Don’t expect electric cars to save the planet
Banning petrol and diesel vehicles would deliver only minor emissions savings at a vast cost to consumers
Bjorn Lomborg
View attachment 69575
In a move to burnish Britain’s green credentials, Boris Johnson is to announce a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. He is following other political leaders, including Joe Biden, in promising lavish carrots to energise the market for electric cars as well as sticks to outlaw petrol cars. Unfortunately, electric cars will deliver only tiny emissions savings at a very high price.
Electric cars are certainly fun, but usually cost more across their lifetime than their petrol counterparts. That is why subsidies are needed. And consumers are put off by the vehicles’ short ranges and long recharging times. Despite the US offering up to $10,000 (£7,600) for each electric car, for example, fewer than 0.5 per cent of the nation’s cars are battery electric. And almost all the handouts go to the rich. Some 90 per cent of electric car owners also own a fossil-fuel car. Indeed, electric vehicles are mostly a “second car” used for shorter trips and virtue signalling.
If you subsidise electric cars enough, people will buy them. Almost 10 per cent of all Norway’s passenger cars are now electric thanks to generous policies that waive most costs. Over its lifetime, a £23,000 car might receive benefits worth more than £20,000. But this approach is unsustainable for most nations. Even Norway is starting to worry; exempt drivers cost the country more than a billion euros a year.
Innovation will eventually make electric cars economical even without subsidies, but concerns over range and slow recharging will remain. That is why scientific projections do not predict that electric cars will take over the world. A new study shows that by 2030, just 13 per cent of new cars will be battery electric. If Johnson bans new petrol cars by then, he will essentially be prohibiting 87 per cent of consumers from buying the cars they want. That hardly seems politically viable.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that by 2030, if all countries live up to their promises, the world will have 140 million electric cars on the road. But this would not make a significant impact on emissions for two reasons. Firstly, electric cars require large batteries, which are often produced in China using coal power. The manufacture of one electric car battery releases almost a quarter of the greenhouse gases emitted by a petrol car across its entire lifetime.
Second, electric cars are recharged using electricity that is in most countries powered by fossil fuels. Together, this means that a long-range electric car will emit more CO2 for its first 60,000km than its petrol equivalent. This is why owning a second electric car for short trips could result in higher overall emissions. Comparing electric and petrol, the IEA estimates the electric car will save six tons of CO2 over its lifetime, assuming global average electricity emissions. Even if the electric car has a short range and its battery is made in Europe using mostly renewable energy, its savings will, at most, amount to 10 tons.
To use America as an example, if Biden restores the full electric car tax credit, he will essentially pay £5,700 to reduce emissions by up to 10 tons. Yet, he can get US power producers to cut 10 tons for just £45. Indeed, if the whole world follows through and gets to 140 million electric cars by 2030, the IEA estimates it will reduce emissions by just 190 million tons of CO2 – a mere 0.4 per cent of global emissions.
We need a reality check. First, politicians should stop writing huge cheques just because they believe electric cars are a major climate solution. Second, there is a simpler answer. The hybrid car saves about the same amount of CO2 as an electric car over its lifetime. Third, climate change doesn’t care where CO2 comes from. Personal cars represent about 7 per cent of global emissions, and electric cars will only help a little.
Right now, electric car subsidies are something wealthy countries can afford to offer virtue-signalling elites. But if we want to fix the climate, we need to focus on the big emitters and drive innovation in fusion, fission, geothermal, wind and solar energy. Advances that make any of these cheaper than fossil fuels would mean it is not just rich Londoners changing their habits, but everyone, including China and India, switching large parts of their energy consumption towards zero emissions.
Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center
