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. http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/norway.html 16 “Norway”, Climate Action Tracker, accessed July 12, 2015. http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/norway.html

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: http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/norway.html 43 Ibid. 44 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/ 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: http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/norway.html 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, “Kunnskapsgrunnlag for Lavutslippsutvikling”, (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: https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-‐og-‐miljo/statistikker/klimagassn

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: http://www.environment.no/Topics/Climate/Norways-‐climate/Driving-‐forces-‐in-‐Norway/ 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: http://www.ssb.no/en/natur-‐og-‐miljo/artikler-‐og-‐publikasjoner/sustainable-‐development-‐future-‐challenges 109 “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_/

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 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_/ 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 Resource-‐Efficient 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 Resource-‐Efficient 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: http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/norway.html 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 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_/ 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 Klimagassutslippene”, 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 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_/ 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: http://energiogklima.no/kommentar/elbiler-‐bor-‐alltid-‐vaere-‐billigst/?utm_source=nyhetsbrev 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 Forurensningsdirektoratet, “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 Forurensningsdirektoratet, “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 Lavutslippsutvikling”, (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: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/climate-‐and-‐environment/climate/innsiktsartikler-‐klima/green-‐shift/id2076832/

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: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/ny-‐og-‐mer-‐ambisios-‐klimapolitikk/id2393609/ 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: http://energiogklima.no/kommentar/elbiler-‐bor-‐alltid-‐vaere-‐billigst/?utm_source=nyhetsbrev 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 Lavutslippssamfunnet”, 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 Lavutslippssamfunnet”, 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: http://www.elmagasinet.no/Nyheter/Vis/Klima_er_toppsak/1d4a2bb3-‐baf7-‐4b0f-‐af94-‐b68008c80d63 272 “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/ 273 “Norges Nye Klimamål: Ambisiøse, kanskje Realistiske”, CICEP, accessed 2 September 2015. Available at: http://www.cicep.uio.no/aktuelt/brukerkonferansen-‐2015.html 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, “Riksvegutredningen 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: http://www.elbil.no/nyheter/elbiler/3588-‐nesten-‐2-‐av-‐10-‐var-‐elbiler 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 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_/ 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: http://nyemeninger.no/alle_meninger/cat1003/subcat1012/thread305342/

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: http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/gir-‐full-‐gass-‐uten-‐klimapeiling-‐1.347580 320 “Jonas Gahr Støre om Energi og Klima”, Nyemeninger, accessed 2 September 2015. Available at: http://nyemeninger.no/alle_meninger/cat1003/subcat1012/thread305342/ 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, “Kunnskapsgrunnlag for Lavutslippsutvikling”, (M-‐229/2014) 340 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

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, “Kunnskapsgrunnlag for Lavutslippsutvikling”, (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: https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/mmarkiv/Aktuelt/klimalov-‐tøi%20%282%29.pdf 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: https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/mmarkiv/Aktuelt/klimalov-‐tøi%20%282%29.pdf 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: http://www.cicep.uio.no/aktuelt/brukerkonferansen-‐2015.html 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: http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/norway.html 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: http://www.elmagasinet.no/Nyheter/Vis/Klima_er_toppsak/1d4a2bb3-‐baf7-‐4b0f-‐af94-‐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 Lavutslippsutvikling”, (M-‐386, 2015) The Environment Agency, “Kunnskapsgrunnlag for Lavutslippsutvikling”, (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 Lavutslippssamfunnet”, accessed 2 September 2015. Available at: http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/no/Nyheter/Nyheter/2014/Oktober-‐2014/Norge-‐pa-‐vei-‐mot-‐lavutslippssamfunnet/ The Environment Agency, “Trender og Drivkrefter Bak Klimagassutslippene”, 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: http://www.environment.no/Topics/Climate/Norways-‐climate/Driving-‐forces-‐in-‐Norway/ 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 Resource-‐Efficient 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 Resource-‐Efficient 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: http://www.elbil.no/nyheter/elbiler/3588-‐nesten-‐2-‐av-‐10-‐var-‐elbiler 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: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/climate-‐and-‐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: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/ny-‐og-‐mer-‐ambisios-‐klimapolitikk/id2393609/ 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: http://energiogklima.no/kommentar/elbiler-‐bor-‐alltid-‐vaere-‐billigst/?utm_source=nyhetsbrev Huh, Taewook. "Towards Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development." (2010)

79

Invest in Norway, “Energy and Enviroment”, accessed 2 September 2015. Available at: http://www.invinor.no/no/Industries/Energy-‐-‐Environment/ Invinor (2013). Energy and Environment. Invest in Norway. Available at: http://www.invinor.no/no/Industries/Energy-‐-‐Environment/ 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 Forurensningsdirektoratet, “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: http://energiogklima.no/blogg/baard-‐lahn/norges-‐klimamaal-‐en-‐bortkastet-‐sjanse/ 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: https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/mmarkiv/Aktuelt/klimalov-‐tøi%20%282%29.pdf 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: http://nyemeninger.no/alle_meninger/cat1003/subcat1012/thread305342/ 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: http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/gir-‐full-‐gass-‐uten-‐klimapeiling-‐1.347580 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, “Riksvegutredningen 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: https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-‐og-‐miljo/statistikker/klimagassn Statistics Norway, “Green Growth and Challenges in ‘Greening’ Statistical Classifications”, 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 Statistics Norway, “Green Shift – Climate and Environmentally Friendly Restructuring”, accessed 2 September 2015. Available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/climate-‐and-‐environment/climate/innsiktsartikler-‐klima/green-‐shift/id2076832/ Statistics Norway, “Indicators of Sustainable Development, 2014 – Future Challenges”, accessed 2 September 2015. Available at: http://www.ssb.no/en/natur-‐og-‐miljo/artikler-‐og-‐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