95.9 percent of all new car sales in Norway are now fully electric

Norway is the world leader for changing how people think about cars.

Mark Wales

Jan 21, 2026

By Mark Wales

January 21, 2026

Add to Google News

Photo credit: Photo credit Canva and Hans-Petter Fjeld/ Wikimedia Commons – Electric vehicle and the flag of Norway.

Electric cars have emerged as one of the most promising tools for cutting emissions and lightening the heavy footprint caused by carbon-based fuels. While the United States continues to face challenges like cost, infrastructure, and consumer confidence, Norway has achieved what once seemed impossible.

In 2025, nearly all new cars purchased in Norway were fully electric. Understanding how Norway succeeded offers valuable insight into how the U.S. could better transition to cleaner transportation.

charging station, parking fees, infrastructure, carbon-effecient vehicles, electric cars, green energy, incentives, innovation — A parking lot for charging electric vehicles. Photo credit Canva

How is Norway going green with EVs?

Of the new cars registered in Norway for 2025, 95.9% were electric vehicles (EVs). The country’s move toward EVs was successful not only in pushing short-term strategies, but also in thinking beyond the horizon. In a country known for its cold, mountainous terrain, it seemed an unlikely place for moving off petrol-based cars. After all, with the limited travel distance by electric cars and the need for expensive infrastructure like charging stations, it doesn’t seem like a good pairing.

The Norwegian government started by making electric vehicles cheaper. Norway has an expensive value-added tax (VAT) that makes new cars more expensive. To encourage purchases of the more carbon-efficient vehicles, this tax, as well as import duties, were waived. They reduced parking fees, tolls, and ferry fees, adding more incentives to make EVs less costly overall than fossil-fuel cars.

Norway also invested in creating an extensive infrastructure, making access to even the most remote areas possible with an electric car. A 2025 study showed Norway’s EV infrastructure was advocated through strategic fast-charger placement and ongoing innovation. They built over 27,000 public charging points nationwide capable of serving 447 chargers for every 100,00 people.

Yet, it’s not only tax incentives and infrastructure that brought about the monumental move toward greener transportation. Clean and reliable electricity from Norway’s hydropower stations means the grid itself is more world-conscious. Their consistent long-term policies have kept incentives in place for many years, giving consumers and the automakers more confidence in making a greener future.

oil, environment, solar, wind, energy costs, carbon footprint, renewable energy — Oil production. Photo credit Canva

The benefits of the EV carbon footprint versus fossil fuel-powered vehicles

The benefits of EVs are not as cut and dry as we’ve been led to believe. A 2025 study revealed that electric cars produce more pollution, especially from the manufacturing of batteries, than gas cars during initial creation. But after about two years, electric vehicles become cleaner. They help reduce harmful air pollution and cause much less damage to human health on the planet—about one-third as much.

EVs are expected to increase environmental benefits in the coming years, much like solar and wind. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, not only are electric vehicles more energy-efficient, but they also have lower fuel costs over time and reduce the carbon footprint. The value is significant in areas with less-clean electricity and even more so in areas powered by renewable sources. A 2024 study by the University of Houston showed the environmental benefits grew over time. Not only was there improved air quality as well as reduced fuel and energy costs, but there were also fewer premature deaths.

Earth, United States, USA, battery repair, consumer hesistation, public health, economy, government — Sun shines over the Earth. Photo credit Canva

USA struggles to find a stronger footing with EVs

Electric cars have been more difficult to adopt in the United States. A 2024 study showed that the upfront costs of an EV were a significant reason for consumer hesitation. Trends show buyers want cars under $45,000, and most are priced much higher than that. Also, there is a significant lack of infrastructure without charging stations available or reliable enough to make people comfortable with the switch, a term described as “range anxiety.”

Concerns over maintenance, long-term costs, battery repair, and reliability makes the purchase less likely. Analysis from industry leaders revealed that fewer attractive options make it harder to connect with the average buyer. In 2021,The National Bureau of Economic Research reported that government incentives and sociopolitical differences across states made EV demand uneven.

Norway has done something significant in the race to find more sustainable ways to meet energy demands while decreasing the amount of harm to the environment. The success of the EVs demonstrates that large-scale change happens when clean choices become easier and cheaper. The small country offers a powerful blueprint of sustained policy, smart infrastructure investment, and practical incentives to shift behavior. With culture wars, consumer perception, and resistance to simple virtue signaling, the US has a challenging road to follow. Hopefully, Norway has set a standard and path worth trying anyway.

Add to Google News

More for You

Photo credit: Jake C/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA – Acid mine waste turns rocks orange along Shamokin Creek in Pennsylvania.

Environment, Science

America’s next big critical minerals source could be coal mine pollution – if we can agree on who owns it

Mine waste could power clean energy.

Good Partner

4/27/2026

Hélène Nguemgaing

Alan Collins

Across Appalachia, rust-colored water seeps from abandoned coal mines, staining rocks orange and coating stream beds with metals. These acidic discharges, known as acid mine drainage, are among the region’s most persistent environmental problems. They disrupt aquatic life, corrode pipes and can contaminate drinking water for decades.

However, hidden in that orange drainage are valuable metals known as rare earth elements that are vital for many technologies the U.S. relies on, including smartphones, wind turbines and military jets. In fact, studies have found that the concentrations of rare earths in acid mine waste can be comparable to the amount in ores mined to extract rare earths.

Scientists estimate that more than 13,700 miles (22,000 kilometers) of U.S. streams, predominantly in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, are contaminated with acid mine discharge.

We and our colleagues at West Virginia University have been working on ways to turn the acid waste in those bright orange creeks into a reliable domestic source for rare earths while also cleaning the water.

Experiments show extraction can work. If states can also sort out who owns that mine waste, the environmental cost of mining might help power a clean energy future.

Rare earths face a supply chain risk

Rare earth elements are a group of 17 metals, also classified as critical minerals, that are considered vital to the nation’s economy or security.

Despite their name, rare earth elements are not all that rare. They occur in many places around the planet, but in small quantities mixed with other minerals, which makes them costly and complex to separate and refine.

MP Materials’ Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine and Processing Facility, in California near the Nevada border, is one of the few rare earth mines in the U.S. Tmy350/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

China controls about 70% of global rare earth production and nearly all refining capacity. This near monopoly gives the Chinese government the power to influence prices, export policies and access to rare earth elements. China has used that power in trade disputes as recently as 2025.

The United States, which currently imports about 80% of the rare earth elements it uses, sees China’s control over these critical minerals as a risk and has made locating domestic sources a national priority.

The U.S. Geological Survey has been mapping locations for potential rare earth mining, shown in pink. But it takes years to explore a locations and then get a mine up and running. USGS

Although the U.S. Geological Survey has been mapping potential locations for extracting rare earth elements, getting from exploration to production takes years. That’s why unconventional sources, like extracting rare earth elements from acid mine waste, are drawing interest.

Turning a mine waste problem into a solution

Acid mine drainage forms when sulfide minerals, such as pyrite, are exposed to air during mining. This creates sulfuric acid, which then dissolves heavy metals such as copper, lead and mercury from surrounding rock. The metals end up in groundwater and creeks, where iron in the mix gives the water an orange color.

Expensive treatment systems can neutralize the acid, with the dissolved metals settling into an orange sludge in treatment ponds.

For decades, that sludge was treated as hazardous waste and hauled to landfills. But scientists at West Virginia University and the National Energy Technology Laboratory have found that it contains concentrations of rare earth elements comparable to those found in mined ores. These elements are also easier to extract from acid mine waste because the acidic water has already released them from the surrounding rock.

Acid mine drainage flowing into Decker’s Creek in Morgantown, West Virginia, in 2024. Helene Nguemgaing

Experiments have shown how the metals can be extracted: Researchers collected sludge, separated out rare earth elements using water-safe chemistry, and then returned the cleaner water to nearby streams.

It is like mining without digging, turning something harmful into a useful resource. If scaled up, this process could lower cleanup costs, create local jobs and strengthen America’s supply of materials needed for renewable energy and high-tech manufacturing.

But there’s a problem: Who owns the recovered minerals?

The ownership question

Traditional mining law covers minerals underground, not those extracted from water naturally running off abandoned mine sites.

Nonprofit watershed groups that treat mine waste to clean up the water often receive public funding meant solely for environmental cleanup. If these groups start selling recovered rare earth elements, they could generate revenue for more stream cleanup projects, but they might also risk violating grant terms or nonprofit rules.

To better understand the policy challenges, we surveyed mine water treatment operators across Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The majority of treatment systems were under landowner agreements in which the operators had no permanent property rights. Most operators said “ownership uncertainty” was one of the biggest barriers to investment in the recovery of rare earth elements, projects that can cost millions of dollars.

Not surprisingly, water treatment operators who owned the land where treatment was taking place were much more likely to be interested in rare earth element extraction.

Map of acid mine drainage sites in West Virginia. Created by Helene Nguemgaing, based on data from West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, West Virginia Office of GIS Coordination, and U.S. Geological Survey

West Virginia took steps in 2022 to boost rare earth recovery, innovation and cleanup of acid mine drainage. A new law gives ownership of recovered rare earth elements to whoever extracts them. So far, the law has not been applied to large-scale projects.

Across the border, Pennsylvania’s Environmental Good Samaritan Act protects volunteers who treat mine water from liability but says nothing about ownership.

Map of acid mine drainage sites in Pennsylvania. Created by Helene Nguemgaing, based on data from Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access

This difference matters. Clear rules like West Virginia’s provide greater certainty, while the lack of guidance in Pennsylvania can leave companies and nonprofits hesitant about undertaking expensive recovery projects. Among the treatment operators we surveyed, interest in rare earth element extraction was twice as high in West Virginia than in Pennsylvania.

The economics of waste to value

Recovering rare earth elements from mine water won’t replace conventional mining. The quantities available at drainage sites are far smaller than those produced by large mines, even though the concentration can be just as high, and the technology to extract them from mine waste is still developing.

Still, the use of mine waste offers a promising way to supplement the supply of rare earth elements with a domestic source and help offset environmental costs while cleaning up polluted streams.

Early studies suggest that recovering rare earth elements using technologies being developed today could be profitable, particularly when the projects also recover additional critical materials, such as cobalt and manganese, which are used in industrial processes and batteries. Extraction methods are improving, too, making the process safer, cleaner and cheaper.

Government incentives, research funding and public-private partnerships could speed this progress, much as subsidies support fossil fuel extraction and have helped solar and wind power scale up in providing electricity.

Treating acid mine drainage and extracting its valuable rare earth elements offers a way to transform pollution into prosperity. Creating policies that clarify ownership, investing in research and supporting responsible recovery could ensure that Appalachian communities benefit from this new chapter, one in which cleanup and clean energy advance together.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Keep Reading →
Photo credit: Mickey Pullen/Smithsonian Environmental Research Center – A long-running experiment is testing tree mixes to develop the healthiest forests.

Environment, Science

Don’t just plant trees, plant forests to restore biodiversity for the future

Biodiversity makes planted forests stronger.

Good Partner

4/23/2026

John Parker

Justin Nowakowski

Around the world, people plan to plant more than 1 trillion trees this decade in an ambitious effort to slow climate change and reduce biodiversity loss. But if the past is prologue, many of those planted trees won’t survive. And if they do, they could end up as biological deserts that lack the richness and resilience of healthy forests.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

The United Nations declared 2021-2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration to encourage efforts to repair degraded ecosystems. Tree planting has become a centerpiece of that effort, championed by initiatives such as the Bonn Challenge and the Trillion Trees Campaign.

However, many tree-planting commitments have a critical flaw: They rely too heavily on monoculture plantations – vast areas planted with just a single tree species.

A grove of commercially grown poplar trees, planted in lines with not much active beneath them. Mint Images via Getty Images

Monoculture plantations are generally one-way tickets to producing wood. But these high-yield plantations are high risk and can be surprisingly fragile. When drought, pests, or forest fires strike, entire monoculture plantations can fail at once. In one example, nearly 90% of 11 million saplings planted in Turkey died within three months due to drought and lack of maintenance.

Forests are more than just timber factories. They regulate water, store carbon, provide habitat for wildlife, cool the landscapes around them and even provide human health benefits.

Rather than gambling on a single species and hoping for the best, science now points to a smarter path that captures both ecological and economic benefits while minimizing risk: mixed-species plantings that mirror the biodiversity of a natural forest, ultimately creating forests that grow faster and are more resilient in the face of constant threats.

The long-running BiodiversiTREE study compares forest plots containing several tree species with single-species monocultures. The results, illustrated here, show that mixed-species plots, right, produce 80% larger trees compared with monocultures, left, resulting in denser canopy growth that creates cooler understory microclimates, leading to more abundant and species-rich communities of insects, spiders and birds. Sergio Ibarra/Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

We are community and landscape ecologists at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Since 2013, we and our colleagues have been rigorously testing this idea in a large, ecosystem-scale experiment called BiodiversiTREE. The verdict is striking: Trees in mixed forests don’t just survive – they outgrow their monoculture counterparts and support dramatically more biodiversity.

Trees with diverse neighbors grow larger

Thirteen years ago, we teamed up with volunteers to plant nearly 18,000 tree seedlings on 60 acres of fallow fields on the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center campus near the Chesapeake Bay.

We didn’t plant just a single species. We planted 16 different native species from all walks of tree-life. Some species were fast-growing timber species, some were mid-story species, and some were slow-growing species that might not reach full size for a century or more.

Some plots we planted with just a single species – homogenous rows of the same species over and over again. But others were planted with random allotments of four and 12 species, reflecting the middle and upper ends of tree diversity in similar-sized areas of our local forests.

We asked a simple question: What would happen if we tried to mirror nature and plant a mixture of species instead of a monoculture?

A drone image shows some of the BiodiversiTREE plots, including monocultures, outlined in white, and mixture plantings, outlined in green. Mickey Pullen/Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

The differences over a decade later are striking.

The monoculture plots – those that survived – resemble traditional plantation forestry that historically has dominated rural lands in the Southeast and Pacific Northwest in the U.S. They contain rows of tall, narrow trees with sparse canopies and little life below.

The mixed-species plots, by contrast, are layered, complex and dynamic, with foliage filling the canopy and a diversity of plants and animals thriving underneath.

These visual contrasts reflect real ecological gains. Trees grown in mixtures, including important timber species like poplar and red oak, are up to 80% larger than the same species when grown alone. Mixed plots supported fewer leaf pathogens, more abundant caterpillar communities that provide food for birds, and increased phytochemical diversity in their leaves. We hypothesize that these leaf chemicals, some of which deter animals from eating them, reduced browsing damage from hungry deer, ultimately leading to higher tree growth in the mixed plots.

Plots with several tree species also had much fuller, denser leaf canopies, leading to cooler, shadier conditions that help understory plants flourish and support up to 50% more insects, spiders and birds.

The fuller canopy of 12-species forest plots like the one above supports more insects and birds than the monoculture plots. John Parker/Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

A sycamore monoculture plot at the BiodiversiTREE project provides little canopy cover. John Parker/Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

This pattern isn’t unique to our site. The BiodiversiTREE project is part of TreeDivNet, a global network of large-scale experiments spanning more than 1.2 million trees and hundreds of species. Across continents and climates, the results are consistent: Forests with a mix of species tend to grow larger, store more carbon and better withstand stress from drought, pests and disease.

So why are monocultures still common?

Despite decades of evidence, mixed-species plantings remain relatively rare in practice. Most commercial forestry operations still rely on monocultures, and these plantations are counted toward international planting campaigns aimed at slowing climate change and reversing biodiversity loss.

The reasons are generally practical: Mixed plantings can be more complex to design, more expensive to establish and harder to manage. Crucially, until recently, there has been limited evidence that they can match or exceed the economic returns of conventional plantations.

Technician Shelley Bennett uses high-resolution GPS to lay out plots for an experiment at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Maryland. Regan Todd/Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

A new experiment at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center called “Functional Forests” aims to bridge some of the gaps between science and practice. We’re developing intentionally designed combinations of trees to test whether specific mixtures of species can contribute ecological benefits while also providing timber and other services that humans need to support a thriving, sustainable economy.

Each of the 20 tree species in the Functional Forests project was chosen to provide one or more benefits, including timber, wildlife habitat, food for people, resistance to deer and climate resilience. But no single species provides all of these benefits.

Some of the nearly 200 plots will contain a single species, while others include carefully selected combinations of five species assembled based on the functions they provide. Some plots are protected from deer browsing, while others are left exposed.

The Functional Forests project includes trees with edible fruits like the pawpaw (Asimina triloba), one of 20 different tree species being planted there. Jamie Pullen/Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

By comparing these approaches, we can test how different planting strategies perform across a range of goals, from timber production to food production and from biodiversity to climate resilience.

Landowners and communities have different priorities, whether that’s producing wood, supporting wildlife or creating forests that can withstand a changing climate. The idea behind Functional Forests is to design plantings that can deliver these multiple benefits all at once, rather than optimizing for just one, essentially leveraging the positive effects of biodiversity to achieve real-world goals.

Planting 1 trillion trees wisely

The stakes are high. Restoration has become a major global investment, with hundreds of billions of dollars already being spent annually. Getting it wrong means wasted resources and missed opportunities to address some of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time.

If the world is going to plant a trillion trees, we believe it needs to do more than just put seedlings in the ground. It needs to rethink what a forest should be.

The goal isn’t just to grow trees. It’s to grow forests that last.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Keep Reading →
Photo credit: Canva – (Left)Plastic pollution from the ocean and (Right) Moringa oleifera seeds.

Environment, Science

Plastic pollution in drinking water could be solved by a simple seed from a ‘Miracle Tree’

It removes over 98% of microplastics.

Mark Wales

4/21/2026

Plastic pollution has been a serious problem since the rise of fossil fuel-based manufacturing. As tiny plastic particles find their way into something as essential as drinking water, the world needs a solution quickly.

The answer may be simpler than we expect. Researchers testing a salt-based extract from Moringa oliefera seeds were able to remove over 98% of microplastics from drinking water. The study published in ACS Omega showed that the simple filtration system could be adapted for water treatment facilities at a lower cost and requires less energy.

A father shares drinking water with his son.
Photo credit Canva

‘Miracle Tree’ produces miracle seeds

The Moringa oleifera is a tropical tree native to parts of South Asia. Today, it’s cultivated on a global scale. Thriving in harsh, drought-prone regions, this “miracle tree” has been used to treat hundreds of conditions. Healthline reported that it contains 90+ bioactive compounds that help combat everything from inflammation to stress. A 2023 study in MDPI showed medicinal properties could be utilized in nearly every part of the tree, from its leaves to its roots.

However, the solution to the plastic problem comes from its seeds. Researchers ground and mixed the seeds with a salt solution to pull out positively charged proteins. This mix attracts impurities, including microplastics, like a natural magnet. Clumping and binding with the impurities in a process called “coagulation,” they then sink to the bottom.

Microplastics on top of a father’s and a daughter’s fingers.
Photo credit Canva

Microplastics removed from drinking water

Researchers tested this plant-based method against the industry-standard chemical alum: aluminium sulfate. The moringa extract worked across a wider range of conditions than alum, demonstrating reliability in real-world applications. As concerns grow over the long-term impact of chemicals used in water treatment, there is a clear need to shift toward safer alternatives.

Simplifying the filtration process can significantly reduce both costs and energy demands typically required on an industrial level. This approach enables communities lacking resources to have an effective solution for plastic pollution.

An industrial water treatment plant.
Photo credit Canva

Treating plastic pollution is a global problem

Developing countries face major environmental and health threats from plastic pollution. A 2024 study in Science Direct showed 60% of global plastic consumption and production comes from countries lacking proper quality control. A 2023 study in MDPI revealed that even where infrastructure exists, it’s limited and overwhelmed. Facing 120 million tons of waste annually, the situation suggests pollution is widespread and underreported.

Offering a cheap and efficient option, Moringa oliefera seeds could be an invaluable solution. But it’s still not a perfect system. The seed extract is an organic material. That means proteins and fats can remain in the water after filtration.

A 2025 study in Scientific Reports found organic matter reacting with disinfectants like chlorine is linked to health risks, including cancer. Also, stored water would be susceptible to bacterial regrowth and become contaminated over time. Researchers on the study believe this is an area of ongoing work that requires more research.

Microplastics are everywhere. With inconsistent water treatment, less monitoring, and weaker waste systems, exposure is high and poorly controlled. Moringa oleifera isn’t a flawless fix, but it’s a promising study. The seeds could eventually work alongside modern systems, bringing us closer to tackling the complex problem of plastic pollution in our water.

Keep Reading →