End Fossil Fuels! The Battle Cry of Climate Protestors is Profoundly Impractical and Unreasonable

 

     Despite the record deployment of wind and solar around the world last year, fossil fuels remain the source of 82% of primary energy production. Thus, fossil fuels basically run the world. Climate activists are effectively demanding that we stop all human progress and return to pre-industrial times. Of course, I know it’s just rhetoric, that chanting “End Fossil Fuels” is not so unlike Iranians chanting “Death to America.”

     I was surprised when I heard a couple of interviews with Al Gore on the sidelines of the UN conference in New York. His focus was similar to his focus in the late 2000s – blame fossil fuel companies. He claimed fossil fuel companies were insincere in their attempts to reduce emissions, made fun of solutions like direct air capture (which is being pursued by other entities aside from fossil fuel companies), and praised the record deployment of wind and solar. He noted that wind and solar made up 88% of new power deployments and praised growing EV deployment. According to the Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy, wind and solar accounted for 84% of electricity demand growth. That means fossil fuels made up 16% of demand growth which in turn means that fossil fuel deployment is still growing. It also does not take into account that some retiring nuclear plants, underperforming wind and solar plants, and underperforming hydroelectric plants (of which there have been many in recent years due to droughts) were replaced by fossil fuels when needed. Cleaner fossil fuels like natural gas also replaced coal. Thus, it is likely that fossil fuels utilization grew even more than it would appear. The simple fact is that wind and solar are not replacing fossil fuels. They are not even covering demand growth, although they are getting closer to covering it. It is also true that EVs are not yet affecting oil demand. One reason might be that EVs are not generally driven as many miles as ICE vehicles. Range and charger available are issues that affect driving miles.

 

 

Demonization of Fossil Fuels: Same Old Story 

 

     Al Gore has been demonizing fossil fuels and fossil fuel companies for a long time. It is a main tactic of climate groups. Gore also expressed admiration for these protestors as he has in the past, suggesting that they are a major grassroots movement that shows massive public support. The reality is that they are a minority that is well organized and dedicated.

     Climate scientist Michale Mann is also a major demonizer of fossil fuels. I have heard him speak and was surprised by his high degree of politicization. I have read a couple of his books as well. I think he and Gore’s focus on this demonization is basically a cop-out, of placing the blame on a scapegoat. The sheer lack of support for decarbonizing fossil fuels, especially oil & gas is a red flag for me as is the lack of focus on coal and the strong focus on oil & gas, especially since gas is much less carbon-intense than oil and especially coal. I find it odd that oil & gas are demonized far more than coal. Of course, fossil fuels cover coal as well.  Oil companies are being sued, not coal companies. Why? It could be that many coal companies have gone through bankruptcy and oil companies are more economically healthy. I was at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources early this week and I encountered protestors. I saw several Stop Fracking signs but nothing about stopping coal. Nobody ever chants ‘make fracking safer’ or ‘lower emissions’ just ban, stop, eliminate, end.  

     It’s Climate Week again and protestors are outside Bank of America protesting a bank that loans money to fossil fuel businesses. All businesses get bank financing. Why should fossil fuels be any different? Fossil fuels are often quite profitable and good investments for banks. Vox’s Rebecca Leber writes: “These demonstrations are the biggest climate protests in years. But they are also bolder, more singular in focus, and have narrowed their attack on the fossil fuel industry in particular. Fossil fuels — and the companies that have profited mightily from extracting them — have long been the central villains in the climate crisis, but over the past decade or so, the movement’s message has been more diffuse. Consider the 2014 People’s Climate March, which didn’t focus specifically on ending fossil fuels but rather on broad global action and spreading awareness of global warming’s potentially devastating impacts. Today’s activists are angry. They want to name and shame.” 

     Al Gore thinks fossil fuel companies are insincere about decarbonizing. But they have to balance making a profit with decarbonizing under heavy scrutiny. People who work at fossil fuel companies are generally highly educated. Fossil fuel companies have done quite a lot in developing green technologies. The oil and gas industry was one of the main early users of solar panels. Exxon's research led to very important developments in battery technology. Methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are being addressed successfully. Many oil and gas companies across the value chain are utilizing renewables and electrifying drilling and hydraulic fracturing, electrifying LNG plants, enabling energy efficiency improvements, and buying carbon offsets. The technological improvements in the industry have led to lower emissions. Much more efficient large natural gas turbines in combined cycle plants are lowering emissions. Hydrogen blending is on the horizon. Carbon capture and sequestration is on the horizon. NET Zero’s sCO2 natural gas plants with carbon capture are on the horizon. Renewable natural gas from processed biogas from landfills and anaerobic digesters is growing and oil & gas companies are involved. Companies are focusing quite a lot of effort and private investment in these areas. I wrote a book about these efforts in 2022 – Natural Gas and Decarbonization. Many more improvements have happened since then. Thus, I would argue that Al Gore is simply wrong.  

     If the goal of climate activists is to punish and deconstruct the systems that provide 82% of global energy at an affordable cost, then their goal is really to harm the global economy. It’s really hard to argue against that. These groups want to stop all fossil fuel infrastructure and oil and gas exports and to shut down some existing infrastructure. Countries around the world in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and South America are counting on U.S. LNG exports, most of which are now certified as responsible natural gas. I would argue that the argument that we need to stop building natural gas infrastructure is flawed because that new infrastructure can support the replacement of coal plants as well as older less efficient natural gas plants. It can support needed exports of decarbonized LNG. It can keep natural gas available and affordable during cold snaps, thus improving reliability and preventing the burning of more oil and coal in power plants. Just as Al Gore has not changed so too does Bill McKibben continue to demand that we ‘keep it in the ground.’ He praised the new nonsense frivolous lawsuits against oil companies. Instead of promoting a California oil industry and buying oil from California oil companies, the state buys it from overseas. California is still the biggest oil & gas consumer in the country even if Governor Gavin Newsome got cheers for saying: “The Climate crisis is a fossil fuels crisis. It’s not complicated.” The loss of fossil fuel availability in Europe last year damaged the economies of several countries. It was considered to be a crisis simply because fossil fuels are needed. The so-called climate crisis may become a crisis at some point, but I don’t believe it is a crisis now, extreme weather events aside. Some activists are blaming Biden even as he was able to enact the most comprehensive decarbonization push ever enacted. For many reasons, it certainly won’t make an impact as fast as climate activists are hoping.

     Oil & gas companies have also been subject to shareholder demands to reduce emissions as have the banks that fund them. Protestors focusing on banks just increases that pressure. Movements of the past like the divestment movement and even the asinine degrowth movement are still around. The ESG movement has slowed down a bit due to backlash among the anti-woke crowd but perhaps also a bit due to some recognizing the need for the affordable reliable energy that natural gas can provide. As long as there is robust demand for natural gas, oil, and even coal, it will be pursued. That is the reality. To demand a system based on expensive direct subsidization, mandates, strict time schedules, and coercion that threatens higher costs and lowers reliability is not exactly a recipe for success.

 

 

Crisis vs. Manageable Problem

 

     The battle over decarbonization has become a battle over the speed of it. That speed includes the speed of deployment of wind and solar but also the speed of un-deployment of fossil fuels. But that is not a true equivalence. Aside from the fact that part-time wind and solar can only partly replace full-time fossil fuels, we still have to contend with the fact that fossil fuels are in increasing demand at current decarbonization levels. Since renewables are not yet even covering demand growth, they are not replacing fossil fuels. Thus, there is no logical reason to reduce fossil fuels. That means there is no logical reason to prevent new deployments since that will just result in shortage, in supply disruptions, which will increase costs. Thus, I would argue that much of the climate movement is the perpetration of rhetoric that promotes solutions that are impractical and will be expensive for consumers. The solution is simply to keep going at the current rate and not get ahead of our technological and financial capabilities.

     Decarbonization would be a much easier problem to solve without the time constraints, which may not be correct as there are still considerable uncertainties about things like climate sensitivity and impacts.  In any case, adaptation to extreme weather events should be prioritized over decarbonization of our energy systems. I think we are putting enough effort and financial resources into that decarbonization. Emissions are stabilizing in many places and globally they are not rising nearly as fast as previously. We should continue decarbonizing at current considerable levels rather than foolishly accelerating it. Ever since the IPCC put out that 1.5 deg report in 2019 it inadvertently set the new target as well as the new point of no return. The net-zero 2050 pledges are aspirational as are many of the goals of the climate movement. The problem arises when they begin to demand what is aspirational, what is technologically very challenging at the least, and financially unfeasible.

 

 

Phase-Out vs. Abatement

 

     The focus on phasing out fossil fuels is likely to continue and grow it seems. But where are the details? There is often little mention of focusing on the highest-emitting fossil fuel, coal, ahead of the lowest-emitting fossil fuel, natural gas. This is important because much of the decarbonization that has occurred in the world has been through replacing coal with natural gas for power. This is especially true in the U.S. as the demonized process of “fracking” enabled the U.S. to lead the world in decarbonization and has the potential to do the same in Asia especially. The president-designate of COP28, Sultan al-Jaber, did mention “abated fossil fuels” at the UN conference. Of course, he is head of a fossil fuel producer in a country built on fossil fuel profits. Climate activists have long called abating fossil fuels with things like carbon capture and storage or hydrogen false solutions to keep them viable for longer. Al Gore says it’s a mistake to think that oil and gas companies are part of the solution to emissions, but the alternatives can’t even keep up with demands even as they take up huge chunks of government spending.  

     As every extreme weather event becomes evidence of climate change regardless of the other factors that are often more influential than climate change, it emboldens climate activists and their sense of the problem as a crisis or emergency. The influence of climate change on extreme heat is undeniable. The influence of extreme heat on droughts and wildfires is undeniable. But there are other influences on wildfires and droughts. The influence of climate change on hurricane precipitation and storm surges is undeniable but not massive. However, the influence of climate change on hurricane strength and frequency is not statistically significant according to the data, despite many news stories to the contrary. The influence of increasing populations in areas prone to hurricanes and wildfires on increasing damage from those events is also undeniable. The influence of flammable invasive plants, inadequate power line maintenance, arson, carelessness, and inadequate preventive maintenance on wildfires is also undeniable. It’s more complicated than dramatic news stories convey.

 

 

Voluntary Decarbonization vs. Mandated Decarbonization

 

     There is still quite a lot of uncertainty about climate change impacts, sensitivity, and the degree of influence of the anthropogenic component of climate change. However, as countries, states, and cities consider bans and mandates and banks and businesses consider pledges and goals they are basing them on the crisis-level events. Mandates and bans will result in backlash. Rishi Sunak acknowledged this when he cited “unacceptable costs” on ordinary people as the reason he set back the 2030 ban on ICE vehicles to 2035. Germany is already considering backtracking their renewables push, which many say has been a failed policy overall, as it could lead to the current government being replaced by a more right-leaning government. Decarbonization through technological advancements and voluntary actions with strong government support is more feasible, more sensible, and less dangerous politically than decarbonization through mandate and regulatory coercion.  

 

      

References:

What climate activists mean when they say “end fossil fuels”. Rebecca Leber. Vox. September 21, 2023. What climate activists mean when they say “end fossil fuels” (msn.com)

We’re past the point of no return on climate emissions — it’s time we turn to carbon removal. Sir David King and Sware Semesi. The Hill. September 21, 2023. We’re past the point of no return on climate emissions — it’s time we turn to carbon removal (msn.com)

UN puts fossil fuels. Andrew Freedman. Axios. September 21, 2023. UN puts fossil fuels (msn.com)

Governments and individuals debate: Are mandates needed to reach climate change targets? Wayne Parry. Associated Press, September 21, 2023. Governments and individuals debate: Are mandates needed to reach climate change targets? (msn.com)

Natural Gas and Decarbonization: Key Component and Enabler of the Lower Carbon, Reasonable Cost Energy Systems of the Future. Strategies for the 2020’s and Beyond. Kent C. Stewart. Amazon Publishing. 2022.

 

High Energy Prices, De-Nuclearization, and Renewables Challenges in Germany and the E.U. in 2022 Have Resulted in Some De-Industrialization

     For much of this century, Germany has been the economic powerhouse of Europe and a major exporter, but this is changing. While other EU countries suffered debt, Germany was long the exception. Germany’s energy-intensive manufacturing prowess was powered by cheap Russian natural gas via pipeline. The Russian invasion of Ukraine ended that and exposed Germany as overly dependent on Russian energy.

     I think Germany deserves some credit for sticking to the sanctions and strong opposition to Russia, but it has paid a big price and continues to pay a price. Industries are moving out of the country to places where energy is cheaper. Germany also has among the highest electricity prices in the E.U. partially due to higher energy and fuel prices but also due to its reliance on wind and solar. Natural gas is a feedstock for several industries, notably fertilizer plants, several of which were shut down in the U.K. until prices recovered. Manufacturers have become quite aware of high energy prices as a liability. The whole German business model has been disrupted. Glass, petrochemicals, steel, paper, cement, and metals refining industries are also very sensitive to energy prices. Some commentators have suggested that German de-industrialization is immanent and may be permanent to some extent.

     Germany’s Energiewende, or energy turnaround, did not go as planned as many of these pledges and mandates and renewables portfolios don’t. Increases in energy and electricity costs are assured if the time frames are short. Higher energy costs are probably the biggest support for inflation. This has become known as greenflation. Germany was facing energy supply shortfalls in 2021 when 4GW of nuclear reactors were shut down.

     The L.A. Times writes about a debated cap on German electricity prices: “One hotly debated solution: a government-funded cap on industrial electricity prices to get the economy through the renewable energy transition.”

 

“The proposal from Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck of the Green Party has faced resistance from Chancellor Olaf Scholz of the Social Democrats and pro-business coalition partner the Free Democrats. Environmentalists say it would only prolong reliance on fossil fuels.”

 

Germany has also been affected negatively economically due to China’s economic slowdown since Germany is a major exporter to China. That downturn will likely subside in time.

     One might also fault Germany’s decision in 2011 to gradually shut down all their nuclear power plants in response to the Fukushima meltdown event as well as long-established anti-nuclear sentiment. Fukushima was the result of an unpredictable natural disaster as a result of building nuclear in a location where earthquakes and tsunamis are more likely, much more likely than in Germany. Japan initially shut down its nuclear plants but wisely reversed course. Germany could do the same, but that is unlikely. Meanwhile, nuclear-heavy France continues to enjoy low energy and electricity prices and low emissions. However, France did unexpectedly experience some nuclear maintenance shutdowns in 2022 that really came at a bad time. Science educator Zion Lights writes in the article for Human Progress regarding Fukushima: “No one died because of the meltdown, but knee-jerk reactions have led to increased greenhouse gas emissions and increased deaths from air pollution. Blackouts take lives too.” She also suggests that Germany’s renewables push was a worthy experiment, but one that failed.

     The German government does acknowledge that reliance on Russian gas was a mistake. Chancellor Olaf Shultz and especially Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock have been rightly quite hawkish against Russian aggression as well as Chinese human rights issues. The country is also beset by a slowdown in renewables deployment due to NIMBYism and regulatory bureaucracy, especially in the energy-consuming southern part of the country. The better wind resources are in the north of the country which creates need to add transmission from the north to the south, which is also difficult to get built. Subsidies and lower energy prices in other countries have led to German companies building facilities in other countries, including the U.S.  Germany did build four floating LNG receiving and degasification terminals to help replace Russian gas. They did this very quickly, which was a good move. Germany has banned fracking but does produce small amounts of domestic oil & gas. I read of one small discovery just a few months ago. While some argue that Germany is a victim of its own energy policies, others argue that the economy is still quite healthy, and the energy price cap will help stop de-industrialization by giving longer-term certainty about energy prices.

     Germany experienced a severe natural gas shortage over the winter. New gas service was banned, and people were compelled to stop using gas cookers after 5 p.m. While Germany had planned to shut down coal mines, the energy crisis due to the Russian invasion compelled them to break ground on new coal mines. More coal and biomass were burned to replace gas. That should not be the case this year, as long as it doesn’t get too cold for too long.

     U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak just announced a plan to tap the brakes on the transition to EVs and heat pumps. I think it was a wise decision. Al Gore disagrees. It doesn’t mean these transitions won’t continue to take place, but it does mean that unnecessarily strict time limits and schedules for the transitions will not be enacted. This is a sensible energy policy. The whole of Europe just suffered a difficult economic year that followed the difficult economics of Covid in 2020 and 2021. While natural gas storage levels are currently ahead of the seasonal schedule, that is due in large part to a warmer winter last year. There is no guarantee that will be the case this year. Indeed, it was a cold winter the year before that dropped storage levels then as natural gas prices were significantly elevated long before the Russian invasion began.

     Energy writer Robert Bryce has been writing and speaking about the de-industrialization of Europe for quite a while now, even a few months before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He noted in 2022 that many smelters and plants were shutting down all over Europe, particularly in Germany and the U.K. due to high energy costs. He has since kept up the rhetoric on Europe’s ongoing de-industrialization.

     Economists Hugo Erken and Frank van Es wrote in February of this year: “In Europe, the realization is slowly dawning that the functioning of the economy is increasingly determined by geopolitical decisions, which often stand in stark contrast to the ideal of apolitical free trade (see Ricardo, 1817). There is a risk that Europe will not be able to secure strategic autonomy on all fronts in the harsh reality of geopolitics, as we recently saw in the energy sector. This development may be accompanied by a loss of European competitiveness, a sharp deterioration of the balance of payments and public finances, and ultimately even lead to partial deindustrialization, as part of the European industrial sector disappears or moves, for example, to the US. This increases the risk of a balance of payments crisis, something we regularly see in emerging markets but rarely in developed economies.”

     They consider that geopolitics cannot be ignored and as demonstrated in 2022 can result in economic turmoil in some cases. While I do not understand all their graphs and flow charts these economists favor an alternative macroeconomic model here to the standard dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model, which suggested to them that the financial turmoil in Europe will continue beyond what DSGE models predict. Luckily since February when this was written, energy prices and energy supplies have stabilized, which offsets predictions of continued turmoil. No doubt the situation remains unstable in general.  

 

 

 

References:

Will We Learn from the Deindustrialization of Germany? Zion Lights. Human Progress. February 28, 2023. Will We Learn from the Deindustrialization of Germany? - Human Progress

Germany, once the envy of the world, is now its worst-performing major developed economy. Why? David McHugh. LA Times. September 20, 2023. Germany, once the envy of the world, is now its worst-performing major developed economy. Why? (msn.com)

Seven Top Energy Stories Of 2021. Robert Bryce. Forbes. December 31, 2021. Seven Top Energy Stories Of 2021 (forbes.com)

The Economic Impact of European De-industrialization: Geopolitics Takes Center Stage.Hugo Erken and Frank van Es. February 3, 2023. The Economic Impact of European De-industrialization: Geopolitics Takes Center Stage - Rabobank

Balance of Payments -and Power- Crises. Model the world to model the economy. Hugo Erken, Frank van Es, Michael Every, and Erik-Jan van Harn. Rabobank. February 5, 2023. Balance of Payments -and Power- Crises (rabobank.com)

Energy Institute 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy: Highlights, Insights, and Implications

    The Statistical Review of World Energy was formerly published by BP and is now published by KPMG and the Energy Institute. The host web page for the report offers five insights from the 2023 report: 1) post-Covid transport fuel demand has mostly returned but is now distributed differently. 2) record high oil, natural gas, and gasoline prices were due to the Ukraine war in 2022 which resulted in unprecedented shifts in global delivery flows of oil and gas. 3) record wind and solar deployment accounted for 84% of net electricity growth. 4) global primary energy grew by 1% with fossil fuels basically unchanged at 82% of the total. 5) global energy-related emissions grew at 0.8% as growth in high-emissions fuels eclipsed strong renewables growth.

     Now, late in 3Q 2023, natural gas prices are down to manageable levels. Natural gas storage fields in Europe are filled at sufficient levels. Oil prices are being levered by OPEC+, a bit too much for my taste.

Wind and solar deployment are set to continue but there are issues, including wind companies losing money for different reasons. Supply chain issues, wind component manufacturing issues, public opposition to projects, higher costs of the U.S. domestic content requirement, transmission bottlenecks and grid integration challenges, and permitting and regulatory issues are among the reasons wind and solar deployment won’t accelerate much faster anytime soon. The fact that wind and solar covered 84% of net electricity growth, while quite a lot of deployment, also means that 16% of that growth was likely covered by fossil fuels, which hardly gives support for those saying we should eliminate fossil fuels, as does their holding at 82% of primary energy consumption. I mean, it’s not yet even covering demand growth, let alone replacing fossil fuels. Loss of nuclear and coal power also has to be covered.

     The 2022 growth in emissions was likely partially related to reactions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine as countries scrambled to replace Russian pipeline gas with resources like high-emissions lignite coal in Germany, Poland, and other countries. Pipeline gas has lower emissions than LNG so the replacement of it by LNG also led to higher emissions. High natural gas prices in Asia no doubt led to more burning of coal. That even occurred in the U.S. as plants that are able always burn more coal when natural gas prices are high. 2022 also saw record high lithium prices which have since come down to more reasonable levels.

     Suppressed demand in 2020 and 2021 due to Covid makes it hard to evaluate some of the data from 2022 since increases in demand and emissions can also be attributed to the recovery of economic activity. Thus, some of the year-over-year changes can be less meaningful to interpreting overall trends.

     Primary energy consumption continued to increase overall, hitting 600 exajoules for the first time.

 

 

    The Asia Pacific region, which includes China and India, continues to increase its share of primary energy consumption, now approaching 50%, while the share from North America and Europe continues to decline as a result. This simply reflects more development needs in the Asia Pacific region, and this trend is expected to continue.

     The global share of wind and solar in global power production continued to rise, reaching 14%. Coal still leads at 35%, followed by natural gas at 23%. If much of the remaining coal is to be replaced, much of it will likely be replaced by natural gas as well as renewables.

 

 

     In 2022, 18% of crude oil, 19% of natural gas, and 14% of coal were still bought from Russia. I would expect those numbers to drop in 2023. However, it has been reported that Russian LNG sales to Europe have actually risen this year even as pipeline sales have dropped. Oil, gas, coal, fertilizer, and minerals are key funders of the Russian economy as well as the Russian war effort against Ukraine.

     The data is given in the report and can be easily graphed to reveal much about energy use and emissions. I made the following graphs from the data. The first two show several interesting things. One is that while China and the U.S. dominate primary energy consumption, China alone dominates CO2 emissions. They show India’s higher CO2 emissions intensity than the U.S. They show the lower CO2 emissions intensity of especially France, but also of Russia due to nuclear. They show the higher CO2 intensity of Indonesia due to coal and of Japan due to less use of nuclear. They show the lower CO2 intensity of Canada and Brazil due to hydro.

 

 

     Natural gas flaring rates have been dropping in recent years and in most countries dropped in 2022. The overall data was a bit surprising to me. The graph below shows that 4 countries: Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela account for just about half of global natural gas flaring. The U.S. accounts for just 6% of natural gas flaring while being the world’s largest producer of crude oil and condensate (14.6% of global production). See the graph below.

 

     Another interesting observation is that the U.S. dominates global natural gas liquids production by a wide margin, producing nearly half of the world’s NGLs and nearly 4 times that of its nearest competitor, Saudi Arabia.

 

     Installed wind and solar are dominated by China with the U.S. at a distant second. Germany, India, and Japan (only on solar) are distant thirds.

 

 

     The Statistical Review of World Energy remains a vital and useful resource to evaluate world and regional energy and electricity production and consumption as well as emissions associated with energy production and consumption. It gives us an idea of who is doing what, global trends, and regional trends.  

 

References:

Statistical Review of World Energy. June 2023. Home | Statistical Review of World Energy (energyinst.org)

What Does the Data Say About Climate Change and Hurricanes

     First, I would like to state that I am not a climate change denier, nor am I a climate crisis denier (a newer category of denial meant to ostracize). I would say that I am, however, a climate crisis skeptic. Climate change may well be a crisis, but I believe the current data is insufficient to determine whether it is a crisis or not. I also believe there are other more immediate problems to solve and devote funds toward that should be prioritized over climate funding. I believe climate change policy can cause harm in some circumstances by shifting priorities to less immediate future concerns away from more immediate present concerns. Finally, I believe that adaptation to extreme weather events, including those influenced by climate change, should be one of those immediate priorities. I heard an interview with UN chief António Guterres ahead of the UN conference. While he noted his past expertise and the UN’s power to coordinate humanitarian aid around the globe, he was also frustrated with the UN’s lack of power to tackle other issues like climate change. I think the UN should increase focus on humanitarian aid and prevention of unnecessary death, illnesses, and poverty rather than climate change. While it may seem that heat waves, fires, and storms influenced by climate change are the cause of many catastrophes, if one looks beyond the surface one will see that climate change is often one influence among many, and often a minor one compared to others. Therefore, it should not be an overriding focus of the U.N. as Guterres seems to make it with his frequent rhetoric. I think he should stick to what he is good at, humanitarian aid, and increase that focus.

     One can hardly miss the media’s obsessive focus on climate change as the main issue involving extreme weather, wildfires, sea level rise, habitat loss, and other issues. It sometimes appears as if the many other factors, often much larger than climate change, do not even exist. Sometimes this has been termed a form of climate reductionism where everything is reduced to climate as a cause. I think it is generally counterproductive in solving problems.

     Climate scientist Patrick Brown, The Breakthrough Institute’s Co-Director of the Climate and Energy Team and adjunct faculty member (lecturer) in the Energy Policy and Climate Program at Johns Hopkins University caused an uproar recently by publishing a paper in Nature, Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California that focused only on climate change. After publication, he stated that he purposely left out other factors influencing California wildfires in order to show the ease of getting the paper published when it focuses solely on climate change. He was the lead author, but apparently, his co-authors were unaware of his ruse. While his stunt is perhaps not greatly effective, it does make a point. In his “confession,” he noted: “I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.” “And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.” He says this distorts the science. He notes that the influence of climate change on extreme wildfires is very real but his paper’s focus solely on climate change distorts the whole picture by neglecting other factors. He thinks that overfocusing on the emissions reduction approach to climate change takes away from technological solutions to adaptation to extreme weather. He also notes the common practice of focusing on the most impactful metrics: “Our paper, for instance, could have focused on a simple, intuitive metric like the number of additional acres that burned or the increase in intensity of wildfires because of climate change. Instead, we followed the common practice of looking at the change in risk of an extreme event—in our case, the increased risk of wildfires burning more than 10,000 acres in a single day.”

 

“This is a far less intuitive metric that is more difficult to translate into actionable information. So why is this more complicated and less useful kind of metric so common? Because it generally produces larger factors of increase than other calculations. To wit: you get bigger numbers that justify the importance of your work, its rightful place in Nature or Science, and widespread media coverage.” Through the rest of this confession, he goes through some other common “cherry-picking” practices of emphasis that accord with the desired narratives that he says are sought.  

 

     Now I will turn to Patrick Brown’s recent article published by the Breakthrough Institute that deals with climate change and hurricanes which does not show any pretense. He first notes that hurricanes have been an icon of climate change since the cover of Al Gore’s 2006 book, An Inconvenient Truth, depicted a hurricane arising from smokestacks.

     Firstly, he notes the characteristics of hurricanes that have been studied: frequency, strength, duration, size, rain rate, location, rate of intensification, and forward movement. Then, he notes how these characteristics are studied by the three main types of scientific evidence: historical trends, fundamental theory, and mathematical modeling. For this article, he considers historical trends in hurricane frequency and strength. The following four graphs show respectively global hurricane days, Category 3 and above global hurricane days, Atlantic Basin hurricane days, and Atlantic Basin Category 3 and above hurricane days.

 

 

One conclusion might be that among the six basins worldwide that host hurricanes, the only one that has shown an increase in hurricane days is the Atlantic Basin. However, much of that was likely a return to normal levels from less-than-normal hurricane days from the 1960s to the 1980s. The graph below shows the historical trends of hurricanes that have made landfall in the U.S.

 

 

The trendline shows no discernible increase in U.S. hurricane landfalls. The simple conclusion is that the media narratives of increased hurricane frequency and strength through time do not accord with the data. These conclusions are not new but are rarely pointed out or considered when discussing climate change in public forums. 

     But frequency and strength are not the whole story. He goes on to point out that: “there is strong support from all three kinds of scientific evidence listed above (observations, fundamental theory, and mathematical modeling) that warming is increasing the maximum rain rates in hurricanes by about 10 to 15 percent per degree Celsius.” Higher precipitation rates also lead to equivalent higher storm surges. Thus, the bottom line is that the evidence clearly shows that global warming is likely to lead to hurricanes with 10% more rain and 10% higher storm surges. These are not insignificant amounts, but they are not catastrophic either. The higher storm surges are also affected by sea level rise. While the sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age and melting from its minor resurgences, a certain part of it is also due to global warming. That fraction is a matter of debate but is likely significant since Arctic ice melt in particular has been unprecedented in recent years.

     At the end of the article he leaves us with this observation: “.., I think the evidence indicates that the vast majority of the risk we face from hurricanes is due to living in a climate that naturally produces hurricanes—not due to a warming climate. When science communicators, the media, and politicians strain to view all extreme weather through the lens of climate change, it only serves to misinform the public and inadvertently undermines the credibility of the underlying science.”

 

 

 

References:

 

Are Hurricanes the Icons of Climate Change They are Made Out to Be? What the Research Really Says. Patrick Brown. The Breakthrough Institute. September 11, 2023. Are Hurricanes the Icons of Climate… | The Breakthrough Institute

 

'The Secretary has no power': UN Secretary General António Guterres plays the cards he's dealt. Chistianne Amanpour. CNN. September 18, 2023. 'The Secretary has no power': UN Secretary General António Guterres plays the cards he's dealt | CNN

 

Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California. Patrick T. Brown, Holt Hanley, Ankur Mahesh, Colorado Reed, Scott J. Strenfel, Steven J. Davis, Adam K. Kochanski & Craig B. Clements. Nature (2023). August 30, 2023. Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California | Nature

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published. Patrick T. Brown. September 5, 2023. The Free Press.  I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published | The Free Press (thefp.com)

 

EV Resource Intensity and Emissions Intensity: Much Cleaner to Run but Dirtier to Build: Variations and Uncertainties Abound

     EVs may make sense for places like California where there is a problem with air pollution due to weather inversions and smog and there is a wealthy sector of the population that can afford EVs. However, for the rest of us, they are not a great choice, even with generous subsidies. Range anxiety is still a concern although that problem is likely to go away in the future, likely in a few years, as more powerful batteries and new battery types such as solid-state batteries with longer ranges and faster charging times go on the market. The upfront cost is a big factor for most people and will continue to limit sales.   

     Mark P. Mills, a physicist and engineer, who has long done research and writing for the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute regarding the real-world challenges of the energy transition, published a paper in July 2023, Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream, details the real challenges of EV ramp-up, especially resource intensity and consumer uptake. This blog post is mostly a summary and review of Mills’ paper.

     Mills makes two key points in the executive summary: 1) No one knows how much, if at all, CO2 emissions will decline as EV use rises – it is a rough estimate. 2) No one knows when or whether EVs will reach economic parity with the cars that most people drive – EV cost is tied to critical minerals costs, which fluctuate according to supply and demand.

     He points out that one-third of EVs sold are hybrids and that two-thirds of EVs sold in the U.S. in 2022 were Teslas, which are basically luxury cars for carbon-conscious rich people, I mean who can afford a Tesla? Mills calls out the “ICE prohibitionists.” Much like the anti-fossil fuel crowd, these advocates are profoundly unrealistic. The vast majority of primary energy production is fossil fuels, and the vast majority of mobile vehicles are powered by ICE engines. While it is fine to advance more non-fossil fuel energy and more EVs, problems emerge when there are attempts to mandate that advancement and put unrealistic time limits on the mandates. He points out that for the average household personal mobility is the biggest cost after a mortgage. “A car is the single most expensive product that 98% of consumers ever purchase.”

 

ICE Emissions vs. EV Emissions

 

     While it is easy and straightforward to determine the emissions of ICE vehicles, this is not so for EVs. After manufacturing emissions are determined ICE emissions are mainly operational due to the burning of gasoline or diesel. EV emissions are all related to manufacturing but their vastly higher resource requirements in the form of critical minerals require much more work to determine the manufacturing emissions. Battery minerals are what powers EVs and these battery minerals are often rare and difficult to obtain and process. One might also consider that the upfront emissions related to materials acquisition and manufacture of EVs are much higher than the upfront emissions of ICE vehicles.

     Mills points out that EV material acquisition emissions are all rough estimates, but I think these can be put into general ranges for each mineral so that the estimates are not as “unknowable” as he seems to suggest. Mills writes:

 

“While there are dozens of variations, a typical EV battery weighs about 1,000 pounds and contains about 30 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of cobalt, 130 pounds of nickel, 190 pounds of graphite, 90 pounds of copper, and about 400 pounds of steel, aluminum, and various plastic components.”

 

“These five elements total ~100,000 pounds of ore to fabricate one EV battery. To properly account for all the earth moved, there’s also the overburden, the materials first dug up to get to the ore; depending on ore type and location, it averages three to seven tons of overburden removed to access each ton of ore, thus ~500,000 pounds total. The exact number varies for different batteries and mines. Note that this doesn’t include large quantities of chemicals to process and refine the ores, or the mining/refining for the other 400 pounds of battery minerals used (e.g., steel, aluminum).”

 

Most of the materials for ICE vehicles are iron, steel, and plastic. These are mostly produced domestically in the U.S. and there is much better transparency about the emissions associated with their mining and fabrication than there is with many of the EV minerals produced and processed around the globe with non-transparent China leading the pack by a vast margin.

     Mills gives the IEA’s life-cycle emissions for EVs vs. ICE vehicles shown below. He points out the reliance on assumptions evident in the black error bars which acknowledge that there is a chance that lifetime EV emissions could be as high as ICE emissions in some cases. Those error bars are huge and that lends credence to the possibility that EV emissions could be much higher than predicted and shows a level of uncertainty that should be considered to be unacceptable.

 

 

     Mills also points out that the IEA uses a “40 kWh battery pack, which is half the size of the batteries in most popular EVs” and that the trend in the future is likely to be bigger batteries with more range since range parity with ICE vehicles has yet to be achieved. However, that may not be the case, since newer battery types may end up being lighter and less mineral-intense. He also claims the IAE analysis ignores that greater use of aluminum in EV frames reduces the weight. Aluminum mining and processing are emissions intense, so he is claiming that there are missing emissions here.

     He gives another graph from a 2022 study that compares emissions on the renewables-heavy EU grid from Volkswagen diesel and EV models that shows that the EV emissions are higher than the diesel emissions till the odometer reaches about 75,000 miles, again showing that EV emissions are front-end loaded. The emissions would be a little higher on a global average grid. He shows a similar graph for Volvo models. The global average for emissions parity seems to be about 55,000 miles at a glance but this could be off either way.

     Mills next gives the known unknowns, the uncertainties of EV emission determinations. He gives ten of these which I will examine: 1) size of the battery pack – he notes that most past analyses have been based on smaller and lighter batteries but with the need for range parity a true equivalent comparison with ICE vehicles will require using heavier batteries that use more minerals in those analyses. 2) location of the mines – he notes that 80-90% of the mines are located outside of the U.S. and that for each mineral the emissions can vary quite a bit by where they are mined, especially for copper (by up to 2 times) and nickel (by up to 3 times). 3) location of minerals processing and refining facilities – Mills suggests that some previous calculations may not consider that China processes 50-90% of the world’s energy minerals. I would add that much of that processing would likely be powered by coal. I am unsure whether or not previous analyses take this into account, and he is vague on this point. 4) location of the battery and EV assembly factory – he points out that assembly plants in Norway with 90% hydroelectric power would have far less emissions than assembly plants in China where two-thirds of all power is provided by coal. He also notes that half of all EVs produced globally in 2022 were made in China. 5) battery chemistry – here he notes that even with about a dozen different battery chemistries their resource intensities are more or less the same. He also notes that lithium-iron-phosphate (LPO) batteries, popular in China, do not use cobalt and nickel but do have about 20% less energy density than those that do so those advantages are offset by the loss in energy density. He doesn’t mention some other new battery chemistries possible in the future that may have the ability to reduce resource intensity without giving up energy density. 6) material for the rest of the vehicle – here he asserts that EVs use far more copper in the electric motor and wiring and far more aluminum in the frames than do ICE vehicles and that many past analyses do not take this into account. 7) emissions from EV power electronics – he notes here that EVs use about 200% more electronics for power management and manufacturing these electronics is more energy and emissions intense. He notes a study suggesting that accounting for this is equivalent to driving an ICE vehicle about 3000 miles. 8) battery life span – this assumes the fact that fast charging shortens battery life relative to slow charging. Another factor to consider that I will mention is that the hype over V2G – using EVs to power the grid at high energy demand times – also degrades the battery and shortens battery life. Some studies should assume two batteries per vehicle. This is not hyperbole. My Toyota Prius required a new battery, in this case though, a refurbished one so no additional resource intensity. As the life of an EV battery is currently 8-10 years, some EV owners will require two EV batteries for the life of the car. If we consider that some ICE vehicles are still on the road after 30 years, even three batteries are not out of the question. I do believe battery life will increase in the future so this will not be a concern at some point. 9) total miles – here he gives some data that on average EVs are driven half the miles per year as ICE vehicles. That means that it takes longer in time for an EV to achieve emissions parity with ICE vehicles. That would make an EV's emissions per mile higher (before parity). 10 Ice fuel efficiency – here he gives the interesting point that ICE fuel economy is improving and is expected to continue to improve so that predictions for 2030 are for a 30-50% improvement in efficiency, which translates to equivalent lower emissions per mile. I plan to write a post about ICE improvements and research in the near future. He gives a graph for this, but it starts in 2018. If he had started in 2022/2023 which he could and should have, the predicted improvement would be 10-30%. However, in terms of the vehicles on the road, averages, and penetration of better mileages in those averages, it is perhaps not a bad prediction.

     The biggest emissions from EVs by a very wide margin are the mining and processing of minerals. He rightly points out that recycling of EV minerals will remain irrelevant and a tiny percentage of total minerals for quite a long time. The main reason is cost. The IEA estimates recycling may account for just 1-2% of EV minerals by 2030. Mining and processing EV minerals also have many negative environmental impacts and human rights issues, often amidst a significant lack of transparency that would not be tolerated in the U.S. and other developed countries. While Congolese cobalt mining, so-called dangerous artisanal mining by kids is a huge human rights concern, the issue of water use by South American lithium brine operations is a minor environmental issue as the area is extremely dry unliving desert and the water extracted from the ground is twice as salty as seawater so not consumable.  

     Next, he considers the fact that upstream EV emissions are actually rising. This is because mineral ore grades are lowering as high-grade ores are used up so lower-grade ores are being mined more. This results in higher emissions per ton of ore mined. This is particularly true for copper and nickel. Lower-grade ores simply mean more rock is mined to get the same amount of minerals. This equals higher emissions. While making mining less energy intensive is being pursued, even the IEA acknowledges that minerals production is likely to get more energy intensive. Mills says “likely” is an understatement, and that minerals production will definitely get more energy intensive. He gives data that copper, nickel, and lithium production are all getting more energy-intensive, which also means more emissions intense. He also considers trends in electrifying mining processes and technological trends in new battery chemistries and other battery breakthroughs. Here he points out that while such improvements and breakthroughs are possible, they are not at all likely in a time frame within a decade or two, while EV adoption is being pushed to be accelerated more and more. The reality is that even with considerable incentives, the high costs of EVs are slowing adoption and potentially affecting the economics of auto manufacturers that are losing money on EVs even while they are investing heavily. The recent autoworker strikes of the Big 3 in the U.S. suggest to me that the Big 3 may be considering the potential of losses due to overfocus on EVs in the near term in their negotiations. Indeed, I just heard a radio news segment that auto companies were citing the costly shift to EVs as one reason they are resisting UAW demands. The shift to EVs is also affecting autoworkers in other ways. More of them are losing their jobs since fewer workers are required to build EVs compared to ICE vehicles. Some of those workers can work at new battery plants but it seems that fewer workers will be needed overall.

     Next, he considers more uncertainties with EV emissions such as emissions of charging. These depend on what powers the grid where they are charged and can vary dramatically. In places like Wyoming or West Virginia where over 90% of the grid is powered by coal, EV charging emissions are much higher than say Germany or California. When an EV is charged is also a consideration since solar drops off at night and fossil fuels provide the and in other more power in high-demand times. Other considerations include real-world testing versus “sticker” mileage calculations. He points to one study that showed that sticker mileage is more accurate for ICE vehicles than for EVs, that actual EV mileage is about 12.5% lower than sticker, while ICE mileage is about 4% lower than sticker.

     Car & Driver’s Dave Vanderwerp describes why EVs are tested the way they are. They do pre-test charging and standing-start acceleration in a standard way. They do a 75mph range test in a standard way on the same road to compare ranges for different EVs. Vanderwerp notes that some EVs come in a full 20% below sticker range but most German manufactured models come in at range or slightly above. Tesla has been accused of vastly overstating range. He notes: “A range discrepancy between EVs from different companies might not be as extreme as the numbers would suggest. "400 miles of stated range for a Tesla and 300 miles for a Porsche is pretty much the same number at real highway speeds.”  One might ask the question - if Volkswagon paid a heavy price in the tens of billions for cheating on emissions tests, then why do companies like Tesla get to essentially cheat on range tests without consequence? A lower range does mean higher emissions per mile and even if those emissions are less than ICE emissions, it still gives a deceptive emissions determination.  

      Another consideration is that EV mileage drops in lower temperatures – that EV mileage drops by about 30% at 20deg F, while ICE mileage only drops by about 5% at that temperature. In addition, an EV does not produce much waste heat while an ICE vehicle scavenges waste heat from the engine to heat the interior of the car, although he doesn’t point out that the opposite is likely true for air conditioning, although heating is more energy intensive than A/C. In any case, EVs are significantly more energy and emissions-intensive in colder climates in general.

     Next, he discusses parity, including cost parity, operating costs parity, convenience parity, and parity in terms of supply chains and environmental impacts. EVs still cost significantly more than ICE vehicles. However, they are cheaper to operate, cheaper to fuel, and require far less regular maintenance including no oil changes. Future costs of EVs are dependent on battery minerals costs which in turn are dependent on costs of minerals and supply chains from foreign countries. While minerals costs had been dropping, they have risen or stagnated in the last few years for a number of reasons, some temporary and some not. The graph below simply shows that the global mining industry is not well ready for a deep acceleration of energy transition buildout which includes EVs.

 

 

Mills thinks that mineral mining and processing monopolies, cartels, and protectionist rules will stay the same or increase in the future, even as countries like the U.S. seek to develop domestic supplies. He shows some predictions that copper and nickel prices are set to rise from the mid-2020s to the 2040s.

     He also considers the need for massive new charging infrastructure in an accelerated EV scenario. When I had a plug-in hybrid EV, I had a Level 2 charger installed at home. I did some of the work myself which lowered the cost. It was great, to be honest. But if tens of thousands of people in a small area each have one installed it would strain the local grid. At current EV ranges there is a need for significantly more available chargers per area than for gas stations. These factors require the utility to upgrade equipment. Public chargers have added costs, especially fast chargers.

     As I have argued in the past, if and when EVs are adopted at levels exceeding ICE cars then all the money lost in gasoline taxes that funds many things would have to be recouped somehow. For a few years now states have been enacting EV ownership taxes, usually at a few hundred dollars per year. Massive EV expansion will require grid upgrades and grid transmission expansion. This is in addition to those needs for wind and solar expansion so grid reliability could also be affected.  

     He mentions that EV owners report a higher incidence of problems than ICE owners in the first year of ownership, often electrical issues. I can say having owned a plug-in hybrid EV for over a year I experienced zero issues. He also considers battery waste disposal costs which could end up being bolted on to the purchase price.

     While pro-green enthusiasts may say that EVs make us more energy-independent they rarely concede that they make us far more mining and processing-dependent. Minerals production and processing are even more concentrated than oil production. The graph below shows just how dependent we are on China for EV minerals and mineral processing. The graph may be a few years old since now the U.S. exports more LNG than Qatar which is not as depicted.

 

 

He notes: “The U.S. today is dependent on imports for 100% of some 17 critical minerals, and, for 28 others, net imports account for more than half of existing domestic demand. Assembling batteries (or solar hardware) here creates underlying dependencies equivalent to assembling conventional automobiles domestically but importing all the key parts and all the fuel.” We should learn from the mistake of EU dependence on Russian oil & gas and not get overly dependent on Chinese minerals and processing. While it is true that we are working on domestic and friendlier country supplies and processing capacity, that is likely to take a long time and not likely to compete with Chinese prices kept low by government subsidies.

     While I am annoyed by guys with big trucks “rolling coal” in front of me while I have to breathe it – this happened to me just yesterday – I am also bullish on efficiency improvements to ICE vehicles that could render EV benefits less beneficial. I also like electric motors, their efficiency, the ability to charge up at home at night, to get fantastic mileage, a quiet ride, no oil changes, etc. I don’t have the data, but I tend to disagree with Mills' suggestions about EV reliability. I think they are probably much more reliable than he suggests. Though just a hybrid, buying a Prius on the first day of 2006 turned out to be one of the best financial decisions I ever made for a number of reasons. However, we do have to be realistic. While I don’t agree with all of Mills’ assessments it was a great paper, and I would guess based on all of his points that on that first graph, the real-world emissions advantage of EVs is up on that error bar – my guess is that the reality is that an EV could be as much 75% as emissions intense as an ICE vehicle and that conclusion added to the other issues and inconveniences of EVs suggests that currently a lower mileage ICE vehicle, a hybrid, or a plug-in hybrid are much better choices. I realize that this is almost twice as much as other studies, but Mills’ work strongly suggests that we are significantly underestimating the emissions intensity of EVs. That may not be true in the future, but I think it is now. In any case, I can no longer afford anything but a used ICE vehicle anyway and that is true for many. It is also true that EV subsidies have gone vastly disproportionately to wealthy people since one has to be wealthy to afford a Tesla.

 

 

McKinsey & Company Thinks EV Emissions Intensity Can Be Steeply Reduced During the Next 5-10 Years

 

     McKinsey & Company released a study examining EV decarbonization efforts in February 2023. Regarding the variations in EV emissions, they noted: “Emission levels from EV battery production depend on a variety of factors, including design choices, vehicle type, range, and freight requirements, as well as production and sourcing locations. The energy sources used to produce various battery components are one of the biggest factors explaining the wide variation in the carbon footprint of different OEMs (original equipment manufacturers).” The graph below compares EVs and ICE emissions by material and type.

 

 

     The authors believe that steep reductions in carbon emissions are possible in the next 5-10 years. They cite battery chemistry, production technology, the selection of raw material suppliers, and transportation routes as key areas where emissions can be reduced. What powers the mining, manufacturing, and delivery processes is also a factor. The graph below shows variances by region and production sector within each region.

 

 

     They note that China makes 70% of global batteries and has the most emissions-intensive manufacturing. Citing incentives like the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism and the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act they think it is feasible to drastically reduce EV emissions by 2030. I am somewhat skeptical knowing all the challenges such as supply chain issues, regulatory and permitting issues, and public opposition issues rampant with renewables acceleration. They are bullish on electrification in the near term. I don’t disagree with their assessment, but I do think they are too optimistic with their timeframe. I think it will take another 5 or more likely 10 years. I do think that range issues, charging issues, emissions issues, battery waste disposal issues, and safety issues will all be solved in time. I also think that the rush to ban ICE vehicles and to make other mandates is both unnecessary and bound to fail for a number of reasons.

 

 

 

References:

EPA is ignoring the glaring problem with dirty electric vehicles. Benjamin Zycher. The Hill. EPA is ignoring the glaring problem with dirty electric vehicles (msn.com)

Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream. Mark P. Mills. Manhattan Institute. July 2023. Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream | Manhattan Institute (manhattan-institute.org)

The Hidden Carbon Footprint Of Electric Vehicles. Quina Baterna. Slash Gear. August 19, 2023. The Hidden Carbon Footprint Of Electric Vehicles (msn.com)

The race to decarbonize electric-vehicle batteries. McKinsey & Company. February 23, 2023. The race to decarbonize electric-vehicle batteries | McKinsey

Electric Vehicle Myths. U.S. EPA. Electric Vehicle Myths | US EPA

The Hazards of Electric Car Batteries and Their Recycling. Taotianchen Wan and Yikai Wang. 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1011 012026. The Hazards of Electric Car Batteries and Their Recycling - IOPscience

Is it Ethical to Purchase a Lithium Battery Powered EV? Ronald Stein, P.E. June 13, 2022. Is it Ethical to Purchase a Lithium Battery Powered EV? – The Heartland Institute

Electric cars are made of pollution and human misery. Kathryn Porter. The Telegraph. August 20, 2023. Electric cars are made of pollution and human misery (msn.com)

EVs Fall Short of EPA Estimates by a Much Larger Margin Than Gas Cars in Our Real-World Highway Testing. Caleb Miller. Car and Driver. August 20, 2023. EVs Fall Short of EPA Estimates by a Much Larger Margin Than Gas Cars in Our Real-World Highway Testing (msn.com)

Why We Test EVs the Way We Do. Car and Driver. Dave Vanderwerp.  October 3, 2022. Why We Test EVs the Way We Do (caranddriver.com)