play
when
implementing
new
policies
or

measures
–
amongst
them
political
and
economic
support.
Who
is
responsible
for
their

implementation?
Public
opinion
shows
a
desire
to
increase
policy
measures,
as
most

people
believe
current
ones
will
not
suffice
in
reducing
emissions.13
Many
believe
the

politicians
could
have
achieved
more.14
If
the
government’s
performance
has
not
been

satisfactory,
how
will
Norway
attempt
to
further
reduce
emissions
in
the
future?

1.2
RESEARCH
FOCUS

Policy
measures
implemented
by
the
Norwegian
government
have
been
estimated
to
yield

a
total
reduction
of
16-‐19
MtCO2
equivalents
by
2020
(17-‐20
MtCO2
equivalents
by

2030).15
Under
current
policies,
Norway
will
not
reach
its
Kyoto
commitment
without

acquiring
emission
units
internationally.16
A
major
focus
of
this
thesis
is
to
explore

9
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Prop.
1
S
(2014-‐2015)
Statsbudsjettet
2015
(Norwegian

Government,
2014)

10
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Meld.
St.
21
(2011-‐2012)
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy

(Norwegian
Government,
2012)

11
Nikolaisen,
P.I.,
TU,
“Så
lite
har
Norge
gjort
med
klimautslippene”,
posted
30
January
2014,
last

accessed
14
June
2015.
Available
at:
http://www.tu.no/klima/2014/01/30/sa-‐lite-‐har-‐norge-‐
gjort-‐med-‐klimautslippene

12
Ibid.

13
Risa,
A.V.
and
Gellein,
M.L.,
“Climate
Change
Policies
in
Norway:
Preferences
for
Plan
A
versus

Plan
B”
(master’s
thesis,
University
of
Stavanger,
2013).

14
Marino,
M.S.;
Bjørge,
N.E.;
Ericson,
T.;
Garnåsjordet,
P.A.;
Karlsen,
H.T.;
Randers,
J.
and
Rees,
D.,

People’s
Opinion
of
Climate
Policy
–
Popular
Support
for
Climate
Policy
Alternatives
in
Norway,

research
report
prepared
for
CICERO
(CICERO
Working
Paper
2002:3,
Oslo,
2012)

15
“Norway”,
Climate
Action
Tracker,
accessed
July
12,
2015.


16
“Norway”,
Climate
Action
Tracker,
accessed
July
12,
2015.


11

Norway’s
transport
sector,
its
sources
of
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
and
what
measures

have
been
implemented
to
reduce
them.
A
lot
of
attention
will
be
put
on
Norway’s
political

system
and
how
it
contributes
to
the
implementation
of
policies
and
regulations
to
limit

emissions.
Further,
to
gain
insight
of
Norway’s
past
achievements,
its
development
will
be

studied
by
concentrating
on
two
transport
areas:
passenger
transport
and
freight.

Attention
will
be
given
to
the
government’s
performance
and
the
various
aspects
that

impact
their
functioning,
and
whether
existing
policies
and
measures
will
suffice
in

reducing
future
emissions.
How
has
the
transport
sector
changed
and
is
it
easier
to

implement
new
policies
today?
There
will
be
emphasis
on
external
impacts
to
the
political

system,
benefits
of
top-‐down
and
bottom-‐up
approaches
to
governance,
and
how
Norway

should
move
forward
in
the
best
way
possible.

This
research
is
important
because
it
highlights
issues
that
could
have
contributed
to
the

observed
increase
in
emissions.
Does
all
responsibility
for
the
observed
increase
lie
with

the
political
system?
The
government
is
a
highly
diverse
body,
with
many
levels
and

institutions
with
varying
responsibilities.17
Reducing
emissions
has
never
been
this

important.
In
order
to
do
so
it
is
important
to
understand
what
went
wrong
in
the
past,

where
improvements
can
be
made,
and
what
mistakes
that
should
be
avoided
in
the

future.
One
could
argue
that
without
a
firm
understanding
of
the
transport
sector,
its

overarching
components,
and
past
development,
emission
cuts
may
not
happen
–
or
at

least
not
within
the
time
frame
set
for
target
achievement.

To
understand
how
emissions
can
be
reduced
in
the
future,
various
levels
of
bottom-‐up

and
top-‐down
governance
approaches
must
be
understood,
their
impacts,
and
ultimately

the
successes
they
can
achieve.
Fewer
policies
have
been
implemented
in
Norway
in
the

last
5
years
compared
to
implementation
levels
a
decade
ago.18
How
have
external
factors

affected
policy
implementation?
Although
there
are
many
instruments
and
measures
in

place,
the
UNFCCC
says
it
is
difficult
to
establish
whether
or
not
they
are
effective
and
will

assist
Norway
in
reaching
its
ambitious
climate
goals
in
2020
and
2030.19
The
knowledge

attained
from
these
studies
will
assist
in
exploring
Norway’s
feasibility
of
reducing

emissions
with
its
current
policies
and
political
system.

1.3
OVERALL
RESEARCH
AIM
AND
INDIVIDUAL
RESEARCH
OBJECTIVES

The
overall
aim
of
this
study
is
to
explore
how
Norway’s
political
system
has
contributed

to
reducing
emissions
from
the
transport
sector
and
how
levels
of
governance
can
impact

17
Alfsen,
K.H.;
Bjørnæs,
C.
and
Reed,
E.U.,
“Vurderinger
av
Norsk
Klimapolitikk
–
En
Syntese
av
Fire

Internasjonale
Rapporter”,
research
report
prepared
for
CICERO
(Report
2011:02,
Oslo,
2012)

18
Risa,
A.V.
and
Gellein,
M.L.,
“Climate
Change
Policies
in
Norway:
Preferences
for
Plan
A
versus

Plan
B”
(master’s
thesis,
University
of
Stavanger,
2013).

19
UNFCCC, “Report of the in-depth review of the fifth national communication of Norway”, available at:
http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594. php?rec=j&priref=60000625
6#beg

12

the
feasibility
of
reducing
emissions
in
the
future.
In
order
to
understand
emissions
from

transport,
it
is
necessary
to
gain
insight
into
Norway’s
climate
policies
and
how
emissions

are
being
reduced.
By
analyzing
the
political
system
and
its
influence
on
the

implementation
of
climate
policies,
it
will
be
possible
to
distinguish
whether
existing

policies
will
assist
Norway
in
achieving
its
2030
climate
targets
or
not.
Within
the
context

of
governance
and
climate
policy,
the
following
objectives
have
been
identified
in
helping

to
achieve
the
overall
aim:

1. Identify
current
measures
in
place
to
reduce
emissions
and
their
impact.

2. Evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
Norway’s
political
system
–
how
effective
have
they

been
in
reducing
emissions,
and
could
they
have
done
more?

3. Explore
the
feasibility
of
reducing
emissions
further
in
the
future
–
and
how
can

the
political
system
best
facilitate
it?

Two
main
investigation
methods
will
be
used
to
facilitate
this
study:
a
critical
assessment

of
the
existing
literature,
and
a
description
and
analysis
of
empirical
data.
Qualitative

research
will
be
gathered
through
one-‐on-‐one
interviews
with
knowledgeable
experts

from
government,
industry
and
citizen
action
groups.
In
the
chapter
titled
‘Research

Methods’
follows
a
thorough
description
of
the
research
strategy
and
data
collection

techniques
used
in
this
study.

1.4
VALUE
OF
RESEARCH

This
research
is
important
to
improve
the
understanding
of
emissions
reductions.
If
cuts

are
to
happen
in
the
future,
one
must
understand
what
failed
and
what
worked
in
the
past,

and
the
impact
of
both
positive
and
negative
measures
(i.e.
incentives
versus
penalties).

How
did
the
population
react
and
behave?
This
study
will
highlight
what
the
government,

businesses
and
the
public
require
in
terms
of
responsibility,
investments,
and
the
desire
to

choose
a
green
transport
method.

The
literature
review
is
important
because
it
highlights
the
achievements
made
to
date

within
passenger
transport
and
freight.
Published
reports
have
evaluated
Norway’s

achievements,
but
also
assessed
its
future
and
the
measures
required
to
further
reduce

emissions.
This
section
will
assist
in
evaluating
where
the
gaps
are.

The
empirical
research
(i.e.
one-‐on-‐one
interviews)
is
important
because
it
will
assist
in

gaining
a
further
understanding
of
Norway’s
transport
sector.
Although
published
reports

have
analyzed
the
sector
in
great
detail,
knowledgeable
experts
from
government,

industry
and
citizen
action
groups
will
provide
additional
insights.
These
interviews

compliment
existing
reports
on
Norway’s
transport
sector
and
give
insight
to

improvements
that
can
be
made
in
the
future.

1.5
STRUCTURE
OUTLINE

Chapter
1:
Introduction

13

This
chapter
provides
the
reader
with
background
information
on
climate
policy,

greenhouse
gas
emissions
from
the
transport
sector
and
setting
future
reduction
targets.

There
are
explanations
regarding
the
importance
and
value
of
research
and
the
research

focus
is
discussed
and
justified.
The
overall
research
aim
and
individual
objectives
are

identified
and
clarified.

Chapter
2:
Background
Information

The
main
focus
of
this
chapter
is
to
give
the
reader
an
understanding
of
climate
policies
in

the
EU
and
how
Norway’s
climate
policies
are
developed
as
a
result
of
its
link
with
the
EU.

The
policy
cycle
in
Norway
will
be
elaborated
on.

Chapter
3:
Methodology

This
chapter
outlines
the
approaches
adopted
in
this
research.
The
research
strategy
will

be
explained
in
addition
to
why
this
approach
was
chosen.
Data
collection
methods
will
be

clarified
and
justified.
The
limitations
and
potential
problems
will
be
discussed
before

highlighting
the
framework
for
data
analysis
and
how
the
empirical
research
findings
will

be
produced.

Chapter
4:
Literature
Review
-‐
Norway’s
Transport
Sector

This
chapter
explores
the
transport
sector
in
detail.
It
covers
emissions
related
to

transport
and
how
these
have
changed
in
the
past
and
are
expected
to
change
in
the

future.
The
EU’s
influence
on
Norwegian
climate
policies
will
be
studied
before

investigating
the
impact
of
existing
policies.
An
explanation
of
various
policies
and

regulations
are
given
before
outlining
the
main
reports
published
on
Norway’s

achievements
in
reducing
emissions.

Chapter
5:
Empirical
Research
Findings:
Description,
Analysis
and
Synthesis

This
chapter
reports
on
findings
from
the
personal
interviews.
Firstly,
past
achievements

in
the
transport
sector
will
be
discussed,
answering
questions
such
as:
Where
the
focus

has
been
and
how
has
research
impacted
decision-‐making?
These
questions
will
be

answered
in
reference
to
two
key
areas:
passenger
transport
and
freight.
The
discussion

will
then
move
to
the
future,
where
other
questions
will
be
addressed,
such
as:
is
it
easier

to
implement
policies
today,
and
how
can
Norway
best
move
forward
in
reducing

emissions
to
meet
the
2030
targets?

Chapter
6:
Conclusions
and
Recommendations

The
study
will
conclude
by
revisiting
the
overall
aim
and
objectives.
The
findings
will
be

summarized,
and
conclusions
will
be
derived
and
linked
to
the
specific
objectives.
The

contributions
of
this
study
will
be
highlighted,
as
will
the
limitations.
Personal
reflections

will
be
included
throughout
this
chapter.

14

Chapter
7:
References

Contains
an
alphabetical
list
of
all
sources
used.
The
Chicago
Referencing
System
is

applied.

15

CHAPTER
2:
BACKGROUND
INFORMATION

Over
the
past
century
the
Norwegian
population
has
grown
from
2.3
million
to
5.5

million.20
Changes
in
societal
structure,
income
levels
and
natural
resource
exploitation

have
led
Norway
to
becoming
one
of
the
world’s
foremost
welfare
states.
Norway
is
a

major
exporter
of
oil
and
gas,
which
is
the
main
reason
for
its
advantageous
financial

position.21
The
exploitation
of
fossil
fuels
in
the
North
Sea
has
amplified
economic
growth,

however
it
has
also
dramatically
increased
greenhouse
gas
emissions.22
Climate
policies

focused
on
reducing
emissions
have
been
central
in
governments
and
organisations
for

the
past
couple
decades.
The
challenges
emerging
from
climate
change
are
transnational,

interdisciplinary,
and
address
all
sectors
and
levels
of
society.
Climate
policies
are

therefore
designed
and
developed
on
international,
national
and
local
levels.23

Figure
1
-‐
Topographic
map
of
Norway
including
major
cities.24

20
“Driving
Forces
in
Norway”,
Environment.no,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.environment.no/Topics/Climate/Norways-‐climate/Driving-‐forces-‐in-‐Norway/

21
Ibid.

22
Ibid.

23
Neby,
S.;
Rykkja,
L.H.;
Olsen,
H.S.
and
Hope,
K.L,
“Klimatiltak
på
Vestlandet
–
En
Innledende

Kartlegging”,
research
report
prepared
for
Stein
Rokkan
Center
for
Social
Studies
(Bergen,
2012).

24
Visit
Norway,
Innovation
Norway,
Map.
Available
at:
http://www.visitnorway.com/uk/vn/map/

16

Norway
has
a
heavy
oil
and
gas
sector
that
has
structured
the
Norwegian
economy
for

decades.
If
countries
that
import
oil
and
gas
from
Norway
succeed
in
their
transition
to

low-‐carbon
environments,
Norway’s
oil
and
gas
interests
will
collapse.
Politicians
pretend

the
two
are
not
linked,
as
one
day
they
will
discuss
climate
policies
and
the
next
they

discuss
oil
policy.
“Norway
is
uncomfortably
invested
in
the
problem
instead
of
the
solution”,

Kasper
Sandal
(own
translation).25
Norway
has
shown
initiative
to
reduce
emissions,
yet
it

lives
with
the
paradox
that
the
fossil
age
should
last
as
long
as
possible.

2.1
CONFERENCE
OF
PARTIES
AND
THE
PARIS
NEGOTIATIONS
(COP
21)

The
first
environmental
agreement
negotiated
by
the
international
community
was
the
UN

Framework
Convention
on
Climate
Change
at
the
Earth
Summit
in
Rio
de
Janeiro
in
1992.

The
Conference
of
Parties
(COP)
was
entrusted
with
regularly
reviewing
the
Convention

and
assessing
its
implementation.
The
Kyoto
Protocol
was
adopted
in
1997
at
COP
3
and

committed
state
parties
to
reduce
their
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
The
Kyoto
Protocol
is

the
last
international
treaty
implemented,
to
date,
to
try
and
prevent
catastrophic
global

warming.26
COP
negotiations
in
recent
years
have
been
unsuccessful
in
terms
of
reaching
a

unified
agreement
on
future
emissions
reductions
and
the
upcoming
negotiations
in
Paris

have
been
heavily
debated
in
the
media
due
to
this
unsatisfactory
track
record.

2.2
NORWAY
AND
THE
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
(EU)
–
THE
EEA

Climate
policy
has
been
a
part
of
the
EU
since
the
late
1980s.
Research
and
development

related
to
energy
efficiency
and
renewable
energy
has
been
a
key
focus.27
The
Commission

is
committed
to
significantly
reducing
emissions
by
2050.28
Emissions
reduction
targets

within
the
EU
have
so
far
not
been
binding.
Policy
needs
to
be
strengthened
to
help

Europe
move
towards
a
low-‐carbon
economy,
and
existing
cornerstone
policies
need
vast

improvements.
The
EU
faces
many
challenges
including
furthering
the
development
of

environmental
diplomacy
and
domestic
policies.29
Fortunately
public
support
remains

high,
putting
pressure
on
governments
for
change.30
Decisions
made
by
the
Commission

have
a
top-‐down
effect
on
domestic
policies
of
each
member
state

-‐
including
Norway.

25
Sandal,
K.,
“Offshore
Vind,
Hva
er
Neste
Trekk?”,
research
report
prepared
for
Norwegian
Climate

Foundation,
“Slik
Kan
Norge
Gjøre
en
Forskjell”,
(Report
04/2015)

26
Sands,
Philippe,
and
Jacqueline
Peel.
Principles
of
international
environmental
law.
Cambridge

University
Press,
2012.

27
“The
European
Union”,
CICEP,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.cicep.uio.no/Fakta-‐ark/eu/

28
Ibid.

29
Ibid.

30
Marino,
M.S.;
Bjørge,
N.E.;
Ericson,
T.;
Garnåsjordet,
P.A.;
Karlsen,
H.T.;
Randers,
J.
and
Rees,
D.,

People’s
Opinion
of
Climate
Policy
–
Popular
Support
for
Climate
Policy
Alternatives
in
Norway,

research
report
prepared
for
CICERO
(CICERO
Working
Paper
2002:3,
Oslo,
2012)

17

Norway
is
not
a
member
of
the
European
Union,
although
it
is
partly
committed
to
it

through
the
European
Economic
Area
agreement
(EEA).31
Since
this
agreement
was

instigated
the
EU
has
been
Norway’s
chief
collaborator.
A
considerable
amount
of

environmental
legislation
implemented
by
the
EU
has
also
been
adopted
by
Norway
in

accordance
with
the
EEA
agreement.32
Norway
is
committed
to
implement
EEA-‐relevant

directives
into
national
legislation
on
the
same
level
as
other
EU
member
states.
Norway’s

national
legislation
on
climate
policies
therefore
has
a
high
degree
of
correspondence
with

the
EU.33
EU
directives
and
policies
give
guidelines
on
how
member
states
are
to
proceed

with
new
legislation,
though
the
implementation
policy
is
determined
at
national
level.34,35

For
this
reason
there
has
been
little
need
to
involve
the
Norwegian
Parliament
in
finalizing

environmental
legislation.36

The
EU
has
generally
run
a
more
active
and
successful
climate
policy
than
Norway,
leading

to
a
decrease
in
emissions
within
the
EU
while
Norway’s
have
grown.
There
have
been
few

concrete
declarations
on
how
Norway
should
be
reducing
its
emissions.
Bård
Lahn,
a

Norwegian
environmentalist
and
advisor
on
international
climate
policy,
writes
on
his

blog
about
the
confusion
surrounding
international
and
domestic
climate
policies.
He

argues
that
international
negotiations
show
commitments
to
ambitious
targets,
while

national
goals
are
non-‐committing
and
loose
–
creating
confusion
amongst
the
public
of

the
situation’s
seriousness.37
It
is
difficult
to
estimate
whether
the
EEA
agreement
has

contributed
to
more
climate
regulations
in
Norway
than
if
the
country
had
stood
alone.

Boasson
states
that
EU
legislation
is
unlikely
to
have
had
much
influence
on
climate

legislations
in
Norway,
however
the
Emissions
Trading
Scheme
is
noted
as
an
exception.38

2.3
NORWAY’S
INDCS
AT
COP
21

The
Norwegian
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment
has
stressed
that
domestic
emissions

(0.2
per
cent
of
the
global
total)
must
be
reduced,
and
more
potent
climate
measures,

researched
and
adopted.39
In
April
this
year
the
government
presented
a
White
Paper
to

31
“EU
Relations
with
European
Economic
Area
(EEA)”,
European
Union,
accessed
2
September
2015.

Available
at:
http://eeas.europa.eu/eea/

32
Dokken,
J.V.,
“Klimaendringer
og
byråkrati
I
Norge
–
En
Q-‐Metodologisk
Studie
av
Diskurser
og

Makt”
(master’s
thesis,
University
of
Oslo,
2013)

33
“International
Energy
Data
and
Analysis”,
EIA,
Beta,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/

34
Sveen,
M.H.,
“Fra
Miljø
til
Klima:
Om
Utviklingen
av
en
Klimapolicy
I
Statsbygg”
(master’s
thesis,

Hedmark
University
College,
2013)

35
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Meld.
St.
21
(2011-‐2012)
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy

(Norwegian
Government,
2012)

36
Dahl,
Agnethe.
"Miljøpolitikk–full
tilpasning
uten
politisk
debatt."
I
Claes,
Dag
Harald
og
Bent

Sofus
Tranøy
(red.)
Utenfor,
annerledes
og
suveren
(1999):
127-‐149.

37
Lahn,
Bård,
Energi
og
Klima,
“Norges
Klimamål:
En
Bortkastet
Sjanse”,
posted
9
February
2015,

accessed
2
september
2015.
Available
at:
http://energiogklima.no/blogg/baard-‐lahn/norges-‐
klimamaal-‐en-‐bortkastet-‐sjanse/

38
Boasson,
E.
L.

“Norsk
Miljøpolitikk
og
EU.
EØS-‐Avtalen
som
Inspirasjonskilde
og
Maktmiddel
I.

Europautredningen”,
Rapport
no.
19,
2011

39
Risa,
A.V.
and
Gellein,
M.L.,
“Climate
Change
Policies
in
Norway:
Preferences
for
Plan
A
versus

Plan
B”
(master’s
thesis,
University
of
Stavanger,
2013).

18

the
UN
listing
its
Intended
National
Determined
Contributions
(INDCs)
for
the
period
after

2020.40
The
new
commitment
period
will
have
a
time
frame
from
2021-‐2030.41
By
2030

Norway
aims
to
have
reduced
its
greenhouse
gas
emissions
by
40
per
cent
compared
to

1990
levels.42
Norway
will
also
adopt
a
goal
of
achieving
a
low-‐carbon
society
by
2030

(Figure
2).43
There
have
been
debates
surrounding
the
feasibility
of
Norway’s
INDCs.

Some
have
argued
that
these
commitments
are
unachievable
with
current
policies.44

Figure
2
-‐
Emissions
reductions
in
Norway
by
sector
with
a
global
implementation
of
the
2-‐degree
limit

(MtCO2
2015-‐2050).
The
percentage
share
of
total
emissions
reductions
in
2050.
Most
cuts
are

expected
to
happen
in
the
transport
sector45

Although
Norway
has
a
binding
commitment
through
the
EEA,
it
is
taking
the
initiative
to

enter
into
the
EU’s
framework
for
climate
policies
and
uniting
with
them
on
a
joint

fulfillment
of
their
2030
framework
for
climate
policies.46
If
an
agreement
with
the
EU

cannot
be
established,
an
emissions
reduction
of
40
per
cent
will
still
apply.47

40
“A
New
and
More
Ambitious
Climate
Policy
for
Norway”,
Government.no,
accessed
2
September

2015.
Available
at:
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/ny-‐og-‐mer-‐ambisios-‐
klimapolitikk/id2393609/

41
“INDCs
as
Communicated
by
Parties”,
UNFCCC,
INDC,
Submission
by
Norway
to
the
ADP.
Accessed

2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx

42
“Norway”,
Climate
Action
Tracker,
accessed
July
12,
2015.
Available
at:


43
Ibid.

44
Lahn,
Bård,
Energi
og
Klima,
“Norges
Klimamål:
En
Bortkastet
Sjanse”,
posted
9
February
2015,

accessed
2
september
2015.
Available
at:

45
Fæhn,
T.;
Isaksen,
E.T.
and
Rosnes,
O.”Kostnadeffektive
Tilpasninger
til
Togradersmålet
I
Norge
of

EU
Fram
Mot
2050”,
research
report
prepared
for
Statistics
Norway
(Report
39,
Oslo,
2013)

46
“A
New
and
More
Ambitious
Climate
Policy
for
Norway”,
Government.no,
accessed
2
September

2015.

47
“Norway”,
Climate
Action
Tracker,
accessed
July
12,
2015.

19

2.4
THE
POLICY
CYCLE
AND
PAST
POLICY
DEVELOPMENTS

The
Norwegian
Parliament
(‘Storting’)
holds
all
legislative
and
budgetary
power.
A

coalition
government,
elected
within
a
multi-‐parti
system,
holds
executive
power
and
is

responsible
for
implementing
statutes
and
decisions
made
by
the
Storting.48
The
ultimate

responsibility
for
designing
climate
policies
lies
within
the
government
and
the
Storting.

Norway’s
executive
branch
is
divided
into
several
Ministries.
The
Ministry
of
Climate
and

Environment
has
the
primary
responsibility
for
implementing
climate
and
environmental

policies.49
Although
the
Ministry
has
overall
responsibility,
Norway’s
municipalities
and

counties
are
responsible
for
the
implementation
of
national
policies.
They
are

independent
institutions
with
delegated
authority
from
the
state,
and
maintain
an

important
role
in
the
decision-‐making
process.50
The
Norwegian
Environment
Agency

reports
to
this
Ministry
and
provides
advice
and
support
in
the
policy-‐making
process,
the

Ministry
of
Transport
and
Communications
is
responsible
for
transport
infrastructure
and

the
Public
Roads
Administration
is
responsible
for
operating
and
maintaining
the
road

network.51

After
the
Storting
adopted
its
own
carbon
tax
regime
for
the
transport
and
fossil
fuel

sectors
in
1991,
further
measures
to
reduce
emissions
were
attempted.
This
provoked

strong
resistance
from
the
government
and
businesses,
leading
the
Storting
to
move
away

from
ambitious
policies,
and
towards
more
pragmatic
ones.52,53
However,
even
Norway’s

pragmatic
policies
have
been
perceived
as
ambitious.

The
latest
White
Paper
was
presented
in
2012
–
the
Climate
Settlement54
–
and
builds
on

the
‘Agreement
on
Climate
Policy’,55
introduced
in
2008.
The
first
official
agreement

established
a
number
of
basic
principles
that
were
to
form
the
basis
of
Norwegian
climate

policy.56
These
include
the
‘precautionary
principle,
the
‘polluter
pays
principle’
and
the

principle
of
equitable
distribution.57
Economic
policy
instruments
such
as
carbon
taxes

48
ENOVA,
Results
and
Activities
2014
(2015:1,
Trondheim,
2015)

49
Neby,
S.;
Rykkja,
L.H.;
Olsen,
H.S.
and
Hope,
K.L,
“Klimatiltak
på
Vestlandet
–
En
Innledende

Kartlegging”,
research
report
prepared
for
Stein
Rokkan
Center
for
Social
Studies
(Bergen,
2012).

50
Ibid.

51
“Norway”,
LSE,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/legislation/countries/norway/#legislative

52
Andresen,
S.,
Boasson,
E.
L.
&
G.
Hønneland.
2008.
Fremveksten
av
internasjonal
miljøpolitikk.

Andresen,
E.
L.
Boasson
&
G.
Hønneland
(red.).
Internasjonal
miljøpolitikk.
Fagbokforlaget,
Bergen

53
Skjærseth,
J.
B.
&
T.
Skodvin.
2009.
Climate
change
and
the
oil
industry.
Common
problem,
varying

strategies.
Manchester
University
Press,
Manchester.

54
Energy
and
the
Environment
Committee,
“Recommendation
of
the
Energy
and
Environment

Committee:
Climate
Settlement,
Innst.
390
S
(2011-‐2012)”,
(Oslo,
2012).

55
Energy
and
Environment
Committee,
“Recommendation
of
the
Energy
and
Environment

Committee:
Innst.
S.
nr.
145
(2007-‐2008)”,
(Oslo,
2008)

56
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Meld.
St.
21
(2011-‐2012)
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy

(Norwegian
Government,
2012)

57
“The
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy”,
Government.no,
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,

accessed
2
September
2015.

20

provide
cost-‐effective
actions
where
the
polluter
pays.58
In
2012
the
Storting
agreed
that

the
government
would
review
the
relevance
of
a
separate
climate
statute.59
In
March
2015

the
government
was
ordered
to
generate
and
propose
a
climate
bill
during
the
current

political
term,
containing
national
emission
targets
for
2030
and
2050.60

Figure
3
-‐
Total
emissions
of
greenhouse
gases
in
Norway
since
1990
divided
by
source
(SSB).61

Figure
3
shows
the
evolution
of
domestic
emissions
from
1990
when
they
totaled
at
49.8

MtCO2
equivalents,
and
increased
to
52.9
Mt
in
2010.
Preliminary
figures
for
2014
from

SSB
show
that
emissions
from
Norwegian
territory
were
53.8
MtCO2
equivalents.62
This

illustrates
a
leveling
off
of
emissions
in
recent
years.
Under
current
projections,

greenhouse
gas
emissions
will
by
2020
have
increased
by
10
per
cent
from
1990
levels,

reaching
55
MtCO2
equivalents.63
Measures
implemented
in
2008
will
have
yielded
a

reduction
in
emissions
by
5
Mt
in
total
by
2020.
Future
emissions
are
expected
to
stabilize

at
52
MtCO2
equivalents
by
2030.64

58
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Meld.
St.
21
(2011-‐2012)
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy

(Norwegian
Government,
2012)

59
Innst.
390
S
(2011-‐2012)
pg.
26

60
“Regjeringen
Pålegges
å
lage
Klimalov,
mot
Frp’s
Stemmer”,
Aftenposten,
accessed
2
September

2015.
Available
at:
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/Regjeringen-‐palegges-‐a-‐
lage-‐klimalov_-‐mot-‐Frps-‐stemmer-‐7951907.html

61
“Kilder
til
Utslipp
av
Klimagasser”,
Miljøstatus.no,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.miljostatus.no/Tema/Klima/Klimanorge/Kilder-‐til-‐utslipp-‐av-‐klimagasser/

62
“Emissions
of
Greenhouse
Gases,
2014,
Preliminary
Figures”,
Statistics
Norway,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-‐og-‐miljo/statistikker/klimagassn

63
“Norway”,
Climate
Action
Tracker,
accessed
July
12,
2015.
Available
at:


64
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Meld.
St.
21
(2011-‐2012)
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy

(Norwegian
Government,
2012)

21

Seilskjær
(2013)
states
the
implementation
of
climate
policies
in
Norway
is
poor.
He

argues
that
emissions
regulations
within
various
Norwegian
sectors
are
limited
due
to
a

combination
of
insufficient
coordination
across
sectors
and
levels
of
government,
and

inadequate
protection
of
sector
responsibilities.
There
are
no
overarching
regulations
on

how
objectives
and
policies
can
correspond
in
a
better
way.65
Norway
has
sought
to

maintain
economic
growth
in
addition
to
obtaining
the
greatest
climate
benefits
per

investment
made.
Achieving
the
ambitious
targets
that
Norway
has
set
itself
requires
a

mix
of
technology
development,
energy
efficiency
improvements
and
new
concepts
at

local,
regional
and
national
levels.66

65
Seilskjær,
Mari,
“Sektorovergripende
Regulering
av
Norske
Klimagassutslipp:
En
Rettspolitisk

Analyse
av
Regelverk
og
Måloppnåelse
på
Klimaområdet”
(master’s
thesis,
University
of
Oslo,

2013)

66
“Energy
and
Enviroment”,
Invest
in
Norway,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.invinor.no/no/Industries/Energy-‐-‐Environment/

22

CHAPTER
3:
METHODOLOGY

3.1
INTRODUCTION

This
study
aims
to
analyze
the
effectiveness
of
Norway’s
political
system
in
facilitating
the

reduction
of
greenhouse
gas
emissions
from
the
transport
sector.
An
important
aspect
is

to
evaluate
whether
Norway’s
political
system
could
have
done
more.
Two
different

approaches
were
used
to
pursue
the
objectives
of
this
study:
a
literature
review
and
one-‐
on-‐one
interviews
conducted
by
the
author

The
initial
research
consisted
of
a
literature
review
of
published
reports
from
informed

organisations
and
government
institutions
(Chapter
4).
These
reports
are
used
to
answer

the
first
research
objective
–
what
current
measures
are
in
place
to
reduce
emissions?
The

second
and
third
objective
relates
to
the
Norwegian
government’s
decision-‐making
skills.

Semi-‐structured
interviews
will
be
conducted
with
influential
contacts
in
the
government

and
various
institutions
to
gain
a
personal
understanding
of
the
decision-‐making
process

(Chapter
5).
Behavior
can
be
interpreted
in
a
number
of
ways
and
various
individuals
may

have
different
interpretations
of
this
due
to
their
backgrounds.
Participants
will

contribute
perspective
on
past
political
performances,
and
how
they
think
the
political

system
can
influence
emissions
over
the
next
15
years.
There
is
little
information

regarding
the
future.
Knowledgeable
experts
will
assist
with
their
opinions
on
how
the

future
will
unfold
and
where
they
think
the
focus
should
be.

The
structure
of
this
chapter
will
begin
with
stating
the
chosen
research
strategy
for
this

study,
why
this
particular
strategy
was
chosen
and
how
it
was
used.
The
next
section
will

explain
the
data
collection
method
and
a
justification
for
choosing
this
method.
A

framework
for
data
analysis
will
be
presented
and
expected
gains
from
this
study
will
be

clarified.
Finally,
there
will
be
a
discussion
of
potential
limitations
and
problems
that
could

unfold.
The
issues
of
reliability
and
validity,
and
how
they
relate
to
the
research
strategy,

will
be
explored.

3.2
RESEARCH
STRATEGY

The
overall
research
aim
and
objectives
suggest
taking
a
qualitative
approach
as
it

involves
evaluating
the
political
system
in
place.67
This
research
attempts
to
make
sense
of

how
governance
approaches
are
impacted
and
how
they
can
in
turn
affect
the

implementation
of
various
policies
and
measures.
The
overall
research
is
subjective,

where
the
study
probes
into
a
participant’s
cultural
knowledge.68

67
Bryman,
Alan.
Social
research
methods.
Oxford
university
press,
2012.

68
Biggam,
John.
Succeeding
with
your
master's
dissertation:
a
step-‐by-‐step
handbook.
McGraw-‐Hill

Education
(UK),
2015.

23

Phenomenological
research
is
the
understanding
of
individual
perceptions
of
events

-‐

how
the
world
appears
to
others.69
This
particular
research
strategy
was
chosen
for
this

project
because
the
there
are
many
interpretations
of
reality.
The
published
reports
will

give
certain
points
of
view,
while
knowledgeable
experts
may
see
the
situation
differently

as
their
interpretations
are
time-‐
and
context-‐dependent.
Reality
is
socially
constructed
so

each
participant’s
reasoning
will
be
inductive
and
unique.70
The
study
is
cyclical
process

oriented,
where
data
collection
occurs
simultaneously
with
data
analyses
–
the
theory
is

developed
during
the
study.71
This
approach
is
best
suited
to
achieving
the
specific

research
objectives
of
this
study,
in
part
because
large
areas
of
the
study
considers
future

developments
that
are
open
to
interpretation.

3.3
DATA
COLLECTION

The
data
collection
for
this
project
consisted
of
interviewing
a
range
of
knowledgeable

experts
from
government,
industry,
and
citizen
action
groups.
Semi-‐structured
interviews,

focusing
on
the
research
objectives,
were
carried
out
in
order
to
solicit
opinions
on

Norway’s
transport
sector.
The
interviews
did
not
intend
to
have
the
participant
answer

an
exhaustive
list
of
questions
regarding
all
transport
areas.
Open-‐ended
questions
were

chosen
to
avoid
this
and
to
instigate
answers
based
on
the
participant’s
area
of
expertise.

Participants
have
different
backgrounds,
and
therefore
very
different
perspectives
on
the

transport
sector
and
how
to
reduce
emissions
in
a
cost-‐effective
and
productive
way.
An

individual
from
an
industry
will
have
a
different
point
of
view
than
a
government
official,

as
will
a
researcher.
These
various
perspectives
needed
to
be
captured
by
letting
the

participant
focus
on
what
they
know
best.
A
researcher
may
believe
technology
is
the
way

forward,
while
a
policy
maker
could
state
that
technology
cannot
be
developed
on
the

market
unless
there
is
a
framework
to
support
it.

The
stakeholders
and
knowledgeable
experts
will
remain
anonymous
for
this
study,

however
their
working
background
is
stated.
10
interviews
were
conducted
(Table
1),

and
a
list
of
questions
asked
during
the
interview
can
be
found
in
the
Appendix.
The

interview
records
form
the
basis
of
the
empirical
research
findings.
Each
participant’s

ideas
and
points
of
view
were
analyzed
and
evaluated.

69
Ibid.

70
Jackson,
W.,
Gillis,
A.,
&
Verberg,
N.
Qualitative
research
methods.
Communication
research

methods:
Quantitative
and
qualitative
approaches,
423-‐462.,
2007

71
Ibid.

24

Table
1
-‐
Institutions
the
interviewees
come
from,
their
role,
and
a
description
of
the
institution.
The

code
name
will
be
used
to
identify
the
participants
in
Chapter
5.

INSTITUTION
ROLE
CODE
DESCRIPTION

Norwegian
Center
for

Transport
Research

Senior
Research

Economist

GOV1

Government
agency
and
independent

research
institution.
Receives
support

from
the
Research
Council
of
Norway

Norwegian
Public
Roads

Administration

Key
employee
GOV2

Government
agency.
Responsible
for

public
roads
in
the
country.

Enova

Program
Manager,

Transport

GOV3

Norwegian
government
enterprise
that

contributes
to
a
restructuring
of
energy

consumption
and
production.

Norwegian
Environment

Agency

Department
Director
GOV4

Government
agency
under
the
Ministry
of

Climate
and
Environment

Norwegian
Public
Roads

Administration/National

Transport
Plan

Key
Official
GOV5

A
coalition
of
the
4
national
transport

agencies

Zero
Emission
Resource

Organisation
(ZERO)

Advisor
INP1

Independent,
environmental,
non-‐profit

foundation
working
on
the
reduction
of

greenhouse
gases.
Financed
by
private

industry
and
business
partnerships.

Norwegian
Climate

Foundation

Top
Official
INP2
Independent
non-‐profit
foundation

SINTEF
(The
Foundation

for
Scientific
and

Industrial
Research)

Research
Scientist
RES1

Largest
independent
research

organization
in
Scandinavia
that
does

research
in
a
wide
variety
of
areas
and

topics.

CICERO
Research
Director
RES2

Institute
for
interdisciplinary
climate

research

3.4
FRAMEWORK
FOR
DATA
ANALYSIS

The
empirical
research
data
is
organized
under
two
separate
topics:
a)
past
achievements

in
the
transport
sector,
where
findings
will
address
the
political
system,
the
focus
of
the

policy
makers,
and
what
influences
the
decision-‐making
process,
and
b)
future

achievements
in
the
transport
sector,
which
will
address
the
acceptance
of
implementing

new
policies,
and
where
the
focus
should
be
to
reach
the
2030
targets.
Two
key
themes
–

passenger
transport
and
freight
–
are
addressed
throughout
the
discussion
and
analysis.

This
is
mainly
to
compare
achievements
within
these
two
transport
mediums.
There
will

be
focus
on
how
implemented
measures
have
impacted
emissions
from
these
two
areas

and
how
political
approaches
have
varied
between
them.

The
interview
records
are
linked
with
findings
from
the
literature
review
and
synthesized

to
produce
the
overall
research
findings.
These
findings
are
used
to
answer
the
research

objectives
and
the
overall
aim
of
the
project.

3.5
LIMITATIONS
AND
POTENTIAL
PROBLEMS

An
advantage
of
this
research
method
is
that
the
interviewed
experts
can
provide
insights

into
the
transport
sector
and
political
system
that
are
not
possible
by
using
quantitative

methods
alone.
However,
a
major
limitation
is
that
the
viewpoints
of
the
participants

25

could
be
lacking
objectivity
and
generalizability.72
A
participant
could
be
influenced
by

their
bias
and
idiosyncrasies.
They
could
also
be
tempted
to
answer
questions
that
they
do

not
know
so
much
about.
It
is
important
to
remain
somewhat
skeptical
to
what
the

participants
have
to
say
and
not
assume
that
all
their
facts
are
valid
and
reliable.
The

participants
in
this
study
will
remain
anonymous,
making
it
easier
to
present
the
findings

in
a
clear
and
direct
manner.

3.6
DEFINITIONS
AND
EXCLUSIONS

This
report
will
only
review
passenger
transport
and
freight.
Details
surrounding
air

traffic
and
shipping
will
not
be
discussed
because
aviation
is
mostly
international
and

featured
in
the
EU-‐ETS,
and
developments
in
shipping
are
highly
dependent
on

technological
innovation
and
the
market
penetration
of
these
technologies
is
slow.73

Definitions
and
exclusions
are
listed
below:

-‐ Passenger
transport:
this
category
includes
transportation
by
cars,
non-‐motorized

transport
(bicycles
and
walking),
motorcycles
and
mopeds,
buses,
passenger

trains,
passenger
ferries
and
other
public
transport.

-‐ Freight:
this
category
includes
transport
by
trucks,
vans,
and
freight
trains.
Freight

boats
are
excluded.

-‐ Greenhouse
gas
emissions:
the
report
will
refer
to
CO2
or
CO2
equivalents.
CO2

equivalents
describe
the
global
warming
potential
of
a
gas
using
the
equivalent

concentration
of
CO2.74

-‐ Finance:
financial
issues
will
not
be
investigated
in
this
study

-‐ Policies
and
measures:
Those
listed
in
the
literature
review
is
not
an
exhaustive
list

of
all
existing
policies
and
measures.

72
Bryman,
Alan.
Social
research
methods.
Oxford
university
press,
2012.

73
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

74
“Glossary
of
Climate
Change
Terms”,
EPA.gov,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#C

26

CHAPTER
4:
LITERATURE
REVIEW
–
NORWAY’S
TRANSPORT

SECTOR

4.1
INTRODUCTION

Recent
analyses
show
that
climate
and
environmental
politics
have
become
one
of
the
top

political
issues
of
today.75
The
climate
challenge
has
been
acknowledged
in
many
contexts

as
one
of
the
greatest
challenges
Norway
is
faced
with.76
There
are
many
threats
to

society,
among
them
more
flooding,
more
droughts
and
less
fish
in
the
sea
as
a
result
of

climate
change.77
The
government
has
ensured
that
it
will
take
action
to
create
strategies

that
strengthen
climate
policies.78

Figure
4
-‐
Distribution
of
passenger
transport
methods
in
Norway
in
1960
and
2011
(SSB).79

Norway’s
transport
sector
is
complex,
with
various
transport
mediums
that
have
a
wide

range
of
emission
intensity
levels
Figure
4
and
Figure
5.80
The
costs
of
reducing
these

emissions
vary
considerably.81
The
government
seeks
to
prioritize
public
transport
and

pursue
strict
emissions
levels
for
new
cars.82
The
government
also
believes
in
supporting

75
“Klima
er
Toppsak”,
Elmagasinet,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.elmagasinet.no/Nyheter/Vis/Klima_er_toppsak/1d4a2bb3-‐baf7-‐4b0f-‐af94-‐
b68008c80d63

76
Ibid.

77
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Prop.
1
S
(2014-‐2015)
Statsbudsjettet
2015
(Norwegian

Government,
2014)

78
The
Royal
Treasury,
“National
Budget,
Meld.
St.
1
(2014-‐2015)”,
(Oslo,
2014)

79
The
Environment
Agency,
“Kunnskapsgrunnlag
for
Lavutslippsutvikling”,
(M-‐229/2014)

80
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Meld.
St.
21
(2011-‐2012)
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy

(Norwegian
Government,
2012)

81
“Instruments
to
Reduce
Emissions”,
Environment.no,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.environment.no/Topics/Climate/Norways-‐climate/Climate-‐change-‐mitigation/

82
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Meld.
St.
21
(2011-‐2012)
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy

(Norwegian
Government,
2012)

27

existing
industries
and
businesses
so
new
policies
should
therefore
improve
and

transform
what
already
exists.83

Figure
5
-‐
Emissions
of
greenhouse
gases
(per
cent)
from
road
transport
divided
into
groups
of

vehicles,
2011
(SSB).84

Sustainable
development
at
national
level
has
been
Norway’s
main
focus
and
in
order
to

become
a
low-‐emissions
economy,
a
green
shift
must
take
place
over
the
next
30-‐50

years.8586
Developments
happening
today
are
creating
the
building
blocks
for
Norway’s

society
in
2020,
2030
and
2050.
The
government
needs
to
ensure
that
the
right

framework
for
innovation
and
technological
development
is
present
to
support

sustainable
development
in
the
future.87

Norway’s
population
is
more
spread
out
than
most
other
European
countries,
which

creates
a
considerable
travel
demand.
Public
transport
is
not
well
developed
outside

urban
areas,
making
private
cars
the
easiest
transportation
method.
Norway
is
separated

from
Europe
by
Skagerrak,
a
strait
that
connects
the
North
Sea
with
the
Baltic
Sea.
This

makes
it
difficult
and
not
always
practical
to
travel
to
other
countries
using
automobiles,

increasing
the
demand
for
boats
and
planes
–
highly
polluting
transport
options.88

83
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Meld.
St.
21
(2011-‐2012)
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy

(Norwegian
Government,
2012)

84
Brunvoll,
F.
and
Monsrud,
J.,
“Samferdsel
og
Miljø
2013”,
research
report
prepared
for
Statistics

Norway
(33/2013,
Oslo,
2013)

85
“Green
Growth
and
Challenges
in
‘Greening’
Statistical
Classifications”,
Statistics
Norway,
accessed

2
September
2015.
Available
at:
http://www.ssb.no/en/natur-‐og-‐miljo/artikler-‐og-‐
publikasjoner/green-‐growth-‐and-‐challenges-‐in-‐greening-‐statistical-‐classifications

86
“Green
Shift
–
Climate
and
Environmentally
Friendly
Restructuring”,
Statistics
Norway,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/climate-‐and-‐
environment/climate/innsiktsartikler-‐klima/green-‐shift/id2076832/

87
Ibid.

88
Klima
og
Forurensningsdirektoratet,
“Trender
og
Drivkrefter”,
(TA
3022,
2013)

28

Norway’s
topography
also
makes
it
difficult
to
build
railways
–
a
more
environmentally

friendly
way
to
travel,
as
80
per
cent
of
the
network
is
powered
by
hydroelectric
power.89

For
all
of
these
reasons,
Norway’s
emissions
will
naturally
be
higher
than
many
countries

within
mainland
Europe.

Norway’s
population
is
expected
to
increase
by
2
million
people
by
2060.
Most
of
this

growth
is
expected
to
occur
in
urban
areas,
where
80
per
cent
of
the
current
population

lives.90
Urban
densification
would
make
it
easier
to
reduce
emissions
as
public
transport

options
are
available
and
services
are
close
by,
making
it
easy
to
walk
or
cycle.91

Population
growth,
emissions
reductions
and
traffic
gridlock
need
to
be
monitored
and

controlled.
At
the
same
time,
there
is
also
a
conflicting
focus,
treasuring
Norway’s
heritage

and
traditional
way
of
life,
and
seeks
to
get
more
people
to
live
in
rural
areas.92

4.2
PAST
AND
FUTURE
EMISSIONS
FROM
NORWAY’S
TRANSPORT
SECTOR

Emissions
from
Norway’s
transport
sector
constitute
25.5
percent
of
total
domestic

emissions,
and
have
increased
by
32
per
cent
since
1990
(1990-‐2013).93
Road
traffic

dominates
and
accounts
for
66.6
per
cent
of
transport-‐related
emissions.94
Since
2007
this

growth
has
leveled
out,
despite
an
increase
in
the
number
of
vehicles
and
passenger

kilometers
(Figure
6).95
The
reasons
for
this
are
that
vehicles
have
become
more
energy

efficient,
there
is
increased
use
of
biofuels,
and
there
has
been
a
switch
from
unleaded
fuel

to
diesel
(Figure
7).96
Although
there
are
fewer
emissions
per
kilometer,
the
increase
in

passenger
kilometers
has
counteracted
the
decrease,
and
transport
emissions
have
thus

remained
relatively
stable
since
2007.97

89
The
Environment
Agency,
for
(M-‐229/2014)

90
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Prop.
1
S
(2014-‐2015)
Statsbudsjettet
2015
(Norwegian

Government,
2014)

91
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

92
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Prop.
1
S
(2014-‐2015)
Statsbudsjettet
2015
(Norwegian

Government,
2014)

93
Fridstrøm,
Lasse
and
Alfsen,
Knut
H.,
Norway’s
Path
to
Sustainable
Transport,
research
report

prepared
for
Institute
for
Transport
Economics
(1321,2014)

94
Ibid.

95
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Prop.
1
S
(2014-‐2015)
Statsbudsjettet
2015
(Norwegian

Government,
2014)

96
Ibid.

97
“Emissions
of
Greenhouse
Gases,
2014,
Preliminary
Figures”,
Statistics
Norway,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:

29

Figure
6
-‐
Number
of
passenger
kilometers
travelled
per
capita
per
day
for
the
last
50
years.
Air
travel

is
not
included
(SSB,
2012).98

Figure
7
-‐
Registered
cars
in
Norway
by
fuel
type.99

The
growth
in
vehicle
emissions
is
low
in
comparison
to
how
dramatically
the
vehicle
fleet

and
passenger
kilometers
have
grown.100
The
current
fleet
consists
of
2.5
million
fossil

fueled
cars
and
50,000
electric
cars
that
travel
a
total
of
30
billion
kilometers
every

year.101
Many
Norwegian
families
have
two
cars
and
travel
has
become
more
frequent

with
fewer
people
in
each
car.
However
most
of
the
existing
car
fleet
remains
‘standing’

98
“Driving
Forces
in
Norway”,
Environment.no,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:


99
Brunvoll,
F.
and
Monsrud,
J.,
“Samferdsel
og
Miljø
2013”,
research
report
prepared
for
Statistics

Norway
(33/2013,
Oslo,
2013)

100
“Trender
og
Drivkrefter
Bak
Klimagassutslippene”,
The
Environment
Agency,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:
http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/no/Nyheter/Nyheter/Old-‐
klif/2013/Mars-‐2013/Trender_og_drivkrefter_bak_klimagassutslippene_/

101
Holm,
Marius,
“Elbiler
bør
alltid
være
Billigst”,
Energi
og
Klima,
posted
1
July
2015,
available
at:

http://energiogklima.no/kommentar/elbiler-‐bor-‐alltid-‐vaere-‐billigst/?utm_source=nyhetsbrev

30

90-‐95
per
cent
of
the
time,
leading
to
an
enormous
overcapacity
of
transport
mediums.102

The
Norwegian
automobile
market
is
different
from
the
European
market
in
both
size
and

technical
characteristics
(Figure
8).103
Large
cars
that
use
more
fuel
dominate
the

Norwegian
market
and
the
demand
for
petrol
and
diesel
are
expected
to
increase
by
5
per

cent
between
2010
and
2020.104

Figure
8
-‐
Distribution
of
car
sales
in
Norway
in
2012
and
the
average
for
the
EU
in
2010.105

The
UNFCCC
describes
the
increase
in
emissions
as
a
result
of
decentralized
population

patterns
and
economic
growth.106
Economic
growth
in
Norway
has
been
high
since
the

90s,
an
outcome
of
strong
activity
in
the
oil
and
gas
sector.107
Net
national
income
per

capita
has
nearly
doubled
since
1985.108
GDP
has
increased
by
67
per
cent
while
total

greenhouse
gas
emissions
have
only
grown
8
per
cent
in
the
same
time
period.109

102
Various
authors,
Norsk
Klimastiftelse,
“Slik
kan
Norge
gjøre
en
Forskjell”,
(Report
04/2015)

103Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

104
Statistisk
sentralbyrå;
http://www.ssb.no/klimagassn/

105
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

106
UNFCCC,
“Report
of
the
in-‐depth
review
of
the
fifth
national
communication
of
Norway”,
hereafter

referred
to
as
UNFCCC
Review,
pg.
31

107
Alfsen,
K.H.;
Bjørnæs,
C.
and
Reed,
E.U.,
“Vurderinger
av
Norsk
Klimapolitikk
–
En
Syntese
av
Fire

Internasjonale
Rapporter”,
research
report
prepared
for
CICERO
(Report
2011:02,
Oslo,
2012)

108
“Indicators
of
Sustainable
Development,
2014
–
Future
Challenges”,
Statistics
Norway,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:
publikasjoner/sustainable-‐development-‐future-‐challenges

109
“Trender
og
Drivkrefter
Bak
The
Environment
Agency,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:

31

It
is
a
different
story
for
the
freight
sector.
Emissions
from
freight
have
increased

dramatically
in
the
last
50
years
(Figure
9).110
Increased
consumption
levels
and
exports

of
raw
materials
have
largely
contributed
to
the
growth
in
transported
goods
since

1995.111
Service
industry
revenues
totaled
NOK
524
billion
in
2013,
making
it
the

country’s
second
largest
industry.112
Companies
associated
with
this
industry
are
located

all
over
the
country,
so
transport
is
required
to
move
goods
from
one
location
to

another.113

Figure
9
-‐
National
freight
transport
from
1946
-‐
2012.114

Carbon
emissions
from
new
vehicles
have
decreased
dramatically
over
the
past
10
years,

from
177
gCO2/km
in
2006
to
110gCO2/km
in
the
first
quarter
of
2014.115
If
cars
emitted

the
same
amount
of
CO2
today
as
emitted
in
1990,
emissions
would
be
20
per
cent

higher.116
The
development
of
new
technologies,
such
as
energy
efficient
motors,
has
been

a
result
of
pressure
from
consumers
for
lower
fuel
costs
and
a
restructuring
of
taxes.117

110
Fridstrøm,
Lasse
and
Alfsen,
Knut
H.,
Norway’s
Path
to
Sustainable
Transport,
research
report

prepared
for
Institute
for
Transport
Economics
(1321,2014)

111
Alfsen,
K.H.;
Bjørnæs,
C.
and
Reed,
E.U.,
“Vurderinger
av
Norsk
Klimapolitikk
–
En
Syntese
av
Fire

Internasjonale
Rapporter”,
research
report
prepared
for
CICERO
(Report
2011:02,
Oslo,
2012)

112
“The
Service
and
Supply
Industry”,
Government.no,
Ministry
of
Petroleum
and
Energy,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/energy/oil-‐and-‐gas/The-‐
service-‐and-‐supply-‐industry/id766008/

113
Ibid.

114
Fridstrøm,
Lasse
and
Alfsen,
Knut
H.,
Norway’s
Path
to
Sustainable
Transport,
research
report

prepared
for
Institute
for
Transport
Economics
(1321,2014)

115
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Prop.
1
S
(2014-‐2015)
Statsbudsjettet
2015
(Norwegian

Government,
2014)

116
“Trender
og
Drivkrefter
Bak
The
Environment
Agency,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:

117
Ibid.

32

Despite
these
technological
developments
and
various
policy
efforts,
the
transport
system

has
not
changed
significantly
and
the
same
technical
processes
remain.118

The
European
Commission
states
that
a
60
per
cent
reduction
in
emissions
from
the

transport
sector
is
required
by
2050
(Figure
10).119
In
order
to
achieve
this,
large

investments,
strong
measures
and
long-‐term
strategies
are
needed.120
Travel
demand
is

expected
to
increase
by
more
than
50
per
cent
between
2009
and
2050.
Most
of
this
is

foreseen
for
air
travel,
but
a
substantial
part
is
also
expected
for
rail
and
cars.
Freight

demand
is
expected
to
more
than
double.121

Figure
10
-‐
Low-‐emissions
scenario
for
passenger
transport
in
Norway
(1000
tons
of
CO2).122

4.3
REFLEXIVE
GOVERNANCE

Climate
change
has
become
a
major
societal
challenge,
and
as
population
grows
and

wealth
increases,
so
increases
the
pressure
on
the
environment.
Radical
innovations
are

needed
to
counteract
this.
Technologies
are
embedded
within
wider,
overarching

economic
and
socio-‐political
contexts,
but
their
development
is
not
enough
to
transform

wider
socio-‐technical
systems.123
Behavioral-‐,
cultural-‐
and
policy
changes
are
required
to

mitigate
climate
change
and
adapt
to
it.124

118
European
Commission,
“Roadmap
to
a
Single
European
Transport
Area
–
Towards
a
Competitive

an
Resource-‐Efficient
Transport
System”,
(COM,
Luxembourg,
2011)

119
Ibid.

120
Klimakur
2020,
“Tiltak
of
Virkemidler
for
å
nå
Norske
Klimamål
mot
2020”,
(TA2590/2010)

121
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

122
Ibid.

123
Smith,
A.
and
Stirling,
A.,
“Moving
Inside
or
Outside?
Positioning
the
Governance
of
Sociotechnical

Systems”,
research
report
prepared
for
SPRU,
University
of
Sussex
(Paper
no.
148,
2006)

124
Geels,
Frank,
“Systems
Innovations
and
Transitions
to
Sustainability:
Challenges
for
Innovation

Theory”
(Eindhoven
University
of
Technology,
2006)

33

A
central
question
in
the
climate
debate
is
how
to
steer
changes
in
future

developments?125
The
current
political
system
in
Norway
has
been
stable
for
the
last
fifty

years.
Transitions
take
place
through
co-‐evolution
and
adaptation
of
all
parts
of
society

and
therefore
take
a
long
time
(Figure
11).126
Transition
management
is
a
model
of

environmental
governance
that
pursues
transformation
of
society
from
one
dynamic

equilibrium
to
the
next.127
It
involves
multi-‐actor
governance,
and
multi-‐level
stakeholder

involvement,
and
is
aimed
at
long-‐term
transformation
that
will
ultimately
benefit

society.128
It
relies
on
integrating
over-‐arching
knowledge
with
long-‐term
systematic

effects
and
strategy
development.129
These
transitions
do
not
happen
over
night,
and
are

therefore
not
caused
by
changes
in
single
variables
such
as
changes
in
cost
or
new

technology.
They
result
from
developments
in,
the
economy,
institutions,
behavior
and

culture,
amongst
others.130

Jordan
states
that:

“The
government
centers
on
the
institutions
and
actions
of
the
state.
The
term
governance

allows
non-‐state
actors
such
as
businesses
and
non-‐governmental
organisations
to
be

brought
into
any
analysis
of
societal
steering”.131

Governing
refers
to
guiding,
steering
or
managing
societies.132
Governance
is
essential
in

grasping
and
resolving
environmental
problems.133
Reflexive
governance
enables
a
shift

from
focusing
primarily
on
top-‐down
approaches
(from
the
government),
to
‘governance’

that
requires
a
wide
range
of
actors
be
involved
in
the
policy
process.134
These
actors

range
from
local
to
national
figures,
often
with
overlapping
or
conflicting
interests
and

jurisdictions.
Problems
linked
to
environmental
sustainability
are
often
difficult
to
define,

contested,
and
ever-‐changing,
and
their
solutions
may
vary
significantly
between

stakeholders.
They
pose
challenges
to
well-‐established
governance
approaches.
“They

require
innovative,
comprehensive
solutions
that
can
be
modified
in
the
light
of
experience

and
on-‐the-‐ground
feedback”.135
Reflexive
governance
enables
actors
to
tackle
difficult

problems
in
collaboration.
It
means
breaking
away
from
known
modes
of
governance
to

experimenting
and
adapting
new
measures
to
solve
the
problem
at
hand.136

125
Shove,
Elizabeth,
and
Gordon
Walker.
"CAUTION!
Transitions
ahead:
politics,
practice,
and

sustainable
transition
management."
Environment
and
Planning
A
39,
no.
4
(2007):
763-‐770

126
Tukker,
Arnold,
and
Maurits
Butter.
"Governance
of
sustainable
transitions:
about
the
4
(0)
ways

to
change
the
world."
Journal
of
Cleaner
Production
15,
no.
1
(2007):
94-‐103.

127
Ibid.

128
Voss,
Jan-‐Peter,
and
Dierk
Bauknecht,
eds.
Reflexive
governance
for
sustainable
development.

Edward
Elgar
Publishing,
2006.

129
Ibid.

130
Ibid.

131
Jordan,
Andrew.
"The
governance
of
sustainable
development:
taking
stock
and
looking

forwards."
Environment
and
planning.
C,
Government
&
policy
26,
no.
1
(2008):
17.

132
Ibid.

133
Huh,
Taewook.
"Towards
Reflexive
Governance
for
Sustainable
Development."
(2010)

134
Ibid.

135
Ibid.

136
Ibid.

34

Figure
11
-‐
The
four
phases
of
transition
(Botmans
et
al.
2000
and
2001).137

This
transition
process
has
become
more
complex
because
of
the
many
actors
involved.

Decisions
and
actions
made
by
individuals
and
by
larger
groups
will
contribute
to
the

outcome
of
transition
management.138
A
central
lead
actor
is
needed
to
ensure
transitions

and
innovation
move
in
the
right
direction.139
This
approach
focuses
on
transforming

entire
technological
systems
instead
of
analyzing
and
making
decisions
individually
and

separately.140
As
new
technology
emerges,
existing
regimes
have
to
be
reshaped.141
New

technologies
require
adoption
and
societal
embedding
for
them
to
grow.142
It
takes
time

for
sustainable
technologies
to
diffuse
into
systems
because
of
markets,
consumer

demand,
regulatory
systems
and
infrastructure.143
Technology-‐developers
are
dependent

on
wider
changes
at
all
levels
to
deliver
change.144

137
Weterings,
R.,
Kuijper,
J.;
Smeets,
E.;
Annokkée,
G.J.
and
Minne,
B.,
“81
Mogelijkheden:
Technologie

voor
Duurzane
Ontwikkeling”,
The
Hague,
Ministry
of
the
Environment,
1997

138
Voss,
Jan-‐Peter,
and
Dierk
Bauknecht,
eds.
Reflexive
governance
for
sustainable
development.

Edward
Elgar
Publishing,
2006.

139
Tukker,
Arnold,
and
Maurits
Butter.
"Governance
of
sustainable
transitions:
about
the
4
(0)
ways

to
change
the
world."
Journal
of
Cleaner
Production
15,
no.
1
(2007):
94-‐103.

140
Berkhout,
Frans,
Adrian
Smith,
and
Andy
Stirling.
"Socio-‐technological
regimes
and
transition

contexts."
System
innovation
and
the
transition
to
sustainability:
theory,
evidence
and
policy.
Edward

Elgar,
Cheltenham
(2004):
48-‐75.

141
Shove,
Elizabeth,
and
Gordon
Walker.
"CAUTION!
Transitions
ahead:
politics,
practice,
and

sustainable
transition
management."
Environment
and
Planning
A
39,
no.
4
(2007):
763-‐770

142
Geels,
Frank,
“Systems
Innovations
and
Transitions
to
Sustainability:
Challenges
for
Innovation

Theory”
(Eindhoven
University
of
Technology,
2006)

143
Smith,
A.
and
Stirling,
A.,
“Moving
Inside
or
Outside?
Positioning
the
Governance
of
Sociotechnical

Systems”,
research
report
prepared
for
SPRU,
University
of
Sussex
(Paper
no.
148,
2006)

144
Ibid.

35

Governance
is
a
tool
to
execute
policies,
using
a
top-‐down
approach.
A
bottom-‐up

approach,
however,
will
assist
in
achieving
the
set
targets.145
Local
knowledge
will
help

prioritize,
and
find
the
most
effective
and
desirable
approaches
to
reducing
emissions.146

Detailed
targets
and
implementation
guidelines
need
to
be
specified.147
Only
then
can
an

appropriate
mode
of
governance
be
found.148
However,
Huh
(2010)
acknowledges
that

decision-‐making
through
governance
does
not
necessarily
result
in
sensible
or
logical

outcomes.
There
are
many
parts
involved
that
could
have
unintended
consequences.
It
is

difficult
to
predict
the
future
as
non-‐linear
behavior
regularly
contributes
to
change.149

4.4
THE
EU’S
INFLUENCE
ON
NORWAYS
TRANSPORT
SECTOR

Norway’s
association
with
the
European
Commission
has
consequences
at
all
levels
–
from

matters
affecting
daily
life
to
major
structural
issues. 150
Norway
has
incorporated

approximately
three-‐quarters
of
all
EU
legislation
and
it
has
been
argued
that
their

implementation
has
been
more
efficient
than
in
many
other
member
states.151
EU
and
EEA

regulations
are
extensive
in
the
transport
sector
and
important
for
all
public
and
private

players.152
The
transport
sector
is
excluded
from
the
EU-‐ETS
and
is
therefore
regulated

under
the
EU’s
Effort
Sharing
Decision.153
This
system
sets
targets
for
member
states

where
reduction
targets
are
based
on
GDP.
It
is
the
responsibility
of
each
member
country

to
define
and
implement
policies
in
order
to
reach
its
targets.154

Norway
is
not
a
member
of
the
EU
and
is
not
involved
in
the
decision-‐making
process
to

any
significant
extent.
Norwegian
authorities
do
not
wish
to
isolate
Norway
from
the
EU,

although
Norway
has
sometimes
argued
that
EU
legislations
have
not
been
EEA-‐
relevant.155
In
other
cases
Norway
has
expanded
on
its
own
legislation
and
incorporated

EU
rules
into
it.156
It
is
difficult
to
isolate
EU
and
EEA
development
characteristics
from

national
developments,
and
whether
EU
policies
would
have
been
implemented
without

the
EEA
agreement
or
not.157

145
Stokstad,
Sigrid,
“Rettslige
Krav
til
Kommunal
Klima-‐
og
Energiplanlegging”
research
report

prepared
for
NIBR
(2014:109)

146
Ibid.

147
Tukker,
Arnold,
and
Maurits
Butter.
"Governance
of
sustainable
transitions:
about
the
4
(0)
ways

to
change
the
world."
Journal
of
Cleaner
Production
15,
no.
1
(2007):
94-‐103.

148
Ibid.

149
Voss,
Jan-‐Peter,
and
Dierk
Bauknecht,
eds.
Reflexive
governance
for
sustainable
development.

150
Committee
for
Norway’s
Agreements
with
the
EU,
“Outside
and
Inside,
NOU
2012:2”,
(Norwegian

Government,
Oslo,
2012)

151
Ibid.

152
Ibid.

153
“Norges
Nye
Klimamål:
Ambisiøse,
kanskje
Realistiske”,
CICEP,
accessed
2
September
2015.

Available
at:
http://www.cicep.uio.no/aktuelt/brukerkonferansen-‐2015.html

154
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/index_en.htm

155
Committee
for
Norway’s
Agreements
with
the
EU,
“Outside
and
Inside,
NOU
2012:2”,
(Norwegian

Government,
Oslo,
2012)

156
Ibid.

157
Ibid.

36

Norway
and
the
EU
have
had
similar
interests
in
the
environment;
however
there
have

also
been
embedded
conflicts
of
interest.
Norway’s
dependence
on
oil
and
gas
revenue
has

created
tension.158
Renewable
energies
such
as
solar,
wind,
and
waves
have
has
also
been

the
subject
of
debate,
as
increased
production
is
not
seen
as
urgent
in
Norway,
as
most

power
is
hydroelectric.
Initiatives
in
the
EU
will
not
necessarily
benefit
Norway.159
Bugge

argues
that
there
is
enough
evidence
to
believe
that
without
the
EEA
agreement,
Norway’s

climate
policy
would
have
lacked
its
present
ambition.160

Europe’s
2020
flagship
initiative
towards
a
resource-‐efficient
Europe
was
introduced
in

2010.161
Transport,
energy
and
climate
change
are
central
to
this
long-‐term
proposal.162

The
EU
White
Paper
on
transport
from
2011
is
a
key
deliverable
in
this
flagship.163
This

strategy,
Transport
2050,
has
an
overall
goal
of
reducing
Europe’s
reliability
on
fossil
fuels

and
achieving
a
low-‐carbon
economy
by
2050. 164
The
initiative
highlights
policy

challenges
and
the
need
for
investments
in
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions.165
It
aims

to
restructure
the
transport
system
focusing
on
infrastructure
and
innovation,
without

sacrificing
efficiency,
mobility,
economic
growth
or
development.166
The
EU
aims
also
for
a

50
per
cent
transfer
of
passenger
transport
from
roads
to
rail
by
2050.167

The
European
Commission
acknowledges
that
the
transport
system
is
far
from

sustainable.168
They
place
emphasis
on
the
need
for
immediate
action
as
it
takes
time
to

plan
and
build
infrastructure.
These
strategies
clearly
lay
out
guidelines
to
member
states

on
what
their
ambition
levels
should
be,
and
that
initiatives
from
all
levels
of
society
are

needed
to
complete
this
transformation.169
The
EU
believes
technological
innovation
will

be
superior
in
the
transition
to
a
sustainable,
European
transport
system,
though
demand

158
Ibid.

159
Solbu,
Gisle,
“God
Klimapolitikk
eller
Dyr
Fornybar
Moro?
–
Fortellinger
om
Norsk-‐Svenske

Elsertifikater
og
Vindmøller
på
Fosen/Snillfjord
(master’s
thesis,
NTNU,
2014).

160
Bugge,
Hans
C.,
“EØS-‐Avtalens
Rolle
og
Betydning
på
Miljøvernområdet”,
research
report
for

Europautredningen
(Report
14,
2011)

161
“A
Europe
–
Flagship
Initiative
of
the
Europe
2020
Strategy”,
European

Commission,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:
http://ec.europa.eu/resource-‐efficient-‐
europe/

162
European
Commission,
“Communication
from
the
Commission
to
the
European
Parliament,
The

Council,
the
European
Economic
and
Social
Committee
and
the
Committee
of
the
Regions”,
(Brussels,

COM,
2011)

163
Ibid.

164
“Transport
2050:
Commission
Outlines
Ambitious
Plan
to
Increase
Mobility
and
Reduce
Emissions”,

European
Commission,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-‐
release_IP-‐11-‐372_en.htm

165
European
Commission,
“Communication
from
the
Commission
to
the
European
Parliament,
The

Council,
the
European
Economic
and
Social
Committee
and
the
Committee
of
the
Regions”,
(Brussels,

COM,
2011)

166
“Transport
2050:
Commission
Outlines
Ambitious
Plan
to
Increase
Mobility
and
Reduce
Emissions”,

European
Commission,
accessed
2
September
2015.

167
Ibid.

168
European
Commission,
“Roadmap
to
a
Single
European
Transport
Area
–
Towards
a
Competitive

an
Transport
System”,
(COM,
Luxembourg,
2011)

169
Ibid.

37

management
through
smarter
taxation
systems
is
also
prominent
in
the
Europe
2020

Strategy.170

4.5
IMPLEMENTED
MEASURES
IN
THE
TRANSPORT
SECTOR

The
main
goals
of
Norwegian
transport
policy
are
to
cut
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
reduce

health
and
environmental
consequences
of
transport,
and
to
fulfill
national
and

international
targets.171
The
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment
has
conveyed
that

environmentally
friendly
consumption
patterns
and
emission
reductions
from

transportation
are
among
the
priority
areas.172
Many
national
targets
have
overarching

effects
meaning
all
levels
of
society,
both
public
and
private,
have
responsibility
to
put

environmental
consideration
at
the
forefront
of
decision-‐making,
and
as
a
basis
for
their

activities.173

Calculations
made
by
the
Norwegian
Environment
Agency
show
that
existing
measures

will
contribute
to
a
reduction
in
emissions
by
5.3-‐6.1
MtCO2
by
2020.
This
is
less
than

expected.174
The
carbon
tax
has
become
Norway’s
main
policy
instrument
for
reducing

emissions,
and
covers
roughly
50
per
cent
of
them.
Taxation
levels
vary
across
sectors
and

have
been
subject
to
constant
revisions
since
their
implementation
as
the
carbon
price
has

fluctuated.175

4.5.1
Automobiles

The
EU
has
implemented
policies
that
have
reduced
emissions
from
automobiles
in
all

European
countries.
Average
Norwegian
emissions
from
new
cars
used
to
be
12-‐15

gCO2/km
above
the
European
average,
but
since
2011
have
fallen
dramatically
(Figure

12).176
Norway
has
implemented
additional
measures
and
economic
incentives,
to
boost

the
transition
towards
a
low-‐carbon
society.177
Vehicles
are
more
heavily
taxed
in
Norway

than
in
almost
any
other
European
country.178

170
European
Commission,
“Communication
from
the
Commission
to
the
European
Parliament,
The

Council,
the
European
Economic
and
Social
Committee
and
the
Committee
of
the
Regions”

171
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Prop.
1
S
(2014-‐2015)
Statsbudsjettet
2015
(Norwegian

Government,
2014)

172
Ibid.

173
Ibid.

174
“Mulig,
men
Krevende
å
Nå
Klimamålet”,
The
Environment
Agency,
accessed
2
September
2015.

Available
at:
http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/no/Nyheter/Nyheter/2014/Mars-‐2014/Mulig-‐
men-‐krevende-‐a-‐na-‐klimamalet/

175
“Norway”,
Climate
Action
Tracker,
accessed
July
12,
2015.
Available
at:


176
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

177
Bjertnæs,
Geir
H.
Biofuel
mandate
versus
favourable
taxation
of
electric
cars:
The
case
of
Norway.

No.
745.
2013.

178
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

38

Figure
12
-‐
The
development
of
carbon
emissions
from
new
cars
(measures
in
average
g/km)
in

certain
countries
and
for
the
EU
on
average.179

Norway
has
taken
a
leading
role
in
the
electric
vehicle
(EV)
market
over
the
past
5
years

(Figure
13,
Figure
14).
Subsidies
have
increasingly
made
fossil
fueled
cars
more

expensive
than
electric
cars
and
part-‐electric
cars
(chargeable
hybrids)(PEVs).
The
main

limitation
of
EVs
is
their
reach.
For
most
EVs,
their
realistic
range
is
100-‐130km
during
the

summer,
down
to
70km
in
the
winter
(because
of
heat
requirements).
Chargeable
hybrids

are
therefore
more
representative
as
a
more
applicable
car
for
the
majority
of
the

population,
where
the
combustion
engine
can
take
over
if
the
battery
runs
out.180
A

condition
of
owning
an
EV
or
PEV
is
having
access
to
charge
points.
The
charging

infrastructure
is
improving
in
Norway
with
public
charging
points
and
quick-‐charging

points
now
available
in
many
areas.181

Figure
13
-‐
Number
of
electric
vehicles
on
Norwegian
roads
2000
-‐
2013.182

179
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

180
Ibid.

181
Ibid.

182
Norwegian
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
“Norway’s
Sixth
National
Communication”,

Under
the
UNFCCC
(2014)

39

Figure
14
-‐
EV
and
plug-‐in
hybrids
(PHEV)
registrations
in
various
countries
(number
of
vehicles
sold)

and
the
total
share
of
registrations
(percentage)
in
the
first
quarter
of
2015.183

4.5.1.1
Emissions
Intensity

In
2006,
the
EU
enforced
a
limit
to
how
much
CO2
can
be
released
from
new
vehicles
per

driven
kilometer
–
the
carbon
intensity.184
The
EU
has
set
the
limit
for
cars
at
95
gCO2/km

by
2020.185
Carbon
intensity
fell
by
12
per
cent
from
2006-‐2009
immediately
after
the

legislation
was
implemented
(Figure
15).186
Average
emissions
have
decreased
by
27
per

cent
in
the
period
2006-‐2012.187
Technological
developments,
changes
in
taxation,
and

market
adjustments
ultimately
led
to
this
decrease.188

Carbon
emissions
are
directly
proportional
to
the
amount
of
fuel
used.
Diesel
engines
are

generally
more
efficient,
so
prices
have
shifted
in
favor
of
diesel
cars.189
Norway
had
a
goal

to
limit
emissions
from
new
cars
to
120
gCO2/km
by
2012
by
implementing
higher
vehicle

registration
taxes
for
high-‐emission
cars.190
Although
the
target
of
120
gCO2/km
was
not

reached
in
2012,
it
did
drop
to
118
gCO2/km
in
2013.
In
the
Climate
Settlement
of
2012

the
Storting
adopted
an
extension
by
saying
average
emissions
from
cars
should
be

limited
to
85
gCO2/km
in
2020.
As
emissions
from
new
cars
decline
it
will
become

183
“Norway
Leads
the
World’s
Market
for
Electric
Vehicles”,
Forbes,
accessed
2
September
2015.

Available
at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/07/23/norway-‐leads-‐the-‐worlds-‐
market-‐for-‐electric-‐vehicles-‐infographic/

184
Alfsen,
K.H.;
Bjørnæs,
C.
and
Reed,
E.U.,
“Vurderinger
av
Norsk
Klimapolitikk
–
En
Syntese
av
Fire

Internasjonale
Rapporter”,
research
report
prepared
for
CICERO
(Report
2011:02,
Oslo,
2012)

185
Figenbaum
et
al.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that
Achievable?”
research
report
for
TØI

186
Alfsen
et
al.,
“Vurderinger
av
Norsk
Klimapolitikk
–
En
Syntese
av
Fire
Internasjonale
Rapporter”,

research
report
prepared
for
CICERO
(Report
2011:02,
Oslo,
2012)

187
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

188
Figenbaum
et
al.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that
Achievable?”
research
report
for
TØI

189
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,

190
“Norway”,
Energy
Policies
of
IEA
Countries,
hereafter
referred
to
as
IEA
Energy;
pg.
46,

40

increasingly
difficult
to
reduce
emissions
further,
as
costs
rise
exponentially.191
In
2014

roughly
15
per
cent
of
all
new
passenger
cars
sold
in
Norway
were
electric,
lowering
the

average
emissions.
By
the
first
quarter
of
2015,
the
market
share
of
EVs
sold
comprised
of

25.9
per
cent.192
Figenbaum
et
al.
think
that
current
incentives
for
the
introduction
of
low-‐
emission
technologies
are
too
passive
and
that
there
is
a
need
for
even
more
steering

towards
low-‐emission
vehicles.193

Figure
15
-‐
Emissions
intensity
for
new
cars
in
Norway
from
2006
-‐
2012.194

4.5.1.2
Vehicle
Registration
Tax

The
vehicle
registration
tax
is
paid
during
the
initial
registration
of
a
new
car
bought
in

Norway.
This
tax
is
mainly
based
on
the
vehicle’s
CO2
emissions,
engine
power
and

weight.195
The
vehicle
registration
tax
is
by
far
the
most
efficient
climate
policy
instrument

applied
to
Norwegian
transport,
coupled
with
substantial
tax
exemptions
and
various

privileges
for
EVs.196
The
carbon
tax
was
added
to
the
vehicle
purchase
tax
in
1996
and

now
constitutes
the
majority
of
this
duty.197
The
objective
is
that
cars
with
lower
CO2

emissions
are
favored
with
a
lower
vehicle
purchase
tax.198
EVs
became
permanently

191
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

192
“Norway
Electric
Car
Sales
at
Nearly
26%
Market
Share
in
March”,
Inside
EVs,
accessed
2

September
2-‐15.
Available
at:
http://insideevs.com/norway-‐electric-‐car-‐sales-‐nearly-‐26-‐market-‐
share-‐march/

193
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

194
Ibid.

195
Ibid.

196
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

197
“Trender
og
Drivkrefter
Bak
The
Environment
Agency,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:

198
Ibid.

41

exempted
from
the
vehicle
purchase
tax
in
1995.199
The
revenue
loss
from
this
tax
can
be

sustained
if
the
tax
is
gradually
increased
for
conventional
cars
with
emissions
over
50-‐
100
gCO2/km.200
Figenbaum
et
al.
states
that
the
purpose
of
this
tax
is
to
give
people
a

strong
economic
incentive
to
choose
green
transport
options,
not
to
put
a
concrete
price

on
emissions.201

4.5.1.3
Fuel
Tax,
The
Annual
Fee,
Value
Added
Tax
(VAT),

There
are
various
surcharges
on
fuel
in
Norway
making
it
more
expensive
to
drive,
and

especially
to
drive
less
fuel-‐efficient
vehicles
(Figure
16).202
A
carbon
tax
on
fuel
was

implemented
in
1991.203
As
emissions
are
directly
proportional
to
fuel
consumption,
a

reduction
in
consumption
will
cut
emissions.
However
the
potential
for
reducing

emissions
through
increased
fuel
charges
is
limited
due
to
low
elasticity.204
Changes
in
fuel

sales
will
be
limited
as
a
result
of
changes
in
price.205

Figure
16
-‐
Price
structure
for
unleaded
fuel
in
2012
(yearly
average)(NOK
øre
per
litre).206

In
Norway
there
are
three
levels
of
annual
fees,
depending
on
the
car
type.
Owners
of
EVs

pay
a
lower
annual
fee
than
owners
of
conventional
cars.

199
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

200
Fridstrøm,
Lasse
and
Alfsen,
Knut
H.,
Norway’s
Path
to
Sustainable
Transport,
research
report

prepared
for
Institute
for
Transport
Economics
(1321,2014)

201
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

202
“Trender
og
Drivkrefter
Bak
The
Environment
Agency,
accessed
2

September
2015.

203
Ibid.

204
Ibid.

205
Ibid.

206
Brunvoll,
F.
and
Monsrud,
J.,
“Samferdsel
og
Miljø
2013”,
research
report
prepared
for
Statistics

Norway
(33/2013,
Oslo,
2013)

42

The
VAT
is
25
per
cent
in
Norway,
and
is
placed
on
all
goods
and
services
sold
in
the

country.
The
owners
of
EVs
have
been
relieved
of
this
charge
since
2001.
However,
there

have
been
many
arguments
over
why
electric
cars
are
exempted
as
even
bicycles
are

subject
to
this
tax.207

4.5.1.4
Road
Tax,
Bus
Lanes,
Parking
and
Ferries

EVs
have
reduced
road
tax,
free
parking
in
public
parking
places
and
the
right
to
drive
in

the
bus
lane.208
They
also
have
free
access
to
highway
ferries,
although
passengers
are
still

required
to
pay
for
themselves.209
Access
to
the
bus
lanes,
as
of
2009,
has
been
a
highly

motivating
factor
for
consumers
when
purchasing
a
new
car,
because
of
heavy
traffic
in

many
urban
areas
during
rush
hour.
However
as
the
EV
fleet
has
grown,
bus
lanes
have

become
crowded,
impacting
traffic
and
leading
to
delays
in
public
transport.
Having
more

EVs
on
the
roads
reduces
the
benefits.210

Owners
of
electric
cars
have
not
been
required
to
pay
on
toll
roads
since
1997.
This
has

caused
debate
as
EVs
wear
and
tear
on
the
road
just
as
much
as
any
other
car.
They
also

add
to
the
total
transport
load.211

4.5.1.5
Biofuels

Various
biofuel
policies
have
been
implemented
in
many
EU
countries
to
reduce
diesel

consumption.212
In
2009
it
was
required
that
at
least
2.5
per
cent
of
transport
fuel

consisted
of
biofuels
and
by
2010
this
increased
to
3.5
per
cent.
The
mixing
of
biofuel
into

diesel
has
fulfilled
this
ruling.213
However,
according
to
Alfsen
et
al.
this
is
a
relatively

expensive
way
to
cut
emissions
and
the
scientific
basis
for
emissions
reductions
may
not

be
accurate.214

207
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

208
“Trender
og
Drivkrefter
Bak
The
Environment
Agency,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:

209
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

210
Holm,
Marius,
“Elbiler
bør
alltid
være
Billigst”,
Energi
og
Klima,
posted
1
July
2015,
available
at:


211
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

212
Bjertnæs,
Geir
H.
Biofuel
mandate
versus
favourable
taxation
of
electric
cars:
The
case
of
Norway.

No.
745.
2013.

213
Alfsen,
K.H.;
Bjørnæs,
C.
and
Reed,
E.U.,
“Vurderinger
av
Norsk
Klimapolitikk
–
En
Syntese
av
Fire

Internasjonale
Rapporter”,
research
report
prepared
for
CICERO
(Report
2011:02,
Oslo,
2012)

214
Ibid.

43

Sustainable
biofuels
have
been
heavily
supported
as
an
alternative
fuel
in
heavy
weight

trucks.
This
has
been
important
as
both
these
areas
are
expected
to
see
large
increases

and
growth
by
2030.215
There
have
been
large
investments
into
biofuels
in
case
EVs

cannot
be
employed
on
a
large
scale.216
However
this
technology
may
be
undesirable
if

other
low-‐emissions
technologies
are
capable
of
reducing
emissions
at
a
lower
welfare

cost.217

4.5.1.6
Freight

The
transport
of
goods
in
Norway
has
increased
by
80
per
cent
from
1990-‐2007.218

Emissions
from
road
freight
have
increased
more
than
driven
kilometers
as
a
result
of

increased
urbanization.219

It
has
been
difficult
for
Norway
to
implement
broad
reaching
measures
on
automobiles

used
for
freight
because
many
of
them
are
international
suppliers.
The
EU
has
also

implemented
a
limit
for
CO2
emissions
from
heavy
vehicles
and
also
a
guideline
saying
30

per
cent
of
freight
that
is
transported
further
than
300km
on
road
has
to
be
transferred
to

the
rail
network.220,221
However
in
Norway
there
has
been
a
shift
of
freight
from
the

railway
network
to
roads
due
to
lower
costs
in
many
places.
There
has
also
been
a
change

in
the
types
of
goods
that
are
transported,
making
the
road
network
a
more
reliable
mode

of
transportation.222

The
diesel
tax
was
a
measure
aimed
at
curbing
emissions
from
freight.
However
both
the

annual
fee,
based
on
the
weight
of
the
vehicle,
and
diesel
tax
have
not
appeared
to
have
a

significant
impact
on
emissions
intensity.223

4.5.2
Railway
Network

Political
agreements
have
given
the
national
railway
network
in
Norway
high
priority

where
emphasis
has
been
placed
on
passenger
transport
and
improving
freight

215
European
Commission,
“Communication
from
the
Commission
to
the
European
Parliament,
The

Council,
the
European
Economic
and
Social
Committee
and
the
Committee
of
the
Regions”,
(Brussels,

COM,
2011)

216
Ibid.

217
Bjertnæs,
Geir
H.
Biofuel
mandate
versus
favourable
taxation
of
electric
cars:
The
case
of
Norway.

218
Riksrevisjonen,
“Riksrevisjonens
Undersøkelse
av
Måloppnåelse
I
Klimapolitikken”,
(3:5,
2009-‐
2010),
2010

219
Klima
og
“Trender
og
Drivkrefter”,
(TA
3022,
2013)

220
Transport
Agencies,
“Utfordringer
for
Framtidens
Transportsystem
–
Nasjonal
Transportplan

2018-‐2027”,
Main
Report
from
Analysis
and
Strategy
phase.

221
Klimakur
2020,
“Tiltak
of
Virkemidler
for
å
nå
Norske
Klimamål
mot
2020”,
(TA2590/2010)

222
Transport
Agencies,
“Utfordringer
for
Framtidens
Transportsystem
–
Nasjonal
Transportplan

2018-‐2027”,
Main
Report
from
Analysis
and
Strategy
phase.

223
Klima
og
“Trender
og
Drivkrefter”,
(TA
3022,
2013)

44

capacity.224
Funding
has
increased
dramatically
to
improve
existing
tracks,
plus
fund
new

ones.
Freight
transported
by
rail
increased
by
51.2
per
cent
from
1990-‐2007.225

Figure
17
–
A
line
map
showing
the
Norwegian
National
rail
network226

Over
the
last
20
years
there
has
been
a
general
consensus
to
move
freight
from
road
to
sea

or
rail.
There
has
been
the
need
for
rapid
development
of
the
railway
network
to

effectively
link
various
parts
of
the
country
together,
however
there
are
few
policy

instruments
in
place
to
make
it
actually
happen.227
Emissions
from
freight
have
increased

as
a
result
of
growth
in
the
Norwegian
economy
and
more
demand
for
the
transport
of

224
Norwegian
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
“Norway’s
Sixth
National
Communication”,

Under
the
UNFCCC
(2014)

225
Riksrevisjonen,
“Riksrevisjonens
Undersøkelse
av
Måloppnåelse
I
Klimapolitikken”,
(3:5,
2009-‐
2010),
2010

226
“Map
of
National
Rail
Network”,
NSB,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

https://www.nsb.no/reisemal/kart-‐over-‐togstasjoner-‐i-‐
norge/_attachment/8951?_download=true&_ts=14abe8f8f18

227
The
Ministry
of
Transport,
“Meld.
St.
25
(2014-‐2015)
Reformations
of
the
Road
Sector”,
(Oslo,

2015)

45

goods.228
Measures
have
been
aimed
at
transporting
more
goods
by
rail,
but
development

is
slow,
and
commonly
in
the
opposite
direction.
The
railway
network
has
reached
full

capacity
in
many
areas,
causing
a
major
challenge.229
At
the
start
of
2013
only
6
per
cent
of

Norway’s
national
rail
network
was
double
tracked.
This
is
low
compared
to
Sweden,

where
it
was
39
per
cent.230

Several
measures
have
been
implemented
to
make
the
network
more
competitive
–
such

as
removing
the
electricity
tax
and
various
other
taxes,
and
the
development
of
rail

terminals
and
crossing
tracks.231
Several
railway
upgrades
are
underway
to
develop
and

modernize
the
network.232
Several
ongoing
projects
are
upgrading
the
network
to
a

double
track
system,
in
particular
the
Greater
Oslo
area.233
In
2012
a
project
began
to

increase
passenger
transport
by
rail
in
the
Greater
Oslo
area
aiming
to
increase
the

frequency
of
passenger
trains.
By
2013
the
network
saw
an
increase
in
passengers
by
9.2

per
cent.

4.5.3
Public
Transport
and
Infrastructure

In
the
national
budget
for
2015
the
government
suggests
more
investments
are
needed
for

public
transport.234
The
Storting
has
asked
the
government
to
ensure
that
public
transport

in
2020
uses
mostly
low-‐emissions
technology
or
climate-‐neutral
fuels.235
The
Ministry
of

Climate
and
Environment
stated
in
2014
that
it
is
important
to
find
holistic
solutions
when

solving
the
transport-‐
and
air
quality
issues,
and
to
ensure
the
development
of
safe
urban

environments. 236
Car
traffic
in
the
Bergen
city
center
has
decreased
following

implemented
measures,
however
traffic
in
the
surrounding
areas
has
increased,

illustrating
the
need
for
coordinated
planning
at
regional
level.237
The
large
population

growth
expected
in
urban
areas
will
lower
the
capacity
of
public
transport
and
roads.
The

government
is
seeking
to
reduce
transportation
needs
in
urban
areas
by
building
more

compact
cities
and
towns
with
shorter
distances
to
amenities.238

228
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

229
Riksrevisjonen,
“Riksrevisjonens
Undersøkelse
av
Måloppnåelse
I
Klimapolitikken”,
(3:5,
2009-‐
2010),
2010

230
Ibid.

231
Ibid.

232
Norwegian
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
“Norway’s
Sixth
National
Communication”,

Under
the
UNFCCC
(2014)

233
Ibid.

234
The
Royal
Treasury,
“National
Budget,
Meld.
St.
1
(2014-‐2015)”,
(Oslo,
2014)

235
The
Environment
Agency,
“Klimatiltak
og
Utslippsbaner
mot
2030
–
Kunnskapsgrunnlag
for

(M-‐386,
2015)

236
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Prop.
1
S
(2014-‐2015)
Statsbudsjettet
2015
(Norwegian

Government,
2014)

237
Ibid.

238
“Green
Shift
–
Climate
and
Environmentally
Friendly
Restructuring”,
Statistics
Norway,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:

46

There
has
been
work
on
creating
Urban
Environment
Agreements
[own
translation]

between
the
state
and
the
largest
cities,
where
the
goal
is
to
reduce
car
traffic,
and

increase
green
transportation
methods.239
Major
investments
in
public
transport
will

make
it
easier
for
cities
to
grow
and
for
emissions
to
decrease240.
One
of
the
most

important
policies
at
the
level
of
central
government
is
a
so-‐called
‘reward
scheme
for

public
transport’.
This
was
established
in
2004
and
aimed
at
relieving
congestion
and

slowing
the
growth
of
motorized
traffic
by
increasing
the
number
of
public
transport

users,
pedestrians
and
cyclists.241
In
the
Climate
Settlement
the
government
aimed
to

absorb
more
passenger
traffic
through
public
transportation,
bicycling
and
walking.242

These
initiatives
need
to
be
granted
higher
priority
in
and
around
urban
areas,
and
in

future
agreements;
although
the
government
states
that
public
transport
financing
has

never
before
been
this
high.243
Fridstrøm,
however,
questions
whether
current
policy

instruments
are
sufficient
in
meeting
the
goals
listed
above244.
Hagem
makes
a
point
that

unless
public
transport
is
powered
by
climate-‐neutral
energy,
cuts
in
emissions
will
not
be

that
significant.

Low-‐emission
zones
are
being
introduced
across
Europe
with
the
purpose
of
improving

city
center
environments.
This
has
been
proposed
for
Oslo
to
reduce
traffic
volume
and

improve
air
quality.
It
has
yet
to
be
implemented,
as
there
are
ongoing
discussions

regarding
which
vehicles
these
zones
will
apply
to.245

4.6
DISCUSSION
OF
EXISTING
POLICIES

Environmentally
friendly
vehicles
need
to
continue
to
be
introduced
and
made
more

easily
available
to
the
general
public.
The
power
of
subsidies
is
made
possible
by
the
very

high
levels
of
taxation
on
regular
automobiles
in
Norway.
The
subsidies
have
been

successful
and
they
work
without
the
public
treasury
having
to
pay
out
a
single
Norwegian

krone.246
Some
believe
the
excessive
fees
and
taxes
in
place
are
disproportionate;
that
they

place
an
unnecessary
burden
on
the
consumer
to
reach
the
overarching
emissions
targets,

239
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Prop.
1
S
(2014-‐2015)
Statsbudsjettet
2015
(Norwegian

Government,
2014)

240
The
Ministry
of
Transport,
“Meld.
St.
25
(2014-‐2015)
Reformations
of
the
Road
Sector”,
(Oslo,

2015)

241
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

242
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Meld.
St.
21
(2011-‐2012)
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy

(Norwegian
Government,
2012)

243
“A
New
and
More
Ambitious
Climate
Policy
for
Norway”,
Government.no,
accessed
2
September

2015.
Available
at:

244
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

245
Tretvik,
Terje,
Marianne
Elvsaas
Nordtømme,
Kristin
Ystmark
Bjerkan,
and
An-‐Magritt

Kummeneje.
"Can
low
emission
zones
be
managed
more
dynamically
and
effectively?."
Research
in

Transportation
Business
&
Management
12
(2014):
3-‐10.

246
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

47

and
at
best
they
only
affect
indirect
emissions.247
Holm
states
that
EVs
should
always
be

cheaper
than
fossil
fueled
cars,
but
until
then,
various
tax
exemptions
and
benefits
should

not
be
removed.248.
A
gradual
introduction
of
value
added
tax
should
not
occur
before

2020.249
A
resolution
that
creates
long-‐term
predictability
and
is
economically
beneficial

to
the
buyer
is
vital.250
Stronger
tax
incentives
for
PEVs
are
also
needed
to
obtain
an

adequate
market
uptake
by
2020.
Alfsen
et
al.
believes
increasing
the
petrol
prices
based

on
how
much
CO2
is
released
is
a
better
solution;
the
existing
difference
in
fees
for
petrol

and
diesel
cannot
be
defended
from
a
climate
perspective.251

Marius
Holm,
the
general
manager
of
Zero
Emission
Resource
Organisation
(ZERO),

argues
that
Norway
should
prioritize
the
development
of
low-‐emissions
technology,
clean-‐
production
technology,
and
set
specific
climate
goals
within
the
transport
sector.
He

claims
innovation
in
the
transport
sector
is
lacking
and
that
technology
will
become
a

critical
driver
in
the
future.252
Holm
argues
tax
policies
should
continue
to
make
it

attractive
for
the
consumer
to
choose
low-‐emission
vehicles,
whether
a
private
car
or

public
transport.253
An
emissions-‐free
transport
sector
should
be
the
government’s
main

priority.254

The
Norwegian
Environment
Agency
also
states
that
emission
reductions
are
largely

dependent
on
breakthroughs
in
technology,
for
freight
in
particular.
Norway
is
not
a
car

producer,
and
is
therefore
dependent
on
those
countries
that
are,
to
develop
the
new

technologies.255
The
selection
of
cars
in
Norway
is
determined
by
the
major
car
industries

in
Europe,
by
the
European
Commission,
and
by
the
politics
in
the
big
car
countries
in

Europe.256
The
Norwegian
market
with
its
incentives
and
regulations,
will
not
heavily

impact
the
international
automobile
industry257.
However
Norway
can
contribute
by

affecting
demand.258
Norwegian
authorities
can
restrict
the
import
of
high-‐emission

247
Economic
Survey
of
Norway
2010,
pg
130,
heretter
omtalt
som
OECD
Economic;
se

http://www.oecd.org/document/42/0,3746,en_2649_34569_44701354_1_1_1_1,00.html.

248
Holm,
Marius,
“Elbiler
bør
alltid
være
Billigst”,
Energi
og
Klima,
posted
1
July
2015,
available
at:


249
Ibid.

250
Ibid.

251
Alfsen,
K.H.;
Bjørnæs,
C.
and
Reed,
E.U.,
“Vurderinger
av
Norsk
Klimapolitikk
–
En
Syntese
av
Fire

Internasjonale
Rapporter”,
research
report
prepared
for
CICERO
(Report
2011:02,
Oslo,
2012)

252
Holm,
Marius,
“Norges
Viktigste
Klimabidrag”,
Energi
of
Klima,
posted
12
March
2015,
Available

at:
http://energiogklima.no/blogg/holm/norges-‐viktigste-‐klimabidrag/
253
Ibid.

254
Ibid.

255
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

256
Ibid.

257
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

258
“Norge
på
Vei
mot
Lavutslippssamfunnet”,
The
Environment
Agency,
accessed
2
September
2015.

Available
at:
http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/no/Nyheter/Nyheter/2014/Oktober-‐2014/Norge-‐
pa-‐vei-‐mot-‐lavutslippssamfunnet/

48

vehicles
by
introducing
higher
taxes,
and
giving
incentives
to
import
low-‐emission

vehicles.259

When
Klimakur
2020
presented
their
report
in
2010
there
were
only
a
few
electric
cars
on

Norwegian
roads;
today
there
are
over
50,000.260
The
lack
of
technology
and
attractive

cars
has
been
the
reason
for
slow
sales
up
until
a
few
years
ago.
There
is
a
great
deal
of

uncertainty
tied
to
technology
developments,
the
market,
automobile
producers’

strategies,
and
policies
within
the
EU
and
its
member
states.261
Technology
shifts
can

happen
quickly
that
are
difficult
to
predict.262
In
any
case,
the
car
fleet
is
long
lasting
and

cars
spend
an
average
15-‐18
years
on
the
roads.
This
means
that
although
new
cars
will

gradually
replace
the
old
ones,
there
will
be
a
lag
before
reductions
in
emissions
will

become
visible.263

Measures
and
instruments
within
the
transport
sector
are
often
dependent
on
one

another.
The
costs
and
effects
will
vary
depending
on
their
dimensions
and
how
they
are

implemented.264
Higher
fees
could
lead
to
fewer
vehicles
on
the
roads,
less
traffic,
and

therefore
fewer
emissions.265
Some
have
argued
that
the
measures
could
be
tightened
to

further
cut
emissions,
however
the
authorities
have
evaluated
the
abatement
cost
as
too

high
for
consumers
and
businesses.266

The
Norwegian
Road
Administration
published
a
report,
The
Highway
Study
[own

translation],
where
the
challenges
and
long-‐term
needs
for
development
of
the
national

road
network
were
analyzed.267
Large
parts
of
the
road
network
lack
public
transport

prioritization,
which
results
in
delays
and
reduced
reliability,
and
makes
public
transport

less
attractive
and
less
competitive.268
They
want
to
improve
the
network.269
According
to

Sandberg,
their
plans
are
very
different
from
priorities
at
state
level,
as
they
have
barely

considered
the
resulting
greenhouse
gas
emissions
from
this
project.270

259
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

260
“Norge
på
Vei
mot
The
Environment
Agency,
accessed
2
September
2015.

261
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

262
“Norge
på
Vei
mot
The
Environment
Agency,
accessed
2
September
2015.

263
Fridstrøm,
Lasse
and
Alfsen,
Knut
H.,
Norway’s
Path
to
Sustainable
Transport,
research
report

prepared
for
Institute
for
Transport
Economics
(1321,2014)

264
Klimakur
2020,
“Tiltak
of
Virkemidler
for
å
nå
Norske
Klimamål
mot
2020”,
(TA2590/2010)

265
OECD
Economic,
pg.
130

266
Waagaard,
R.;
Gjørv,
A.B.;
Grimelid,
A.
and
Aulie,
C.,
“En
Norsk
Klimalov”,
Research
report

prepared
for
WWF
(Oslo,
2010)

267
Statens
Vegvesen,
“Riksvegutredningen
2015”,
main
report
(2015)

268
Ibid.

269
Ibid.

270
Sandberg,
Tor,
“Gir
Full
Gass
Uten
Klimapeiling”,
Dagsavisen,
posted
27
March
2015,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:
http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/gir-‐full-‐gass-‐uten-‐
klimapeiling-‐1.347580

49

The
consumers
place
responsibility
on
local
and
national
politicians
to
find
a
solution.271

The
Environment
Agency
states
the
need
for
increased
focus
on
allowing
climate
risk
to

infiltrate
decision-‐making
within
all
sectors.
There
is
a
risk
of
locking
society
into
an

infrastructure
and
transport
system
that
results
in
lasting
emissions.272
The
challenge
will

be
to
develop
a
thought-‐through
holistic
plan.273
Over
the
last
few
years
there
have
been

discussions
on
whether
Norway
needs
a
separate
climate
statute
that
will
ensure
long-‐
term,
overarching
politics
in
line
with
the
climate
targets.
It
has
been
argued
that
Norway

is
lacking
a
binding
agreement
and
that
a
separate
climate
statute
would
make
it
easier
for

all
sectors
to
work
together
in
reaching
the
targets.274
A
statute
would
also
make
it
easier

to
prioritize
regardless
of
changes
in
government.275

4.7
PUBLISHED
REPORTS
ON
NORWAY’S
TRANSPORT
SECTOR

A
wide
range
of
reports
has
been
published
that
review
the
development
of
Norway’s

transport
sector.
Some
are
analyses
of
existing
measures
to
reduce
emissions,
while

others
are
detailed
descriptions
of
ways
to
reduce
emissions
in
the
future.
Table
2
and

Table
3
list
the
main
documents
that
review
past
efforts
and
consider
future
options
for

reducing
emissions
from
transport.

4.7.1
Past
Achievements
in
Norway’s
Transport
Sector

The
reports
in
Table
2
review
the
development
of
the
transport
sector,
and
whether
there

have
been
sufficient
achievements
in
emissions
reductions.
The
author
has
reviewed
these

reports
in
relation
to
two
specific
questions:

A) How
do
they
rate
Norway’s
performance
on
reducing
emissions?

B) Have
they
registered
holistic
thinking
and
integrated
climate
policies?

The
reports
have
been
rated
from
1-‐5,
where
the
number
5
corresponds
to
a
very
positive

review
about
Norway’s
transport
sector,
and
a
1
corresponds
to
very
negative
review,

where
the
authors
are
negative
about
the
achievements
to
date.
These
reviews
are
based

on
personal
evaluations
by
the
author.

271
“Klima
er
Toppsak”,
Elmagasinet,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

b68008c80d63

272
“Norge
på
Vei
mot
The
Environment
Agency,
accessed
2
September
2015.

Available
at:

273
“Norges
Nye
Klimamål:
Ambisiøse,
kanskje
Realistiske”,
CICEP,
accessed
2
September
2015.

Available
at:

274
Waagaard,
R.;
Gjørv,
A.B.;
Grimelid,
A.
and
Aulie,
C.,
“En
Norsk
Klimalov”,
Research
report

prepared
for
WWF
(Oslo,
2010)

275
Ibid.

50

Table
2
-‐
Reports
containing
reviews
on
past
efforts
made
to
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions
from

the
transport
sector.

REPORTS
CONSIDERING
PAST
EFFORTS

Author
Document
Year
Comments
A
B

Office
of
the

Auditor
General

of
Norway

OAG’s
investigation
into
target

achievement
in
climate
policy

[Own
translation]

2010

Study
reflects
on
what
Norway
has
done
to

achieve
the
various
climate
targets.
It

considered
all
instruments
and
measures
in

place,
and
analyzed
how
much
they
have

actually
contributed
to
reaching
the
set

climate
targets.

3

2

Norwegian

Environment

Agency

Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions
in

Norway
from
1990-‐2020
–

Trends
and
Drivers

[Own
translation]

2013

Report
analyzes
the
causes
and
changes
in

different
sectors’
emissions
between
1990

and
2010.

3

2

Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions

1990-‐2012,
National

Inventory
Report
(NIR)

2014

In
accordance
with
the
UNFCCC,
individual

countries
report
on
their
greenhouse
gas

emissions
and
describe
the
trends
in
the

development
of
their
emissions.

3

2

Ministry
of

Climate
and

Environment

Norway’s
Sixth
National

Communication

2014

A
report
delivered
to
the
UNFCCC
every
4

years
communicating
the
national

circumstances,
policies,
and
measures
on

how
Norway
is
meeting
the
requirements

under
the
convention.

4

2

Norwegian

Centre
for

Transport

Research

The
Path
towards
Climate-‐
Friendly
Transport
(TEMPO

Report)

[Own
translation]

2014

Result
of
a
project
executed
between
2009

and
2014
that
was
devoted
to
developing

knowledge
on
the
most
effective
tools
in

climate
policy
in
the
transport
sector.

3

3

Most
of
the
reports
listed
in
the
table
rate
Norway’s
performance
in
reducing
emissions
as

average.
The
report
to
the
UNFCCC
by
the
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment
shines
a

positive
light
on
Norway’s
achievements,
and
places
emphasis
on
Norway’s
many

implemented
measures.
However,
there
is
little
focus
on
measures
that
have
not
worked

or
areas
that
have
seen
few
cuts
in
emissions.
The
other
reports
consider
all
areas
of
the

sector,
both
those
with
improvements
and
those
that
have
seen
little
progress.
The

majority
is
generally
positive
toward
Norway’s
passenger
transport
and
everything
that

has
been
implemented
in
order
to
boost
the
sales
of
EVs.
However
most
of
them
worry

that
Norway
will
not
be
able
to
meet
its
targets
for
2020.
The
reports
have
highlighted
the

lack
of
performance
when
it
comes
to
limiting
emissions
from
the
transport
of
goods.

When
it
comes
to
the
stabilization
of
emissions
over
the
past
few
years,
they
give
praise,

however
they
highlight
the
fact
that
the
ball
has
only
begun
to
role
–
slowly.
They
stress

that
the
authorities
have
spent
a
lot
of
time
wondering
what
measures
to
implement
and

that
there
has
been
a
considerable
lack
of
willpower.
There
is
consensus
that
existing

environmental
policies
do
not
carry
the
necessary
weight
to
infiltrate
all
sectors.
The

reports
have
not
registered
much
holistic
thinking
and
there
are
few
signs
of
integrating

climate
policies
into
all
sectors.

4.7.2
Suggestions
to
Further
Reduce
Emissions
from
Transport
in
the
Future

The
reports
in
Table
3
all
give
pathways
on
how
to
further
reduce
emissions
from
the

transport
sector
in
the
best
possible
way.
The
author
has
reviewed
these
reports
in

relation
to
three
specific
questions:

51

A) Do
they
give
specific
suggestions
on
how
to
reach
targets?

B) Is
there
emphasis
on
holistic
thinking
and
integrating
climate
policies?

C) Have
their
proposals
been
fully
thought
through?

Question
C
considers
whether
there
are
suggestions
on
how
to
reach
the
set
targets.

Question
E
focuses
on
whether
the
reports
have
considered
the
feasibility
of
introducing

various
instruments
and
measures,
including
emphasis
on
finance
and
logistics.
The

reports
have
been
rated
from
1-‐5,
where
the
number
5
indicates
that
the
authors
have

done
a
good
job
considering
that
point,
whereas
the
number
1
indicates
that
the
authors

have
not
done
very
well.
These
reviews
are
based
on
personal
evaluations
by
the
author.

Table
3
-‐
Reports
containing
future
options
to
reduce
emissions
from
the
transport
sector.

REPORTS
CONSIDERING
FUTURE
OPTIONS

Author
Document
Year
Comments
C
D
E

European

Commission

White
Paper
on
Transport
2011

A
roadmap
including
40
specific

initiatives
on
building
a
competitive

transport
system
over
the
next
10
years,

that
will
increase
mobility
and
remove

barriers
in
key
areas.

2

2

4

A
Roadmap
for
Moving
to
a

Competitive
Low-‐Carbon

Economy
in
2050

2011

A
cost-‐effective
pathway
for
achieving

greater
emissions
reductions,
reducing

energy
consumption
and
making
the

European
economy
more
environmentally

friendly.

1

2

3

The
Standing

Committee
on

Energy
and

the

Environment

Innst.
390S
(2011-‐2012)
The

Climate
Settlement276

2012

A
document
that
supports
and

strengthens
the
objectives
laid
out
in
the

2008
agreement
on
climate
policy.

Includes
policy
objectives
within

transportation,
construction,
industry,

petroleum
activities,
and
agriculture.

2

1

3

EEA
Review

Committee

NOU
2006:18
A
Climate-‐
Friendly
Country

2006

A
presentation
of
various
scenarios
on

how
Norway
can
reduce
its
emissions
by

50-‐80
percent
by
2050.

2

1

3

Norwegian

Environment

Agency

Klimakur
(Climate
Cure)

2020:
Measures
and

Instruments
for
Achieving

Norwegian
Climate
Targets
by

2020

[Own
translation]

2010

Report
depicts
a
variety
of
methods
on

how
emissions
can
be
reduced
and
lays

the
basis
for
the
government’s
future

climate
policy.

2

2

3

Mitigation
and
Emission

Pathways
to
2030
–
Evidence

for
low-‐emission
development

[Own
translation]

2015

An
analysis
of
the
instruments
required
in

the
creation
of
a
low-‐carbon
society.

Illustrates
3
different
investment
levels

for
emissions
reductions.

3

3

4

Norwegian

Public
Roads

Adminis-‐
tration

Highway
Report
2015

[Own
translation]

2015

An
analysis
of
investment
levels
needed

over
a
30-‐year
period
given
that
the

national
road
network
is
being
developed

in
line
with
current
standard

requirements.

3

3

2

276
Officially
known
as
‘Recommendation
of
the
Energy
and
Environment
Committee:
Climate

Settlement,
Innst.
390
S
(2011-‐2012)’.

52

Author
Document
Year
Comments
C
D
E

Ministry
of

Transport
and

Communi-‐
cations

Meld.
St.
16
(2008-‐2009)

National
Transport
Plan

2010-‐2019

2009

A
presentation
of
the
government’s
aims

and
objectives
within
transport
policy
and

various
strategies
of
achieving
these
for

the
next
10
years.

2

2

3

Meld.
St.
26
(2012-‐2013)

National
Transport
Plan

2014-‐2023

2013

A
presentation
of
the
government’s
aims

and
objectives
within
transport
policy
and

various
strategies
of
achieving
these
for

the
next
10
years.

2

4

4

Meld.
St.
25
(2014-‐2015)

Reformations
of
the
Road

Sector
[Own
translation]

2015

Report
presents
a
range
of
modifications

to
the
road
sector.

3

5

4

The
Norwegian
National

Transport
Plan
-‐
Challenges

for
future
transport
systems

2018-‐2027
[Own
translation]

2015

A
strategy
report
from
the
transport

agencies
illustrating
future
developments

that
will
affect
the
demand
for
transport

3

5

4

Ministry
of

Climate
and

Environment

Meld.
St.
21
(2011-‐2012)
The

Agreement
on
Climate
Policy

(Updated
from
2008)

2012

The
adoption
of
goals
for
climate
policy

and
measures
for
how
these
goals
will
be

reached.

2

1

3

Meld.
St.
13
(2014-‐2015)

Norway’s
2030
Emission

Reduction
Target

2015

Document
communicates
Norway’s

independent
commitment
to
the
UNFCCC

on
emissions
reductions
in
the
new

climate
agreement.

2

-‐-‐

3

Norwegian

Climate

Foundation

Ways
in
which
Norway
can

make
a
Difference

[Own
translation]

2015

16
articles
on
how
Norway
can
contribute

in
the
global
fight
against
climate
change.

3

3

3

There
appears
to
be
a
general
lack
of
knowledge
or
insight
on
how
Norway
is
going
to

achieve
a
reduction
in
emissions.
The
reports
state
that
future
growth
needs
to
be

absorbed
by
public
transport,
however
they
fail
to
mention
exactly
how
they
plan
on

achieving
this.
The
reports
make
use
of
the
word
‘should’
in
many
cases
instead
of

‘required’
or
‘must’.
Numerous
options
have
been
considered,
although
in
many
cases

there
appears
to
be
little
knowledge
of
how
much
these
options
will
actually
contribute
to

emission
cuts.

There
appears
to
be
a
growing
awareness
of
the
integration
of
climate
policies
into
all

sectors,
and
holistic
thinking
over
recent
years.
There
is
an
understanding
that
decisions

made
today
will
determine
Norway’s
emissions
in
the
future,
and
therefore
there
has
been

more
emphasis
on
city
planning
and
the
integration
of
climate
policies
in
all
sectors.

In
many
reports,
emissions
reduction
proposals
appear
to
have
been
carefully
considered,

however
there
have
been
limited
discussions
of
how
these
measures
are
going
to
be

financed
and
who
is
going
to
be
responsible
for
their
implementation.
There
has
also
been

a
lot
of
focus
on
international
technology
developments
and
less
focus
on
what
Norway

can
do
itself.
Most
reports
have
similar
goals,
which
indicate
that
they
have
not
managed

to
achieve
what
they
set
out
to
do
previously.
Over
the
past
20
years
there
has
been
a

focus
on
shifting
freight
from
the
road
network
to
rail
and
ships.
The
railway
network
has

reached
full
capacity,
yet
the
reports
continue
to
say
this
is
a
goal.
Despite
arguments
that

Norway
has
not
managed
to
achieve
its
targets,
nearly
all
the
reports
emphasize
the
fact

that
it
should
be
at
the
forefront
of
climate
politics,
setting
ambitious
goals.

53

CHAPTER
5:
EMPIRICAL
RESEARCH
FINDINGS

5.1
INTRODUCTION

Chapters
2
and
4
have
given
introductions
to
Norway’s
transport
sector
and
policy
cycle,

existing
policies
and
measures,
and
relevant
reports
and
documents
on
these
topics.
The

key
challenges
in
reducing
transport
emissions
have
been
outlined.
As
described
in
the

methodology,
the
overall
aim
is
to
explore
how
Norway’s
political
system
has
contributed

to
reducing
emissions
from
the
transport
sector,
and
how
governance
can
impact
the

feasibility
of
reducing
emissions
in
the
future.

This
chapter
presents
the
empirical
research
findings
from
the
personal
interviews,

describing
the
range
of
opinions
within
key
areas.
Analysis
and
discussion
of
the
empirical

results
will
be
given
within
each
theme,
followed
by
a
synthesis
of
the
empirical
results

versus
the
literature
findings.

The
following
sections
examine
the
effectiveness
and
complexities
of
Norway’s
political

system.
Passenger
transport
and
freight
are
analyzed
in
detail
by
answering
the
following

questions
within
two
key
themes:

• Past
achievements
in
Norway’s
transport
sector

o Where
has
the
focus
been?

o Has
the
governing
system
performed
well
enough?

• Future
emissions
reductions
–
Can
Norway
lean
back
and
relax?

o Is
it
easier
to
implement
policies
today
than
it
was
5-‐10
years
ago?

o Will
a
bottom-‐up
approach
play
a
large
role
in
the
future?

o How
should
Norway
move
forward?

5.1.1
The
Electric
Vehicle:
A
Success
Story?

In
many
ways
the
electric
car
has
been
revolutionary
in
Norway.
Success
is
owed
partly
to

the
fact
that
Norway
does
not
have
its
own
car
industry.
Car
manufacturers
in
Germany,

Sweden,
France
and
other
European
countries
would
oppose
large
subsidies
on
EVs
at
the

expense
of
their
own
cars.
These
countries
can
therefore
not
achieve
the
same
growth
that

Norway
has
experienced.
As
described
in
detail
in
the
previous
chapter,
high
taxes
on

fossil
fueled
cars
in
Norway
make
EVs
competitive.
This
has
been
the
path
of
least

resistance
over
the
last
5
years
as
incentives
and
benefits
have
appealed
to
customers

(RES2).
INP1
explains
how
various
elements
must
come
together
to
create
change:
it
has

been
economically
rewarding
to
purchase
EVs
for
over
a
decade,
however
the
technology

has
been
missing.277
The
EV
market
exploded
after
new
technology
increased
the
car’s

reach
and
prices
went
down
(RES2).

277
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

54

The
Swedish
and
Danish
EV
markets
have
shown
different
developments.
Both
Sweden

and
Norway
had
access
to
the
same
technology
at
similar
times,
however
Sweden
didn’t

have
incentives
in
place
at
the
time
(INP1).278
Denmark
has
a
similar
situation
where
it
is

not
sufficiently
favorable
to
own
an
EV;
they
are
lacking
benefits
such
as
access
to
bus

lanes
(INP1).279
This
shows
that
benefits
and
incentives
were
critical
in
the
introduction
of

EVs
in
Norway,
and
that
technology
is
important,
but
that
alone
will
not
suffice
(INP1).

“Existing
incentives
have
worked
better
than
the
Ministry
of
Finance
ever
could
have

dreamed
of”
(GOV1).

In
recent
years
there
have
been
wide
debates
regarding
the
removal
of
existing
benefits

and
subsidies
for
EVs.
RES2
argues
that
the
debate
is
reasonable
as
EVs
wear
and
tear
on

the
roads
just
like
any
conventional
vehicle.
EVs
are
dependent,
however,
on
existing

benefits
to
be
competitive
in
the
current
market.
INP1
thinks
the
waver
of
the
vehicle

purchase
tax
is
the
best
incentive
for
choosing
an
EV,
and
that
other
benefits
are
just
a

bonus.
Benefits
such
as
free
parking
could
be
removed
before
removing
the
vehicle

purchase
tax,
however
they
should
not
be
until
EVs
are
competitive
without
them
(INP1).

RES2
argues
that
it
is
important
to
have
strong
incentives
during
the
introduction
of
new

technology,
but
that
the
goal
is
not
for
everyone
to
own
an
electric
car.

Norway
has
received
praise
for
reaching
total
EV
sales
of
18.5
per
cent
during
the
first

quarter
of
2015.280
However
currently
less
than
2
per
cent
of
the
total
vehicle
fleet
is

electric,
meaning
it
will
take
a
long
time
for
emissions
to
decrease.281
Average
CO2

emissions
were
98
gCO2/km
in
the
first
quarter
of
2015,
but
there
is
still
a
long
way
to
go

before
reaching
the
target
(GOV5).282

5.1.2
Freight:
A
Forgotten
Avenue?

Emissions
from
freight
have
continued
to
grow
over
the
past
20
years
demonstrating
how

other
areas
have
received
more
attention
(RES2,
RES1,
GOV1).
The
freight
sector
has
a

high
emission-‐reduction
potential,
however
few
instruments
and
measures
have
been

implemented
to
cut
emissions
(RES1).
“The
national
railway
network
has
gone
downhill

over
the
last
20
years”
(GOV3).

For
the
past
20
years
many
reports
have
emphasized
the
need
to
shift
freight
from
road
to

rails
and
ships.
There
is
not
a
single
Parliamentary
program
that
doesn’t
emphasize
this

shift;
nonetheless
goods
are
still
mostly
transported
by
trucks
(INP1).283
Over
the
past
5

278
“Continued
Electric
Car
Boom
in
Norway”,
Vattenfall,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://news.vattenfall.com/en/article/continued-‐electric-‐car-‐boom-‐norway

279
Ibid

280
Frydenlund,
Ståle,
Elbil.no,
“2
av
10
Biler
I
Første
Halvår
var
Elbiler”,
posted
s
July
2015.

Available
at:
http://www.elbil.no/nyheter/elbiler/3588-‐nesten-‐2-‐av-‐10-‐var-‐elbiler

281
“Registrerte
Kjøretøy,
2014”,
Statistics
Norway,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

https://www.ssb.no/bilreg/

282
Moberg,
Knut,
Dinside.no,
“ELbil-‐Salget
er
nok
en
Gang
Rekordhøyt
I
Mars”,
posted
6
April
2015,

Available
at:
http://www.dinside.no/933353/elbil-‐salget-‐nok-‐en-‐gang-‐rekordhoyt-‐i-‐mars

283
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

55

years
development
has
gone
in
the
opposite
direction.
There
are
two
main
reasons
for

this:
a)
limited
reliability
and
capacity
of
the
rail
and
shipping
networks
and
b)
poor

efficiency
at
cargo
terminals.284
It
has
become
both
cheaper
and
easier
to
transport
goods

by
road
(INP1).
The
railway
network
has
reached
full
capacity
in
many
areas
and
is
too

unstable,
unreliable,
and
vulnerable
to
malfunctions
(weather
conditions
or
technical

breakdowns)
(INP1).285
Projects
to
increase
the
capacity,
speed
and
frequency
of
trains

are
long-‐term
and
demand
high,
continuing
investments.286
Large
technical
challenges
are

also
associated
with
expansion.
The
largest
investments
are
being
applied
in
the
Greater

Oslo
area
where
there
are
the
most
issues
(GOV3).

Door-‐to-‐door
solutions
are
being
favored
for
cargo
transport.287
In
addition,
there
are
four

main
factors
taken
into
account
when
choosing
transport
options:
price,
punctuality,
time,

and
availability. 288
Major
transport
companies
say
that
passenger
trains
are
often

prioritized
while
freight
trains
gets
delayed
(RES1).
If
a
business
is
transporting
frozen

fish,
for
example,
and
clients
are
expecting
these
deliveries,
it
cannot
risk
being
delayed
by

on
the
rail
network.
The
same
vulnerability
does
not
exist
on
roads
(GOV1).

Some
researchers
in
this
study
believe
freight
has
been
forgotten
in
the
policy-‐making

process.
RES2
and
GOV1
however,
do
not
think
the
politicians
have
viewed
it
as
a
genuine

problem.
As
freight
is
run
by
private
operators,
policy
makers
have
less
knowledge
about

it
(RES1).
It
is
not
seen
as
a
part
of
the
public
domain,
and
therefore
doesn’t
fall
within
the

politicians
reach
(RES1).
Freight
is
also,
to
a
greater
extent
more
international.
Norwegian

authorities
cannot
strictly
regulate
Norwegian
transport
businesses
without
losing

competitiveness
to
cheaper
international
businesses,
or
exclude
international
businesses

from
trading
in
Norway
(GOV5,
GOV1).
The
authorities
therefore
have
limited
room
to

improve
this
sector.
There
is
a
lot
of
potential
for
emission
reductions
for
heavy
and

lightweight
trucks
by
switching
to
alternative
fuels,
and
renewable
solutions
are
under

development
(RES1).
The
question
is
how
fast
they
will
arise
and
how
involved
the

authorities
will
be
at
rolling
it
out
into
society
(RES1).

5.2
PAST
ACHIEVEMENTS
IN
NORWAY’S
TRANSPORT
SECTOR

5.2.1
Where
has
the
Focus
been?

Norway’s
development
in
recent
years
has
been
exceptional
-‐
economic
growth
is
high,
the

sales
of
EVs
are
booming,
emissions
intensity
has
decreased,
and
passenger
kilometers

appear
to
have
leveled
off.
On
the
other
hand,
greenhouse
gas
emissions
have
continued
to

284
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

285
Statens
Vegvesen,
2015”,
main
report
(2015)

286
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Prop.
1
S
(2014-‐2015)
Statsbudsjettet
2015
(Norwegian

Government,
2014)

287
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

288
Jernbaneverket,
“Metodehåndbok
–
Samfunnsøkonomiske
Analyser
for
Jernbanen
2015”,
(Hamar,

2015)

56

grow,
and
current
projections
show
an
increase
in
transport
emissions.
The
transport

sector
has
the
highest
emissions
and
highest
growth,
but
it
is
also
the
sector
where
the

strongest
measures
to
curb
emissions
are
in
place.289
There
are
disagreements
over

whether
policy-‐makers
could
have
used
more
instruments
or
implemented
more

measures
to
reduce
emissions
than
they
have.
The
focus
4-‐5
years
ago
is
very
similar
to

that
of
today;
policy
decisions
continue
to
exclude
certain
areas
and
they
have
therefore

seen
limited
development
(RES1,
GOV5,
GOV2).

5.2.1.1
Instruments
and
Measures

Many
instruments
to
reduce
emissions
are
aimed
at
particular
groups,
such
as
the
vehicle

purchase
tax.
Norway
has
focused
on
limiting
emissions
from
passenger
transport
for
a

long
time.
This
has
led
to
a
decrease
in
the
sales
of
fossil
fueled
cars
and
a
reduction
in

average
carbon
emissions
from
new
cars.
“There
are
no
other
countries
that
lead
such

powerful
climate
policies
for
electric
vehicles
-‐
Norway
is
a
success
story
beyond
doubt”

(GOV1).

The
focus
has
been
on
so-‐called
‘quick-‐wins’;
easy,
enforceable
changes
to
the
sector

(RES1).
The
policy-‐makers
have
fixated
heavily
on
subsidies,
which
have
been
popular

and
had
a
positive
impact
(RES2).
It
is
easier
to
subsidize
positive
behavior
than
levy
and

enforce
penalties
on
negative
behavior
(RES2).
Benefits,
such
as
free
parking
for
EVs,
are

easy
and
quick
to
dispense,
while
extra
fees
and
restrictive
measures
that
increase
the

public’s
expense
and
inconvenience,
are
not
(INP1).
The
focus
has
been
“out
with
the
old

[cars
with
high
emissions]
and
in
with
the
new
[green
technology]”
(RES2).
Economic

incentives
have
worked
well,
and
will
most
likely
continue
to
do
so
in
the
future
(RES2).

However
GOV5
believes
there
could
have
been
more
focus
on
fees
and
taxes
when
it
came

to
guiding
behavior
towards
climate
friendly
transport
options.
80
per
cent
of
the
vehicles

sold
today
are
fossil
fueled
cars
that
will
be
on
the
road
for
the
next
15-‐18
years.290
There

is
general
agreement
with
the
findings
from
the
literature
review,
that
low
emissions

technology
has
been
prioritized,
with
less
focus
placed
on
limiting
the
use
of
heavily

polluting
cars
(RES2,
INP1,
GOV5,
RES1).

The
government
could
have
increased
the
carbon
tax
on
fuel,
as
it
only
represents
a
small

percentage
of
the
total
tax
(GOV2).
Most
automobiles
are
highly
polluting
and
the
carbon

tax
should
reflect
that.
The
Polluter
Pays
principle
is
central
to
Norwegian
climate
policy

so
it
seems
logical
to
tax
the
use
of
the
car.291
Fuel
tax
has
increased
immensely
over
the

last
20
years;
however
as
fuel
prices
are
inelastic,
small
changes
in
price
will
not
impact

consumption
to
a
significant
extent.292,293
The
knock-‐on
effect
of
reducing
tourism
and

289
Various
authors,
Norsk
Klimastiftelse,
“Slik
kan
Norge
gjøre
en
Forskjell”,
(Report
04/2015)

290
Frydenlund,
Ståle,
Elbil.no,
“2
av
10
Biler
I
Første
Halvår
var
Elbiler”,
posted
s
July
2015.

Available
at:

291
Energy
and
the
Environment
Committee,
“Recommendation
of
the
Energy
and
Environment

Committee:
Climate
Settlement,
Innst.
390
S
(2011-‐2012)”,
(Oslo,
2012).

292
“Environmental
Economic
Instruments,
2013”,
Statistics
Norway,
accessed
2
September
2015.

Available
at:
http://www.ssb.no/en/natur-‐og-‐miljo/statistikker/miljovirk

57

obstructing
trade
are
also
issues,
making
a
policy
like
this
only
possible
as
a
joint

European
initiative.
A
one-‐time
purchase
tax
can
have
a
higher
impact
on
choices
than
a

higher
fuel
tax
in
the
future,
and
is
more
likely
to
change
people’s
behavior.294
In
any
case,

GOV5
does
not
think
the
majority
of
the
public
considers
the
cost
for
every
trip
they

make.295

In
the
Climate
Settlement
it
was
agreed
that
additional
growth
in
transport
should
be

absorbed
by
public
transport,
cycling
and
walking.296
Some
improvements
in
public

transport
have
been
observed,
although
progress
is
lacking,
especially
outside
major
cities

(GOV5,
RES2).297
Cyclists
and
pedestrians
need
to
be
better
accommodated
for
in
the

transport
system.
To
improve
cycling
routes,
it
needs
to
be
prioritized
(GOV4).
Bicycle

policies
have
been
poorly
organized
in
Norway
compared
to
other
countries
(RES2),

although
GOV3
thinks
that
the
policies
are
becoming
more
consistent.
Increased

communication
between
the
state,
regions
and
councils
has
been
observed,
and
priorities

are
changing
(GOV4).

For
many
years
there
have
been
discussions
regarding
the
desperate
need
for
a
new

underground
tunnel
in
Oslo,
but
that
has
not
materialized.
Large
investments
have
been

lacking,
and
the
primary
focus
has
been
on
promoting
the
sales
of
environmentally

friendly
vehicles
(RES2).
Attention
seems
to
have
been
given
to
those
areas
within

passenger
transport
that
are
easy
to
regulate
in
the
sense
that
economic
incentives
can
be

used
to
drive
people
towards
choosing
greener
options.
Those
areas
that
require
larger

investments
and
restrictive
measures
on
the
public
have
been
neglected.

Areas
outside
passenger
transport
have
seen
the
largest
increase
in
emissions.
Many

investments
have
been
made
to
transfer
freight
and
passenger
transport
from
roads
to

rails
to
reduce
emissions;
however
there
have
been
few
transitions
as
of
yet
(RES2).298

The
EU
has
implemented
various
programs
to
reduce
emissions
from
freight;
such
as
the

Marco
Polo
program
that
funds
sustainable
freight
transport.299,300
However,
experience

shows
that
it
is
complicated
and
difficult
to
achieve
emissions
reductions
due
to
the

technical
challenges
(INP1).
Limited
road
capacity,
lack
of
transportation
planning,
and

293
Alfsen,
K.H.;
Bjørnæs,
C.
and
Reed,
E.U.,
“Vurderinger
av
Norsk
Klimapolitikk
–
En
Syntese
av
Fire

Internasjonale
Rapporter”,
research
report
prepared
for
CICERO
(Report
2011:02,
Oslo,
2012)

294
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

295
Klimakur
2020,
“Tiltak
of
Virkemidler
for
å
nå
Norske
Klimamål
mot
2020”,
(TA2590/2010)

296
Energy
and
the
Environment
Committee,
“Recommendation
of
the
Energy
and
Environment

Committee:
Climate
Settlement,
Innst.
390
S
(2011-‐2012)”,
(Oslo,
2012).

297
Ottervik,
Rita,
Energi
og
Klima,
“Handling
erViktigere
enn
Ord”,
posted
23
August
2015,

Available
at:
http://energiogklima.no/kommentar/handling-‐er-‐viktigere-‐enn-‐
ord/?utm_source=nyhetsbrev

298
Transport
Agencies,
“Utfordringer
for
Framtidens
Transportsystem
–
Nasjonal
Transportplan

2018-‐2027”,
Main
Report
from
Analysis
and
Strategy
phase.

299
“Marco
Polo
–
New
Ways
to
a
Green
Horizon”,
European
Commission,
accessed
2
September
201.

Available
at:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/marcopolo/

300
Klimakur
2020,
“Tiltak
of
Virkemidler
for
å
nå
Norske
Klimamål
mot
2020”,
(TA2590/2010)

58

increased
trade
are
all
challenges
that
face
the
freight
sector.301
Flaws
in
the
project
design

have
lead
to
an
underachievement
of
goals
(GOV5).302

Large
parts
of
the
freight
sector
were
transferring
to
biofuels
in
2009
after
a
new
policy

was
implemented.303
When
a
loss
in
the
state
budget
became
apparent,
a
tax
was

introduced
on
biofuels,
which
stopped
businesses
from
using
renewable
fuels,
and

emissions
increased.304
This
could
have
contributed
to
a
positive
impact
on
emissions.

Many
businesses
were
already
implementing
the
new
policy
and
this
unpredictability

created
tension
between
the
businesses
and
policy-‐makers
(INP1).
This
story
illustrates

one
of
Norway’s
biggest
challenges
–
that
climate
should
infiltrate
all
policy
areas

(INP2).305
Climate
has
not
been
treated
as
an
overarching
concept,
leading
to
the

uncoordinated
development
observed
today
(INP2).

Some
participants
in
this
study
had
more
knowledge
on
freight
than
others,
although
most

believed
that
attention
has
been
mainly
placed
elsewhere.
Many
investments
are
made
in

the
freight
sector
every
year
but
as
attention
is
focused
on
other
areas,
improvements
are

made
without
careful
planning,
and
become
segregated
and
unhelpful.
Economic

incentives
have
made
investments
in
green
energy
attractive
to
industrial
players,

however
unless
infrastructure,
truck
capacity,
efficient
cargo-‐handling
terminals
and

reliability
are
developed,
the
improvements
will
be
limited.306
Behavioral-‐,
cultural-‐
and

policy
changes
are
required
to
cut
emissions
yet
there
appears
to
have
been
little

awareness
of
this.307

Norway
has
had
a
very
ambitious
climate
policy,
however
there
is
a
difference
between

what
is
written
on
paper,
and
what
is
implemented
in
practice.
There
has
been
a
lot
of

focus
on
EVs
and
Norway
is
a
pioneer
in
this
market.
When
studying
the
transport
sector

as
a
whole,
most
other
avenues
have
fallen
in
the
shadow
of
the
EV
initiative.
Most

Norwegians
can
afford
higher
fuel
prices
or
toll
road
fees.
As
fuel
prices
vary,
consumers

can
fill
their
car
on
the
day
where
prices
are
the
lowest
and
think
they
got
a
good
deal

regardless
of
high
fuel
prices
in
general.
The
focus
has
been
in
the
wrong
direction,
or

lacking
in
depth
and
understanding,
for
many
years,
yet
most
of
the
study
participants
are

optimistic
about
the
future
and
believe
there
are
some
positive
changes
happening
now.

301
Centre
for
Environmental
Cooperation,
“Destination
Sustainability
–
Reducing
Greenhouse
Gas

Emissions
from
Freight
Transportation
in
in
North
America”,
(Montreal,
2011)

302
Europe
Economics,
“Evaluation
of
the
Marco
Polo
Programme
2003-‐2010
–
Final
Report”,

(London,
2011)

303
“Håper
Regjerningen
har
Tabbet
seg
ut”,
TU,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.tu.no/industri/2009/10/14/haper-‐regjeringen-‐har-‐tabbet-‐seg-‐ut

304
Ibid.

305
“Jonas
Gahr
Støre
om
Energi
og
Klima”,
Nyemeninger,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://nyemeninger.no/alle_meninger/cat1003/subcat1012/thread305342/

306
Solbu,
Gisle,
“God
Klimapolitikk
eller
Dyr
Fornybar
Moro?
–
Fortellinger
om
Norsk-‐Svenske

Elsertifikater
og
Vindmøller
på
Fosen/Snillfjord

307
Geels,
Frank,
“Systems
Innovations
and
Transitions
to
Sustainability:
Challenges
for
Innovation

Theory”
(Eindhoven
University
of
Technology,
2006)

59

5.2.1.2
Research
and
its
Influence
on
Policy-‐Makers

Research
has
been
important
for
the
development
and
implementation
of
policies
and

ways
to
reduce
emissions.
There
are
different
opinions
as
to
what
responsibility

researchers
have
to
present
their
findings,
and
equally
how
policy-‐makers
take
research

into
account.
Policy-‐makers
have
a
lot
of
knowledge,
but
RES1
does
not
think
they
take

advantage
of
it.
RES2
agrees
and
states
that
research
in
Norway
is
used
more
to
justify
the

actions
of
policy-‐makers
rather
than
solving
the
problem
at
hand.
One
of
the
most
difficult

challenges
is
making
politicians
aware
of
the
extensive
knowledge
researchers
have

(RES1).

GOV1
states
that
researchers
write
reports
and
try
to
convey
information
through

different
avenues,
however
he
argues
that
they
cannot
break
down
the
politicians’
doors

and
tell
them
what
to
do
either.
Responsibility
lies
partly
with
the
policy-‐makers
(GOV1).

However
GOV4
says
there
is
room
for
improvement
in
the
dissemination
of
research,
and

ways
to
reach
the
policy-‐makers
(GOV4).
The
research
organization
SINTEF
is
well

connected
with
many
departments,
however
it
is
still
difficult
for
them
to
reach
the
top

(RES1).

There
are
large
variations
between
policy-‐makers
and
their
knowledge,
depending
on

their
political
standpoint
and
priorities
(GOV4).
The
policy
makers
are
keen
to
defend

their
political
interests,
and
their
local
voters’
interests
(GOV1).
Global
challenges
often

disappear
at
local
levels
where
priorities
are
more
confined
(GOV1).

There
is
little
research
on
passenger
vehicle
technology
in
Norway.
Those
projects
that
do

exist
revolve
around
how
to
utilize
existing
infrastructure
and
vehicles
in
a
better
way
to

make
the
transport
system
more
efficient,
and
are
not
focused
on
reducing
emissions

(RES1).
Renewable
technology
for
trucks
is
being
developed,
and
a
few
electric
busses
are

being
tested
on
regular
services
today. 308 309
The
first
electric
ferry
is
in
use
in

Sognefjorden.310
In
many
ways,
technology
is
important
because
if
a
policy
can
be

implemented
without
challenging
the
interests
of
existing
businesses,
changes
can
happen

easier.311

The
Greater
Oslo
area
has
major
challenges
concerning
capacity
on
the
railway
network.

Development
of
the
Oslo
Tunnel
has
been
down-‐prioritized
year
after
year
even
though

this
project
was
central
and
the
premise
for
the
other
projects’
success
(GOV1).
Many

politicians
did
not
understand
this,
and
the
Oslo
tunnel
has
therefore
not
been
prioritized.

308
“Trender
og
Drivkrefter
Bak
The
Environment
Agency,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:

309
“Norges
Første
Batteridrevne
Elbuss”,
NRK,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.nrk.no/rogaland/norges-‐forste-‐elbuss-‐i-‐rutetrafikk-‐1.12297207

310
“El-‐Ferjer
vil
Redusere
Utslepp
Tilsvarande
150
000
Biler
I
Året”,
NRK,
accessed
2
September.

Available
at:
http://www.nrk.no/mr/el-‐ferjer-‐vil-‐redusere-‐utslepp-‐tilsvarande-‐150-‐000-‐bilar-‐
1.12499580

311
Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

60

GOV1
thinks
Norwegian
politics
are
seldom
based
on
knowledge.
In
practice
there
is

demand
for
more
targeted
research
of
the
effects
of
various
measures,
however
on
the

other
hand,
GOV4
also
feels
that
emission
reduction
measures
are
known
and
that
it
is
too

easy
to
blame
a
lack
of
information.

There
is
uncertainty
regarding
what
approach
Norway
should
take
in
the
future
and

where
to
invest.
Should
all
transport
areas
be
improved
or
should
there
be
emphasis
on

certain
areas
where
technology
improvements
have
come
the
furthest?
Reflections
from

the
literature
review
indicated
a
lack
of
knowledge
and
insight
on
how
to
achieve
the
set

targets,
however
some
non-‐researchers
who
contributed
to
this
study
believe
it
is
not
the

politician’s
fault,
but
indicate
that
research
has
a
lack
of
focus.

5.2.1.3
Demand
and
Consumption

Technology
improvements
have
been
at
the
forefront
of
climate
policy,
primarily
so

Norway’s
population
can
maintain
their
travel
habits.
There
appears
to
be
little
focus
on

reducing
transport
demand
and
consumption,
and
all
participants
in
this
study
agree
it
is

hopeless.
Mobility
is
seen
as
a
necessity
in
Norway,
and
by
restricting
one’s
mobility;
one

is
essentially
restricting
their
freedom
(RES1).
Changing
people
and
businesses’
behavior

is
politically
difficult;
as
the
majority
will
choose
the
short
cut
if
it
saves
them
a
few

minutes
(RES1).
Participants
in
this
study
agree
that
policy-‐makers
need
to
focus
on

implementing
measures
that
don’t
cause
pain
(GOV1,
GOV2,
RES2).

Increased
prosperity
and
economic
growth
–
features
the
Storting
has
always
emphasized

–
are
often
linked
to
increased
demand
of
passenger
transport
and
freight
(GOV5).312

Politicians
have
largely
focused
on
limiting
demand
by
building
more
compact
cities
and

improving
public
transport.313
By
ensuring
that
future
demand
following
population

growth
is
absorbed
by
public
transportation,
walking
and
cycling,
there
is
no
need
to
place

unpopular
restrictions
on
the
public.
However,
this
approach
will
not
contribute
to

reducing
current
emissions.
Reducing
freight
demand
has
not
been
considered
at
all.

5.2.1.4
Infrastructure,
City
Planning
and
Holistic
Thinking

As
discovered
in
the
literature
review,
the
debates
on
infrastructure
and
city
planning
are

too
narrow
and
have
not
considered
climate
as
an
overarching
feature.
Published

strategies
have
largely
considered
the
establishment
of
infrastructure
without
considering

environmental
implications.
If
entrepreneur
companies
do
not
coordinate
enough
when

developing
new
neighborhoods,
there
may
be
limited
access
to
public
transport.
RES2

thinks
too
much
power
is
given
to
large,
private
businesses.
A
fragmentation
has
been

observed
in
the
transport
sector
where
a
lot
of
projects
coordinate
individual
areas

without
considering
the
whole
system.
Some
projects
have
no
logical
connections
with
the

312
Transport
Agencies,
“Utfordringer
for
Framtidens
Transportsystem
–
Nasjonal
Transportplan

2018-‐2027”,
Main
Report
from
Analysis
and
Strategy
phase.

313
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Meld.
St.
21
(2011-‐2012)
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy

(Norwegian
Government,
2012)

61

transport
sector
as
a
whole
(GOV1).
Improvements
in
one
area
could
fail
to
reduce

emissions
elsewhere,
or
even
increase
them
(RES2).
Policy-‐makers
have
shown
little

interest
in
holistic
city
planning,
but
seem
more
concerned
with
making
quick
decisions

that
will
benefit
the
public
in
the
short-‐term
(RES2).

Holistic
city
planning
could
reduce
transport
demand
for
passenger
transport
by
placing

schools,
shops,
services
and
jobs
in
key
central
areas.314
There
has
been
little
focus
on

ensuring
that
services
are
in
close
proximity
to
households
to
limit
transport
demand

(INP2).
There
should
be
more
focus
on
spatial
planning
and
more
coordinated
land
and

transport
policies.
Infrastructure
developments
have
been
lacking
for
freight,
and

suppressed
from
many
plans.
There
is
also
increased
concern
for
air
quality
in
urban

areas,
as
the
majority
of
goods
are
transported
by
road
within
cities.
Passenger
kilometers

are
determined
by
why
the
driver
makes
the
journey
from
A
to
B.
If
a
child
is
placed
in

daycare
on
the
other
side
of
town,
it
will
cause
major
changes
to
a
family’s
transport

needs.
However,
Norwegians
are
very
solution-‐oriented
and
holistic
city
planning
is

improving.
There
is
more
emphasis
on
this
in
recent
reports.315
However
there
is
a
long

way
to
go
before
holistic
city
planning
encompasses
all
decisions
made
in
practice,
in

regard
to
limiting
transport
demand
(RES2,
RES1).

5.2.2
Has
the
Governing
System
Performed
Well
Enough?

One
can
always
question
whether
the
political
system
has
performed
at
a
high
enough

standard,
or
whether
its
actions
have
been
too
weak.
Policy-‐making
has
become
complex

because
many
problems
are
at
the
root
of
societal
development
processes,
where
many

actors
are
involved
and
there
are
no
clear
solutions.316
The
participants
agree
that
the

most
successful
measures
are
the
positive,
non-‐restrictive
ones.
It
is
easier
to
reward

green
behavior
than
to
penalize
‘bad’
behavior.
Public
approval
is
generally
high
for

implemented
measures
that
reward
green
behavior
(GOV2).
Some
participants
think

policy-‐makers
could
have
done
more
to
reduce
emissions,
but
they
thought
it
was
difficult

to
suggest
further
measures
that
did
not
include
instigating
penalties
or
restrictive

measures
on
the
public.
These
measures
would
have
brought
opposition
from
the
public.

The
implementation
of
small,
inexpensive
measures
has
been
prioritized,
even
if
they
may

not
reduce
emissions
at
the
levels
needed.

Higher
taxes
and
restrictive
measures
are
needed
to
regulate
passenger
transport,

however
many
of
these
measures
are
so
restrictive
that
no
one
will
ever
implement
them

(GOV2,
INP1).
The
current
debate
on
whether
to
remove
the
EV
incentives
proves
that
the

general
public
has
a
lot
of
power
and
that
politicians
do
not
participate
in
the
decision-‐
making
process
alone.
Politicians
are
re-‐elected
every
4
years.
If
they
make
unpopular

decisions,
they
will
not
get
re-‐elected.
The
public
has
power
to
influence
the
policy-‐makers

314
Klimakur
2020,
“Tiltak
of
Virkemidler
for
å
nå
Norske
Klimamål
mot
2020”,
(TA2590/2010)

315
The
Ministry
of
Transport,
“Meld.
St.
25
(2014-‐2015)
Reformations
of
the
Road
Sector”,
(Oslo,

2015),
and
Transport
Agencies,
“Utfordringer
for
Framtidens
Transportsystem
–
Nasjonal

Transportplan
2018-‐2027”,
Main
Report
from
Analysis
and
Strategy
phase.

316
Loorbach,
Derk.
"Transition
management
for
sustainable
development:
a
prescriptive,

complexity-‐based
governance
framework."
Governance
23,
no.
1
(2010):
161-‐183.

62

to
make
decisions
that
are
not
necessarily
the
best
ones.
In
terms
of
EV
incentives,
here
is

a
measure
that
highly
impacts
the
sales
of
EVs.
Yet
because
it
is
unpopular
with
much
of

the
public,
the
politicians
will
re-‐evaluate
it.
The
politician’s
most
important
role
is
to
be
a

leader
and
to
say
what
is
necessary,
not
only
what
people
want
to
hear.
Politicians
should

be
thinking
about
society,
but
instead
they
are
thinking
about
themselves
and
society.
It
is

easy
to
blame
the
politicians,
however
the
public,
unions
and
industry
associations
often

pressurize
them
to
make
these
decisions
(INP2).

INP1
has
faith
that
politicians
can
implement
policies
and
measures
even
if
opposition

arises.
Policy-‐makers
have
learned
what
works
well
(vehicle
purchase
tax),
and
put
their

efforts
there
(RES2).
There
has
been
a
lack
of
willpower
to
impose
tough
regulations
on

the
public
that
could
have
large
emissions
reduction
potential.
Small,
positive
measures

(such
as
EV
incentives)
are
easy
to
implement
if
the
technology
is
in
place.
The
larger,

expensive,
long-‐term
projects
such
as
railway
developments
require
high-‐impact

decisions
and
high,
continuous
investments
(GOV5).

Many
political
goals
and
concepts
that
were
important
5-‐10
years
ago
are
still
important

today.
The
most
obvious
example
is
the
long-‐standing
goal
of
transferring
freight
from

roads
to
rails
and
ships.317
This
has
been
a
goal
for
over
20
years,
yet
there
are
still

increasing
amounts
of
goods
transported
by
road.
The
policy-‐makers
sometimes
declare
a

lot
of
goals,
but
have
no
idea
what
instruments
and
measures
can
be
used
to
achieve
them

(GOV1).
The
rail
network
has
reached
its
full
capacity
in
many
areas
and
no
more

transitions
can
happen
before
capacity
is
increased.
Major
investments
and
developments

are
needed,
yet
the
problem
is
framed
as
such
a
simple
goal
to
achieve.
The
policy-‐makers

have
failed
to
properly
review
ways
in
which
to
achieve
this
goal
in
addition
to
existing

economic
and
technical
difficulties
that
have
prevented
this
transition.
There
are
attempts

at
long-‐term,
systematic
thinking,
but
it
falls
short
(GOV3).
GOV1
says:
“The
biggest

weakness
in
Norwegian
climate
politics
is
that
the
politicians
are
very
good
at
establishing

goals,
but
they
have
no
idea
what
instruments
are
needed
to
achieve
them”.

There
is
a
knowledge
gap
between
the
state,
counties,
and
municipalities
where
more

coordination
between
various
levels
of
government
is
required.
A
lack
of
communication

was
illustrated
when
the
Storting
stated
ferries
should
adopt
low-‐emissions
technology.

However
local
authorities
subsequently
gave
contracts
to
ferries
using
‘dirty’
technology,

and
locking
in
this
technology
for
10-‐15
years
(INP2).
If
there
were
more
coordination
on

a
national
basis,
then
all
levels
of
government
would
not
need
competence
in
all
areas.318

This
transition
process
has
become
more
complex
because
of
the
many
actors
involved.
It

is
clear
that
a
low-‐carbon
economy
will
be
difficult
to
achieve
if
the
state,
counties,
and

municipalities
are
not
working
together
(GOV4,
GOV3).

Past
reports
have
showed
concern
for
how
Norway
will
reach
its
climate
targets.
However

it
is
important
to
recognize
the
difficulty
in
implementing
unpopular
measures
and
how

317
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

318
“Jonas
Gahr
Støre
om
Energi
og
Klima”,
Nyemeninger,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:


63

opposition
from
the
public
leads
policy-‐makers
to
restricted
elbowroom.
Instead
they

have
chosen
to
keep
the
public
happy.319
The
politicians
seem
to
lack
the
will
power
to
try

out
new
measures
that
could
potentially
greatly
reduce
emissions.
Politicians
seem
afraid

to
implement
policies
because
they
are
unpopular
in
the
beginning.
Experience
shows,

however,
that
people
can
adapt
and
learn
to
accept
the
change
(RES2).

The
general
consensus
is
that
emissions
reduction
policies
have
not
infiltrated
all
sectors,

and
that
climate
has
not
been
a
top
priority,
even
though
it
was
meant
to
be.320
If
there
are

two
alternative
policies,
the
politicians
will
choose
the
fastest,
simplest
and
least

expensive
option.
In
fairness,
the
long-‐term
development
of
environmental
issues
is
often

uncertain
and
complex. 321
Most
problems
are
overarching,
involve
many
levels
of

government,
and
cannot
be
solved
with
simple,
short-‐term
solutions.322
These
problems

are
unstructured,
persistent,
and
rooted
in
various
societal
domains.323
The
overarching

factors
are
hardly
considered,
nor
are
the
potential
consequences.
By
implementing
a

separate
climate
statute,
have
the
authorities
acknowledged
that
they
have
been
too

lenient,
and
need
binding
commitments
in
order
to
implement
unpopular
measures?

5.3
FUTURE
EMISSION
REDUCTIONS
–
CAN
NORWAY
LEAN
BACK
AND
RELAX?

5.3.1
Is
it
Easier
to
Implement
Policies
Today
than
it
was
5-‐10
Years
Ago?

The
implementation
of
low-‐emission
zones
in
city
centers
was
discussed
3-‐4
years
ago,

which
would
limit
the
access
of
certain
vehicles.324

Zones
like
these
were
appearing
all

over
Europe,
contributing
to
positive
changes
to
both
emissions
and
air
quality.325
The

Norwegian
politicians
were
against
this
measure
initially,
and
shelved
the
project
(RES1).

This
policy
is
now
on
the
table
again
today.
Another
example
is
the
drafting
of
a
climate

statute,
which
has
been
discussed
for
years,
but
the
ball
has
only
started
rolling

recently.326
“The
process
is
definitely
maturing
because
no
more
than
5
years
ago,
it
was

impossible
to
talk
about
low-‐emission
zones
without
being
laughed
at”
(INP1).

319
Sandberg,
Tor,
“Gir
Full
Gass
Uten
Klimapeiling”,
Dagsavisen,
posted
27
March
2015,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:

320
“Jonas
Gahr
Støre
om
Energi
og
Klima”,
Nyemeninger,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:


321
Voss,
J.P
and
Kemp,
R.,
“Reflexive
Governance
for
Sustainable
Development
–
Incorporating

Feedback
in
Social
Problem
Solving”,
research
report
prepared
for
ESEE
Conference
(Lisbon,
2005)

322
Loorbach,
Derk.
"Transition
management
for
sustainable
development:
a
prescriptive,

complexity-‐based
governance
framework."
Governance
23,
no.
1
(2010):
161-‐183.

323
Ibid.

324
Aas,
H.;
Hagman,
R.;
Olsen,
S.J.;
Andersen,
J.
and
Amundsen,
A.H.,
“Low
Emission
Zones.
Measures

to
decrease
emissions
of
NO2”,
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1216,
Oslo,
2012)

325
Tretvik,
Terje,
Marianne
Elvsaas
Nordtømme,
Kristin
Ystmark
Bjerkan,
and
An-‐Magritt

Kummeneje.
"Can
low
emission
zones
be
managed
more
dynamically
and
effectively?."
Research
in

Transportation
Business
&
Management
12
(2014):
3-‐10.

326
Lindberg,
G
and
Fridstrøm,
L.,
Høringsutalelse
om
ny
klimalov,
Oslo,
29
January
2015.
Available

at:
https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/mmarkiv/Aktuelt/klimalov-‐tøi%20%282%29.pdf

64

Participants
agreed
that
climate
awareness
is
generally
higher,
and
although
there
was
a

lot
of
focus
on
climate
10
years
ago
(GOV3),
there
is
generally
a
better
understanding

today
(GOV4).
Voters
now
require
political
parties
to
deliver
climate
targets
and
policies,

more
so
than
in
the
previous
election
(INP1).
The
Green
Party
obtained
their
first
seat
in

the
Storting
during
the
last
election
in
2013
(INP2).327

Transition
management
pursues
transformation
of
society
and
relies
on
integrating
over-‐
arching
knowledge
with
long-‐term
systematic
effects
and
strategy
development.328
The

public’s
knowledge
and
understanding
of
climate
issues
has
gone
up
considerably,

however
there
is
still
a
large
spectrum
of
opinions
and
contentious
issues
that
make
it

difficult
to
create
momentum
around
change
(GOV3).
“There
may
be
more
awareness,

nonetheless
terrible
decisions
with
a
lifetime
of
several
decades
are
made
every
day”
(GOV3).

GOV1
believes
the
issue
is
more
prominent,
but
that
Norway
still
has
a
way
to
go.
RES2

thinks
that
a
change
in
awareness
predominantly
happens
as
a
result
of
external
events
in

society.
It
is
difficult
to
talk
about
climate
challenges
when
unemployment
is
high,
oil

prices
are
low,
or
profitability
is
low.

5.3.2
Will
a
Bottom-‐Up
Approach
Play
a
Large
Role
in
the
Future?

There
is
a
growing
trend
among
major
Norwegian
businesses
such
as
‘Posten’
(the
Royal

Mail)
and
‘TINE’
(Norway’s
largest
dairy
product
cooperative)
of
cutting
emissions
on

their
own
(GOV2).329
Some
participants
believe
innovations
from
a
bottom-‐up
approach

are
the
only
way
to
reduce
emissions,
while
others
are
more
skeptical
to
businesses’

motives.
By
enabling
a
shift
from
focusing
primarily
on
top-‐down
approaches,

to
‘governance’
that
requires
many
actors,
local
knowledge
can
help
find
the
most
effective

and
desirable
solution
to
cutting
emissions.330

There
has
been
a
shift
from
centralized
government-‐based
decision
making
towards

market-‐based
decisions.331
Market
forces
are
increasingly
bringing
on
societal
change.332

The
bigger
players
are
transforming
their
companies
because
their
economy
doesn’t

require
them
to
make
a
profit
early
on
(RES1).
Many
businesses
want
to
take
corporate

social
responsibility,
however
most
decisions
are
made
for
financial
reasons
(GOV2)

(RES1).
Businesses
cannot
be
expected
to
bear
the
cost
of
conducting
a
proactive
climate

policy
alone,
if
it
means
they
loose
competitiveness
(GOV1).
They
therefore
need
the
same

regulations
forced
upon
everyone.
Businesses
are
putting
increasingly
more
pressure
on

327
“Stortingsvalget”,
Store
Norske
Leksikon,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

https://snl.no/Stortingsvalget_2013

328
Voss,
Jan-‐Peter,
and
Dierk
Bauknecht,
eds.
Reflexive
governance
for
sustainable
development.

Edward
Elgar
Publishing,
2006.

329
NTB,
“Posten
Reduserte
CO2-‐Utslippene
med
30
Prosent”,
TU,
posted
6
April
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.tu.no/industri/2015/04/06/posten-‐reduserte-‐co2-‐utslippene-‐med-‐30-‐prosent

330
Huh,
Taewook.
"Towards
Reflexive
Governance
for
Sustainable
Development."
(2010)

331
Loorbach,
Derk.
"Transition
management
for
sustainable
development:
a
prescriptive,

complexity-‐based
governance
framework."
Governance
23,
no.
1
(2010):
161-‐183.

332
Ibid.

65

the
government
to
enforce
changes
and
to
clarify
policy
requirements,
as
many
are

expecting
regulations
from
the
EU
in
the
near
future
(GOV3,
RES1).

Einar
Wilhelmsen,
Senior
Advisor
for
ENERGIX,
a
program
that
provides
funding
for

energy
research
in
Norway,
claims
that
investment
from
the
public
is
lacking.
In
a
blog

post
he
discusses
the
situations
in
Germany
and
Denmark
where
the
public
owns
most

wind
farms
and
solar
panels.333
Climate
policies
are
more
visible
because
the
public
can

invest
in
major
parts
of
it.
A
bottom-‐up
approach
has
been
important
for
delivering

sustainable
development
and
including
people
and
businesses
within
wider
social
and

economic
systems.334
Political
objectives
can
be
achieved
without
the
implementation
of
a

top-‐down
approach.335

GOV3
has
the
impression
that
the
largest
changes
happen
when
a
bottom-‐up
approach

meets
a
top-‐down.
The
power
of
the
Norwegian
central
government
has
decreased.336
The

driving
force
amongst
innovative
people
and
businesses
will
be
important
for
finding

solutions
to
the
climate
challenge
(INP1).
Businesses
are
likely
to
be
more
prominent
in

the
future,
however
they
are
dependent
on
assistance
from
the
government.
It
is
the

politicians’
responsibility
to
create
a
framework
where
everyone
is
required
to
take

similar
action
and
to
limit
the
amount
of
‘freeloaders’
(GOV1).

5.3.3
How
should
Norway
Move
Forward?

Many
published
reports
have
discussed
Norway’s
options
of
reducing
emissions,
but
there

has
been
little
emphasis
on
how
to
achieve
this.
There
are
many
directions
Norway
could

go.
Should
more
pressure
be
applied
to
limit
demand?
Or
perhaps
the
government
should

be
pressured
to
implement
more
restrictions?
Does
Norway
want
to
be
a
leader
in

emissions
reductions,
or
a
follower?
Norway
needs
to
ask
itself
what
its
goals
are
and
then

pursue
a
transformation
of
society.

Some
are
afraid
the
EV
has
become
a
pillow
for
policy-‐makers
(INP1)(GOV5).
“There
are

50,000
EVs
on
the
road
and
some
people
give
themselves
a
pat
on
the
back”
(INP1).
If
the

vehicle
fleet
is
going
to
be
environmentally
friendly
by
2030,
Norway
needs
to
reach
a

point
in
the
next
5
years
where
it
only
sells
low-‐emission
vehicles
(INP1).
The
EV
market

is
entirely
dependent
on
tax
incentives
to
make
it
competitive.
GOV1
does
not
think
EVs

will
ever
constitute
100
per
cent
of
the
vehicle
fleet,
not
even
50.
They
cannot
cover

everyone’s
needs
until
a
technological
breakthrough
increases
their
reach.
INP1
doesn’t

seem
to
acknowledge
these
difficulties
or
understand
why
EVs
do
not
appeal
to
everyone.

333
Wilhelmsen,
Einar,
“Om
Hvorfor
Svensker,
Dansker
og
Tyskere
Klarer
å
Kutte
Egne
CO2-‐Utslipp”,

Energi
og
Klima,
posted
20
April
2015.
Available
at:
http://energiogklima.no/blogg/einar-‐
wilhelmsen/om-‐hvorfor-‐svensker-‐dansker-‐og-‐tyskere-‐klarer-‐aa-‐kutte-‐egne-‐co2-‐utslipp/

334
Smith,
Adrian,
Andy
Stirling,
and
Frans
Berkhout.
"The
governance
of
sustainable
socio-‐technical

transitions."
Research
policy
34,
no.
10
(2005):
1491-‐1510.

335
Sveen,
M.H.,
“Fra
Miljø
til
Klima:
Om
Utviklingen
av
en
Klimapolicy
I
Statsbygg”
(master’s
thesis,

Hedmark
University
College,
2013)

336
Loorbach,
Derk.
"Transition
management
for
sustainable
development:
a
prescriptive,

complexity-‐based
governance
framework."
Governance
23,
no.
1
(2010):
161-‐183.

66

He
thinks
the
goal
should
be
for
everyone
to
own
an
EV,
and
if
that
happens
emissions

targets
will
be
achieved
automatically.
His
knowledge
of
all
the
emissions
reductions

issues
seems
incomplete.

If
the
passenger
transport
fleet
were
completely
electrified,
it
would
not
claim
more
than
6

per
cent
of
Norway’s
total
hydroelectric
power
production.337
This
is
certainly
an
incentive

to
continue
researching
new
technologies.
Investments
are
clearly
needed,
but
having
a

technology
does
not
mean
that
it
will
be
used
or
be
successful
in
the
market
(RES2).
The

whole
system
needs
to
be
readjusted
and
aligned,
and
that
does
not
happen
over
night

(RES2).
As
new
technologies
are
developed,
the
system
often
co-‐evolves
with
it.338
Norway

can
assist
this
progression
by
investing
in
new
technologies,
infrastructure
(charging

points
in
convenient
places)
and
services
(mechanics
that
know
how
to
fix
electric

motors)(GOV3).339

The
removal
of
EV
incentives
has
been
a
continuous
debate
recently.
Access
to
the
bus

lanes
is
a
free
measure
that
has
previously
not
cost
the
government
anything.
When
it

takes
buses
10
minutes
longer
to
reach
their
destination,
due
to
increased
traffic
in
the

bus
lane
however,
there
is
a
problem.
The
EV
incentives
were
implemented
to
help
them

gain
competitiveness
and
were
never
meant
to
last
forever
(GOV3).
Some
participants

said
they
have
had
the
impact
they
were
designed
to
have.
Also
if
the
benefits
are
too

attractive,
EVs
will
replace
public
transport,
and
traffic
congestion
in
urban
areas
will

continue
to
be
a
problem
(GOV5).
The
policy
makers
need
to
find
a
balance
between

making
the
public
happy,
maintaining
government
income,
and
reducing
emissions.
When

the
EV
becomes
more
competitive
with
fossil
fueled
vehicles
in
the
future
it
will
be
less

important
to
have
these
benefits,
however
they
should
not
be
revoked
too
soon
or
it
could

strangle
the
market
(GOV1).

If
the
incentives
are
removed,
there
is
no
guarantee
that
EVs
will
continue
to
sell
at

similarly
high
rates.
ZERO
thinks
the
road
toll
should
be
applied
on
EVs,
but
is
suggesting

they
never
pay
more
than
30
per
cent
of
the
rate
for
a
fossil
fueled
car.340
This
would
limit

the
incentive,
but
not
get
rid
of
it
completely.
The
vehicle
purchase
tax
is
one
of
the
most

important
EV
measures,
and
this
tax
curve
needs
to
be
even
steeper
to
punish
cars
with

high
emissions
(GOV3).
The
taxation
system
needs
to
ensure
that
vehicles
with
zero-‐
emissions
technology
continue
to
be
economically
rationale
(INP1).
There
is
wide

agreement
in
the
Storting
to
continue
with
policies
that
encourage
environmentally

friendly
vehicles
(GOV4).

Results
from
the
literature
review
revealed
there
is
no
clear
path
between
existing

measures
and
future
targets.
INP2
thinks
Norway
needs
to
set
targets
of
where
it
wants
to

be
in
2030
or
2040,
and
transport
policies
need
to
be
adjusted
based
on
these
goals.
More

337
Fridstrøm,
Lasse
and
Alfsen,
Knut
H.,
Norway’s
Path
to
Sustainable
Transport,
research
report

prepared
for
Institute
for
Transport
Economics
(1321,2014)

338
Smith,
Adrian,
Andy
Stirling,
and
Frans
Berkhout.
"The
governance
of
sustainable
socio-‐technical

transitions."
Research
policy
34,
no.
10
(2005):
1491-‐1510.

339
The
Environment
Agency,
for
(M-‐229/2014)

340
Holm,
Marius,
“Elbiler
bør
alltid
være
Billigst”,
Energi
og
Klima,
posted
1
July
2015,
available
at:


67

consistency
is
required
between
all
sectors
and
all
decisions
need
to
be
mainstreamed.

Reflexive
governance
enables
actors
to
tackle
difficult
problems
in
collaboration
by

involving
multi-‐level
actors
and
stakeholders.
Environmental
considerations
need
to
be

reflected
in
all
the
small
decisions
too.
The
authorities
need
to
take
advantage
of
their
role,

as
a
large
consumer
themselves,
by
setting
an
example.341
If
the
state
gives
incentives
to

purchase
EVs,
then
the
councils
should
not
go
out
and
buy
100
fossil-‐fueled
cars
for
its

‘home
care
service’.

The
public
will
often
oppose
new,
unfamiliar
measures,
however
after
their

implementation,
people
will
often
adapt
and
accept
the
change.
Testing
new
measures
is

not
a
widely
used
approach
in
Norway
(GOV2).
If
opposition
continues,
then
the
measure

can
always
be
dropped
(GOV2).
There
needs
to
be
a
goal
of
aiming
for
long-‐term

transformation
that
will
ultimately
benefit
society.342
The
proposal
of
implementing
low-‐
emission
zones
has
provoked
a
lot
of
reactions
amongst
industries
and
the
public.
These

zones
will
restrict
access
to
certain
heavily
polluting
vehicles,
and
the
question
is
which

vehicles
(GOV2)?
Should
the
government
prioritize
between
different
groups
–
industry,

public
transport
and
private
drivers?
When
certain
groups
are
prioritized,
people
get

upset,
making
climate
policy
implementation
difficult
(RES1).
If
this
approach
was
tested

for
a
period
of
time,
however,
everyone
might
find
less
air
pollution,
less
traffic
delays
in

the
city
centers
and
nicer
surroundings.

A
concern
for
the
future
is
how
to
get
people
to
accept
changes
and
restrictions
to
their

daily
behavior.
Opposition
and
resistance
play
important
roles
in
terms
of
modifying

policies
and
processes
of
change.343
Limiting
freedom
is
unpopular.
If
actions
are
limited,

then
a
benefit
needs
to
be
given
in
return.
If
low-‐emission
zones
are
implemented
that

restrict
passenger
traffic,
public
transport
should
be
improved.
Public
transport
will

become
increasingly
more
renewable
and
environmentally
friendly
as
a
part
of
Norway’s

2020
goals
(INP1).
However,
GOV1
states
that
the
emission
reduction
potential
is
limited

and
will
not
decline
by
more
than
a
few
per
cent.344

People
can
take
a
leadership
role
by
making
environmentally
friendly
decisions
even

though
they
involve
higher
costs.
The
organic
food
market
is
based
entirely
on
relying
that

people
are
interested
in
eating
healthy
and
environmentally
friendly
food,
even
though
it

is
more
expensive.
The
public
has
the
ability
to
motivate
each
other
and
get
family
and

friends
to
choose
the
healthier
and
‘better’
option,
when
it
comes
to
food,
or
even

transport.

New
solutions
such
as
Lyft
and
Uber
can
also
help
optimize
the
network.345
Most
cars

stand
still
90
per
cent
of
the
time.
Norwegians
are
not
obsessed
with
owning
everything,

but
they
want
to
be
able
to
have
access
to
a
car
when
they
need
it.
If
politicians
were
to

341
Various
authors,
Norsk
Klimastiftelse,
“Slik
kan
Norge
gjøre
en
Forskjell”,
(Report
04/2015)

342
Voss,
Jan-‐Peter,
and
Dierk
Bauknecht,
eds.
Reflexive
governance
for
sustainable
development.

Edward
Elgar
Publishing,
2006.

343
Smith,
Adrian,
Andy
Stirling,
and
Frans
Berkhout.
"The
governance
of
sustainable
socio-‐technical

transitions."
Research
policy
34,
no.
10
(2005):
1491-‐1510.

344
The
Environment
Agency,
for
(M-‐229/2014)

345
Various
authors,
Norsk
Klimastiftelse,
“Slik
kan
Norge
gjøre
en
Forskjell”,
(Report
04/2015)

68

place
attention
on
a
sharing
economy,
it
should
assist
in
the
smarter
use
of
cars.
By

connecting
car
rental
companies
with
entrepreneur
companies
it
could
create
a
network

where
everyone
has
access
to
a
car
when
they
need
it
(INP2,
RES2).

Researchers
point
at
hydrogen
cars
and
chargeable
hybrids
in
the
future.
Hydrogen
cars

are
significantly
more
expensive
than
EVs
and
many
believe
the
technology
to
be
where

the
EV
was
6-‐8
years
ago
(INP1).
Norway
will
have
to
make
a
decision
in
the
near
future

on
whether
it
wants
to
be
a
driving
force
for
hydrogen,
or
not.
The
problem
with

chargeable
hybrids
is
that
they
are
really
not
that
more
environmentally
friendly
than

fossil
fueled
vehicles.
The
reach
also
needs
to
be
a
minimum
50-‐100km,
and
save
the
user

more
than
10NOK,
for
the
users
to
bother
to
plug
it
in
(GOV1).

The
Environment
Agency
states
that
the
carbon
tax
has
not
managed
to
limit
emissions

from
transport.
The
carbon
tax
only
represents
a
small
part
of
the
total
fuel
tax,
and
even

less
on
the
total
costs
of
transport.346
Compared
to
1990-‐levels
Norwegians
actually
pay

less
tax
on
fuel
today.
Since
the
fee
reduction
in
2001,
road
use
tax
on
fuel
has
been
12
per

cent
less
and
the
carbon
tax
on
fuel
has
been
25
per
cent
less
(compared
to
average

numbers
from
1995-‐99).347
Authorities
need
to
apply
the
‘polluter
pays
principle’
in

practice
and
increase
the
carbon
tax
on
fuel.
Within
freight,
fuel
expenses
make
up
50
per

cent
of
total
vehicle
costs.
The
diesel
tax
is
therefore
very
important
when
trying
to
steer

freight
behavior
in
a
climate-‐friendly
direction.
This
is
more
important
than
the
vehicle

purchase
tax
on
the
vehicle
(a
current
difference
between
passenger
transport
and

freight).

Cuts
in
freight
are
more
demanding
and
are
not
facilitated
because
they
are
expensive.

Many
investments
are
long-‐term
where
costs
will
rise
over
time,
creating
political

opposition
(GOV3,
RES1,
INP1).
Future
benefits
seem
unpopular
and
not
valued
highly,

even
though
the
majority
of
investments
will
be
paid
back
over
time
through
increased

productivity
and
lower
energy
bills.348
The
railway
network
receives
a
lot
of
investments,

but
doesn’t
give
much
back
in
terms
of
applicable
passenger
transport
and
freight.

Although
railway
infrastructure
is
expensive,
the
network
needs
to
be
improved
to
reduce

delays
and
increase
reliability
(GOV1).
Current
train
priorities
need
to
be
updated
giving

competitive
freight
trains
the
right-‐of-‐way
over
passenger
trains
(GOV1).
Double
track

lines
can
significantly
improve
capacity,
however
to
limit
costs,
crossover
tracks
would

accommodate
more
frequent
passing.349,350

346
Riksrevisjonen,
“Riksrevisjonens
Undersøkelse
av
Måloppnåelse
I
Klimapolitikken”,
(3:5,
2009-‐
2010),
2010

347
Brunvoll,
F.
and
Monsrud,
J.,
“Samferdsel
og
Miljø
2013”,
research
report
prepared
for
Statistics

Norway
(33/2013,
Oslo,
2013)

348
European
Commission,
“Communication
from
the
Commission
to
the
European
Parliament,
The

Council,
the
European
Economic
and
Social
Committee
and
the
Committee
of
the
Regions”,
(Brussels,

COM,
2011)

349
Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report

prepared
for
TØI
(1286/2013)

350
Ibid.

69

It
is
impossible
to
transfer
more
goods
from
roads
to
rails
before
capacity
has
increased.

Because
of
this,
some
participants
believe
freight
trucks
need
more
attention
(INP1)(

GOV1,
RES1).
GOV3
says
there
are
two
things
that
restrict
the
use
of
instruments
in
road

freight:
budget
costs
and
competitiveness.
It
is
difficult
to
decide
where
to
invest,
and
if

the
authorities
regulate
freight
and
make
it
more
expensive,
it
will
impact
the

competitiveness
of
those
businesses
that
require
transportation
(GOV3).
The
easiest

solution
for
road
freight
is
finding
a
sufficient
technology
that
doesn’t
pollute
(GOV4).

Norway
is
limited
in
how
much
it
can
contribute
to
technology
developments;
however,
it

can
focus
on
implementing
these
technologies
once
they
are
ready
(GOV5).

Taxes
and
regulations
limit
emissions,
but
there
should
also
be
focus
on
adaptation
and

the
development
of
infrastructure
(cycle
paths,
railway
tracks
and
holistic
city
planning).

The
politicians
want
more
pedestrians
and
cyclists,
but
when
developing
infrastructure,

cycle
paths
are
not
prioritized
(GOV3).
There
needs
to
be
a
long-‐term
plan
of
reducing

emissions
(GOV3).
There
are
a
lot
of
things
at
the
micro
level,
which
when
considered

together
are
quite
important.
The
gap
between
ambitious
goals
and
poor
results

demonstrates
how
either
the
targets
were
not
specific
enough,
the
measures
used
were

problematic,
or
the
implementation
methods
and
management
were
faulty.351
Increased

greenhouse
gas
emissions
are
an
issue
that
spans
across
many
different
areas
and
the

level
of
dealing
with
them
has
never
been
more
complex.
Governance
seeks
to
reduce
the

lack
of
direction
associated
with
policy
developments.352
The
Ministry
of
Transport
is

dependent
on
measures
implemented
by
other
departments,
such
as
taxes
and
land
use

policy.
They
claim
it
is
challenging
because
they
set
targets,
but
they
only
have
limited

influence
on
the
instruments
used
(tax
policy).353
They
say
there
are
efficient
instruments

available,
but
will
power
is
lacking
to
take
advantage
of
them.
Toll
roads
are
for
instance

cost-‐efficient,
but
are
determined
and
implemented
at
local
level.354
There
needs
to
be

more
emphasis
on
having
similar
goals
across
all
sectors
and
levels
of
government.
A

central
lead
actor
is
needed
to
ensure
transitions
and
innovation
move
in
the
right

direction.355

Long-‐term
strategies
and
approaches
that
focus
on
society
are
needed.356
Emissions

reductions
can
only
be
addressed
through
government-‐society
interactions
because
of
the

nature
of
interrelated
problems.357
Straightforward
problem
solving
will
not
always

suffice.
As
the
climate
problem
is
over-‐arching,
every
action
can
cause
unintended

351
Lindberg,
G
and
Fridstrøm,
L.,
Høringsutalelse
om
ny
klimalov,
Oslo,
29
January
2015.
Available

at:

352
Loorbach,
Derk.
"Transition
management
for
sustainable
development:
a
prescriptive,

complexity-‐based
governance
framework."
Governance
23,
no.
1
(2010):
161-‐183.

353
Riksrevisjonen,
“Riksrevisjonens
Undersøkelse
av
Måloppnåelse
I
Klimapolitikken”,
(3:5,
2009-‐
2010),
2010

354
Ibid.

355
Tukker,
Arnold,
and
Maurits
Butter.
"Governance
of
sustainable
transitions:
about
the
4
(0)
ways

to
change
the
world."
Journal
of
Cleaner
Production
15,
no.
1
(2007):
94-‐103.

356
Loorbach,
Derk.
"Transition
management
for
sustainable
development:
a
prescriptive,

complexity-‐based
governance
framework."
Governance
23,
no.
1
(2010):
161-‐183.

357
Ibid.

70

consequences
that
can
transform
the
initial
problem
in
unexpected
ways.358

Proactive
decisions
within
climate
policy
need
to
be
more
prominent.
Norway
does
not

have
any
binding
climate-‐related
agreements
so
most
settlements
are
voluntary.
At
the

end
of
the
day,
few
businesses
or
people
will
reduce
their
emissions
if
it
is
going
to
be

expensive.
The
Norwegian
Centre
for
Transport
Research
state
that
a
climate
statute

would
hardly
make
things
worse
than
they
are
today.359
They
think
the
reduction
in

emissions
from
transport
has
a
poor
outlook,
and
that
the
only
way
to
improve
this
is
by

making
emissions
reductions
binding.360

358
Voss,
J.P
and
Kemp,
R.,
“Reflexive
Governance
for
Sustainable
Development
–
Incorporating

Feedback
in
Social
Problem
Solving”,
research
report
prepared
for
ESEE
Conference
(Lisbon,
2005)

359
Lindberg,
G
and
Fridstrøm,
L.,
Høringsutalelse
om
ny
klimalov,
Oslo,
29
January
2015.
Available

at:

360
Ibid.

71

CHAPTER
6:
CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1
INTRODUCTION

The
overall
aim
of
this
research
project
has
been
to
gain
an
understanding
of
how

Norway’s
political
system
has
contributed
to
reducing
emissions
from
the
transport

sector,
and
how
it
can
help
facilitate
further
emissions
cuts
in
the
future.
The
specific

objectives
were:

1. Identify
current
measures
in
place
to
reduce
emissions
and
their
impact.

2. Evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
Norway’s
political
system
–
how
effective
have
they

been
in
reducing
emissions,
and
could
they
have
done
more?

3. Explore
the
feasibility
of
reducing
emissions
further
in
the
future
–
and
how
can

the
political
system
best
facilitate
it?

6.2
SUMMARY
OF
FINDINGS
AND
CONCLUSIONS

6.2.1
Research
Objective
1:
Identify
current
measures
in
place
to
reduce
emissions

and
their
impact.

Measures
and
policies
to
reduce
emissions
from
freight
and
passenger
transport
in

Norway
are
highlighted
in
the
literature
review.
Norway’s
chief
achievements
include
the

high
sales
of
electric
cars
and
good
public
transport
options
in
major
cities.
The
findings

show
that
the
focus
has
been
on
implementing
‘quick
wins’
that
involve
measures
that

reward
positive
behavior.
These
measures
have
had
a
huge,
positive
impact
on
passenger

transport
and
the
sales
of
environmentally
friendly
vehicles.
An
area
that
has
been
lacking

improvements
is
limiting
the
use
of
heavily
polluting
transportation
options
for
freight
in

particular,
but
also
passenger
transport.
There
has
been
less
focus
on
limiting
the
sales
of

fossil
fueled
cars
that
will
be
emitting
greenhouse
gases
for
the
next
15
years.
Limited

effort
has
been
put
into
restrictive
or
penalizing
measures
as
it
results
in
opposition
from

the
public.
Investments
in
freight
have
been
made,
but
mostly
on
the
railway
network,
and

there
is
little
visible
outcome
from
these
investments.
Most
participants
in
the
personal

interviews
agreed
that
freight
has
been
down-‐prioritized
because
of
technical
and

commercial
challenges.

It
is
easy
to
compare
and
contrast
passenger
transport
to
freight
because
their

development
has
been
radically
different.
The
EV
market
has
been
booming,
and
freight

has
done
poorly
in
comparison.
Norway
has
tried
to
invest,
but
it
seems
like
the
policy-‐
makers
don’t
know
what
to
do.
Freight
has
been
recognised
as
a
problem-‐area
for
many

years,
yet
improvements
are
few
and
far
between.
If
this
issue
was
properly
thought-‐
through
it
might
have
been
solved
years
ago,
instead
of
leading
to
further
deprivation.

Somewhere
in
the
system
there
is
a
problem
–
either
with
the
implementation
or

responsibility,
or
between
the
researchers
and
policy-‐makers.
Holistic
thinking
has
been

72

missing
in
the
implementation
of
climate
policies.
Policies
and
measures
are
not
linked

together,
leading
to
a
non-‐efficient
system.

The
conclusion
that
can
be
drawn
from
this
is
that
ultimately,
emissions
have
leveled
off,

leading
to
a
positive
start
toward
achieving
the
2030
targets.
However
developments
in

passenger
transport
have
been
made
at
the
expense
of
freight,
where
emissions
have

increased
dramatically.
The
policy-‐makers
are
waiting
for
technology
developments,

which
have
been
slow
to
come,
and
refuse
to
acknowledge
that
the
transport
sector
is
one

large,
non-‐efficient
system
where
changes
are
needed
in
all
areas,
not
just
the
technology.

6.2.2
Research
Objective
2:
Evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
Norway’s
political
system
–

how
effective
have
they
been
in
reducing
emissions,
and
could
they
have
done

more?

The
Norwegian
government
has
been
a
heavy
user
of
subsidies
to
reward
positive

behavior.
There
have
been
reservations
towards
implementing
more
restrictive
measures,

higher
taxes
and
penalizing
bad
behavior.
There
is
an
observed
lack
of
willpower
from
the

political
system
in
many
areas.
The
difficult
areas
are
those
that
receive
the
least
attention.

The
authorities
have
sometimes
spent
a
lot
of
time
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
cut

emissions
without
achieving
anything.
They
have
been
relying
heavily
on
the
influx
of
new

technologies,
sometimes
believing
that
as
the
only
way
to
cut
emissions.
There
has
been

limited
thinking
‘outside
the
box’.

Engagement
from
the
politicians
is
often
influenced
by
external
factors,
which
are
out
of

their
control.
When
oil
prices
are
low,
unemployment
rises,
the
economy
sags
and
there
is

a
sense
of
urgency
that
Norway
needs
to
invest
in
renewable
technology
to
make
a
living

in
the
future.
When
the
prices
are
high,
political
engagement
falls.
Businesses,

organisations
and
individuals
can
influence
the
decision-‐makers
towards
making
stronger

or
weaker
decisions,
which
are
in
their
favor.
The
politicians
could
have
taken
more

knowledge
into
account
when
debating
how
to
cut
emissions.
The
researchers
are
often

ignored
and
not
given
a
chance
to
present
all
their
knowledge
to
the
decision-‐makers.

Even
if
the
decision-‐makers
get/have
this
knowledge,
it
isn’t
always
used
to
guide
the

decisions.
The
politicians
have
in
many
cases
proven
to
be
working
for
themselves.
Policy

infiltration
to
all
sectors
has
been
lacking
as
local
politicians
can
make
decisions
that
are

unrelated
to
those
made
at
the
national
level.
There
is
limited
collaboration
between
the

different
levels
of
government
to
achieve
maximum
impact
on
environmental
issues.

The
conclusion
that
can
be
drawn
out
from
this
is
that
the
policy-‐makers
have
certainly

made
praise-‐worthy
achievements
in
reducing
emissions,
but
they
have
been
piecemeal,

and
lacking
big-‐picture
integration.

One
could
say
the
policy-‐makers
have
been
far
too

‘laid
back’
in
terms
of
implementing
new
measures.
They
have
been
over
relying
on

technology
developments
and
not
been
tough
enough
on
implementing
restrictive

measures.
If
they
had
been
more
engaged
in
the
climate
debate
and
reducing
emissions,

and
less
interested
in
being
popular
and
getting
re-‐elected,
a
lot
more
could
have
been

done.

73

It
must
be
mentioned
that
it
is
always
challenging
for
a
government
to
implement
changes

that
are
unpopular
with
society.
When
judging
the
Norwegian
governments’
past

performance,
we
have
to
keep
in
mind
the
public’s
reluctance
to
accept
what
they
consider

steps
that
seem
‘backwards’
or
limit
personal
freedoms.

As
the
public
acceptance
of
the

seriousness
of
climate
change
grows,
we
may
expect
that
some
of
the
governments’
tasks

in
the
future
may
get
easier.

6.2.3
Research
Objective
3:
Explore
the
feasibility
of
reducing
emissions
further
in

the
future
–
and
how
can
the
political
system
best
facilitate
it?

Our
knowledge
levels
have
gone
up
and
there
is
more
and
more
awareness
of

environmental
problems.
However,
if
there
is
limited
communication
between

researchers
and
policy-‐makers,
the
politicians
will
not
be
fully
informed
and
might
choose

to
implement
measures
and
make
choices
that
are
not
the
most
efficient.
There
is
a

growing
awareness
of
holistic
thinking
on
environmental
issues
and
climate
policy,
and

some
policy-‐makers
have
realized
that
all
areas
need
to
be
considered
together.

Future
development
is
likely
to
be
steered
by
individuals
and
businesses
from
a
bottom-‐
up
approach.
Innovation
and
drive
from
the
‘bottom’
will
have
the
ability
to
produce

technological
innovations
and
smart,
holistic
decisions
that
will
cut
emissions
further.

However
businesses
cannot
make
changes
that
will
sacrifice
their
competitiveness
if
they

are
the
only
ones
doing
so.
They
need
to
communicate
with
the
authorities
so
a
framework

can
be
put
in
place.
A
top-‐down
approach
needs
to
meet
the
bottom-‐up
approach
in
the

middle.
If
they
can
work
together,
they
can
be
much
more
effective
and
successful,
and

Norway
can
step
forward
as
a
global
leader
in
the
reduction
of
emissions
from
all
forms
of

transport.

Technology
developments
for
passenger
and
freight
transport
are
promising.
There
is

likely
to
be
an
influx
of
renewable
energy
technologies
for
buses
and
trucks
in
the
future,

and
more
options
for
renewable
energy
cars.
There
are
a
lot
of
difficulties
in
freight

because
of
capacity-‐issues.
Technology
improvements
are
one
of
the
few
ways
to
reduce

emissions
in
a
large
country
like
Norway
where
the
demand
for
mobility
is
high,
and
there

are
few
options
but
to
drive.

Conclusions
that
can
be
drawn
from
this
section
are
(1)
that
policy-‐makers
have
more

knowledge
of
how
the
transport
system
is
interlinked
and
(2)
that
technology

developments
alone
will
not
reduce
emissions,
without
improving
the
whole
system’s

efficiency.
Holistic
thinking
needs
to
be
embedded
in
every
decision
made
and
all
levels
of

society
need
to
be
encouraged
to
contribute.
The
policy-‐makers
are
better
equipped
than

ever
to
facilitate
change
in
the
future,
though
whether
they
are
tough
enough
to
do
so

remains
uncertain.

74

6.3
RECOMMENDATIONS

In
summary,
the
political
system
and
the
measures
implemented
in
Norway
have
created

emissions
reductions
in
certain
places,
however
the
system
has
weaknesses
and
many

areas
have
been
neglected.
The
policy-‐makers
are
more
equipped
than
ever
to
tackle
the

challenges
in
achieving
the
2030
emission
reduction
targets,
however
unless
they
learn

from
their
past
mistakes
there
may
be
no
improvements.

There
are
many
small
projects
that
could
be
put
forward,
however
at
the
end
of
the
day

there
needs
to
be
improvements
everywhere.
There
is
no
single
measure
or
policy
that

will
solve
the
problem
of
reducing
emissions
and
achieving
Norway’s
climate
targets.
The

authorities
need
to
strictly
enforce
the
‘polluter
pays
principle’.
This
internationally

recognised
principle
should,
for
example,
lay
the
foundation
for
implementing
a
steeper

carbon
tax
on
fossil
fueled
vehicles.
The
challenge
will
be
how
to
get
people
to
accept
these

changes
and
adapt
to
them.
The
public
needs
to
be
able
to
partake
in
this
transition
from
a

bottom-‐up
approach;
that
is
the
only
way
to
transform
society.
There
has
been
too
much

reliance
on
letting
the
policy-‐makers
find
the
answer
to
the
climate
problems.
However

the
authorities
also
need
to
exercise
a
certain
amount
of
their
power
and
not
let

themselves
be
pushed
over
by
public
opinion
or
the
media.

In
many
of
the
personal
interviews
it
was
mentioned
that
there
needs
to
be
a
clear
path

between
targets
and
the
measures
and
policies
implemented.
It
can
be
inferred
that
a

climate
statute
could
be
beneficial
for
Norway.
That
way
targets
and
limits
are
set
and

politicians
have
no
choice
but
to
abide
to
these
standards.
There
needs
to
be
a
long-‐term

plan
for
reducing
emissions,
to
minimize
the
implementation
of
measures
lacking

direction,
motive,
or
focus
on
how
it
will
benefit
the
whole
system.
Participants
in
the

interviews
generally
seemed
positive
toward
Norway
and
the
ability
it
has
to
make
a

difference.
Norway
has
an
excellent
position
and
ability
to
restructure
its
society.
All

actors
need
to
buy-‐in
and
be
part
of
this
transition,
including
municipal,
county
and
city

governments,
businesses
and
individuals.
Top-‐down
measures
are
not
enough.
If
the

authorities
and
companies
work
together
they
could
have
a
large,
positive
impact
in
this

green
transition.

There
are
several
technical
difficulties
that
are
difficult
to
overcome.
It
is
common
to
think

linearly
when
planning
for
the
future,
however
recent
years
have
proven
that

development
is
seldom
linear.
It
is
difficult
to
estimate
where
technological
developments

will
be
in
the
future
and
what
impact
they
will
have.
Either
way,
Norway’s
political
system

needs
a
refresher.
If
every
level
of
government
had
their
own
responsibility,
there
would

be
less
room
for
communication
errors,
and
more
clearly
defined
boundaries
and

responsibilities.
However,
not
all
responsibility
lies
with
the
politicians.
The
public
needs

to
put
more
trust
in
the
politicians
to
handle
issues
and
improve
quality
of
life
for
the

average
person
–
without
taking
their
own
personal
interests
into
consideration.
The

public
also
has
the
ability
to
change
society
by
making
‘good
choices’
and
buying
an
EV,
or

choosing
to
cycle
or
take
the
bus.
People
choose
to
buy
organic
products
even
though
they

are
expensive,
because
they
are
concerned
about
their
health
and
the
environment.
If
a

company
is
investing
in
environmentally
friendly
solutions
even
though
they
involve

higher
costs,
the
public
will
see
that
as
positive.
Companies
can
take
a
leadership
role
in
a

75

bottom-‐up
approach.
People
want
to
see
companies
make
climate
friendly
choices,
and

therefore
choose
to
purchase
goods
or
services
from
them
instead
of
their
competitors.

There
are
arguments
that
the
EU
will
be
more
influential
and
prominent
in
the
future,
and

could
therefore
have
a
huge
impact
on
Norwegian
climate
policies.
An
agreement
in
Paris

may
not
be
ambitious
enough,
however,
to
accelerate
the
‘green’
shift.
In
the
absence
of

such
an
agreement,
countries
will
need
to
step
forward
using
the
technology
they
have.

Norway
has
succeeded
on
the
EV
market,
while
Germany
has
succeeded
with
solar
energy.

All
countries
don’t
need
to
be
successful
in
everything;
many
different
approaches
need
to

be
tried
at
the
same
time
in
order
to
find
the
best,
collective
solutions.

76

CHAPTER
7:
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aas,
H.;
Hagman,
R.;
Olsen,
S.J.;
Andersen,
J.
and
Amundsen,
A.H.,
“Low
Emission
Zones.
Measures
to

decrease
emissions
of
NO2”,
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1216,
Oslo,
2012)

Aftenposten,
“Regjeringen
Pålegges
å
lage
Klimalov,
mot
Frps
Stemmer”,
accessed
2
September

2015.
Available
at:
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/Regjeringen-‐palegges-‐a-‐
lage-‐klimalov_-‐mot-‐Frps-‐stemmer-‐7951907.html

Alfsen,
K.H.;
Bjørnæs,
C.
and
Reed,
E.U.,
“Vurderinger
av
Norsk
Klimapolitikk
–
En
Syntese
av
Fire

Internasjonale
Rapporter”,
research
report
prepared
for
CICERO
(Report
2011:02,
Oslo,
2012)

Berkhout,
Frans,
Adrian
Smith,
and
Andy
Stirling.
"Socio-‐technological
regimes
and
transition

contexts."
System
innovation
and
the
transition
to
sustainability:
theory,
evidence
and
policy.
Edward

Elgar,
Cheltenham
(2004):
48-‐75.

Biggam,
John.
Succeeding
with
your
master's
dissertation:
a
step-‐by-‐step
handbook.
McGraw-‐Hill

Education
(UK),
2015.

Bjertnæs,
Geir
H.
Biofuel
mandate
versus
favourable
taxation
of
electric
cars:
The
case
of
Norway.
No.

745.
2013.

Brunvoll,
F.
and
Monsrud,
J.,
“Samferdsel
og
Miljø
2013”,
research
report
prepared
for
Statistics

Norway
(33/2013,
Oslo,
2013)

Bryman,
Alan.
Social
research
methods.
Oxford
university
press,
2012.

Bugge,
Hans
C.,
“EØS-‐Avtalens
Rolle
og
Betydning
på
Miljøvernområdet”,
research
report
for

Europautredningen
(Report
14,
2011)

Centre
for
Environmental
Cooperation,
“Destination
Sustainability
–
Reducing
Greenhouse
Gas

Emissions
from
Freight
Transportation
in
in
North
America”,
(Montreal,
2011)

CICEP,
“The
European
Union”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.cicep.uio.no/Fakta-‐ark/eu/

CICEP,
“Norges
Nye
Klimamål:
Ambisiøse,
kanskje
Realistiske”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available

at:

CICEP
and
FME
(Forskningessenter
for
Miljøvennlig
Energi),
CICEP
Annual
Report
2014:
Strategic

Challenges
in
International
Climate
and
Energy
Policy.
2015

Climate
Action
Tracker,
“Norway”,
accessed
July
12,
2015.
Available
at:


Committee
for
Norway’s
Agreements
with
the
EU,
“Outside
and
Inside,
NOU
2012:2”,
(Norwegian

Government,
Oslo,
2012)

Dokken,
J.V.,
“Klimaendringer
og
byråkrati
I
Norge
–
En
Q-‐Metodologisk
Studie
av
Diskurser
og

Makt”
(master’s
thesis,
University
of
Oslo,
2013)

77

EIA,
“International
Energy
Data
and
Analysis”,
Beta,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/

Elmagasinet,
“Klima
er
Toppsak”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

b68008c80d63

Energy
and
Environment
Committee,
“Recommendation
of
the
Energy
and
Environment
Committee:

Innst.
S.
nr.
145
(2007-‐2008)”,
(Oslo,
2008)

Energy
and
the
Environment
Committee,
“Recommendation
of
the
Energy
and
Environment

Committee:
Climate
Settlement,
Innst.
390
S
(2011-‐2012)”,
(Oslo,
2012).

ENOVA,
Results
and
Activities
2014
(2015:1,
Trondheim,
2015)

The
Environment
Agency,
“Klimatiltak
og
Utslippsbaner
mot
2030
–
Kunnskapsgrunnlag
for

(M-‐386,
2015)

The
Environment
Agency,
for
(M-‐229/2014)

The
Environment
Agency,
“Mulig,
men
Krevende
å
Nå
Klimamålet”,
accessed
2
September
2015.

Available
at:
http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/no/Nyheter/Nyheter/2014/Mars-‐2014/Mulig-‐
men-‐krevende-‐a-‐na-‐klimamalet/

The
Environment
Agency,
“Norge
på
Vei
mot
accessed
2
September
2015.

Available
at:

The
Environment
Agency,
“Trender
og
Drivkrefter
Bak
accessed
2
September

2015.
Available
at:
http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/no/Nyheter/Nyheter/Old-‐klif/2013/Mars-‐
2013/Trender_og_drivkrefter_bak_klimagassutslippene_/

Environment.no,
“Driving
Forces
in
Norway”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:


Environment.no,
“Instruments
to
Reduce
Emissions”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.environment.no/Topics/Climate/Norways-‐climate/Climate-‐change-‐mitigation/

EPA.gov,
“Glossary
of
Climate
Change
Terms”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#C

Europe
Economics,
“Evaluation
of
the
Marco
Polo
Programme
2003-‐2010
–
Final
Report”,
(London,

2011)

European
Commission,
“A
Europe
–
Flagship
Initiative
of
the
Europe
2020

Strategy”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:
http://ec.europa.eu/resource-‐efficient-‐europe/

European
Commission,
“Communication
from
the
Commission
to
the
European
Parliament,
The

Council,
the
European
Economic
and
Social
Committee
and
the
Committee
of
the
Regions”,
(Brussels,

COM,
2011)

78

European
Commission,
“Marco
Polo
–
New
Ways
to
a
Green
Horizon”,
accessed
2
September
201.

Available
at:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/marcopolo/

European
Commission,
“Roadmap
to
a
Single
European
Transport
Area
–
Towards
a
Competitive
an

Transport
System”,
(COM,
Luxembourg,
2011)

European
Commission,
“Transport
2050:
Commission
Outlines
Ambitious
Plan
to
Increase
Mobility

and
Reduce
Emissions”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-‐
release_IP-‐11-‐372_en.htm

Figenbaum,
E.;
Eskeland,
G.S.;
Leonardsen,
J.
and
Hagman,
R.,
“85
g
CO2/km
in
2020
–
Is
that

Achievable?”
research
report
prepared
for
TØI
(1264/2013)

Forbes,
“Norway
Leads
the
World’s
Market
for
Electric
Vehicles”,
accessed
2
September
2015.

Available
at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/07/23/norway-‐leads-‐the-‐worlds-‐
market-‐for-‐electric-‐vehicles-‐infographic/

Fridstrøm,
Lasse,
“Norsk
Samferdsel
mot
Togradersmålet
–
To
scenarioer”,
research
report
prepared

for
TØI
(1286/2013)

Fridstrøm,
Lasse
and
Alfsen,
Knut
H.,
Norway’s
Path
to
Sustainable
Transport,
research
report

prepared
for
Institute
for
Transport
Economics
(1321,2014)

Frydenlund,
Ståle,
Elbil.no,
“2
av
10
Biler
I
Første
Halvår
var
Elbiler”,
posted
s
July
2015.
Available

at:

Fæhn,
T.;
Isaksen,
E.T.
and
Rosnes,
O.”Kostnadeffektive
Tilpasninger
til
Togradersmålet
I
Norge
of
EU

Fram
Mot
2050”,
research
report
prepared
for
Statistics
Norway
(Report
39,
Oslo,
2013)

Geels,
Frank,
“Systems
Innovations
and
Transitions
to
Sustainability:
Challenges
for
Innovation

Theory”
(Eindhoven
University
of
Technology,
2006)

Government.no,
“The
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy”,
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
accessed

2
September
2015.
Available
at:
environment/climate/innsiktsartikler-‐klima/agreement-‐on-‐climate-‐policy/id2076645/

Government.no,
“A
New
and
More
Ambitious
Climate
Policy
for
Norway”,
accessed
2
September

2015.
Available
at:

Government.no,
“The
Service
and
Supply
Industry”,
Ministry
of
Petroleum
and
Energy,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/energy/oil-‐and-‐gas/The-‐
service-‐and-‐supply-‐industry/id766008/

Hertzberg,
Karine,
“Norway’s
emissions
reductions
targets”,
Spring
Conference
Presentation.
Klima

og
Miljødepartementet.
(2015)
Available
at:

http://www.cicep.uio.no/filer/cicep-‐spring-‐conference-‐2015-‐karine-‐hertzberg.pdf

Holm,
Marius,
“Elbiler
bør
alltid
være
Billigst”,
Energi
og
Klima,
posted
1
July
2015,
available
at:


Huh,
Taewook.
"Towards
Reflexive
Governance
for
Sustainable
Development."
(2010)

79

Invest
in
Norway,
“Energy
and
Enviroment”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:


Invinor
(2013).
Energy
and
Environment.
Invest
in
Norway.
Available
at:


Jackson,
W.,
Gillis,
A.,
&
Verberg,
N.
Qualitative
research
methods.
Communication
research
methods:

Quantitative
and
qualitative
approaches,
423-‐462.
2007

Jernbaneverket,
“Metodehåndbok
–
Samfunnsøkonomiske
Analyser
for
Jernbanen
2015”,
(Hamar,

2015)

Jordan,
Andrew.
"The
governance
of
sustainable
development:
taking
stock
and
looking
forwards."

Environment
and
planning.
C,
Government
&
policy
26,
no.
1
(2008):
17.

Kilani,
J.
(2015).
Statement:
Keynote
Address
to
Parliamentarians
in
Berlin.
UNFCCC.
Available
at:

http://cdm.unfccc.int/press/newsroom/latestnews/releases/2015/0705_index.html

Ki-‐moon,
B.
“Statement:
Secretary-‐General’s
Remarks
at
Spring
Meetings
of
the
World
Bank
and

International
Monetary
Fund
Climate
Change
Event
[As
prepared
for
deliver]”.
UN.
April
17
2015.

Available
at:
http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=8546

Klima
og
“Trender
og
Drivkrefter”,
(TA
3022,
2013)

Klimakur
2020,
“Tiltak
of
Virkemidler
for
å
nå
Norske
Klimamål
mot
2020”,
(TA2590/2010)

Lahn,
Bård,
Energi
og
Klima,
“Norges
Klimamål:
En
Bortkastet
Sjanse”,
posted
9
February
2015,

accessed
2
september
2015.
Available
at:

Loorbach,
Derk.
"Transition
management
for
sustainable
development:
a
prescriptive,
complexity-‐
based
governance
framework."
Governance
23,
no.
1
(2010):
161-‐183.

Lindberg,
G
and
Fridstrøm,
L.,
Høringsutalelse
om
ny
klimalov,
Oslo,
29
January
2015.
Available
at:


LSE,
“Norway”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/legislation/countries/norway/#legislative

Marino,
M.S.;
Bjørge,
N.E.;
Ericson,
T.;
Garnåsjordet,
P.A.;
Karlsen,
H.T.;
Randers,
J.
and
Rees,
D.,

People’s
Opinion
of
Climate
Policy
–
Popular
Support
for
Climate
Policy
Alternatives
in
Norway,

research
report
prepared
for
CICERO
(CICERO
Working
Paper
2002:3,
Oslo,
2012)

Miljøstatus.no,
“Kilder
til
Utslipp
av
Klimagasser”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.miljostatus.no/Tema/Klima/Klimanorge/Kilder-‐til-‐utslipp-‐av-‐klimagasser

The
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Meld.
St.
21
(2011-‐2012)
Agreement
on
Climate
Policy

(Norwegian
Government,
2012)

The
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
Prop.
1
S
(2014-‐2015)
Statsbudsjettet
2015
(Norwegian

Government,
2014)

The
Ministry
of
Transport,
“Meld.
St.
25
(2014-‐2015)
Reformations
of
the
Road
Sector”,
(Oslo,
2015)

80

Moberg,
Knut,
Dinside.no,
“ELbil-‐Salget
er
nok
en
Gang
Rekordhøyt
I
Mars”,
posted
6
April
2015,

Available
at:
http://www.dinside.no/933353/elbil-‐salget-‐nok-‐en-‐gang-‐rekordhoyt-‐i-‐mars

Neby,
S.;
Rykkja,
L.H.;
Olsen,
H.S.
and
Hope,
K.L,
“Klimatiltak
på
Vestlandet
–
En
Innledende

Kartlegging”,
research
report
prepared
for
Stein
Rokkan
Center
for
Social
Studies
(Bergen,
2012).

Nikolaisen,
P.I.,
TU,
“Så
lite
har
Norge
gjort
med
klimautslippene”,
posted
30
January
2014,
last

accessed
14
June
2015.
Available
at:
http://www.tu.no/klima/2014/01/30/sa-‐lite-‐har-‐norge-‐
gjort-‐med-‐klimautslippene

Norwegian
Environment
Agency,
Statistics
Norway,
and
Norwegian
Forest
and
Landscape
Institute,

Greenhouse
gas
emissions
1990-‐2012,
National
Inventory
Report
(Norwegian
Government,
2014),
M-‐
137.

Norwegian
Ministry
of
Climate
and
Environment,
“Norway’s
Sixth
National
Communication”,
Under

the
UNFCCC
(2014)

NRK,
“El-‐Ferjer
vil
Redusere
Utslepp
Tilsvarande
150
000
Biler
I
Året”,
accessed
2
September.

Available
at:
http://www.nrk.no/mr/el-‐ferjer-‐vil-‐redusere-‐utslepp-‐tilsvarande-‐150-‐000-‐bilar-‐
1.12499580

NRK,
“Norges
Første
Batteridrevne
Elbuss”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.nrk.no/rogaland/norges-‐forste-‐elbuss-‐i-‐rutetrafikk-‐1.12297207

NTB,
“Posten
Reduserte
CO2-‐Utslippene
med
30
Prosent”,
TU,
posted
6
April
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.tu.no/industri/2015/04/06/posten-‐reduserte-‐co2-‐utslippene-‐med-‐30-‐prosent

Nyemeninger,
“Jonas
Gahr
Støre
om
Energi
og
Klima”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:


Office
of
the
Prime
Minister.
“A
New
and
More
Ambitious
Climate
Policy
for
Norway”.
Norwegian

Government.
February
4
2015.
Available
at:

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/ny-‐og-‐mer-‐ambisios-‐klimapolitikk/id2393609/

Ottervik,
Rita,
Energi
og
Klima,
“Handling
erViktigere
enn
Ord”,
posted
23
August
2015,
Available

at:
http://energiogklima.no/kommentar/handling-‐er-‐viktigere-‐enn-‐ord/?utm_source=nyhetsbrev

Riksrevisjonen,
“Riksrevisjonens
Undersøkelse
av
Måloppnåelse
I
Klimapolitikken”,
(3:5,
2009-‐2010),

2010

Risa,
A.V.
and
Gellein,
M.L.,
“Climate
Change
Policies
in
Norway:
Preferences
for
Plan
A
versus
Plan

B”
(master’s
thesis,
University
of
Stavanger,
2013).

The
Royal
Treasury,
“National
Budget,
Meld.
St.
1
(2014-‐2015)”,
(Oslo,
2014)

Sandberg,
Tor,
“Gir
Full
Gass
Uten
Klimapeiling”,
Dagsavisen,
posted
27
March
2015,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:

Sands,
Philippe,
and
Jacqueline
Peel.
Principles
of
international
environmental
law.
Cambridge

University
Press,
2012.

81

Seilskjær,
Mari,
“Sektorovergripende
Regulering
av
Norske
Klimagassutslipp:
En
Rettspolitisk

Analyse
av
Regelverk
og
Måloppnåelse
på
Klimaområdet”
(master’s
thesis,
University
of
Oslo,

2013)

Shove,
Elizabeth,
and
Gordon
Walker.
"CAUTION!
Transitions
ahead:
politics,
practice,
and

sustainable
transition
management."
Environment
and
Planning
A
39,
no.
4
(2007):
763-‐770

Solbu,
Gisle,
“God
Klimapolitikk
eller
Dyr
Fornybar
Moro?
–
Fortellinger
om
Norsk-‐Svenske

Elsertifikater
og
Vindmøller
på
Fosen/Snillfjord
(master’s
thesis,
NTNU,
2014).

Smith,
Adrian,
Stirling,
Andy,
and
Berkhout
Frans.
"The
governance
of
sustainable
socio-‐technical

transitions."
Research
policy
34,
no.
10
(2005):
1491-‐1510.

Smith,
A.
and
Stirling,
A.,
“Moving
Inside
or
Outside?
Positioning
the
Governance
of
Sociotechnical

Systems”,
research
report
prepared
for
SPRU,
University
of
Sussex
(Paper
no.
148,
2006)

Statens
Vegvesen,
2015”,
main
report
(2015)

Statistics
Norway,
“Environmental
Economic
Instruments,
2013”,
accessed
2
September
2015.

Available
at:
http://www.ssb.no/en/natur-‐og-‐miljo/statistikker/miljovirk

Statistics
Norway,
“Emissions
of
Greenhouse
Gases,
2014,
Preliminary
Figures”,
accessed
2
September

2015.
Available
at:

Statistics
Norway,
“Green
Growth
and
Challenges
in
‘Greening’
Statistical
Classifications”,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:
publikasjoner/green-‐growth-‐and-‐challenges-‐in-‐greening-‐statistical-‐classifications

Statistics
Norway,
“Green
Shift
–
Climate
and
Environmentally
Friendly
Restructuring”,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:

Statistics
Norway,
“Indicators
of
Sustainable
Development,
2014
–
Future
Challenges”,
accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:
publikasjoner/sustainable-‐development-‐future-‐challenges

Statistics
Norway,

“Registrerte
Kjøretøy,
2014”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

https://www.ssb.no/bilreg/

Stokstad,
Sigrid,
“Rettslige
Krav
til
Kommunal
Klima-‐
og
Energiplanlegging”
research
report

prepared
for
NIBR
(2014:109)

Store
Norske
Leksikon,
“Stortingsvalget”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

https://snl.no/Stortingsvalget_2013

Sveen,
M.H.,
“Fra
Miljø
til
Klima:
Om
Utviklingen
av
en
Klimapolicy
I
Statsbygg”
(master’s
thesis,

Hedmark
University
College,
2013)

Transport
Agencies,
“Utfordringer
for
Framtidens
Transportsystem
–
Nasjonal
Transportplan
2018-‐
2027”,
Main
Report
from
Analysis
and
Strategy
phase.

82

Tretvik,
Terje,
Marianne
Elvsaas
Nordtømme,
Kristin
Ystmark
Bjerkan,
and
An-‐Magritt
Kummeneje.

"Can
low
emission
zones
be
managed
more
dynamically
and
effectively?."
Research
in

Transportation
Business
&
Management
12
(2014):
3-‐10.

TU,
“Håper
Regjerningen
har
Tabbet
seg
ut”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www.tu.no/industri/2009/10/14/haper-‐regjeringen-‐har-‐tabbet-‐seg-‐ut

Tukker,
Arnold,
and
Maurits
Butter.
"Governance
of
sustainable
transitions:
about
the
4
(0)
ways
to

change
the
world."
Journal
of
Cleaner
Production
15,
no.
1
(2007):
94-‐103.

UNFCCC,
“INDCs
as
Communicated
by
Parties”,
INDC,
Submission
by
Norway
to
the
ADP.
Accessed
2

September
2015.
Available
at:

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx

U.S.
Energy
Information
Administration
(EIA)
(2015).
Norway
–
Full
Report.
Available
at:

http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=no

Various
authors,
Norsk
Klimastiftelse,
“Slik
kan
Norge
gjøre
en
Forskjell”,
(Report
04/2015)

Vattenfall,
“Continued
Electric
Car
Boom
in
Norway”,
accessed
2
September
2015.
Available
at:

http://news.vattenfall.com/en/article/continued-‐electric-‐car-‐boom-‐norway

Visit
Norway,
Innovation
Norway,
Map.
Available
at:
http://www.visitnorway.com/uk/vn/map/

Voss,
Jan-‐Peter,
and
Dierk
Bauknecht,
eds.
Reflexive
governance
for
sustainable
development.

Edward
Elgar
Publishing,
2006.

Voss,
J.P
and
Kemp,
R.,
“Reflexive
Governance
for
Sustainable
Development
–
Incorporating
Feedback

in
Social
Problem
Solving”,
research
report
prepared
for
ESEE
Conference
(Lisbon,
2005)

Waagaard,
R.;
Gjørv,
A.B.;
Grimelid,
A.
and
Aulie,
C.,
“En
Norsk
Klimalov”,
Research
report
prepared

for
WWF
(Oslo,
2010)

Weterings,
R.,
Kuijper,
J.;
Smeets,
E.;
Annokkée,
G.J.
and
Minne,
B.,
“81
Mogelijkheden:
Technologie

voor
Duurzane
Ontwikkeling”,
The
Hague,
Ministry
of
the
Environment,
1997

Wilhelmsen,
Einar,
“Om
Hvorfor
Svensker,
Dansker
og
Tyskere
Klarer
å
Kutte
Egne
CO2-‐Utslipp”,

Energi
og
Klima,
posted
20
April
2015.
Available
at:
http://energiogklima.no/blogg/einar-‐
wilhelmsen/om-‐hvorfor-‐svensker-‐dansker-‐og-‐tyskere-‐klarer-‐aa-‐kutte-‐egne-‐co2-‐utslipp/

83

CHAPTER
8:
APPENDIX

8.1
INTERVIEWS
AND
INTERVIEW
QUESTIONS

One-‐to-‐one
interviews
were
conducted
over
the
phone
or
Skype
during
July
and
August

2015.
Each
interview
lasted
50-‐70
minutes.
The
interviews
were
recorded
and
saved.
The

participants
were
selected
from
various
prominent
research
organisations
and

government
institutions.

The
key
questions
that
were
asked
during
the
interviews:

• Have
there
been
too
many
statements
and
not
enough
action
in
climate
policy?
Has

the
degree
of
action
been
good
enough?

• Can
existing
emissions
reduction
be
justified
due
to
a
lag
in
policy
implementation

and
lack
of
technology?

• The
electric
vehicle
has
been
positive
for
Norway,
however
80
per
cent
of
the
vehicles

sold
today
are
fossil
fueled
cars.
Where
should
the
focus
be
before
the
electric
vehicle

is
competitive?

• The
Storting
has
always
been
focused
on
economic
growth.
Is
there
too
little
focus
on

how
people
could
limit
their
transport
demand
and
turn
to
public
transport,
walking

and
cycling
instead?

• Has
research
contributed
to
the
implementation
of
climate
policies?

• Is
the
political
system
strong
enough
to
create
large
changes
to
society
and
the

transport
sector?

• Is
it
easier
to
implement
policies
and
measures
today
than
it
was
5-‐10
year
ago?

• Is
there
focus
on
the
transport
sector
as
a
holistic
system?

• Could
policy-‐makers
have
gone
further
when
it
comes
to
creating
incentives
for

people
and
businesses
to
choose
green
transport
options?

• What
impact
will
businesses
have
for
future
climate
policy?

List
of
interviews
that
were
conducted:

GOV1:
Phone
interview
–
London,
29
July
2015

GOV2:
Phone
interview
–
London,
9
July
2015

GOV3:
Phone
interview
–
London,
30
July
2015

GOV4:
Email
response
–
London,
1
August
2015

GOV5:
Phone
interview
–
London,
3
July
2015

RES1:
Skype
interview
–
London,
9
July
2015

RES2:
Skype
interview
–
London,
14
July
2015

INP1:
Phone
interview
–
London,
7
July
2015

INP2:
Phone
interview
–
London,
13
August
2015

Successes, Failures, and the Road to 2030 - A Study of Emissions from the Norwegian Transport Sector

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Successes, Failures, and the Road to 2030 - A Study of Emissions from the Norwegian Transport Sector (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Successes, Failures, and the Road to 2030 - A Study of Emissions from the Norwegian Transport Sector