Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« Imperium Renewables Files S-1 for IPO | Main | Cobasys Providing NiMH Battery Systems for Verizon Hybrid Van Retrofits »

Print this post

Norwegian Lawmakers Propose Banning Gasoline-Only Fueled Cars by 2015 or 2020

23 May 2007

Verdens Gang. A group of Norwegian lawmakers are drafting a proposal that would eventually lead to a ban on the sale of gasoline-only fueled cars by 2015 or 2020.

Flexible-fuel vehicles would be permitted under the ban. Norway’s Transport Ministry is determining whether or not the ban could be legal, according to the paper.

Transportation accounts for 25% of Norway’s CO2 emissions.

May 23, 2007 in Brief | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d835475b8853ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Norwegian Lawmakers Propose Banning Gasoline-Only Fueled Cars by 2015 or 2020:

Comments

Excellent idea...I've been saying this for ever!

We do not need gasoline powered car. Biodiesel [B100] powered vehicles along with hybrid electric-biodiesel and full BEVs are ALL we need in this polluted world!!!

FS

It doesn't mean very much.
All cars would be flex fuel (or diesel).
It says nothing about what they would actually burn.
It is not as if they banned gasoline !

This is just Norway keeping up with the Jones! Swedish politicians next-door are making plans to eventually have an entirely fossil-fuel independent economy.

Norway has so much gas, makes sense to use that for road fuel, around 25% lower CO2 well to wheel given the gas has actually been left in Norway 200 million years ago (thanks Dinasaurs!)

...how about banning Diesel and so called Bio-Diesel as well?

All of you are crazy! Humans are not causing global warming. It is perhaps the biggest hoax of the 21st century.

to Rick: why are you so sure? please, explain the reasons to share your optimism with us!

All I'm saying is don't don't take what all these alarmist are saying "especially politicians who have a political agenda" as gospel. When you start doing your own research into climate change you will see that it's all part of a normal cycle that's been happening throughout the ages. Where do you think Greenland got it's name? Because the vikings who used to live there used to farm it before the mini ice age happened. Don't be a bunch of sheep who follow Al Gore and the like who just want to tax us to death over unproven junk science.

Rick is an imbecile science denier that at best is useful as an entertaining clown.

It is the nature of man to be able to deny reality and fashion his own reality using his visions of fantasy and delusion to suit his own purpose. We live on a planet that will survive man's attempts to alter the its natural order. Even though man is killing himself and destroying the environment that sustains his life in very creative ways, the planet will survive. The question is what life form will inhabit earth's future once it recovers from man's depredations. I'm comforted that there will be a period a time once again without a Jerry Falwell or G.W. Bush or a current jihadist. Can I expand that list to include Republicans? Make your own list and fashion your own delusion.

It's funny how people proclaim open-mindedness and scientific inquiry... until presented with a view that disagrees with your own - then they revert to name-calling and denialism. Al Gore is, without question, driven by political gain rather than science in his outspoken views on global warming. However, this fact neither proves or disproves anything. That being said, thank you Rick for your views (albeit contrarian to most on this forum). It's good to see some people with healthy skepticism.

Al Gore is just the latest in a long line of politicians warning about global warming. Remember Margaret Thatcher? She was hardly a tree-hugger, yet she became convinced of the problem.....this is from Wikipedia:
Thatcher, the former chemist, became publicly concerned with environmental issues in the late 1980s. In 1988, she made a major speech [20] accepting the problems of global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain. In 1990, she opened the Hadley Centre for climate prediction and research. [21]. In her book Statecraft (2002), she described her later regret in supporting the concept of human-induced global warming, outlining the negative effects she perceived it had upon the policy-making process. "Whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable our economies to grow and develop, because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment" [22].

To All, Rick I believe is referring to the contribution of atmospheric water vapour to global warming. The human greenhouse gases contribution amounts to 1 - 5 % of the problem, according to some scientific resources. Yet to be proven, however not to be discarded.

It's been some time sence it happened. As a small lad I remember the Ohio & Licking river jountion used to freeze solid enough to stop barge traffic from mid December to mid Febuary. The locals would test the ice and once it was so thick they would for go using the bridges in the area and just drive accross the Ice.
That was in the mid 60's.
In the last 35 years nobody can claim to have done a river Ice crossing for the Rivers haven't frozen up even enought to stop barge traffic.
Face the Facts in the last 40 years winter has gotten shorter, spring, summer, fall, are warmer than they used to be 1/4 a degree a year warmer doesn't sound like much till you realise that 40 years hve flown by and now we are talking 10 full degrees warmer on an average.

I don't know why Global warming is a conservative versus liberal issue? No where in the Bible, the US Constitution, or Marxist literature is this mentioned.
It is purely a scientific issue and Conservatives by being taking this up this issue like some kind of mantra are doing themselves real harm. There's lots of money to be made for all in the new technologies. It want slow the worlds growth at all. Of course Biofuels is really a stupid idea perpetuated by people who still think they can get free oil from the back of a McDonalds. Those days are long gone. It's not cheap and it is causing far more pollution than just burning Fossil Fuels. This is something that is agreed by both conservatives and liberals. However,the money grabbing politicians like Obama are still supporting this.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2014 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group