Which Vehicles Emit More Carbon Dioxide?
A friend sent us some information about the CO2 emissions of all electric vehicles (EVs) compared to the CO2 emissions of a gasoline powered internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.
We wanted to see which type of vehicle emitted the most CO2, you know that ‘greenhouse gas’ that the EPA wants to eliminate.
First, we wanted to know if CO2 was really harmful or not. Here’s what we found.
Kevin Mooney in his column “Group Defends Carbon Dioxide as ‘Elixir of Life’ in Climate Change Debate” wrote,
Forget everything government officials, many media outlets, and “activist scientists” have warned about the damaging effects of carbon dioxide, because in reality there’s no cause for alarm, a group called the CO2 Coalition urges…“
Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant, it is in fact the very elixir of life,” Craig Idso, a science adviser to the CO2 Coalition, said during a panel discussion at CPAC exploring the benefits attached to higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
So the more CO2 the better right?
Well for you lovers of Tesla EVs you will be happy to learn that your EV emits more CO2 than an internal combustion engine gasoline powered vehicle.
POLITIFACT reported:
Full electric vehicles require a large lithium-ion battery to store energy and power the motor that propels the car, according to Insider. The lithium-ion battery packs in an electric car are chemically similar to the ones found in cell phones and laptops.
Because they require a mix of metals that need to be extracted and refined, lithium-ion batteries take more energy to produce than the common lead-acid batteries used in gasoline cars to help start the engine.
How much CO2 is emitted in the production depends on where the lithium-ion battery is made — or specifically, how the electricity powering the factory is generated — according to Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research think tank.
Producing a 75 kilowatt-hour battery for a Tesla Model 3, considered on the larger end of batteries for electric vehicles, would result in the emission of 4,500 kilograms of CO2 if it was made at Tesla’s battery factory in Nevada. That’s the emissions equivalent to driving a gas-powered sedan for 1.4 years, at a yearly average distance of 12,000 miles, Hausfather said.
If the battery were made in Asia, manufacturing it would produce 7,500 kg of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of driving a gasoline-powered sedan for 2.4 years… Hausfather said the larger emission amount in Asia can be attributed to its “higher carbon electricity mix.” The continent relies more on coal for energy production, while Tesla’s Nevada factory uses some solar energy.
The EPA on its website states, “A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. This number can vary based on a vehicle’s fuel, fuel economy, and the number of miles driven per year. ”
This is also good. Why?
Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore testified before the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on February 25, 2014. During his statement for the record Dr. Moore said:
‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.
So there you have it. Drive your ICE or EV as much as you like and you won’t impact the climate in any way.
Good news indeed.
P.S. John Casey, author and former NASA rocket scientist, has taught us three absolutes about the climate:
- The climate changes.
- The changes are cyclical.
- There is nothing mankind can do to change these natural cycles.
As John notes the only thing that mankind can do is prepare for these changes using good science and the best climate prediction tools to warn us of the coming changes.
End of story. Let the real science begin!
See more here: drrichswier.com
Header image: Forbes
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
VOWG
| #
It does not matter how much CO2 any vehicle puts out as it is not a pollutant or a climate driver.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
VOWG is spot on.
CO2 is tree, plant, and shellfish food.
This claim CO2 warms the Earth, or acts as an insulating material, has never, ever been demonstrated in a laboratory. The reason it hasn’t been demonstrated in a laboratory, pronounced Empirical Evidence, is that it has no ability to insulate nor warm anything.
Several years ago, some clever guys tried to sell double-pane house windows filled with CO2, marketing their ‘superior’ insulating property. They failed, as CO2 was no different than air. They eventually realized a vacuum was better than gases.
The entire ‘Greenhouse Gas Theory’ lives in the Land of Make-Believe.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
VOWG and Kevin are right!!! Here is historical support for what they wrote.
https://principia-scientific.com/prevailing-theories-have-been-proven-wrong-before/
https://principia-scientific.com/galileo-proved-ideas-false/
https://principia-scientific.com/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/
https://principia-scientific.com/solar-radiation-sufficient-no-greenhouse-effect-certain-atmospheric-gases/
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I had forgotten that in the second link I had quoted Galileo five years ago as I wrote that he had Sagredo remark: “You present these recondite matter with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner. For, in my opinion, people esteem more lightly that knowledge which they acquire with so little labor than that acquired through long and obscure discussion.” To which Salviati responded: “If those who demonstrate with brevity and clearness the fallacy of many popular beliefs were treated with contempt instead of gratitude the injury would be quite bearable; but on the other hand it is very unpleasant and annoying to see men, who claim to be peers of anyone in a certain field of study, take for granted certain conclusions which later are quickly and easily shown by another to be false. I do not describe such a feeling as one of envy, which usually degenerates into hatred and anger against those who discover such fallacies; I would call it a strong desire to maintain old errors, rather than accept newly discovered truths. This desire at times induces them to unite against these truths, although at heart believing in them, merely for the purpose of lowering the esteem in which certain others are held by the unthinking crowd.” (as translated by Crew and de Salvio)
Given the third and fourth link, I am experiencing (and pondering) what Galileo seemed to be experiencing so long ago. Except in my case, I am not citing the unquestionable results of my own experiments. I am citing common observations (measurements) which no one questions. So I propose that I embarrass some because the data to which I point seems so obvious.
Now I claim there is a reason I see the obvious which can be so difficult to see. Louis Agassiz, a Harvard naturalist, is the reason. Lane Cooper (1881-1959), a professor of the English Language and Literature at Cornell University, became familiar with Agassiz’s methods and wrote a book—Louis Agassiz As A Teacher—which was published in 1917 after Agassiz had died in 1873. Cooper began his introduction: When the question was put to Agassiz, ‘What do you regard as your greatest work?’ he replied: ‘I have taught men to observe.’ And in the preamble to his will he described himself in three words as ‘Louis Agassiz, ‘Teacher.’ Cooper’s book seemed not to be popular, but one, if interested, can learn a little more at (https://principia-scientific.com/history-erratic-boulders-and-science/).
Maybe someone reading this might explain why they don’t accept that there is no Greenhouse Effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Hence, no Global Warming, or Climate Change due to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Hence, China, by building coal fired power plants, are not destroying our planet’s environment!!! For maybe they accept the validity of the common data which I have observed and reported..
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
bmatkin
| #
I can give you a very short three point facts about CO2 and the “greenhouse”. CO2 is heavier than air. You may know that a CO2 fire extinguisher or welding gas seeks the lowest point in a building or landscape due to its weight. You might also know that trees and other plants need CO2 to produce all of the food on the planet. The two facts go hand in hand. If the bulk of the CO2 on earth is hugging the ground due to its weight, then incoming radiation would be reflected back more than that which is held in, wouldn’t it???
CO2 absorbs radiation in a very, very narrow bandwidth and is quickly saturated.
The other problem is that 1/2 the earth is dark at any one time, this means that the ends of the green house are virtually open.
Therefore, in both all three cases, the green house effect of CO2 just doesn’t hold up.
It is heavy, it is in an open system and is only a greenhouse roof in a very very narrow bandwidth.
As for China building many coal fired plants, that is only a problem because China allows emissions of Sulphur and particulates from these generators. The CO2 isn’t a problem unless you don’t want people to grow food.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Bmatkin,
I see my mistake must have been when I wrote: “For maybe they accept the validity of the common data which I have observed and reported.” I should have written: For maybe they (Chinese) accept the validity of the common data which I have observed and reported. And now I can ask; Why do you not explain to the PSI readers and the Chinese how the sulfur and particulate problem has been solved instead of writing extensively about carbon dioxide as if its problem hasn’t been solved.. I have no idea if they (the Chinese) have put scrubbers and precipitators in their stacks as they build new coal-fired power plants.
Have a good day, jerry
Reply
bmatkin
| #
The EPA on its website states, “A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. This number can vary based on a vehicle’s fuel, fuel economy, and the number of miles driven per year. ”
How many metric tons of fuel does a car use in a year? 30miles per gallon@12,000 miles is 400 gallons. A gallon of gas weighs about 6.1 pounds so 400×6.1= 2440lbs. That’s about 1 metric ton???? Sure there are refining CO2 emissions, but 4.6 is really stretching it. That gasoline weight burned also includes water and other by products that are not CO2.
I’m guessing the EPA is just blowing smoke on that one.
Reply
walt
| #
Solar maximum has ended. Warmed for the last hundred years, no S$IT.
Reply