Is the 2030 Petrol Ban Really About the Environment?

The environment takes good care of us, and it's imperative that we be conscious of what we do to it as we sustain life. When we are negligent, it retaliates. For this reason, the sale of cars powered by an internal combustion engine (ICE) will be discontinued in 2030 in favour of "zero emissions" electric vehicles (EVs).

We all need a friendly environment! But, the more you look around, the more you realise that there is more than meets the eye. Volvo recently released some data comparing the production costs of an ICE-powered car and its EV equivalent, assuming a life cycle of 200 000 kilometres (124 000 miles). They found that producing the EV produces 70% more C02s than the ICE-powered equivalent, such that you would have to drive it tens of thousands of miles just to offset that emissions penalty. At the moment, the production process of EVs is anything but kind to the environment.

Is this really about the environment? Even so, EVs offer nowhere near as much convenience as ICE-powered cars for A to B commutes. There's a shortage of charging stations; they have limited range, which is even affected by extreme weathers; they take forever to charge back to life; and while rapid chargers can charge batteries much faster, frequent use of them is actually bad for battery life. All of this just defeats the whole purpose of rapid chargers. Some might argue that there just aren't that many people who drive more than 50 miles a day, which is a piece of cake to today's EVs. So frequent use of rapid chargers isn't a need for most people. But still, it just isn't as convenient! And, is it all that bad? Are all the environmental problems caused by ICE-powered cars so bad that we are content with sacrificing convenience for A to B commutes?

Point out any drawback to EVs in contast to ICE-powered cars and environmentalists will say that they will get better. And it's true; they will go even further; batteries will charge faster; charging infrastructure is developing rapidly; batteries will become lighter and smaller without compromising range. All true, they will get better! But wouldn't ICE-powered cars if they were also allowed a future? They have been getting more efficient over time, and it was triggered by huge investments in new technology.

Okay, the process of a car burning fuel then emitting those gases through its exhaust pipes causes pollution, but what if that whole process could happen without necessarily worrying environmentalists? Sythentic fuel is just that, and Porsche is working on it. A process called electrolysis is used to take back the C02s already in the atmosphere, mix it with hydrogen to make fuel, which is then put in the car. Basically, it recycles C02s! The car still does emit through its exhaust pipes, but because it's recycled C02s, you aren't actually adding new C02s. It does fit in with the definition of "Net Zero Emissions", which simply means to not introduce any new C02. The advantage of synthetic fuel is that since it's still fuel, just produced differently, the infrastructure is already developed, eliminating the need to invest huge amounts of money to develop it. We can use the existing fuel stations! And, it will take the same amount of time to get our cars back on the road as filling up with the fuel we are already used to. Now, some have noted that this whole process of producing synthetic fuels won't be cheap, especially when you account for the fact that in order to the real benefit to be realised, it has to be produced using green energy. Without a shadow of a doubt, it will be expensive! But, will building the EV future - such that EVs are as convenient as ICE-powered cars for A to B commutes - be any cheaper?

If the issue really is about the environment, then we need to have a balanced discussion on this. Yes, EVs will get better with more investments, but wouldn't ICE-powered cars if they were allowed a future? The fact that synthentic fuels are in the mix just proves that.