Two in five do not believe EVs offer an environmental benefit over petrol or diesel cars — poll
This week, a UK-based NGO, Climate Barometer, published worrying findings for the UK's efforts to reach net zero. If you are not familiar with the work of Climate Barometer, I strongly recommend signing up. They provide regular valuable insights on how the public see climate policy and politicians' handling of climate change.
In their latest publication, it was disappointing, though not surprising, to see polling that suggests 40% of the public believe the myth that electric cars are not better for the environment than those with internal combustion engine. That finding bodes badly for net zero given that EVs are the primary means of cutting out the UK's largest source of GHGs.
The notion that EVs offer little or no environmental improvement is one of the most widespread myths about electric cars. Like all myths, this is based on a kernel of truth. Making the batteries is more energy intensive than making an engine, allowing people to say EVs have an initial 'payback period’ - after which higher upfront emissions from manufacture are offset by lower emissions during the vehicle’s life.
This payback period is very often misstated. A recent report from a well respected consultancy has been doing the rounds on our social media feeds stating that, at the current average European grid carbon intensity, EVs in Europe would take 20-40,000 km to repay that debt. That claim was then repeated in a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Let us think about the claim for a minute - is it even meaningful? No European power grid is in a static state, and the vast majority of europeans take at least a couple of years to do that sort of mileage. How will average grid carbon intensities have changed in that time? The energy think tank Ember reminds us on a regular basis about the rapidly growing build-out of wind and solar, which are driving down grid carbon intensities in Europe, by an average of 19% in 2023. If we know that grids are changing, and that statistic assumes them to be static to analyse an activity that will last several years, then what if anything does it really say?
These claims are so tenuous, they typically collapse when subject to any kind of scrutiny. If we dig into this report’s methodology, we discover the authors have put a lot of faith in manufacturer claims about vehicle fuel efficiency, using them as the basis for their calculations. If you walked into a dealership and the salesperson slaps the bonnet and proudly tells you 'she does 46 MPG', would you believe it? Fortunately this is not a matter for the Church, thanks to data collected by the European Commission's work monitoring on-board fuel consumption by 2.5 million vehicles driven in real world conditions by ordinary motorists in 2022. They found that what a manufacturer claims to be 46 MPG is in reality more like 38 MPG. That means 20% more carbon per km than is accounted for in that calculation of the payback period.
One reason payback period calculations are tenuous is that they draw their authors into judgments of responsibility that are almost always wrong. In calculating the 20-40,000 km figure, the report's authors consider the emissions from the electricity grid used to power the vehicle, but neglect the upstream emissions associated with extracting and refining the fuel, where fugitive methane emissions can have huge global warming impacts. For some reason the authors have deemed that these emissions are not the responsibility of the petrol vehicle's owner, yet the EV owner must take responsibility for the emissions from the electricity they consume. The result of this kind of lazy reasoning is often repeated in the pages of mass market media, where as we see, it crystallises into a loss of public faith in a technology that is vital for net zero.
A selection of recent EV misinformation
The analogy of the payback period seems irresistible to describe the overall carbon impact of EVs. It is a brilliant communications device. Anyone who has used a credit card or taken a loan knows what a payback period is, and how it works. Whereas in finance it is always clear who owes the debt, in upstream carbon accounting the responsibility for a tonne of CO2 is too often pushed in the direction of the end user and consumer. This not only risks muddying the waters around discussion of clean transport options, but it also risks absolving the companies profiting from the production and sale of fossil fuels from their responsibility to deal with their waste product.
There is something particularly perverse about the myth that electric vehicles do not offer environmental improvements. It plays on people’s concern for the environment and desire to do their bit to reduce their impact on the environment. In an age of mistrust, it turns healthy scepticism into lazy cynicism that denies people the hope that technology can solve environmental problems.
What should be done about this? In the UK, statutory sales targets now compel carmakers to sell more EVs, and thereby to take the lead in challenging EV misinformation. Marshalling the marketing budgets of the automotive industry is a wise move by policymakers, but the state of EV misinformation is clearly becoming so big that policymakers will soon have to ask their officials to start drawing up further options. Car companies can only do so much, and their claims about environmental performance with be greeted with a well-earned scepticism. A broad campaign comprising many voices from trusted sectors will be necessary to restore trust in electrified transport. Without it, misinformation only looks set to gain more ground.
