Skip to main content

The EV skeptics are running out of gas

Kaedi Sanchez plugs in her car at a city of Albuquerque electric vehicle charger before heading to work. Sandia researchers have been studying the vulnerabilities of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, including public chargers, to better inform policymakers. Photo by Craig Fritz (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025

Help us raise $150,000 by December 31. Can we count on your support?
Goal: $150k
$19k

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.”

Bill Maher let Bjorn Lomborg and Bret Stephens knock over a bunch of straw man arguments against electric vehicles. At this point, though, that's all the skeptics have left.

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