The Driven
  • EV News
    • Electric Cars
    • Electric Bikes
    • Electric Boats
    • EV Conversions
    • Electric Flight
    • Electric Transport
    • Hydrogen Fuel Cell
    • Batteries
    • Charging
    • Policy
  • EV Models
  • EV Sales
  • Road Trips
  • Reviews
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • EV Explainers
    • EV Terms
    • FAQs
    • Readers’ Questions





The Driven
The Driven
  • EV News
    • Electric Cars
    • Electric Bikes
    • Electric Boats
    • EV Conversions
    • Electric Flight
    • Electric Transport
    • Hydrogen Fuel Cell
    • Batteries
    • Charging
    • Policy
  • EV Models
  • EV Sales
  • Road Trips
  • Reviews
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • EV Explainers
    • EV Terms
    • FAQs
    • Readers’ Questions
Comments
  • EV News
  • Policy

Angus Taylor’s electric vehicle emissions claims “fundamentally flawed,” says expert

  • February 8, 2021
  • 4 minute read
  • Giles Parkinson
Share 0
Tweet 0
Share 0
Share 0
Share 0
Share 0
Share 0
Share 0
Share 0

A leading transport expert says the emissions calculations used by federal energy and emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor to justify his “do nothing” EV strategy are “fundamentally flawed,” because they deliberately exclude the overseas emissions from the production and processing of liquid fuels for petrol and diesel cars.

Taylor on Friday released a “Future Fuels” discussion paper that argues Australia should focus on hybrid cars – known as “mild hybrids” rather than battery electric cars because of the much higher cost of abatement.

But the calculations used by Taylor and his department have been criticised by energy and transport experts and the EV lobby. Already it has been pointed out that Taylor’s team is comparing large electric vans with small petrol ones, and not fully accounting for the growth in renewable energy and clean energy charging options.

Now, Dr Jake Whitehead, from the University of Queensland, points out that the calculations for petrol and diesel cars used by Taylor’s office, government departments, and even the Green Vehicle Guide (GVC), do not factor in overseas emissions.

Whitehead raised the issue back in July last year, when he wrote to the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, which maintains the National Greenhouse Accounts Factors.

The department replied, confirming that Scope 3 emissions for liquid fuels do not account for emissions associated with extraction, refining and shipping of petrol or diesel from overseas.

“This is because data required to inform such factors is not readily available and would not be possible to apply with any certainty to delivered fuel, as Australia exports some petroleum products as well,” the department said.

Whitehead disputes this, and provided data showing how they could be calculated. See here.

He says that the scope 3 emissions used by the government are 0.1 kilos per litre, when the actual rate should 0.6 or 0.7. “It is one sixth or one seventh of what they should be,” he said. It means the Australian government is underestimating ICE (internal combustion engine) car emissions by around 20 per cent.

“It is problematic when these emissions are not accounted for in a consumer guide – like the Green Vehicle Guide – as consumers are not provided with accurate information regarding the relative emissions impact of different choices,” Whitehead wrote at the time.

“I believe the fuel lifecycle estimate in the Green Vehicle Guide should either be updated to include upstream emissions from petrol/diesel vehicles OR it should not be used as a metric for comparing EVs and conventional vehicles.”

Whitehead told The Driven on Monday that Taylor’s emissions calculations were wrong.

“They give the full picture of EV emissions and only half the picture from petrol vehicles,” Whitehead said. “Thy are fundamentally flawed.

“I highlighted this last year and I thought they were going to do something about it. And then when reading through (the Future Fuels discussion paper) I saw one tiny footnote of scope 3 emissions, but no international emissions. I was pretty annoyed.
“They can’t get their basic numbers right. They say it is too difficult, but you ar not comparing apples with apples. This is basically an excuse to do nothing on EV adoption.”
The criticism of Taylor’s emissions data – the primary argument for his “do nothing” EV policy – is growing. The Driven pointed out last week that Taylor’s extreme claim of a $750 a tonne abatement cost was based on a comparison of a big electric van with a smaller petrol van, when like-for-like comparisons were available.
Ketan Joshi also noted, on RenewEconomy, that the arguments being used by Taylor’s department were similar to those used to fight wind and solar incentives, and were also misleading because they failed to take into account the decarbonisation of the grid.
Whitehead notes another problem. He says that while state and federal governments have raised concerns about road funding, because EVs do not pay a fuel excise, and are contemplating road user taxes focused only on battery electrics, the biggest cause of revenue shortfalls has been the growing adoption of hybrid cars.
“How are they going to deal with the decline in fuel excise from an increase in hybrids. The EV tax won’t apply to hybrids. It is funny that they get themselves in such twists. This hybrid push is purely just an argument of conveniences, and it ignores other issues.
“EVs, as we know, are powered by Australian electricity. The way they are setting up this policy means that they are favouring foreign oil. Taylor would prefer that Australian money flows overseas. In his mind, overseas emissions don’t exist.”
See also a separate analysis from Jake Whitehead and colleagues: US jumps on board electric vehicle revolution, leaving Australia in the dust
Ketan Joshi’s analysis from last week: Taylor rehashes old climate delay tactics with new hybrid vehicle plan
And: Angus Taylor’s trouble with numbers continues as he snubs EVs on emissions costs

 

See my video comments below:

giles parkinson
Giles Parkinson

Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of The Driven, and also edits and founded the Renew Economy and One Step Off The Grid web sites. He has been a journalist for nearly 40 years, is a former business and deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review, and owns a Tesla Model 3.

Sign in or create your account to join the discussion.
Share 0
Tweet 0
Share 0
Share 0
Share 0
Share 0
Share 0
Share 0
Share 0
Related Topics
  • electric vehicle
  • emissions
  • fossil fuels
  • ICE
Get the free daily newsletter

I agree to the Terms of Use

  • EV News
    • Electric Cars
    • Electric Bikes
    • Electric Boats
    • EV Conversions
    • Electric Flight
    • Electric Transport
    • Hydrogen Fuel Cell
    • Batteries
    • Charging
    • Policy
  • EV Models
  • EV Sales
  • Road Trips
  • Reviews
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • EV Explainers
    • EV Terms
    • FAQs
    • Readers’ Questions
  • Press Releases

the driven electric vehicle podcast

Get the free daily newsletter

I agree to the Terms of Use

Stay Connected
The Driven
  • About The Driven
  • Get in Touch
  • Advertise
  • Contributors
  • Terms of Use
  • Editorial Guidelines
  • Privacy Policy

Input your search keywords and press Enter.