On 1 September, researchers at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) published a so-called white paper, a non-peer-reviewed article examining the role of electric cars in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
That same day, TUM issues a press release on the study, entitled: ‘TUM study reveals substantial misdirection in EU automotive regulation’. The press release’s main argument is that, because the EU only focuses on cars’ tailpipe emissions and not on the carbon footprint of the entire production chain, we will fail to meet the EU’s emissions targets.
The news is widely covered. Several German media outlets republish the press release, and politicians, including the Minister-President of Bavaria, are quick to latch onto its claims. Their conclusion: electric cars are not beneficial for the climate, and the EU should certainly not place more emphasis on electric cars at the expense of petrol cars.
Professor of Industrial Ecology Arnold Tukker also became aware of the news.
‘Those reports in the German media, including the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, caught the attention of a number of colleagues. They approached me, as we were the only ones quoted in that press release. The press release uses our figures to argue that emissions are not dropping fast enough. It takes a brutal swipe at the EU: this lack of reduction is supposedly because the EU does not include emissions from battery and electricity production in the carbon footprint.’
TUM links the fact that a specific piece of EU legislation only focuses on emissions produced while driving to the prediction that emission targets will not be met, citing the study by Tukker and his colleagues to support their argument. Because the EU is supposedly blind to carbon emissions during the manufacture of electric cars, millions of tonnes of excess CO₂ would still be emitted in 2030. TUM’s conclusion: EU emissions targets are based on a worthless measurement method.
But that is not at all what Tukker and his colleagues concluded, which is why, according to him, it is ‘scientifically utterly indefensible’.
‘It is absolutely no news that the production of batteries and electricity is not yet carbon-neutral. The EU already has policies in place to reduce carbon emissions in all other areas besides driving. It is true that we are not reducing transport emissions fast enough. However, our study shows that this is because we are not electrifying transport enough and not generating enough green electricity, not because the EU supposedly only focuses on tailpipe emissions. We need to make the electricity grid greener and phase out petrol cars by 2030.’
Oddly enough, the TUM white paper calculates that electric cars are already the better option. It states that, considering the emissions over the car’s entire life cycle – including manufacturing and electricity consumption – electric cars have a 41 per cent smaller footprint. That is still a huge improvement over the internal combustion engine.
And according to Tukker, that advantage will only grow. ‘That 41 per cent is an average. In countries with a relatively green electricity grid, such as the Netherlands, Norway or France, the advantage is already considerably greater, and that electricity grid continues to become greener. What’s more, petrol cars have reached the limits of their development. They are no longer improving. Batteries, on the other hand, are still at the beginning of their learning curve. Almost every month, there are articles about improvements that make them more efficient or reduce their reliance on critical materials.
‘Electric cars are the future, even if people in Bavaria worry about what Chinese car manufacturers could do. You don’t maintain competitive strength by clinging to old technologies. The debate on how to preserve industrial capacity in Europe is urgently needed, but it is not getting off the ground. And the reason for that is that press release.’
CORRECTION
Following a scathing post on LinkedIn in which Tukker strongly criticised TUM and distanced himself from the German news, he was approached by one of the authors of the white paper, who promised that they would amend the press release.
But that is too little, too late, according to the professor. The German media have already run with the story; he believes that any correction to the original press release will receive only a fraction of the attention.
When asked, a TUM spokesperson confirms that they are indeed working on a ‘minor correction’ to the press release in consultation with the white paper’s authors.
‘They pointed out to us that there were one or two sentences that were not entirely correct. We can change a few words and then it will be accurate again. But as a university, we would prefer not to spend much more time communicating about this issue.’
The spokesperson emphasises that the German paper and press release were written without any interference or funding from politicians or the automotive industry.