Are Electric Vehicles like the Emporers New Clothes?

I’m not sure why, but I feel a bit like the small child in the parable of the Emperors new clothes, where the child in question is the only individual brave enough to inform the Emperor that he is walking around naked, not clothed in a wonderful new garment

No, I’m not seeing naked emperors, but perhaps their automotive equivalent, the much promoted Electric Vehicle (EV).

I’m not going to go on a positive or negative rant about EV’s, but  just make a few observations about when and how they will likely make a significant contribution to the central issue.  And perhaps ponder on whether there isn’t a need to modify our expectations and do more in the here and now.

We’re told we need EV’s as a solution for The Cars’ contribution to climate change and global warming, though oddly there seems to be more of a focus in the UK on reviving our manufacturing industry with new EV technology.

So what am I seeing that concerns me so? In the first instance it is all about certainty.  The scientific community is quite “certain” that climate change is taking place and equally “certain” that this is linked to man-made CO2 emissions, to which transport, and passenger cars particularly, are a significant contributor.  Doesn’t that mean that what our climate needs now are solutions with an equal amount of “certainty”?

We need real solutions, NOW, that will reduce our impact on the climate

The New Automotive Innovation and Growth Team (NAIGT) produced a handy report for the government last year which outlined a technology road-map out to 2040 and beyond.  It shows the increasing roles that various types of emerging automobile technologies such as hybrids, electric vehicles and fuel cell cars will have over the next 30 years.  The main observation I’d make from this report is that accompanying the inception of Full Hybrids, Electric Vehicles and Fuel Cell cars is a word that we know is right to be there, but perhaps do not acknowledge as much as we should. The word? “Breakthrough”.  For me, a future “breakthrough” is not the same as “certainty”.  It is presented as though it will definitely happen (and it may) but its not “certain” to happen.

Another high profile UK Government advisory body, the Technology Steering Board, also produced a report  last year.  This projected another view of the future as they see it.  Their report states that over the next 10 years, 90% of transport carbon reductions will come, not from hybrids, electric cars or fuel cell vehicles, but from improvements in conventional technologies.  They even put a number to it; they say that they expect future global sales of electric vehicles to reach between 1-3 million by 2020.  This is against a backdrop of circa 50m ish total annual sales.  So even if 3m EV’s sold globally in 2020 were a “certainty”, which it isn’t (and I’ve used the bigger number deliberately), their contribution to carbon reduction is not that great (even if all the electricity they used was renewable, which it won’t be!).

So where does that leave us.

Climate Change is a “certainty”, that it’s man made is also a “certainty”.

It is uncertain that we will achieve the necessary “breakthroughs” to make viable electric vehicles which will make a difference over the next ten years.  Should we stop trying?  Of course not.  Should we develop our charging infrastructure?  Yes, of course.  Should we also promote and encourage the take up of TODAY’s low CO2 cars?  Yes, we should.

Do we have technologies TODAY that WILL make a difference, Yes we do.

Do we have measures in place to help people buy today’s cars that are low CO2?  Well, we have some weak ones - a few quid off VED perhaps.  But nothing like the government’s £5k grant when you purchase an electric vehicle.

Whilst the UK government is happy to throw money at punters to purchase a new Tesla Roadster, (which is unlikely to be used everyday as its as impractical as any sports car), someone buying a new frugal, small,  diesel powered car and using it for their daily commute gets no such incentive.  Where is the logic in that?

A final thought, The cars put on the road today will still be there (in the majority of cases by 2020 and beyond).  By not focusing the public’s mind and helping them purchase today’s green cars, the government is continuing to contribute adversely to transport’s climate impact for some time to come.

Peter, Environmental Transport Consultant, for We Are Futureproof

Scrappage scheme + green car incentive = success!!

A lot has been written this week about the proposal to introduce a scrappage payment for old cars in the UK. Car industry interest in this is unsurprising given the perilous state of the international car industry; car production is down this month by 59% compared to last year. Manufacturers have a clear interest in scrappage schemes, since they can “pull-through” new demand at a time when new car sales are falling off a cliff. In theory at least, Government makes its money back through VAT receipts, which could make the whole policy cost-neutral.

Environmentalists distrust scrappage schemes because the industry supports them. However, as I put it at one meeting recently, just because the car industry supports a particular policy doesn’t necessarily make it a bad thing!

The serious question is whether this is an environmentally friendly policy. On the face of it, trading in an old banger for a nice new motor has benefits, particularly from an Air Quality point of view. Old cars (pre-2000) were built before air-quality restrictions (so-called Euro Standards) came into force. Therefore from an air-quality point of view, trading in your old clunker for a new model is usually going to be a good thing, even if you’re swapping an old petrol for a new diesel car (air quality regulations on diesels are tighter these days than the old “pre-Euro” petrol cars).

The tougher issue is whether scrappage schemes do anything for CO2 emissions. On their own, scrappage schemes don’t help, simply because there is no way to tell whether people will ditch old fuel-efficient models for new gas guzzlers. They may trade in their SUV for a Prius; or they may swap their Clio for a Hummer. There’s no way to tell, or control this.

That’s why we need another tool in the toolbox – a genuine incentive for people to buy a low carbon car. If we had this in place alongside a scrappage scheme, then we could really see people ditching old gas-guzzlers for shiny new low-carbon cars, and transform the market practically overnight.

There are various purchase incentive options. The easiest for the Government is to reform VED even further, making it more expensive to own a gas-guzzler than a gas-sipper. The Government has made useful reforms here, but the drawback is it doesn’t send a clear message at the point-of-sale.

Another option would be to cut VAT for fuel-efficient, low-CO2 cars, in the way that VAT is reduced for energy-efficient household products like lightbulbs. Even better, the Government could go the whole hog and introduce a car-purchase tax weighted by CO2 emissions. However this might be politically tricky (to put it mildly).

I think the easiest option is to reform VED further to give a clearer signal that gas-guzzlers cost a fortune to own, and combine this with a big customer campaign to make sure people are aware of this when choosing their new vehicle. Doing this alongside a scrappage scheme could get people trading in their old gas-guzzlers for climate friendly models in huge numbers, creating a win-win for the climate and the carmakers.

Alex Veitch, for We Are Futureproof