For the past few weeks, I’ve been focusing on electric vehicles (EVs), examining fallacies being embraced by those who don’t believe we can build a cleaner future. This is a key battleground for fossil fuel interests and people who dismiss the seriousness of the climate emergency. Last week, I wrote about how the EV industry is building a circular economy. This week, I examine Big Oil’s unethical response to the threat of competition from EVs.
Canadian oil executives, politicians and lobbyists like to claim the world prefers Canada’s “ethical oil” because we have excellent environmental standards and a history of extracting resources responsibly. That claim is debatable, but when Big Oil attacks successful climate solutions like electric vehicles, the facade of ethical conduct is shattered.
EVs have an obvious advantage over gasoline and diesel engines because they have no emissions as you drive them. Internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles have tailpipe emissions with health risks from sooty particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (toxic air pollutants like benzene, acetaldehyde and butadiene), nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide when burning diesel. Is it any wonder oil industry enthusiasts want to talk about something else besides combustion engine emissions?
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a typical ICE passenger car emits several tonnes of greenhouse gases (GHGs) every year, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide. When Americans and Canadians drive the most polluting fleet of vehicles on the planet, every tailpipe taken off the road is a step in the right direction.
Ethically challenged individuals argue that charging EVs with coal-fired electricity is actually more polluting than burning gasoline. This is especially misleading when only seven per cent of Canada’s electricity is generated from coal-fired plants. Eighty per cent of electricity in Canada comes from hydro, nuclear and renewable sources. Some provinces still rely on fossil-based electricity, but the vast majority of Canadians can charge their EVs with reasonably clean electricity.
Let’s crunch some numbers for an Alberta motorist driving 1,500 kilometres per month. For city driving in cold weather, the battery performance of the Tesla Model Y is estimated to be 179 watt-hours per kilometre, or 268.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) for the month. Electricity generated in Alberta produces 0.6 kilograms of CO2 per kWh. With charging efficiency losses of 15 per cent, the EV’s monthly emissions are 0.19 tonnes of CO2.
Fuel consumption for a Honda Accord averages 7.5 litres per 100 kilometres and according to Natural Resources Canada, “Burning [one litre] of gasoline produces approximately 2.3 [kilograms] of CO2.” The tally for an Accord’s monthly emissions is 0.25 tonnes of CO2. This figure challenges the claim that EVs charged from a fossil-heavy electricity grid are dirtier than good old combustion-powered vehicles.
Undaunted, most EV critics beholden to Big Oil will fall back on denigrating the CO2 emissions required to produce an EV battery. According to a report by McKinsey & Company, emissions due to mining and battery production amount to 0.1 tonnes of CO2 per kWh, or six tonnes for a Model Y battery pack. The report goes on to examine how leading battery manufacturers might hit their target of reducing CO2 emissions to one-fifth of the current amount, or 0.02 tonnes of CO2 per kWh.
Producing gasoline is a complex process from start to finish. Oilsands crude has nearly double the emissions of conventional oil production in Canada, but let’s look at the conventional oil scenario. Exploration including drilling requires a significant amount of energy, mostly in the form of diesel fuel to power drilling rigs and generators. Once you’ve tapped a reservoir, a pumpjack is needed to pull the oil out of the ground, typically consuming 9,960 kWh per month. By one estimate, the 4.3 terawatts of electricity consumed monthly by all the pumpjacks in the United States would be enough to power 15 million EVs.
Exporting oil also requires an incredible amount of energy to pump oil through continent-spanning pipelines and to power oil tankers with the world’s dirtiest fuel, emitting 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
Refineries are energy hogs and a major source of air and water pollution. Then the gasoline produced by these refineries has to be delivered to your local gas station in diesel-powered tanker trucks. It’s an inefficient system rife with polluting energy consumption.
The well-to-tank emissions required to keep us driving are estimated to be 0.72 kilograms of CO2 per litre. An EV battery can be recharged for the life of the vehicle, while your gas tank continues to accumulate production emissions every time you fill it up. Well-to-tank emissions must be calculated for the lifetime of the vehicle to be a fair comparison with an EV battery.
Since most EVs come with a 160,000-kilometre warranty on the battery, we’ll use that as a conservative estimate for a vehicle’s lifetime. (EV batteries will generally last much longer, with a Tesla Model S surpassing 500,000 kilometres in Alberta.) The well-to-tank emissions resulting from the fuel required to drive the Honda Accord for 160,000 kilometres are 8.6 tonnes, 40 per cent higher than the emissions from producing the battery for the Model Y.
Industry experts may challenge these rough calculations. However, the EPA is very clear that claims about EV emissions being greater than ICE vehicle emissions are indeed myths. Even Alberta’s Municipal Climate Change Action Centre debunks claims that EVs don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Who stands to gain from perpetuating these falsehoods? Big Oil’s business case would be crippled if more than a billion vehicles stopped burning gas and diesel. Exponential growth of EV adoption is very bad for business, and we should expect a formidable effort to slow down or prevent this technology transition from happening. It’s harder to explain why journalists and individuals latch onto these misleading narratives.
When industry leaders, banks and politicians have full knowledge of the environmental and climate consequences associated with any delay in reducing air pollution and GHG emissions, it’s irresponsible and unethical to actively undermine a technology that reduces demand for their dangerous product. Nevertheless, Big Oil is prioritizing profits and bonuses over the health and well-being of billions of people.
Industry spokespeople argue that the world still needs fossil energy and it would be harmful to reduce production while demand is still increasing. This is 100 per cent true and it’s why policies and targets are needed to manage an orderly transition. However, the subversive attempt to create skepticism around electric vehicles, renewable energy and climate science is a breach of ethical conduct.
Furthermore, Canada’s Competition Act prohibits false and misleading representations that may adversely impact a competitor’s business. Competition law is being used against recent greenwashing campaigns by the oil industry. How difficult would it be to connect industry representatives with the multi-pronged disinformation campaigns against EVs?
In light of Big Oil’s ongoing anti-social behaviour, it’s very clear that ethical oil is a marketing construct that defies reality. Many people are unaware of the ongoing manipulation that keeps them buying gas-guzzling vehicles. In the face of a slowly overheating planet, investors in the world’s largest oil companies have voted down petitions calling for stronger measures to mitigate climate change. This is exactly the result oil executives envisioned when they crafted their unethical response to the warnings of their own scientists.
Rob Miller is a retired systems engineer, formerly with General Dynamics Canada, who now volunteers with the Calgary Climate Hub and writes on behalf of Eco-Elders for Climate Action, but any opinions expressed in his work are his own.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Donald Low
Mort Laitner
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
visit website
