The “EVs Are Big Polluters” Circus Is Back In Town

Last Updated on: 17th June 2025, 01:07 am

EVs are under attack again. Blame it on Akio Toyoda. In April, the scion of the Toyota Motor Company said in an interview with Automotive News and republished by Toyota Times, “When the term carbon neutrality became popular, we said as a company the enemy is carbon. We have to focus on what we can do immediately to reduce carbon dioxide. That is the basis of our decision. It has not changed and will not change. We have sold some 27 million hybrids. Those hybrids have had the same impact as 9 million BEVs on the road. But if we were to have made 9 million BEVs in Japan, it would have actually increased the carbon emissions, not reduced them. That is because Japan relies on the thermal power plants for electricity.”

Well, the anti-EV blogosphere went into overdrive after that remark. “EV’s cause three times more pollution than a hybrid cars! Akio Toyoda said so, which means it is true,” the internet headlines screamed. Dudes rollin’ coal in their diesel dually pickup trucks got a smug look on their faces and the whole transition to driving on electrons took another hit. The next thing you know, people will be saying EVs are responsible for the Hindenburg tragedy, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa, and the heartbreak of psoriasis.

There is plenty of misinformation about electric cars out there — some of it accidental and some of it deliberate. In the mind of MAGAlomaniacs, EVs are the spawn of the devil and should be eradicated. We have diligently tried to counter that misinformation by publishing articles like the one recently that explored the myths and misconceptions about charging and range. But it is a full time job trying to counter the illogical ideological objections to EVs.

Here’s an example: For years, EV haters have been bleating about how electric cars will crash the grid. But the real threat to the electrical grid comes from data centers which are far outstripping the ability of utility companies to generate enough power to keep them up and running. Ancient thermal and nuclear generating stations are being kept open long beyond their intended service lives so our kids can let AI write their term papers, and the right-wing crazies are cheering! Data centers will use three times as much electricity as a nationwide fleet of electric vehicles, but that is OK, because lots more fossil fuels will be burned so it’s all good. If you can find the logic behind that, please let us know

Writing for InsideEVs, Suvrat Kothari takes a calm and measured approach to the “EVs are dirty” hysteria. He begins by quoting a study published in the journal IOP Science that found that gas and hybrid vehicles create six to nine metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in their manufacturing while EVs create 11 to 14 metric tons of CO2 emissions during manufacturing. The difference is mostly attributable to the mining and processing needed to make EV batteries.

EVs & Misinformation

So EVs do start with a “carbon debt” compared to conventional gas and hybrid cars. But here’s the thing: As they drive, they begin to offset that carbon debt so that over their lifetime they are cleaner than gas and hybrid cars by every analysis. How long it takes to offset that carbon debt varies, depending primarily on how dirty the electrical grid is in the owner’s local area, but even in coal-heavy states like West Virginia, the EV wins out every time. A number of studies have been done and they conclude that “carbon debt” is fully paid off in between 20,000 and 30,000 miles of driving.

The IOP study found that EVs break even with hybrid cars in terms of lifecycle CO2 emissions in about 2.4 years of driving. When compared to gas cars, the breakeven point is much faster, at less than 1.6 years. The study found that EVs were the cleanest in 2,983 US counties, whereas hybrids were the lowest emitting option in 125 counties. In other words, Akio Toyoda is correct if all his hybrid cars are driven in certain areas but incorrect when the focus is expanded. For more on this topic, see the excellent EV Myths website from the EPA. Better make a copy, because it probably won’t be up much longer.

Kothari concludes with this eminently reasonable summary: “Hybrids are excellent options for buyers who aren’t quite ready to go fully electric. PHEVs, when regularly charged, can be driven much like EVs for daily commutes. And traditional hybrids still offer a major improvement over gas-only cars when it comes to fuel economy and emissions. Even modern gas cars are far cleaner than they were in decades past. But in most cases, there’s little doubt that EVs outperform them both on efficiency, on emissions and increasingly, on overall sustainability. If we want a zero-emission future, it’s the most promising way to get there.”

EV Fear & Loathing In Switzerland

CleanTechnica readers will have little argument with that analysis. But while hopscotching the EV world for headlines today, I chanced upon a report from Electrive that says a study commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy found that replacing 90 percent of the gasoline- and diesel-powered cars on the road in that country with EVs would result in a significant reduction in Swiss carbon dioxide emissions. But apparently the Office of Energy has decided not to make the study public for fear of criticism.

According to a report by German language news source Republik, the government is “afraid of the accusations from the right-wing populist corner of ‘state re-education’, or building energy policy ‘castles in the sky.” It’s sort of comforting to know that the US does not have a monopoly on right-wing crazies. The Office of Energy said in a statement, “The questions regarding the purchase of electric vehicles have changed since the concept was drawn up in 2022 and the report does not provide a clear answer to the question of whether the purchase of a new electric vehicle with the simultaneous sale of the used fossil vehicle has a positive or negative impact on the climate.”

Jürg Grossen, president of the Swiss E-Mobility Association, said in a statement, “If a federal office spends taxpayers’ money on studies, it must also publish the results.” Republik reported that Grossen sees no reason why this should not happen, especially as the study only confirms what others have already said.

Refusing to release the study has created a furor in Switzerland. Martin Winder from the Swiss Transport Club told Republik that it is unacceptable that scientific findings are not published for fear of the public response, “Such studies are important because they answer the question of how we should behave if we don’t want to pollute the environment.”

Somehow or another, opposition to taking appropriate action to address the degradation of the environment has become a religious crusade for many. They simply refuse to believe that human activity can have any negative impacts on the Earth. God gave humans dominion over the Earth, and these people are determined to dominion the hell out of our little blue lifeboat at the far edge of a minor galaxy. They are determined to prove their view is correct even if it takes destroying the Earth to prove it. Time to break out the popcorn and watch The Matrix one more time.