The green mobility trick

The urgency to abandon fossil fuels has been recognised globally. The use of private cars, which increased exponentially since the beginning of the 20th century, has been pointed as one of main drivers of global warming given their dependence on burning fossil fuels – road transportation accounted for 12.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2019. To curb global warming, it is imperative to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and hence, to rethink our transport systems – using less cars. Yet, the car industry is not willing to give up their profit: they have developed a set of strategies to maintain their status quo. For instance, trying to “green” their image. A flagrant example of this is the Volkswagen scandal: the company was found to have sold cars with a software that adjusted performance when tested, and hence sold as “eco”. However, polluting emissions were much higher on the road. In the last decade, the promotion of hybrid and electric vehicles (EVs) as the climate solution has become the main tenet, both by corporations and institutions.

The production and sale of electric vehicles has become a central element of the institutional vision of the green transition; a transition which does not renounce but is based on the pursuit of economic growth. While the replacement of combustion engines with electric cars has been presented as key to reducing emissions, it has also served the purpose to stimulate the car market. A wide-range of policies exemplify that: subsidies to EV manufacturers and credits to EV consumers by the US Inflation’s Reduction Act, the EU’s vehicle substitution program, or the National Electric Vehicle Strategy launched by the Australian government or generous subsidies and tax exemptions to EV’s by the Chinese government. As a result, EVs are expected to account for around 25% of global car sales in 2025.

But what are the implications of these policies? And will the EV contribute to enforcing a truly just transition?

The material basis for EV manufacturing

Producing a car is a highly intensive process both in the use of energy and materials. This applies to both combustion and electric cars. If all current vehicles are to be substituted by electric ones, millions of new cars need to be produced which requires large amounts of energy – and, consequently, a rise in emissions (since industrial processes depend mostly on fossil fuels). Besides metals needed for the production of any car, specific minerals are needed for EVs, mainly for the batteries but also for the electric engine. Copper, a mineral used for the production of conventional cars, is required in more than double amount for EVs. Besides, other critical minerals for EVs are lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, manganese and rare earths. These minerals are typically used for the manufacture of digital technologies, and EVs are like computers, in a much bigger size. On average, an electric car requires six times more critical minerals than a vehicle with a combustion engine (excluding steel and aluminium).

The expected rise in EV demand has, therefore, been linked to the surge in demand of certain minerals, deemed critical by the EU and other governments for the energy transition and digitalisation. Indeed, of the total expected mineral demand for the energy transition, more than 50% is attributed to the shift to “green” mobility”.

On top of that, the recent trend to produce larger cars has also meant that large EVs are becoming the norm to be a real competitor against conventional cars. New cars have also incorporated many digital gadgets like screens, sensors, cameras, etc.  Electrification of vehicles has also made them heavier: the batteries of EVs are very heavy, which makes electric cars weigh 13% more than conventional cars. However, the bigger and heavier the car and the more digital gadgets, the more minerals needed.

Limits to extraction and realities on the ground

The rise in mineral demand for the green transition has become a concern of local communities and sparked resistance. Reserves are distributed unevenly across the globe and currently, most of these minerals are mined in the Global South. Actually, the EU is already consuming around 25-30% of metals globally, while it only represents 6% of the world’s population. At the same time, extraction has negative impacts on both people and the environment, and has often been linked to human rights violations. These impacts are often borne in territories where electric vehicles are far from being used, and in some instances, where not even access to electricity is guaranteed. To name a few, extracting lithium requires large amounts of water, while it takes place in dry territories, depriving local populations from this precious resource; mining and processing nickel has destroyed indigenous peoples’ livelihoods in Indonesia – a country hosting 40% of world reserves of this mineral; radioactivity associated with rare earths has affected negatively the health of communities in Bayan Oboo (China).

Corporate greed

While people at the extraction frontier are bearing the burden of “green” extractivism, a few companies are reaping the benefits. The extraction of critical minerals is controlled by several transnational mining companies – such as BHP, Rio Tinto, Zijin, Glencore – mainly based in Australia, the USA, the UK, Canada and China – whose interest is to maximise their profit. They have spent millions in putting pressure on decision-makers to ensure mineral-related laws are aligned with their needs. They receive support from the main banks and public institutions: the EU finances mineral related infrastructure through the Global Gateway, it has promoted strategic projects under the Critical Raw Materials Act and supports battery projects by the main European car companies through InvestEU and the European Investment Bank

Besides lobbying by mining companies, the car industry is also pressuring international institutions to secure their future survival. For decades, they have poured millions to lobby the EU, and to shape a narrative tailored to serve the interests of their growth strategy. As SOMO revealed, the supposed “crisis” of the car industry has been manufactured. Consequently, the phase-out of combustion-engines has been delayed, while the industry has been heavily subsidized. More recently, public policy has favoured the purchase of electric cars, further stimulating car sales.

Clean air for whom?

Electric vehicles do not emit greenhouse gas emissions when driving, since they run on electricity. However, electricity can be produced by several sources, and not all of them are renewable. Therefore, driving an electric car running on coal – or gas – produced electricity, simply implies a displacement of emissions: clean air for the people living where the car drives, and pollution for the ones living by the power plant and more emissions adding up to global warming.

Even in cities in the Global North where the shift to “green” mobility is promoted, the purchase of EVs is not available to everyone – but only to those who can afford it. Thus, there is a significantly higher amount of EVs in richer than in poorer neighbourhoods. This also has implications in terms of local air and noise pollution.

Towards mobility justice: a world liveable for all 

Substitution of all current combustion engine cars by EVs is materially impossible and morally non-desirable. While it is possible that future technological improvements allow for a reduced use of critical minerals in electric vehicles, the current implications of projected demand and the impacts of extractivism make it imperative to change the course of the transition toward green mobility. The growth driven paradigm has caused global warming; to solve the crisis we need to think beyond the endless growth logic. Instead of the quest for corporate profit, plans for mineral demand reduction are necessary to ensure continued life on this planet. This will not be possible without a radical shift on our (Global North) transport systems. In other words, cutting demand from EVs is crucial for overall demand reduction.

There is a clear resistance to abandoning the current capitalist logic by institutions, also applied to the mobility system. This cultural resistance is also reflected in people's views – the belief “I need my own car”, but it has to be surpassed to move towards fairer transport models for all, and more broadly, to advance a just energy transition. Besides, a mobility transition that allows for demand reduction will have to prioritise a decrease in mobility in the first place, which would require a spatial transformation of our urban systems. It would also prioritise wide use and accessibility to public transport. Only in places where public transport is not available, individual EVs might be necessary, but do not need to be used by a single person. Evidence shows that, on average, cars are only used 2% of the time (in Germany). That is, they spent most of the day parked. This means there is room for moving toward a collective instead of individual use of  vehicles in situations where public transport is not an option. Finally, reducing the size of EVs and especially of batteries, will also be imperative. These are only some ideas of many which could contribute to a fairer mobility transition than the one we have now.

The decarbonisation of our societies broadly, and of mobility specifically, is a must; but it can also be an opportunity to undergo a socio-economic transformation to reverse global inequalities and stay within planetary boundaries, ensuring a world to live in for future generations. The current push for “green” cars puts this at risk. This must be a just transformation and it cannot repeat the extractivist pattern of fossil capitalism.