The rise and spread of electric vehicles is one of the biggest stories of our century, and it’s still unfolding. In time, and far less of it than its skeptics would like to admit, this story will transform the global auto industry, destroy millions of barrels per day of oil demand and force petrostates like Saudi Arabia (and Alberta) to reckon with a new economic reality. It is, in every sense of the term, a new industrial revolution.
Those skeptics aren’t giving up the fight just yet, though. On a recent episode of Bill Maher’s “Real Talk” the subject of electric vehicles was fodder for its “overtime” panel, one that included political scientist Bjorn Lomborg and New York Times columnist Bret Stephens. Lomborg and Stephens are well-documented climate slow-walkers, and they didn’t disappoint on that front. But what was most striking wasn’t their continued efforts to muddy the water on this issue but how impotent they are.
Lomborg started in on EVs by suggesting they’re “probably better” for the climate, which is a bit like conceding that a chicken breast is healthier than chocolate cake. There was a catch, of course: they’re only better if you actually drive them. “A lot of people buy them as second vehicles, just mostly to virtue signal and drive to the local store.” If you can’t already spot the straw man being built here, you’re not looking hard enough.
It’s true that EVs are driven slightly less frequently in America than gasoline-powered vehicles, although the difference isn’t nearly as stark as Lomborg pretends. According to the US Department of Energy’s 2022 National Household Travel Survey, EVs averaged 12,400 miles per year compared to 14,100 miles for gasoline vehicles. At this rate of usage it wouldn’t take long before the relatively higher GHG emissions associated with EV battery construction were clawed back by the far lower emissions attached to operating the vehicle. Indeed, as Eric Taub wrote in the New York Times in 2022, “erasing the difference does not appear to take very long. In a study conducted by the University of Michigan (with a grant from the Ford Motor Company), the pollution equation evens out between 1.4 to 1.5 years for sedans, 1.6 to 1.9 years for S.U.V.s and about 1.6 years for pickup trucks, based on the average number of vehicle miles traveled in the United States.”
Oh, and guess what? America’s usage pattern of electric vehicles is a global outlier. As Bloomberg New Energy Finance noted in a recent snapshot, EVs in countries like China, France, and the Netherlands actually get more annual mileage (kilometreage, I suppose). In China, the world’s biggest EV market, EVs travel 66 per cent more than gasoline vehicles, while in Norway they travel 40 per cent further. This is almost certainly due to their widespread use there as ride-hailing vehicles, a trend that could easily come to America in due course.
Lomborg’s biggest complaint about EVs, it turns out, is that they’re just too heavy. “The point here is that they’re about 700 pounds heavier,” he said. “That gives more air pollution from the brakes and tires, and it makes them more dangerous in traffic….they will probably end up killing more people.”
I’m all for a weight limit on vehicles, or a tax that’s scaled to the size and mass of a car. There’s no question that the growing demand for ever-larger trucks and cars is making roads less safe, especially for the passengers in other smaller vehicles. This is something that regulators can and should address. But are EVs really the problem here? The biggest cars on the road, after all, are the SUVs and trucks that American automakers can’t seem to quit making — and consumers keep buying. Yes, an electric drivetrain does add significant weight, but it seems like we’re missing the forest for the trees here — deliberately, I suspect.
Oh, and about the pollution being generated by the brakes and tires of electric vehicles? The very fact that EVs use something called “regenerative braking” makes the former a moot point, especially since gasoline powered vehicles don’t benefit from that technology or its beneficial impact on brake pad usage. As to the tires — something the Daily Mail has referred to as “the dirty secret of electric cars” — the Guardian found no meaningful difference between EVs and gasoline vehicles. “It is certainly the case that ever heavier cars almost certainly produce more tire particulates. Electric cars are – for now – heavier still than equivalents. But even so, tire pollution appears roughly comparable between petrol, diesel and electric cars.”
Stephens wasn’t about to miss out on the fun. “One question,” he said to Lomborg. “What about the mining lithium, mining cobalt, mining all the minerals that go into batteries. That’s dirty, right?” Lomborg didn’t miss the softball that the Times’s star columnist had just lobbed his way. “Very dirty.”
This has already been addressed in the life-cycle analysis of a given vehicle’s emissions. But it’s an especially tired and tedious talking point given the advances being made in battery chemistry , ones that will eliminate the need for rare earth minerals and things like lithium in favour of more common elements like sodium. Mercedes, for example, just announced a joint venture with an American firm that will produce a so-called “solid-state battery” it claims will nearly double EV range while significantly reducing its weight. Almost every major automaker, from Honda and Toyota to Volkswagen and China’s Nio, are working on their own solid-state batteries. All promise to extend range, improve performance in cold weather, and lower both weight and cost.
Folks like Lomborg and Stephens — and, sadly, Maher, a self-described environmentalist who did nothing to push back against any of their nonsense — are running out of excuses here. I have no doubt they’ll continue to throw up as many straw men and red herrings as they can find, but I have even less doubt that they’ll be proven as such almost immediately. The war here is over: everyone who’s still fighting is just engaged in a rearguard battle with their own dignity.
Comments
Mining associated with EVs has "already been addressed"? An "especially tired and tedious talking point"? The author's reliance on "advances being made in battery chemistry , ones that will [someday, maybe] eliminate the need for rare earth minerals and things like lithium", and Mercedes, which simply "claims" it will "nearly double EV range while significantly reducing its weight", and "promise to extend range, improve performance in cold weather, and lower both weight and cost"?
These are dreams for the future, not valid arguments for now. Car makers plans for the future do not address the very obvious adverse effects of mining now and for an indeterminate time to come. The author might be wise to read what is going on now with mining lithium in Argentina, Bolivia and elsewhere, Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart's untiring demands to mine metallurgical coal on the eastern slopes of the Rockies where water quality and quantity is seriously at risk, the list goes on. A dream of the future does not address this very valid concern does not mean it has been addressed or that it is an invalid as a "tired and tedious talking point".
As with so many environmentalists who have bought into electrifying everything as a panacea, the author appears to have turned a blind eye to the unintended but obvious consequences, which risk simply compounding the ecological and social crises we are trying to solve. If a person knows and loves, or simply cares, about the integrity of land, water, biodiversity, it would be difficult to dismiss the catastrophic harm mining does.
Well said Jillian! Add to this the generalized reality - we are in overshoot on every front. Moreover, though we constantly hear of the exponential growth of solar and wind, marveling at their progress, according to the International Energy Agency, dependence on fossil fuels has remained around 82% over the last decade.
The entire EV discussion is a red herring. Psychologically, we are let off the hook. Virtue signaling maintains nothing but the status quo. If we were serious, we would be discussing how best to ration the use of fossil fuels. We are dreaming if we think EVs are a solution to planetary overshoot.
I don't know of one online EV advocate who said EVs are the only solution. All have continually said they are only part of fighting climate change, and most understand the limits.
Peak car on the planet has already happened. How? Electrified mass transit build out in Asia and Europe. The beauty of EVs is that they will quickly and directly eliminate liquid petroleum in transportation.
My favourute solution is to build walkable communities with decent transit, something I already experience because we don't live in the car dependent suburbs. But I also recognize we are in the minority with car dependency hovering around 10% instead of 90%, and that decreasing the suburban 90% will be terribly expensive to society and will take decades.
Regarding the IEA, their annual reports continuously document the growth in INVESTMENTS in renewables, which exceeded fossil fuels for the first time just last year. It also documents the continuously falling PRICE of renewables, solar now being the cheapest form of energy ever invented. Your 82% usage figure is cherry picked shamelessly from all the other data, and represents a snapshot in the obvious lag time it takes to replace fossil fuels.
Okay. Let's just continue on with the status quo. Mining metals and rare earths for the computer you wrote that comment on, and for transit buses and stainless steel cutlery for your table, not to mention the kettle for your morning cuppa. Oh wait, maybe we should include the metal in your gas furnace and the copper in your home wiring system.
Isn't there a saying for hypocrisy? Something about pots and kettles? Made of mined and smelted metal?
Better yet, let's just stop mining and pumping gas. There! Job done. We'll just look the other way when the heat goes off and stuff rusts out and food cannot be delivered to stores any more because there's no more diesel or spare parts for the delivery trucks. What a perfect scene for the Walking Dead without the zombie appocalypse.
The fact is, there ARE replacements for metallurgical coal, not to mention cobalt and nickel. They're already in the works. The most important replacement for mined steel making coal is ..... electricity and, yes, recycling existing metals.
But you don't care to have that discussion while offering no solutions or replacements of your own other than to stop mining.
That's not discourse. That's one-sided preaching.
The largest lithium deposit on the planet is in the US, not exactly a centre for child labour and an absense of environmental standards, though it, like every advanced nation, still has its share of corporate conservatives trying to do just that.
Lithium is being diluted in batteries mainly by hybriding it with silicon, sodium and manganese. And like scrap steel and aluminum pop cans, it is perfectly recyclable over and over forever. A nearly absolute recycled resource is possible and would be the best way to keep mined fresh lithium out of the supply stream.
But some absolutist critics are so far gone down the change nothing ban everything track that there is no discussion, just religious zealotry.
Surprised to learn that Bill Maher is still on the air.
Yes, Bill Maher is still on the air and has become fairly pointless to watch these past 3-4 years. It seems Bill has become overly opinionated and jaded in his comments to the point he is a waste of time to watch.
Some of the other tactics the skeptics spew on social media is to keep pushing EV fires, while ignoring the fact that fossil fuel vehicles catch fire everyday on our roadways due to poor maintenance. Then they push the false narrative that with EVs plugged into the grid, we will all be sitting in the dark soon, due to an overloaded grid.
Overall, the skeptics are grasping at straws to discourage EVs these days anyway they can, but it is clear, they are fighting a losing battle. Who knows, maybe some of these more outspoken skeptics are enumerated in some way by the fossil fuel industry. It isn't the first time that social media influencers have been caught with their fingers in a till somewhere. Most social media influencers are a joke with the garbage they spew everyday.
Other claims by skeptics are charging problems, range, tires & brakes where they claim they wear out quicker, and the most laughable claim that EVs have performance problems. They even point out that EV owners are main problem why they are so bad, that EVs are not fun to drive, they won't work in cold climates and reliability is a problem. The list of excuses just goes on ...
I have yet to hear anything negative about EVs from people I know who own them, drive to & from work everyday or travel. In fact, they all say how much they love them and no longer being held hostage by the price at the pump. The only point ever made is they are still pricey, but so are a lot of other fossil fuel vehicles.
I read a report recently that documented fires in Land Rovers. It's not pretty because their rate of fires far exceeds EVs in general. LRs are also very heavy, often exceeding EVs in the same luxury price and vehicle size range.
Then you've got Expeditions, Yukons, F150s, Pilots and so many more gas burning SUVs and trucjs posing as household fashion necessities that the knock against EVs about fire and weight and cost is completely laughable.
Once again, we are presented with a false choice between EVs and ICE cars as our main transportation vehicle. Public transit, cycling, walking, and a halt to sprawl are all left out of the equation. The revolution we actually need.
On the environmental, climate, health, and social front, the main issues revolve not around ELECTRIC cars, but electric CARS and car culture.
Environmentalist critiques of cars, car dependency, and car culture go back many decades — long before the advent of EVs and professional climate liars like Lomborg and the Fraser Institute.
Environmentalists have never embraced cars, car culture, and sprawl. Why would they start now? EV promoters have yet to reckon with the environmental issues around cars.
It is idle to pretend that the car is a sustainable transportation option. EVs are not even a band-aid solution —more cars make our sprawl problem worse and ultimately irremediable.
Sprawl is a transportation nightmare EVs contribute to, but will never solve. Advocate for EVs, and you advocate for sprawl.
Nationally, sprawl and car dependency are increasing. We have not even begun to bend the curve away from sprawl, more commutes by car, longer commutes by car, and more single-passenger traffic. People are buying larger and heavier vehicles (SUVs and pickups). Nationally, all these metrics are going in the wrong direction.
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
It is also idle to argue that necessary improvements in public transit will take too long. It is like arguing that cancer treatment will take too long. The longer you wait, the worse the problem gets and the more difficult to overcome. Meanwhile, cars continue to fuel sprawl, putting real solutions out of reach. How and when would these trends ever be reversed?
We can put 60 car drivers on a bus tomorrow. For less money than it takes to buy 60 cars. The buses are there, waiting. All they require is the funds to operate them.
Just because urban redesign and efficient public transit will take decades to achieve is not reason for delay. Every transition on the table takes decades. The energy shift from fossil fuels to renewables. The shift from ICE cars to electric also takes decades.
We have no time for delay. No time for going in the wrong direction. No time for filling our super-sprawled cities with EVs. No time for wishful thinking and empty prophecies.
EVs are a detour from sustainability. There is no evolution from more private cars and more sprawl to efficient public transit. More private cars and more sprawl do not enable efficient public transit at some future date — they make it impossible. The dream of EV promoters and car makers is to make a monumental challenge impossible. EV dreams only prolong our urban nightmare.
If people are not willing to give up their cars today, why would they do so decades down the road, when sprawl is even worse? Once new generations of middle- and upper-class consumers are happily ensconced in their automobiles, there is no shifting them. There is no incentive for governments to invest in and improve transit if the vast majority vote for cars and EV subsidies.
EV subsidies are terrible transportation and climate policy.
We can cut far more emissions far faster and cheaper with public transit.
A bus can carry far more people. Cars are parked most of the time. Typically, the only passenger is the driver.
EV subsidies cut fewer emissions at a higher price per tonne of carbon. One of the least cost-effective, least efficient ways to spend public transportation and climate dollars.
Cars and car culture are the bane of urban life. Massive externalized environmental, health, and social costs. We do not need more cars clogging our city streets. EVs and EV subsidies promote sprawl, which spells the death of public transit.
Sinking public dollars into private cars just slows public transit down — and puts the only sustainable solution out of reach.
Climate/EV subsidies for households are regressive, because they largely flow to affluent homeowners, who do not require subsidies. Meanwhile, non-drivers — the poor, the young, and the old — remain marginalized.
We have a choice: the public good — or private benefits for the few, while perpetuating the same ills that car culture has inflicted on society for decades.
Feel free to buy an EV if you want one. Just don't ask me to help pay for it.
Living the dream in a great walkable neighbourhood in Vancouver. Don't need an EV becayse we don't need to drive much, but there a a few times it can't be avoided. We also have a subway and three major bus routes framing the neighbourhood.
But that doesn't mean my circumstanes apply to suburban car commuters who will have to wait a couple of generations for viable transit alternatives to appear. I'm confident they will be built mai ly becayse Metro Vancouver has a fundamental challenge that needs a transportarion solution far more efficient than cars and freeways: Ain't a lot of land left for sprawl, mainly because of mountainous and oceanic geography, and the very wise decision to create the Agrucultural Land Reserve 50 years ago.
Metro Vancouver's urban development area envelops only about 820 km2 out of its total 2,800 km2 area. The majority of the undeveloped area is protected forested watersheds in the North Shore mountains.
About 40-45% of the urban land is paved over for cars, which make up about 70% of the vehicle fleet. Yep, we cab do better. Having said that, MV has akready made huge progress in urban efficacy already by geographical necessity. It enacted rhe Livable Regions Strategic Plan that promoted seven regional "town centres" (what boring terminology!) linked by rapid transit. That has been a roaring success, though no one back then foresaw the 80-storey towers proposed today, with the average height limit in some individual cities being 55.
Not many other western North American cities have these challenges or have been literally forced to make better urban decisions. Thus, there will be a long period of time before the majority of cities move away from car dependency.
In MV, the decision to act against car dependency was made in 1992, but ir's still a thing until the raw land runs out, which is foreseeable. Transit and compact urban design are following incrementally. Land use and economics are forced into smaller spaces naturally.
In provinces and states with abundant, cheap farm land at the urban periphery, it's still too easy and cheap to consume multiple km2 at a time for suburban sprawl and monster freeways and mass addiction to gasoline.
I don't see EVs as a huge issue where I live because car dependency in general is slowly eroding, not fast enough in my view, but rapid transit is now actively sought out by MV cities. It's far easier for us to lace up our walking shoes and carry groceries in a back pack from one of a half dozen food stores just a 10 minute walk away than to fire up the econobox. But as we age our priorities nar chang
...may change.
Are there Edit Buttons somewhere in CNO's future?
Not in reply to Mr. Botta, but as an addendum to my own comment:
Any dollar — or million dollars — society has to invest in transportation will transport more passengers and reduce more emissions when spent on public transit instead of cars.
That holds true today, tomorrow, next week, next year, or a decade from now. It will always be the case.
Another bus can join the fleet tomorrow. Another one the day after. Keep adding buses. Reduce or eliminate fares. Make car drivers pay the full costs of driving. Waiting for a tomorrow that never comes is folly.
Same principle when it comes to investment in renewable energy vs. carbon removal — in particular, direct air capture (DAC) — a topic visited earlier in the week.
"Carbon removal and emissions reduction must go hand in hand" (National Observer, 24-Sep-24)
Rather than use our limited renewable energy resources to power DAC, we can reduce more emissions at lower cost in everyday renewable energy applications that displace fossil fuel energy. I.e., use renewables to power our homes and industry, not DAC.
I watched that Bill Maher episode last Friday but fast-forwarded past Lomborg as I do ANYONE still "slow-walking climate change" as you said, and am close to doing the same with the whole program because Bill Maher definitely HAS become more conservative the last while, a criticism he's quite defensive about because I suspect he knows it's valid.
What is interesting is that in the "overtime" part you speak of, Bill's other guest Stephanie Ruhle from MSNBC was absent, probably because she was the most reasonable. I saw her expression, and shared it, when she mentioned Project 2025 and Bill dismissed the importance of that. But she went on to skewer both persistent, stupid "bothsidesism" AND Bret Stephens (and Maher) admirably regarding the petty waffling about Kamala Harris' "policy" credentials, and she did this by citing an apparently popular game I don't know of called "Would You Rather?" Her point was of course that the very PRESENCE of Trump as the other option is ALL, a truly spectacular example of missing the forest for the trees.
Several commenters here are predictably doing this on the topic of EV's with their usual lack of perspective as they proudly trump everyone, AGAIN, with a textbook example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. It's truly inarguable when evil incarnate prances in the wings.
Hi Max,
I happened to have seen that Maher segment, and was naturally
appalled. You seem to have kicked the tires real good here.
Best license plate on a Tesla: EWW GAS