[quote Daftasabroom]@DdraigGoch EV emissions depend largely on the energy source, EU mix emissions would give a reduction of 32%, UK standard is better, a renewable energy tariff would give a lifetime reduction of over 52%. This is for the Volvo Polestar, smaller lighter cars such as the Nissan Zoe should be better still.
The 100 companies responsible for 71% is again very erroneous. These are scope 3 emissions for the 100 biggest fossil fuel companies. Scope 3 is of little use as it requires double accounting of carbon emissions so paints a very unrealistic picture. The 71% doesn't even include fugitive emissions which a significant element of which could be laid at the feet of those companies. Anyone quoting scope 3 emissions is being deceived (or deceiving).
Scope 1, scope 2 and LCAs are what count.[/quote]
Figures for the below post is taken from the 2020 edition of Mike Berners-Lee's book "How bad are bananas?"
"Renewable energy tariffs" are more greenwashing. It's an accounting fiddle. You should be looking at which generators cover 'marginal demand', not just your own tariff or the grid as a whole. If you are on such a tariff and you switch on a light, does a wind turbine start spinning slightly faster somewhere? No. That little bit of extra demand on the grid was almost certainly fulfilled by the governor on a gas turbine (or worse a diesel generator) opening slightly.
Likewise my parents have solar panels and storage batteries (and I'll do the same when finances permit). Yes, when they boil a kettle they are doing it for free, using renewable energy from their own roof. That doesn't mean though that it wouldn't have been better for the environment not to boil that kettle, and instead to sell that energy to the grid which would have (very slightly) reduced the output of said gas turbine.
So unless you are off-grid with your own independent you can't just go "all my electricity is renewable" and use as much of it as you like, guilt-free. The way your usage is attributed when your supplier does deals with National Grid, doesn't change the actual impact of you flicking that switch. You should still be trying to minimise your usage, whatever tariff you're on. Mike's book makes it clear why even though the grid is 30% renewable, when you are counting the carbon cost of flicking that switch, you should be assuming that the power you are using was actually generated using fossil fuels (page 51).
So, onto electric cars vs ICE cars. If you took a small, efficient petrol car from London to Glasgow and back, you will have been responsible for the emission of 237kg of CO2e. Half of that through the exhaust pipe, a third is a share of the impact of manufacturing and maintaining the vehicle, and the remainder is what the oil giant emitted in the process of getting fuel from the well to your tank.
Making the same journey in a small electric car by comparison holds you responsible for 148kg of CO2e. Which is around 50/50 between manufacturing and energy generation. So it's certainly better than doing it in a similarly sized petrol car (and miles better than the 1.02 tonnes an SUV generated, though I don't have comparable figures for an electric SUV), but still considerably worse than the 64kg emitted if you did the return journey by train.
As I said before, I'm not denying that electric cars are less of a problem than petrol or diesel. What I am saying is that electric cars are still a problem. You can't just trade in your car for an electric one and congratulate yourself on saving the planet. Most people need to move onto a combination of bicycles for short distances, and public transport for long.
And before anyone living in an isolated smallholding in Inverie comes on to protest that they have no choice but to use a car - I know you don't! I'm directing this at the 80% of the population who live in urban areas, most of whom DO have that choice, if they really did care.