Nett på sak, Lan Marie Nguyen Berg | Prepare for huge rate growth if the think tank can decide the policy

The triumphant speech of the Green Party Councilor for the Environment, Lan Marie Berg, after the elections shows what can happen: – We love the toll ring! Berg yelled and supporters cheered with waving flags.

For lovers of tolls, it is a fragment of the joy that more and more people buy silent and pollution-free electric cars, that is, a means of transport that is efficient locally and that has less negative impact on the environment. local.

To use the same logic, one can only fantasize about what the state loses if people stop drinking alcohol, stop smoking, eat less sugar and unhealthy foods, and fly less; then state taxes will drop.

Unbelievably, it has now become a problem, we must believe a so-called expert committee that recently presented its recommendation to the Minister of Transport Knut Arild Hareide (KrF). The committee proposes eliminating the electric car discount on the toll ring and introducing a new, perpetual toll tax for everyone, no matter where they drive.

The problem is that the state will lose 1.4 billion crowns in 2030 if people continue to buy pollution-free cars. To use the same logic, one can only fantasize about what status loses if people stop drinking alcohol, quit smoking, eat less sugar and unhealthy foods, and fly less; then state taxes will drop.

– Completely desperate and a policy that will lead to higher emissions, says Christina Bu, leader of the Electric Car Association.

And you’re right about that: Today, only 1 in 10 cars in Norway’s car fleet is electric, while 8 out of 10 cars are powered by fossil fuels (gasoline / diesel).

Electric cars are more expensive and less practical than those that pollute. In order to influence consumers to continue buying an electric car, we offer tax breaks and other benefits. The policy has worked but not enough. Still, 60 percent of new car buyers buy cars that pollute.

To propose that buying an electric car should be relatively less favorable is the same as making it relatively more profitable to choose gasoline or diesel cars.

Both the Norwegian Electric Car Association and Bellona understand this simple economic connection. – You can set the rates for electric cars as much as you want, as long as it is twice as expensive for gasoline and diesel cars, says Christina Bu.

The environmental organization Bellona agrees: – Hareide should not be tempted to make short-term profits. Anything that can slow down restructuring means more time is needed before electric cars can be fully and fully part of a tax regime for cars, senior adviser Benjamin Stranquist writes to NRK.

The basic problem is not that people buy electric cars, but that politicians spend more money than they have and despair when there is less income in the treasury. The series of tolls in the last election shows how unpopular it is with an additional tax to travel to work.

But what is now being proposed is actually a small toll meter on all cars, and an easy way for politicians to raise tolls everywhere. Although it is not the proposal for the commission, the report has an interesting graph that shows the potential. In Oslo alone, tolls can increase by almost NOK 10 billion a year under the so-called marginal cost principle.

In 2019, drivers paid around NOK 5.9 billion in tolls in Oslo, Stavanger, Bergen and Trondheim, and roughly the same amount outside of major urban areas. This is the base year for the sample calculation.

More environmentally conscious consumers will likely continue to buy electric cars, and the committee therefore fears that revenues will fall by NOK 1.4 billion by 2030. The fear is that the state will receive less money because drivers choose emission-free cars.

If more people had stopped smoking or drinking alcohol, it would also have resulted in a tax loss for the state. But hardly anyone would despair of people making more sensible decisions. It is equally illogical to worry about falling incomes when people take steps that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to eliminating the discount for electric cars, the committee proposes eliminating the one-hour rule (which provides a discount for multiple passes in the same hour) and also eliminating the maximum limit on tolls in one day. Therefore, it is important that the cash register works at full capacity, regardless of the reasons people may have for choosing a car.

Tolls or electronic road pricing refers to how we should pay for the operation of old roads and the construction of new ones. The basic principle must be that it is a common public expense because everyone needs a road, whether they have a car or not. If you get sick, the ambulance must come. And if you buy products, they are sent to you.

Using financial incentives to influence behavior is smart, whether you want less rush hour traffic (when there are bottlenecks) or less driving with polluting cars. The insulted toll networks are quite effective relative to other taxes. Typically 20 øre lost per crown is calculated in taxes, while toll stations cost 833 million crowns and removed 11 billion in 2018 (about eight percent).

To financial desk theorists, electronic road pricing sounds complicated. But it has serious privacy issues. A GPS-based assessment in each car provides accurate data of where it is at all times and, as the case against Laila Bertheussen shows, the prosecution is willing to use health data from its own mobile phone to map where it has been. moved out. Electronic road pricing is a new step towards the surveillance society.

But it also has another side, namely a simple method for politicians to raise road taxes with simple tricks. Are we willing to give them that power when the winners can scream that they love the toll?

P.S! What do you mean? Do you want a higher price on the roads and an electronic meter in your own car, or do you want politicians to cut other expenses? Write a reader letter?