Electrification
Are EVs greener: navigating the environmental debate
Five key frameworks for analysing EV and ICE vehicle comparisons
Published April 2023 | Revised Nov 2023
The shift towards Electric Vehicles (EVs) was initially driven by their perceived environmental superiority over Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. This environmentally centric approach in the 1980s and 90s resulted in the creation of distinctively designed EVs. However, many of these early models failed to achieve commercial success due to their limited appeal.
The roots of electric cars trace back to the 1800s, but the modern era of EVs was shaped by key players such as GM, Toyota, Tesla, and Nissan with their respective models: the GM EV1 (1996), Toyota Prius (1997), Tesla Roadster (2006), and Nissan Leaf (2010).
Tesla, notably with the Model S, transformed the EV market. They not only emphasised environmental benefits but also focused on desirability and driving pleasure, a trend further popularised with the mass-market Model 3. Tesla’s approach has significantly influenced the industry's shift from ICE to EVs, leading to a global commitment by manufacturers to invest heavily in EV development.
Despite this shift, the primary goal of transitioning to sustainable energy remains central to the EV narrative. As EVs increasingly dominate the market, critical questions arise regarding their true environmental impact.
Numerous scientific studies have explored this topic, alongside a plethora of opinion pieces presenting various viewpoints. This article sidesteps the numerical and claim-based debates, focusing instead on the contextual framework necessary for an informed evaluation of EVs’ environmental credentials. This approach recognises the complexity of environmental sustainability, a field often clouded by hidden agendas and biases.
Here are five key frameworks for assessing the environmental claims of EVs compared to ICE vehicles, acknowledging the nuanced and sometimes opaque nature of arguments in this sphere.
Apples and pears
The debate over the environmental impact of Electric Vehicles (EVs) versus Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles often hinges on data comparability. A major issue in these discussions is the potential misuse or misinterpretation of data, where comparisons are drawn based on flawed or inconsistent assumptions.
Both EVs and ICE vehicles share many components, yet differ significantly in their metal usage, particularly in EV batteries compared to ICE engine blocks and related parts. Many analyses focus mainly on the environmental impact of EV batteries, but a more comprehensive comparison should include all parts of both vehicle types for a complete environmental assessment.
Another critical discrepancy often arises in the evaluation of their respective total carbon footprints. A common oversight is the disproportionate emphasis on the carbon impact of EV battery materials and the electricity used for charging, while neglecting to account for the extensive carbon footprint associated with the exploration, refining, transportation, and dispensation of petrol and diesel for ICE vehicles.
It's true that EVs entail a significant amount of carbon emissions front-loaded during battery production, along with continuous emissions linked to electricity generation, especially if it's derived from carbon-intensive sources. Conversely, while ICE vehicles don't have the same upfront carbon costs due to the absence of large batteries, the ongoing carbon emissions from the use of petrol and diesel are substantial.
However, a critical aspect in this comparison is the potential for decarbonisation. The electricity used to charge EVs can progressively shift to more sustainable sources, thereby reducing the overall carbon footprint over time. This is a significant advantage for EVs, as decarbonising the electricity grid is a more achievable goal compared to reducing the carbon intensity of petrol and diesel production and usage. This aspect of the argument must be factored in to maintain a balanced and comprehensive understanding of the environmental impacts of EVs and ICE vehicles.
Context is everything
The context in which assumptions are made is crucial when comparing Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, particularly regarding the maturity and scale of their respective industries. The oil and gas sector, which underpins ICE vehicles, has been a cornerstone of our economy for decades. This industry has achieved significant efficiencies through economies of scale, extensive government subsidies, and the influence of state actors globally. Its development and refinement over many years have led to a robust, multi-trillion-dollar industry.
In contrast, the battery industry, essential for EVs, is relatively nascent. Despite recent advancements and cost reductions, it is still in its early stages of development. This disparity in maturity levels between the two sectors is a critical factor that must be considered in any comparison. Evaluating the well-established, heavily funded ICE industry against the emerging battery sector without accounting for this difference in industry lifecycle stages leads to flawed analyses and potentially incorrect conclusions.
It's essential to recognise that EVs represent a shift towards newer technologies and innovations, whereas ICE vehicles are based on long-established technologies. This context must be at the forefront of any fair and accurate assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of EVs in comparison to ICE vehicles. Understanding these nuances is key to forming a comprehensive and balanced view of the automotive industry's evolution and its environmental implications.
The future is electric
As we enter what could be called the "EV decade," there's a clear consensus among consumers, manufacturers, and governments that Electric Vehicles (EVs) represent the future of transportation. This shift is evidenced by the increasing investment flowing into EV development, significantly surpassing that in Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. This trend indicates not only a financial commitment but also a focused direction for the automotive industry.
The momentum behind EVs is undeniable even if punctuated by slow-downs in adoption rates. They are garnering the lion's share of attention from experts and executives, making it likely that they will benefit more from modern technological advancements. In contrast, while ICE vehicles will continue to receive some technological updates, these improvements are increasingly being tailored for EVs, not ICE vehicles. This divergence signifies a strategic shift in the automotive industry, with EVs being positioned at the forefront of innovation and development.
Almost all major manufacturers have curtailed or ceased major investments in new ICE vehicle technology, indicating a significant shift in focus. This transition suggests that over time, EVs will become increasingly desirable due to their alignment with emerging technologies and innovations, while ICE vehicles may see a decline in advancement and appeal.
Acknowledging this technological trajectory is crucial when comparing EVs and ICE vehicles. The future is clearly being optimised for EVs, influencing factors like efficiency, safety, desirability, carbon efficiency, and overall cost. This landscape underpins the importance of considering the dynamic and evolving nature of automotive technology in any analysis of EVs versus ICE vehicles, recognising that the industry's trajectory is firmly set towards electric mobility.
Analyses that fail to incorporate this long-term trajectory are akin to comparing Windows 11 to Windows 8 without acknowledging that almost no money is being spent on making Windows 8 better, and all attention is on the new kid on the block.
Positive spill-over effect
As billions of investment and research dollars is poured into EVs, the cost of key technologies is likely to reach the efficiency levels that economies of scale produce. Battery cost, for example, has been falling since the mainstreaming of EVs.
By mastering battery technology, we will no doubt see opportunities to apply it in other sectors of our economy – aviation and shipping come to mind. This positive spill-over effect is often missing in most arguments comparing ICE vehicles to EVs. The value of this effect should definitely be added to the tally of the EVs' green credentials.
Another positive point for EVs is that mass adoption by consumers will eventually force the power generation industry to transition to sustainable energy sourcing. That jarring feeling of charging your EV with electricity generated from fossil fuels - the clean car, dirty fuel effect - will push the consumer to demand that all electricity is generated from sustainable sources.
Conversely, however, this point is raised as one of the arguments against EVs. This is missing the positive spill-over effect. The dominance of EVs is about the surest way we can trigger the demise of fossil-fuel-based electricity generation as the clean car dirty fuel conundrum catalyses change in the industry.
Agendas, politicisation, and monetisation
The discourse on climate change and global warming, including the debate around Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, often suffers from politicisation and the pursuit of various agendas. This dynamic can cloud the objective analysis of these important issues.
Firstly, there are the incumbents – traditional ICE vehicle manufacturers and fossil fuel producers. Understandably, they have a vested interest in maintaining their market position and may be inclined to present data that favors their industry.
Then, there are the EV enthusiasts and start-ups in the electric vehicle sector. Deeply invested in the success of EVs, they might overlook or downplay the negative environmental impacts of EVs, presenting an overly optimistic view.
The political class and certain media segments often use the climate change debate as a tool for gaining attention or swaying public opinion. They tend to amplify or deride opinions based on their strategic interests, rather than objective analysis.
Additionally, there are those primarily motivated by financial gain who don’t even bother with analysis. A single point of failure is all they need to fortify their positions. If a statement or argument is likely to go viral, they are on it.
What now?
When assessing the debate between Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, it's crucial to employ a structured approach for a balanced and comprehensive evaluation. The first framework, "Apples and Pears," underlines the necessity of equitable comparison. It focuses on ensuring that the data and assumptions used in the comparisons are directly comparable and relevant, avoiding skewed analyses that result from mismatched metrics.
The second framework, "Context is Everything," emphasises the importance of understanding the broader environment surrounding these vehicles. This includes the historical development, current state, and future prospects of the respective industries, as well as the technological advancements that have shaped them. Recognising this context is vital for a thorough and accurate assessment.
"Future is Electric" forms the third framework. This perspective looks at the trend of increasing investment and innovation in the field of EVs, acknowledging the direction in which the automotive industry is heading. It highlights the potential long-term implications of this shift for vehicle technology development.
The fourth framework, "Positive Spill-Over Effect," expands the scope of analysis beyond the automotive sector. It considers the wider applications of EV technology, such as its potential to transform other industries and contribute to the global shift towards sustainable energy sources.
Finally, the "Agendas, Politicisation, and Monetisation" framework calls for critical scrutiny of the motives influencing various opinions in this debate. Recognising the agendas of different stakeholders, from industry incumbents to political actors, is key to discerning biases and understanding the multifaceted nature of the arguments.