Environment

Are electric cars ‘green’? The answer is yes, but it’s complicated

Published

4 years ago

July 26, 2021

admin

An electric vehicle charging point in Stoke-on-Trent, England.

Nathan Stirk | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The number of electric vehicles on the world’s roads is surging, hitting a record number last year.

That would seem to be good news, as the world tries to wean itself off fossil fuels that are wrecking the global climate. But as electric cars become more popular, some question just how environmentally friendly they are.

The batteries in electric vehicles, for example, charge on power that is coming straight off the electric grid — which is itself often powered by fossil fuels. And there are questions about how energy-intensive it is to build an EV or an EV battery, versus building a comparable traditional vehicle.

Are electric vehicles greener?

The short answer is yes — but their full green potential is still many years away.

Experts broadly agree that electric vehicles create a lower carbon footprint over the course of their lifetime than do cars and trucks that use traditional, internal combustion engines.

Last year, researchers from the universities of Cambridge, Exeter and Nijmegen in The Netherlands found that in 95% of the world, driving an electric car is better for the environment than driving a gasoline-powered car.

Electricity grids in most of the world are still powered by fossil fuels such as coal or oil, and EVs depend on that energy to get charged. Separately, EV battery production remains an energy-intensive process.

Producing electric vehicles leads to significantly more emissions than producing petrol cars … which is mostly from the battery production.

Florian Knobloch

Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance

A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative found that the battery and fuel production for an EV generates higher emissions than the manufacturing of an automobile. But those higher environmental costs are offset by EVs’ superior energy efficiency over time.

In short, the total emissions per mile for battery-powered cars are lower than comparable cars with internal combustion engines.

“If we are going to take a look at the current situation, in some countries, electric vehicles are better even with the current grid,” Sergey Paltsev, a senior research scientist at the MIT Energy Initiative and one of the study’s authors, told CNBC.

Paltsev explained that the full benefits of EVs will be realized only after the electricity sources become renewable, and it might take several decades for that to happen.

Batteries are the biggest emitter

EVs rely on rechargeable lithium-ion batteries to run. The process of making those batteries — from using mining raw materials like cobalt and lithium, to production in gigafactories and transportation — is energy-intensive, and one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions from EVs today, experts said.

Gigafactories are facilities that produce EV batteries on a large scale.

“Producing electric vehicles leads to significantly more emissions than producing petrol cars. Depending on the country of production, that’s between 30% to 40% extra in production emissions, which is mostly from the battery production,” said Florian Knobloch, a fellow at the Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance.

Those higher production emission numbers are seen as “an initial investment, which pays off rather quickly due to the reduced lifetime emissions.”

China currently dominates battery production, with 93 gigafactories producing lithium-ion battery cells versus only four in the U.S., the Washington Post reported this year.

“I think the battery is the most complicated component in the EV, and has the most complex supply chain,” George Crabtree, director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Joint Center for Energy Storage Research, told CNBC, adding that the energy source used in battery production makes a huge difference on the carbon footprint for EVs.

Batteries made in older gigafactories in China are usually powered by fossil fuels, because that was the trend five to 10 years ago, he explained. So, EVs that are built with batteries from existing factories

But that’s changing, he said, as “people have realized that’s a huge carbon footprint.”

Experts pointed to other considerations around battery production.

They include unethical and environmentally unsustainable mining practices, as well as a complex geopolitical nature of the supply chain, where countries do not want to rely on other nations for raw materials like cobalt and lithium, or the finished batteries.

Mining raw materials needed for battery production will likely be the last to get decarbonized, according to Crabtree.

Recycling and decarbonizing the grid

Today, very few of the spent battery cells are recycled.

Experts said that can change over time as raw materials needed for battery production are in limited supply, leaving firms with no choice but to recycle.

McKinsey’s Hannon outlined other reasons for companies to step by their recycling efforts. They include a regulatory environment where producers, by law, would have to deal with spent batteries — and disposing them could be more expensive.

“People who point to a lack of a recycling infrastructure as a problem aren’t recognizing that we don’t need extensive recycling infrastructure yet because the cars are so new, we’re not needing many back,” he said.

Most auto companies are already working to ensure they have significant recycling capacity in place before EVs start reaching the end of life over the next decade, he added.

It’s not silver bullet for climate change mitigation. Ideally, you also try to reduce the number of cars massively, and try to push things such as public transport

Florian Knobloch

Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance

Knobloch from Cambridge University said a lot of research is going into improving battery technology, to make them more environmentally sustainable and less reliant on scarce raw materials. More efforts are also needed in decarbonizing the electricity grid, he added.

“It’s very important that more renewable electricity generation capacity is added to the grid each year, than coal generation capacity,” Knobloch said.

“Nowadays, it’s much easier to build large scale solar or offshore wind compared to building new fossil fuel power plant. What we see is more renewable electricity coming into the grid all over the world.”

Still, he pointed out that generating electricity by using renewable sources will still emit greenhouse gases as there are emissions from producing the solar panels and wind turbines. “What we look at is how long will it take until the electricity grid is sufficiently decarbonized so that you see large benefit from electric vehicles,” Knobloch added.

Policies needed for societal change

Experts agree that a transition from gasoline-powered cars to EVs is not a panacea for the global fight against climate change.

It needs to go hand-in-hand with societal change that promotes greater use of public transportation and alternative modes of travel, including bicycles and walking.

Reducing the use of private vehicles requires plenty of funding and policy planning.

MIT’s Paltsev, who is also deputy director at the university’s joint program on the science and policy of global change, explained that there are currently about 1.2 billion fuel-powered cars on the road globally –that number is expected to increase to between 1.8 billion to 2 billion.

In comparison, there are only about 10 million electric vehicles currently.

People underestimate how many new cars have to be produced and how much materials will be needed to produce those electric vehicles, Paltsev said.

The International Energy Agency predicts that the number of electric cars, buses, vans and heavy trucks on roads is expected to hit 145 million by 2030.

Even if everyone drove EVs instead of gasoline-powered cars, there would still be plenty of emissions from the plug-in vehicles due to their sheer volume, according to Knobloch.

“So, it’s not silver bullet for climate change mitigation. Ideally, you also try to reduce the number of cars massively, and try to push things such as public transport,” he said. “Getting people away from individual car transport is as important.”

Environment

Trump’s Russia oil sanctions could just be starting as low prices leave room to escalate

Published

1 hour ago

October 23, 2025

admin

Trump’s Russia oil sanctions could just be starting as low prices leave room to escalate

U.S. Treasury sanctions Russian oil companies in push for Ukraine ceasefire

President Donald Trump could further rachet up sanctions against Russia’s oil sector, with an expected global surplus of crude next year leaving the U.S. room to escalate while insulating American drivers from a price shock.

The Treasury Department on Wednesday announced sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil, Russia’s two largest oil exporters, citing Moscow’s “lack of serious commitment to a peace process to end the war in Ukraine.”

The sanctions mark the “most material move to date by the United States to shutter the Russian war ATM,” Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC Capital markets, told clients.

The sanctions took the oil market by surprise. U.S. crude prices spiked nearly 6% to trade above $60 per barrel in response after many traders had discounted the risk of escalation due to Trump’s focus on keeping energy prices low.

Benchmark West Texas Intermediate U.S. crude oil prices hit five-month lows Monday and are down nearly 14% this year. The market has been under pressure as OPEC+ increases production and renewed trade tensions between the U.S. and China trigger fears of a global economic slowdown.

Weaker oil prices have given Trump scope to act against Russia while shielding U.S. motorists, said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy and a former energy advisor to President George W. Bush. The White House likely saw this as an opportune moment to hit Moscow, with the U.S. midterm elections still a year away, Croft said.

“It’s about hurting the Russian finance ministry while protecting the U.S motorist,” McNally said.

Escalation on the horizon

Trump’s sanctions, which take full effect Nov. 21, are likely designed to force Russia to sell its oil at a steeper discount to global benchmark Brent rather than immediately targeting Moscow’s export volumes, McNally said. This would reduce Russia’s petroleum revenue while avoiding a price spike that pinches Americans’ pocketbooks, he said.

But the oil market faces a looming surplus in 2026 that would give Trump more leeway to escalate sanctions against Russia further next year, by directly targeting its export volumes, according to the former Bush advisor.

This would carry the added benefit of aiding U.S. shale oil producers who are under financial pressure from low prices, McNally said. U.S. shale executives have been deeply critical of Trump’s push to lower crude prices in anonymous responses to a quarterly survey conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

“You can afford to do it because next year it won’t cause $100 oil — if anything it will help oil prices from dropping to $20 a barrel and killing shale,” McNally said.

“Next year somebody has to cut big – OPEC, Russia, Iran or shale,” he said. “Take your pick. The president doesn’t want shale to lose 2 million barrels a day plus like it did in 2020. He may want $40 oil but he doesn’t want $20 oil.”

Immediate market impact

The oil market may be close to pricing in the sanctions after the announcement caught traders by surprise, McNally said. Where prices go from here depends on how the measures are implemented. If the sanctions are loosely enforced, U.S. oil could dip back into the $50s but there’s also a risk that prices could push higher if the administration takes a hard line, the analyst said.

Lukoil and Rosneft account for more than half of Russia’s more than 5 million barrels per day in exports, according to data provided by Kpler. Trump’s sanctions come after former President Joe Biden in January sanctioned Russia’s third and fourth largest producers, Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegaz.

Natixis' Senior Economist on India's pledge to stop buying Russian oil

India remained the largest buyer of Russia crude oil in September followed by China and Turkey, according to Kpler data. Trump has been pressuring India with tariffs to stop its imports of Russian crude.

“Refiners in India, China and Turkey are expected to conduct internal risk assessments on dealings with the sanctioned Russian firms while waiting for clarifications from their governments,” Matt Smith, an oil analyst at Kpler told clients in a note.

That could lead to oil being “being resold — at steep discounts — to refiners willing to take the risk, such as already-sanctioned entities” or small, independent, privately-owned refineries in China, Smith said. “However, a major disruption to Russian crude exports appears unlikely,” he said.

Environment

Clearer skies ahead: Shire gets into the electric ground equipment game

Published

2 hours ago

October 23, 2025

admin

Clearer skies ahead: Shire gets into the electric ground equipment game

Shire launches its first range of electric GSE

Belgian aviation support brand Shire is hoping to change the airport ground support equipment (GSE) game with a line of purpose-built baggage and cargo tractors engineered from the ground up as electric vehicles.

A spinoff of M-ECS (Mertens Electrification & Control Systems), a Belgian engineering company with expertise in automation, electrification, IoT, and smart systems, Shire is leaning on its decades of engineering know-how to develop purpose-built electric GSE that, they believe, is vastly superior to retrofit designs that put electric motors in spaces originally designed for ICE.

“Retrofitting remains essential in the short term,” explains Toon (his real name) Mertens, founder of M-ECS. “But purpose-built electric machines are the real path to long-term efficiency, safety, and resilience.”

With the short distances driven at limited speeds under extreme loads, ground handling and support equipment (GHE/GSE) at airports present a nearly ideal use case for battery-electric vehicles. That’s a good thing, too. As demand for on-road fossil fuels drops, airports and airlines – historically responsible for about 4% Earth’s global warming – are becoming a bigger and bigger slice of a rapidly shrinking pie when it comes to the fossil fuel emissions generated by the aviation and air travel industries as a whole.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Shire’s first products are the all-electric baggage and cargo tractors shown, above. Shire calls these “a natural starting point,” as these vehicles alone can account for nearly 30% of ground emissions at major airports. But, as significant as those vehicles are, GSE is already looking into other vehicle families specifically tailored to the unique needs of its airport customers.

Shire product line

Shire_TT22e: Electric baggage tractor with lead-acid battery (battery included). Li-ion option 50–70 kWh.
Shire_TT22e-DC: Double-cabin (5 seats) baggage tractor, 80V 67.2 kWh Li-ion.
Shire_TT30e: 4-ton cargo tractor, high-voltage 70 kWh Li-ion.
Shire_TT40e: 6-ton cargo tractor, high-voltage 140 kWh Li-ion.

No word yet on whether or not Shire’s products will make it to North America — if they do, zero emission initiatives like those at the new JFK ONE terminal could make a great home for them.

SOURCE | IMAGES: Shire, via Airside.

If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here

Add Electrek as a preferred source on Google

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Environment

Elon Musk spent $288M to cost Tesla $1.4B in lost revenue – and more to come

Published

2 hours ago

October 23, 2025

admin

Elon Musk spent 8M to cost Tesla .4B in lost revenue - and more to come

Tesla CEO Elon Musk managed to find a way to turn lobbying, which is typically one of the most efficient ways to spend money as a company, into a net revenue loser for his company – flipping the script again from a true “innovator” in the field of corporate destruction.

Tesla released its 10-Q filing today, to supplement its Q3 shareholder letter and conference call from yesterday’s quarterly report.

The filing gives us more detail about what’s going on with Tesla’s financials, namely, how Tesla managed to have record revenue last quarter and yet still have a 40% drop in operating income from the year-ago quarter.

One explanation for this drop is lost revenue from regulatory credits. Regulatory credits have been a relatively stable portion of Tesla’s earnings over the years, as it is one of few companies producing more electric vehicles than it is legally required to.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

What are regulatory credits?

Several governments have committed to reducing pollution, and one way that they can do so is by requiring automakers to make less-polluting vehicles.

Generally, if an automaker fails to meet the guidelines set up by government, they have to pay a penalty for polluting the air too much and harming everyone with that pollution. Or, instead of paying that penalty, they can buy credits from a company that exceeded the guidelines, thus transferring money from the companies that are doing a bad job to the companies that are doing a good job.

Every government has a slightly different way of implementing requirements and credit swaps, but this is generally how it works on a high level.

Put aside for the moment that these penalties, or the cost of credit swaps, are almost always far lower than the actual amount of damage done by pollution, this is at least one method that governments can and have used to try to encourage cleaner air and lower health costs for the populations they govern.

Rules changed by republicans to cost you more money

That is, until the republican party came along. Buried in the $4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites passed by republicans earlier this year was another provision to reduce the cost of regulatory fines in the US to $0.

Congress could not legally eliminate the fines, since they are mandated by the Clean Air Act, and republicans in Congress didn’t want to modify the Clean Air Act because it would be more obvious to everyone that they want dirty air, and because they didn’t have the votes to do so. But they did have the votes to do an end-run around democracy and eliminate the fines, which makes the regulation effectively useless.

So now, automakers have less incentive to work on making their cars more efficient. This means you’ll be buying more gasoline, that each gallon will have higher prices (and the increased price won’t go to any social good, but rather to line oil companies’ pockets), and that you’ll suffer from more air pollution which leads to higher health costs for everyone.

When, in contrast, President Biden had strengthened this rule, just the modifications made by his administration were estimated to save $600-700 over the lifetime of each vehicle, or $23 billion in total across the US. But that’s only from Biden’s improvement of the rule; the rule in total saves much more, in comparison to not having the rule at all.

But what does this all have to Elon Musk?

Elon Musk lobbied to have these rules removed, harming his company

During the 2024 US election, Elon Musk spent a total of $288 million on bribes to get anti-EV candidates elected. He did this despite full public knowledge that these candidates opposed electric vehicles, and had promised to harm them.

But, due to Musk’s social media addiction to his bizarre upside-down twitter feed, he and many others convinced themselves that somehow, harming EVs would be good for EVs.

So, Musk spent the millions, got what he wanted, claims it was all because of him (egotistical much?), and as a result, his company… is worse off.

According to the company’s 10-Q filing, Tesla lost $1.41 billion worth of revenue in just the last 9 months that it would have had if not for changes in regulatory regimes. Here’s the passage, in financial speak:

Automotive Regulatory Credits

As of September 30, 2025, total transaction price allocated to performance obligations that were unsatisfied or partially unsatisfied for contracts with an original expected length of more than one year was $3.27 billion. Of this amount, we expect to recognize $877 million in the next 12 months and the rest over the remaining performance obligation period. Changes in regulations on automotive regulatory credits may significantly impact our remaining performance obligations and revenue to be recognized under these contracts. In 2025, governmental and regulatory actions have repealed and/or restricted certain regulatory credit programs tied to our products, contributing to the $1.41 billion decrease in our remaining performance obligations as of September 30, 2025 compared to December 31, 2024.

Translated, that means that the value of the various contracts that Tesla has to sell regulatory credits to other companies has reduced by $1.41 billion dollars as compared to where they were at the end of last year. Tesla says that the specific reason for this is due to the change in regulatory credits that its bad CEO lobbied for.

Some could argue that the value of Musk’s lobbying was to get a foot in the door, and to be able to influence republicans to do less anti-EV stuff than they might have otherwise done, but that hasn’t turned out to be the case. There is no indication that republicans have softened their anti-EV position, and in fact, they keep doubling down on trying to harm you and ignoring science. And besides, Musk hasn’t even maintained any relationships, after a very public breakup.

So, somehow, Musk managed to turn lobbying spend from one of the most efficient possible ways a corporation can spend money, into one of the most inefficient ways.

Lobbying is generally highly efficient spend; Musk flips the script again

Normally, lobbying is considered an incredibly efficient way for companies to make money. Various analyses have suggested that the average return on investment from lobbying dollars is anywhere between 22,000% and 104,000%. (Yes, this is a problem, but it’s not what we’re discussing at the moment).

However, in this case, lobbying produced a loss of 489% of the money spent – and that’s just counting the losses caused by the last 9 months, and only in regulatory credits. Those credits are pure profit, too, with no cost of revenue associated with them, so this is just a straight loss of money for the company and its shareholders.

In addition to those losses, there’s the lost revenue from vehicle sales. While this has not yet been recognized by the company, going forward Tesla sales will experience a dip now that all of Tesla’s automotive and home energy products – essentially, all of the products that Tesla sells – have been made more expensive in the US due to political changes.

Either Tesla can choose to lower prices to maintain post-credit pricing and take a hit to margins of $7,500 per vehicle and 30% on home energy products, or it can hold prices the same and lose customers due to lower affordability of its products, or it can release subpar long-awaited products that cost more and are worse than the thing they’re replacing.

Needless to say, none of these options are great for business.

And so, since vehicle credits didn’t end until the end of Q3, and since home energy credits go away at the end of this quarter (and if you want your last chance to get in before they do, get started here), that means business going forward from this quarter will be a lot worse.

In addition to the lost revenue from credits, there is another issue which is more difficult to track, but is definitely happening.

That is the issue of brand damage that Musk’s political activities have had on the company. Tesla is the only EV brand with negative perception, and it’s directly correlated to Musk’s political activities. His actions haven’t just harmed Tesla domestically, but abroad, where the company has lost business opportunities in in the UK, Australia, Germany, Denmark, and has seen falling sales in most territories, along with protests and embarrassed owners.

Tesla has already lost a lot of sales and will lose more, which means less revenue, and less profit. That $1.41 billion is just a start.

Despite directly harming Tesla, Musk wants you to pay him $1 trillion to stay on

Despite this horrendously inefficient use of funds by a CEO who has shown time and time again that he is outright hostile to the company he runs, Musk has also directed the company to spend more funds on an advertising effort to give him up to $1 trillion worth of Tesla stock.

The trillion-dollar number takes into account some optimistic stock growth for the company (which is unlikely given Musk’s recent performance as CEO, where earnings have dropped precipitously), but is still around 40x more than Tesla has ever made over its entire history. It’s also the largest CEO payday in history by multiple orders of magnitude.

Regardless of whether stock appreciates enough to give Musk all the shares covered under the plan, there is still room in the proposals for him to be granted well over 200 million newly printed shares of stock for doing nothing whatsoever, leading to dilution of voting rights and share value for current shareholders. The plan gives Musk’s personal friends on Tesla’s board significant discretion in this matter, and saddles the company with his poor leadership for another decade.

It would also give him a huge source of wealth, which he could turn into cash, to spend on other lobbying activities to harm Tesla’s business, as he has proven above that he is happy to do. If Musk can manage to lose Tesla $1.41 billion plus with $288 million, imagine what he could do with $1 trillion.

The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.