A friend has asked me whether or not Electric Vehicles (EVs) in Ontario actually reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) since there seems to be some chatter that they don’t.
If you think that the electricity used to charge the EV battery will produce more emissions than a conventional vehicle – you would be incorrect. In Ontario where we have eliminated coal as a fuel for generators, the clean mix of fuel generates 96% less carbon dioxide than burning gasoline. Using only natural gas based generation for EV charging GHG emission reduction would be approximately 50%. In jurisdictions where coal is used to generate electricity the situation is less favourable at 20% less but still worth switching to EVs.
There is a view that the cradle-to-grave emission for EVs is a brake-even with conventional vehicles. That’s a matter of opinion based on approximations of energy consumption and fuel sources. I can generate numbers to prove either case.
The spin on EV emissions
There is a different spin on EV emissions that some Analysts and Researchers have claimed which relates to government rebates.
A study by Professor Ian Irvine of Concordia from 2017 claims that EV subsidies undermine the efficiency requirements of conventional vehicles thereby negating any positive effect of emission reduction from EVs. If I can summarize the theme of the report, it points out how the carbon credit system can be ‘gamed’ to trade any GHG gains back to manufacturers who can then relax efficiency improvements to conventional vehicles which offsets the reduction from EVs. It spins around a common Canada/US GHG emissions standard called CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy).
The Montreal Economic Institute makes a similar argument in their June 2017 article “Are Electric Vehicle Subsidies Efficient?”. They conclude that EV subsidies have little effect on GHG emissions and cost more than other incentives and initiatives that achieve the same result. The article falls short of specifics on what the ‘other’ initiatives actually are but alludes to market forces of supply and demand.
To make a long story short, switching to EVs has a tremendous impact on GHGs but the rules associated with carbon tax and trade may negate the benefit.
It isn’t the subsidy that’s the problem. The carbon tax and trade process is.
Consumer choice
If I had the choice – as an informed consumer – to select one of two cars which had a similar life-cycle cost:
- Car ‘A’ which uses conventional fuel with a substantial operation and life-cycle GHG impact
- Car ‘B’ which has zero GHG emission and lower life-cycle GHG impact than Car ‘A’ on the environment
Which would I choose?
That’s a no-brainer for me. Car ‘B’ wins every time.
But what if Car ‘B’ had a substantially higher life-cycle cost of say 30%?
That changes everything for me. I’ll stick with Car ‘A’, thanks.
A subsidy that levels the economic playing field for the consumer makes the difference between reducing GHGs and going with the status quo.
Where the rubber hits the road
It’s not difficult to see where things went off into the ditch. Apparently we have completely lost sight of how to achieve GHG reductions. Instead we have an overly complex system with more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese.
It is disappointing to read articles that focus on the economic failings of current policy and completely overlook the obvious. The articles that are critical of the subsidies favour going back to flawed agreements like CAFE, carbon tax and trade. It’s all just a shell game that moves GHG emissions around and businesses profit from it. When you know something is broken – fix it!
Government Policy only works if you stay one step ahead of those that seek to ‘game-it’ and profit from oversights and loopholes to undermine the original intent. In this case the policy has failed and needs to be completely reworked or scrapped.
So does the EV subsidy reduce GHG emissions – or not?
I can say definitively that swapping conventional vehicles with EVs will reduce GHG emissions considerably. Subsidizing the purchase price of the EVs will increase the market share of zero emission vehicles.
What I can’t speculate on is how the private sector will respond with the management of emissions from conventional vehicles. How much faith do you have in private sector economics when it comes to managing environmental issues?
Perhaps you have your answer.
If we are serious about GHG emissions and moving forward we will keep the EV subsidy and scrap CAFE and the other mechanisms that don’t serve the world-wide need to reduce GHGs.
Let’s hope the PC government doesn’t lose sight of the original goal for emission reduction as they proceed with the elimination of the carbon cap-and-trade.
By all means – throw out cap & trade and come up with something that actually works.
See my articles on Electric Vehicles.
We only have one planet. Let’s treat it with respect.
Derek
