EV News

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

Published by
Giles Parkinson

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

 

See my video comments below:

Recent Posts

Electric truck leasing scheme wins green bank backing, but charging hub delayed

CEFC commits up to $A6 million into electric truck leasing scheme to help decarbonise the…

July 4, 2025

Tesla offers new incentives for Model Y to sustain sales in new quarter

Tesla is now offering multiple incentives, saving buyers of a new Tesla thousands in Q3…

July 4, 2025

A car seat, or a first class aircraft cabin? Zeekr’s unique mix of luxury and high performance

If Tesla and Rolls-Royce had a love child which grew into a luxury mini-van, then…

July 3, 2025

Australian EV sales surge to record 10.3 pct share, as Tesla, BYD and Geely dominate

Australian EV sales surge to new highs, hitting record market share of 10.3 per cent…

July 3, 2025

Tesla opens new Supercharger station with biggest solar canopy to date

Tesla's newest Supercharger station features its biggest solar canopy to date, and at least another…

July 2, 2025

Tesla EV sales ease off in Australia in June, Polestar also down

Sales of Tesla EVs in Australia eased in June, disappointing predictions from Tesla bulls of…

July 2, 2025