Electric Cars and Misled Moral Superiority

Electric Cars and Misled Moral Superiority

It is no question that electric vehicles are here to stay. Surely most people have witnessed an angular Chevy Volt hum by or a sleek Tesla Model S glide up to a stop light. Electric vehicles are coming out in all shapes and sizes, and new developments in battery charge and storage are making these vehicles more functional than ever. But where they really shine, is their apparent moral superiority; heavily subsidized due to a lack of tailpipe emissions, they are championed by environmental advocates and politicians as the way forward in caring for the environment. However, what people general fail to consider are the environmental impacts of manufacturing an electric vehicle. Before a vehicle even leaves the dealership, it has already had a profound impact on the environment that outweighs any benefits from the zero-tailpipe emissions.

The best way to illustrate the overall impact of an electric vehicle is to start at the very beginning of the manufacturing process, not to focus on what does or does not come out of its tailpipe. Every piece of metal in any car started out in the ground. Nickel, copper, steel, whatever the type, has to be mined and refined, traveling around the globe before reaching any of its various final forms. Processing the materials involved in any type of vehicle’s production is environmentally damaging, though electric vehicles (EVs) require materials that make them more even damaging. Such materials include neodymium and aluminum.

Neodymium

Neodymium is a rare earth metal primarily used in making magnets. These magnets are found in everything from computer hard drives to the motors that power electric cars. To understand the damaging effects of neodymium mining, one has only to look up images of the city of Baotou and its adjacent lake. Baotou is located in Mongolia, and the mines just north of Baotou are estimated to contain 70 percent of the world’s rare earth mineral reserves (Maughan). The pictures need to be seen to be believed, but the images of the lake where refineries pump a torrent of thick, black chemical waste can only described as a monochromatic hell on earth.

Aluminum

            Electric cars are naturally quite heavy. For example, the Nissan Leaf’s battery pack alone weighs close to seven hundred pounds. A lighter car means extended battery life, so to offset the heavy batteries, the Nissan Leaf uses aluminum in its doors and hood (Zehner). Aluminum is generally mined and produced in Australia, Brazil, and China. There are heavy environmental impacts associated with each stage of aluminum production, most notably greenhouse gas emissions. These gases result from both the electrical consumption by smelters and the byproducts of processing. In short, the unique greenhouse gases produced include perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide. Sulfur dioxide is a primary ingredient in acid rain, and PFCs are estimated by the EPA to be 9,200 times more harmful than carbon dioxide in terms of their affect on global warming (Aluminum). Aluminum strip mining also devastates the landscape, destroying all native vegetation in the mining region.

A Contradiction

            Governing bodies such as the United Nations view emission reduction, specifically that of vehicles, as an important way to combat climate change. The country that has embraced the UN’s goals with the most gusto is Norway. Norway currently has the highest percentage of EVs in the world and grants the highest tax break for EVs at over $18,000, compared to about $6,000 in the United States (Jolley). The country is proud of the strides that have been made, spending millions of dollars on said tax breaks and on infrastructure, all with the purpose of encouraging citizens to make the switch to electric. Sadly, this pride is not based on the measurable results, which estimate that Norway’s EV program has only cut one-tenth of 1 percent of carbon dioxide emissions (Jolley). On top of that, a Norwegian study found that “electric vehicles consistently perform worse or on par with modern internal combustion engine vehicles, despite virtually zero direct emission during operation” (Hawkins). This study focused on the life-cycle impacts of EVs, not merely their tailpipe emission.

Conclusion

            In using EVs, we are not reducing environmental impact but are simply relocating it. The air in California or Norway might be slightly cleaner because there are more electric cars whirring about, but it is places like Baotou, Mongolia, that are paying the price. Unfortunately, normal consumers as well as policy makers have not taken this fact into consideration. As stated by Mr. Lunde, the deputy climate minister in Norway, “If you buy an electric, at least you’re safe. There are no emissions” (Jolley). Based on empirical evidence, Mr. Lunde, along with so many others, could not be more wrong.  As we can see from the unique materials required to manufacture EVs and their devastating environmental impact, the moral superiority of electric vehicles is a grossly misled notion. 

           

Works Cited

"Aluminum." Enviroliteracy.org. The Environmental Literacy Council, n.d. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

Hawkins, Troy R., Bhawna Singh, Guillaume Majeau-Bettez, and Anders Hammer Strømman. "Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles." Journal of Industrial Ecology (2013): 53-64. Yale University, 4 Oct. 2012. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

Jolley, David. "Norway's Electric Embrace." The New York Times 19 Oct. 2015: 1-2. Print.

Maughan, Tim. "The Dystopian Lake Filled by the World's Tech Lust." Bbc.com. BBC, 2 Apr. 2015. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

Zehner, Ozzie. "Unclean at Any Speed." Spectrum.ieee.org. IEEE-SA, 30 June 2013. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.