By Emily Schutte
When an Electric Vehicle is marketed as “zero-emission,” consumers expect their car does not cause pollution, right? Well, in the case of zero-emission vehicles, the phrase only refers to “tailpipe exhaust emissions of certain pollutants or greenhouse gases,” according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Many miss this fine print and buy EVs, believing they are helping the environment.
In reality, while removing the element of exhaust, EVs emit 20-26% more tire dust annually than gas cars due to their added battery weight.
That battery is lithium ion, which is both volatile and susceptible to catching fire. These fires emit toxic gas and burn so hot that they are difficult and dangerous to extinguish.
Building the components of an EV requires 84% more minerals than a gas car. This adds significantly to the outsourced emissions via mining. One such lithium mining operation in Chile used 65% of the region’s water, leaving the inhabitants to find other water sources while causing contamination that killed animals and ruined farmland.
Consumers should be aware EVs are not “zero-emission” and do cause significant harm to the environment. I fear consumers are being misled by this term, so environmental regulators should stop requiring manufacturers to market EVs as “zero-emission” vehicles.
Emily Schutte is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Robert Elvis Clark
Hi, Emily.
You should also look into PGE’s proposed Utility Scale Electric Energy storage battery projects (Oregon PUC docket U435, I think it is). They are very, very expensive relative to standby fossil fuel peaking plants and their manufacturing involves a lot of Coal power in China. They too don’t seem to be anywhere near Net Zero. I very much appreciate your article here.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD
Dear Emily,
You are certainly correct that “zero-emission” vehicles are far from zero-emissions. EVs run on electricity that has to be produced somewhere. In the United States, as in many other countries, most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels. Hence, such vehicles should be required to have a bumper sticker saying “This Vehicle Runs on Fossil Fuels” or “This Vehicle Runs on Coal.”
In the Pacific Northwest, we are lucky to have massive hydroelectric dams to provide a significant portion of our electricity. We also have one large nuclear power plant.
All can claim to be zero-emission.
But we have mistakenly gone for unreliable wind installations that purport to be zero-emission. Because they require such substantial backup from quick-start (low efficiency) natural gas thermal power plants, they use more gas than high efficiency gas turbine plants alone. The combination is far from zero emission.
An additional part of the subterfuge with “zero emissions” is the implication that emissions of carbon dioxide and water (the benign byproducts of our civilization) are harmful. That is complete nonsense.
Green plants combine carbon dioxide and water in the presence of sunlight to produce glucose, from which all life is made. And more is significantly better. We are able to feed the eight billion people who call this planet home, thanks to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 0.03% to 0.04%.
Zero-emission vehicles are a fraud in many ways.
Mark Warner
As the writer of this article has intimated, in assessing the merits of replacing vehicles powered by fossil fuels with those powered by electricity in terms of economy and external effects, one must examine both the production and operation aspects of each type of vehicle. The key question that needs to be addressed in performing this analysis seems to be this: To what extent will the reduction in fossil fuel consumption and exhaust pollution resulting from the elimination of internal combustion engines be offset by additional fossil fuel consumption and exhaust pollution that is brought about by the production of additional electricity needed to charge the batteries that power the electric vehicles?