Living in electric dreams

EVs biggest selling point - that they are good for the environment - is misleading at best. It is true that EVs win the direct-emissions battle against ICEVs. Yet sadly, EVs fall down in other ways.

Batteries remain EV's biggest sore point, in terms of materials used, where they are manufactured and how they are disposed of. The standard choice battery is the lithium-ion battery, which is made up of nickel, graphite, lithium, and cobalt. Each of these materials poses its own unique environmental and public health risks. This is evidenced in places such as China, where the bulk of lithium-ion batteries are produced and where a growing portion of EVs are manufactured. Cases of rivers being poisoned and towns smothered in graphite dust are a result of the growing demand batteries combined with China's lax environmental regulations.

Then there is the horror that is cobalt mining, a highly toxic niche metal that sourced primarily from the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country with a horrendous human rights and environmental record. Even with efforts by some manufacturers such as Tesla to reduce the use of cobalt in batteries to minimal levels, demand for cobalt is predicted to increase at least 10 times by 2030 under current policy settings. Batteries and other components for EVs do not grow on trees but are the end result of lengthy, intrusive and toxic mining and industrial processes.

The manufacture and charging of EVs are also only shifting the source of emissions from the engine to the manufacturing and power plants. This is particularly true of cars manufactured outside of the OECD, while coal and gas will remain core components of Australia's electricity grid for a few decades yet. Analysis done by the Manhattan Institute shows that any reductions in emissions achieved through the adoption of EVs will be minimal.

Then there is the issue of what to do with used batteries. Today in Australia, only 2% of the country's annual 3,300 tonnes of lithium-ion battery waste is recycled. While 95% of a lithium-ion battery can be recycled, to date there are no programs in place to do so. Most waste is shipped overseas, while the rest ends up in landfill.

Finally, there is the glaring issue that low-occupancy private motorised transport remains the least efficient and most environmentally unsustainable mode of transport, regardless of whether it is electric or not. EVs will do little to solve the inter-related problems of traffic congestion and urban sprawl that results in environmentally destructive road building, poor land use, and social inequality. Indeed, the Australian Automobile Association has stated that in 2015 congestion cost the Australian economy $16.5 billion and that without major policy changes, congestion costs were projected to reach between $27.7–37.3 billion by 2030. EVs will also continue to maintain the status quo, in terms of the primacy given to cars in city design and planning, retaining the focus on parking spaces and roads rather than footpaths and cycle paths.

Better ways to spend taxpayers money

Instead of wasting limited public resources pandering to green inner city latte sipping elites, policymakers on both sides of politics should be pursuing policies that deliver real societal and environmental benefits. Some of these ideas would actually encourage and support the growth of the very technology the ALP are advocating for. These could include:

• Decarbonising the electricity gridwould see the biggest gains in terms of emission reduction. But renewables cannot do this alone without imposing significant costs on consumers and business. Lifting the ban on nuclear power would help resolve the energy trilemma of affordability, reliability and zero carbon and support the deployment of renewables to where they can provide the most benefit. Nuclear power could assist in the rapid electrification of transport, provide heat for industrial processes and necessary energy to desalinate and recycle water in times of drought, taking the pressure off our struggling river systems.
• Investment in the electrification of transportation, particularly freight, would be of benefit. Where investment in EV technology makes more economic sense is for electric buses, taxis, car sharing, and rentals, government fleet vehicles, and light freight vehicles - essentially modes of transport that move more people and things rather than one individual.
• Investment in better city design and planning that encourages mixed-use design, density and improves the connectivity, walkability, and cyclability of Australian cities. This will get people out of cars and onto mass transit, the cycle path or footpath, where possible, providing a wide range of environmental and health benefits.
• Policies that encourage better housing design suited to Australia's diverse climatic condition - what works in tropical North Queensland is not necessarily suitable for Tasmania and vice versa.

There is no doubt that EVs will over time take a greater share of the market and have a place alongside hybrids and efficient ICEVs. But the ALP's policy needs to be seen for what it is - a virtue signaling vanity project that if implemented will add more cost to the consumer, while seeing taxpayer dollars lining the pockets of foreign car manufacturers, cherry picking one technology over another, for little environmental benefit. Their EV policy will only aid those early adopters who are concerned primarily for the environment or at least for being seen by others as environmentally responsible. Furthermore, like many other green-related public benefits, assistance for EVs will flow almost exclusively to individuals who are already well off and who don't need it.