Despite a number of European countries setting a date to end the sale of combustion engine cars (I have written about the UK date for this), there are many people who do not believe that this fight is over.
The argument goes, electric cars use more resources to manufacture them. Coupled with the fact that most electricity is made by burning fossil fuels you are creating less carbon emissions to just drive a gas guzzler (the arguers suggest the most carbon intensive means of creating electricity).
This argument is generally phrased better than I have above, and is usually accompanied by sums. However it is rubbish, and on several occasions mainstream articles of this kind have been shown to have been written by an author with vested interests (if not directly paid by fossil fuel reliant companies). It should also be noted that in these carbon sums, generally the electric car manufacturing carbon footprint is included, but often the fossil fuel car manufacturing carbon footprint is not.
Another thing that must be done to make fossil fuel better than electric cars, is a slanted view of powering by emissions. When it comes to petrol, Â is carbon footprint, is just what’s emitted from the tailpipe – forget carbon emissions of getting it out of the ground, transporting it vast distances, safely holding it till needed. On the other hand, when it comes to an electric car the numbers are slanted the other way- all the electricity is generated from the dirtiest coal or oil (of course with no carbon capture).
Thankfully many governments around the world are ignoring this self serving twaddle, however given the urgency the climate change fight needs, any delay these tactics cause could still be devastating.
Shrink that Footprint have a fair attempt at writing about this issue.
The Daily Mail and Forbes have published articles that appear to have significant bias.
