The Case for Tax-Based Reparations: Norwegian EVs and Congolese Miners
By Piotr Schulkes
Abstract: Norway leads the world in electric vehicle uptake. More than half of new cars sold in the country are electric, and the government has announced it wants all new cars sold to be electric by 2025. Thanks to generous subsidies and a high-earning population, Norway is one of few countries where mass-adoption of EVs is possible. With 100% of Norway’s electricity coming from renewable sources, the transition to EVs has a larger impact than countries – the UK and the Netherlands among them – where electricity comes from fossil fuels. This success story would not be possible without cobalt sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Environmental degradation, extensive human rights abuses, and corruption are norms in cobalt-mining provinces. Norway is uniquely situated to remedy these problems. A small “ethics tax” on EVs sold in Norway would raise substantial funds to pay for social systems in the hardest hit areas of the DRC. Norad is a Norwegian government organisation with vast experience working in countries with corrupt and/or underdeveloped institutions. Deploying the funds earned from that tax through Norad would be an important step towards a more equitable economic system where the gains are not concentrated among the few to the detriment of the many.
The Paris Agreement set 2°C as the upper comfortable limit for global warming, and countries around the world have set targets limiting their pollution with varying degrees of success. Norway’s radical pro-electric vehicle (EV) policies have made the country a world leader in adopting zero-emission cars.
These cars are not without controversy, as their batteries are polluting to produce, the electricity which fuels them often comes from power stations running on fossil fuels, and the production of their components is linked to egregious human rights violations. Amnesty International has called the dichotomy between “people or planet” a false choice, yet this paper argues it may not be a false choice. Section one (the Good) looks at the planet – Norway’s EV policy will be used to illustrate what the best possible outcomes for electric vehicles are: there are no regressive taxes, the electricity which fuels them is renewable, and the adoption of EVs does not put unnecessary strain on the Norwegian consumer. Section two (the Bad) focuses on the people and sheds light on the dire working conditions in Congolese mines. Section three (the Ugly) describes how traditional ways to bridge the people/planet dichotomy do not work, showing the drawbacks of conventional methods of improving working conditions. Section four gives an alternative solution and makes the argument that taxes should be collected in Norway to serve as a form of reparation for the Congolese miners. Higher prices on ethical food or clothing is an old idea, the same practice should be applied to cars. Imposing an “ethics tax” on morally dubious but environmentally necessary metals takes the first step towards acknowledging the difficulties of CliFin (climate finance) and the associated financial ethics. The tax also serves as a starting point to reduce the substantial inequities built into the modern global financial system.
