EVs are the Netflix of carbon emissions

There were movies before Netflix but there have been a lot more movies and shows after Netflix came along. There are more actors, directors and other players of the entertainment industry than there have ever been before. More avenues for talent to come forward and establish a name for themselves. That has sent the demand for entertainment above the clouds because with more choice, it is very hard to capture the attention of an audience whose attention span is dwindling and whose hunger for entertainment only increases with more.

Just like the increase in the number of film productions, carbon emissions have only increased with the increase in electric vehicles. EVs may have reduced the consumption of gasoline for automobiles but they still are the drivers of increased consumption of fossil fuel because EVs have to be charged and there is an increasing need for electricity. The International Energy Agency has said this week that the global demand for electricity has increased more than expected. It has projected that demand to increase globally by about 6% by 2035 and if we have learnt anything from these projections, then we know that they are always met before time and with a lot more value than expected and projected. We might hit 10% before 2035.

Every few months a new EV comes to the market. Companies tout the range of the miles the vehicle would achieve on a single charge and also compete over price. Customers focus on those two main factors while taking into consideration how much they'd have to pay in electricity charges given the higher consumption due to charging the vehicle at home. In those ads, companies might mention in passing how their vehicle would contribute toward a cleaner environment.

However, I have yet to see an aggressive touting of this EV revolution, if you will, from the governments about these vehicles being the harbingers of carbon emission reduction and a cleaner world for us to breathe in. There is a very simple reason why they don't tout that: doing so would not only be a lie but would change the topic from mileage range on a single charge, which is the main factor for an average customer, to how the fossil fuel is actually being burnt more than before for generating the electricity needed for charging these vehicles. Gasoline has moved away from the engine of the car to power plants driving thermal generation, releasing more carbon into the atmosphere.

That just reminds me of a conversation I had with a Houstonian at a Pizza parlor. He was working for Saudi Aramco. This was during the height of Covid days. I asked him how his company was dealing with the threat from EVs. He told me that they were actually welcoming EVs because of the increased projected need for electricity and hence fossil fuel.

People buy EVs for the sake of cheap driving because electric bills are still a lot cheaper than if they were to fill their vehicle tank. But those who are not buying EVs because they have signed up to conspiracy theories or because they are in the camp of the American Republican Party are doing no more disservice to mother nature. In fact, and this may sound very bizarre, they may be doing less damage to the environment than those driving EVs right now. Unless we have decarbonised our grid, which means we have to generate electricity using clean means such as wind, nuclear, solar, and so forth, we are only adding more carbon to the environment by continuing to drive EVs.

Today, I saw a car drive past me. The plates read 'Never EV'. Watching that while driving my EV, I thought the world may see me as driving a clean car but in reality, the driver of that 'Never EV' was adding less carbon to the environment than I was. He will do carbon emissions only when driving while I will do the same even when not driving.