Environmental Reporting Gone Wrong - The Greenpeace Auto Environmental Guide 2022
This edition analyses the Greenpeace Auto Environmental Guide in detail showing how disconnected environmental reporting can be from the environment
The 2022 Greenpeace Auto Environmental Guide was recently released and provided a fantastic opportunity for several media outlets to attack some of the world’s automakers for failing to advance the emissions reduction agenda at the expected pace (examples here, here, here, here, here, you get the point). The report singles out Toyota, Honda and Nissan as the worst performers and General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen for doing most in their decarbonisation efforts. The attacks focused mainly on Toyota and resembled a sort of environmental cancel culture, recently leading the company to seek meetings with investors and environmental groups to calm spirits down.
Most importantly, the report showed how a faulty methodology can produce nonsensical results which can then be mechanically echoed by media outlets to produce a modern-day equivalent of an auto maker inquisition. The outcomes of the report struck me as somewhat unexpected, given that Toyota has been one of the first companies to bring hybrid vehicles to market and that General Motors isn’t particularly known for its fuel-efficient vehicles. After parsing through the report to piece together the things that were not making sense, I found two fundamental issues: the potential future is more important than past or present actions and what’s not measured is not seen.
Before continuing, it is important to point out that this piece is a critical analysis of the way in which auto manufacturer’s performance was ranked (i.e., the method) rather than a critique of the auto markers’ performance.
A Potential Future is More Important than Past or Present Actions
The report evaluates auto markers’ performance from 0 to 100 points on several criteria. The most impacting criteria of relevance for this argument are the internal combustion engine phase out plan (up to 22 points), renewable energy charging (up to 10 points), Scope 3 emissions category 1 emission data and reduction targets (8 points) and steel decarbonisation efforts and commitment (8 points). Together, these criteria make up almost half (48/100 points) of the auto makers’ environmental performance. What all these criteria have in common is that they are future-oriented and solely declarative. By this I mean that the criteria evaluate auto makers’ declarations, which may have some environmental impact at some point in time (may being the operative word), but are extremely unlikely to generate short- or medium-term positive environmental impacts. Let’s look at these criteria in more detail.
The internal combustion engine phase-out plan evaluates internal combustion engine phase-outs targets that have been publicly announced (Greenpeace, p. 15). While targets set a direction, they make no immediate impact on the companies’ emissions footprint. They may, at some point in the future. Or they may become a goal that was not met. Whether this target is remotely achievable is not a matter of interest in this discussion. Scope 1 and 2 declarations and renewable energy targets face similar issues as the phase-out of internal combustion engine.
Renewable energy charging is an interesting criterion because auto makers are scored on whether they purchase renewable energy certificates for charging (although direct local charging with renewable energy is more favourably scored). The report does however point out that 6 of the 10 auto makers buy certificates which, in fact, produce minimal environmental impact. These certificates may support renewable energy generation at some point into the future, or they might not. But they certainly have little effect now (Greenpeace, p 27).
The steel decarbonisation criterion is also heavily reliant on declarations as it rewards carbon-neutral materials targets or partnerships with green steel providers. Why doesn’t this create short term impact? Mainly because there’s not that much green steel around. Green steel manufacturing requires electric furnaces or green hydrogen and certainly renewable electricity. Around 3 in 10 steel furnaces are electric and still require renewable electricity to be classified as green. The same can be said for green hydrogen, another potential renewable source for green steel manufacturing. Over several years and following extensive investments, it may be possible to increase green steel and green hydrogen production (if there’s enough renewable electricity). But there are many ifs and buts on the way. In the meantime, the environmental impact of green steel targets likely remains negligible.
The report applies a 1-point deduction for automaker’s violations against environmental regulations or insufficient suport for Paris-aligned climate policies (Greenpeace, p 17). Unlike the previous criteria which handsomely reward declarations with limited environmental impact, this criterion should penalise actual environmental damage or misbehaviour. A 1-point deduction for environmental regulations seems somewhat lax and somewhat unsurprisingly, as 2 out of the top 3 environmental performers (Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz) are being investigated or have been convicted for using defeat devices (Greenpeace 2022, p 44, 54). A potential future really does matter more than past or present actions.
What Is Not Measured Is Not Seen
A methodology may be faulty when it fails to consider potentially relevant factors. Three critical issues aren’t measured by the report: the quality of the electric vehicles sold, the electricity fuel mix in the countries where electric vehicles are used and the automakers’ vehicles general fuel consumption. To understand a bit better the issues, we’ll look at General Motors, the top environmental performer. The company sold over 500,000 electric vehicles in 2021. WOW! I haven’t seen many General Motors EVs but, again, I don’t live in the U.S. Turns out Americans would also have a hard time seeing GM EVs in the U.S. because most of them are sold in China, under the Wuling brand. Indeed, the Wuling Hongguang Mini EV is by far GM’s most popular EV.
The Wuling Hongguang Mini EV (pictured below) uses a 20-kW motor and boasts a range of 120 km with a battery of 9.2 kWh or 170 km with a battery of 13.8 kWh. This car doesn’t appear to be neither the icon of performance, comfort nor mobility. Consider that a range of 120 km would require the car to be charged every 2 hours of driving, that is if it’s not too cold and the battery is not degraded. Without charging, this car allows the owner a round trip of 60 km – somewhat of a short leash some might say.
At the same time, in other markets and especially the U.S., GM’s sales comprise almost exclusively of SUVs and trucks. The company’s brands (Cadillac, Chevrolet and Buick) feature 4 sedan models and around 20 SUVs and truck models. Unsurprisingly, almost 50% of GM’s sales (almost 3 million vehicles) are SUVs and trucks which, the report points out that an average SUV or generally uses about 20% more steel than the typical car (Greenpeace 2022, p 30). The minimum fuel consumption across any of these trucks and SUVs that I was able to find was around 12 litres/100kms (~23 MPG).
Equally unmeasured are the carbon emissions of the zero-emission vehicles (ZEV), and this is particularly the case in China. China generates 82% of its electricity from fossil fuels. Over half of the country’s electricity is produced using coal. What’s worse, China is currently adding another 90 GW of coal-fired electricity generation capacity. No amount of renewable energy certificates will compensate for this amount of coal powered generation. Some may wonder if it isn’t a form of greenwashing to talk about zero-emissions vehicles while using electricity overwhelmingly produced from fossil fuels.
In contrast, the worst environmental performer, Toyota, sold only 50,000 ZEVs according to the report. This is mainly because hybrids aren’t considered environmentally friendly enough. Otherwise, Toyota’s 2021 ‘electrified’ vehicles sales would have come up to over 580,000 vehicles in the US alone. Worldwide, Toyota sold 2.5 million hybrids in 2021 (25% of its global sales).
Why should hybrids matter when they use dirty fossil fuels? Because they actually consume less fuel, creating an impact today. For instance, the Camry LE (hybrid) has an official consumption of 4.5 litres/100 km as opposed to the traditional version which uses 7.5 litres/100 km. The difference of around 3 litres/100 km in savings is quite consistent across the board. These savings are significantly more real than savings from fully electric vehicles powered by electricity which may or may not come from renewable sources.
Making Sense with Nonsense
The Greenpeace report eloquently illustrates how, under the guise a genuine concern for environmental issues, the environment is actually overlooked, while sales figures, investments and support for a set of predetermined actions takes precedence. For a report that purports to look at the environment, there is surprisingly little mention of carbon emissions. Even convicted deception on carbon emissions is not particularly relevant. What does help improve auto makers ‘environmental performance’ are a set of actions that may lead to some reduction of emissions at some future point in time. This is inconsistent with the urgency of the climate crisis. If the planet needs saving today, why aren’t actions that create an impact today prioritised?
In Other News
Electric Vehicle Dealerships with No Electric Vehicles
While we’re on the topic of GM and EVs, GM has recently offered to “buy out any of its roughly 2,000 Buick dealers that are not willing to invest in expensive store upgrades to sell and service electric vehicles”. The catch: Buick doesn’t sell electric vehicles.
Apart from the Buick Electra concept presented in 2020, there’s no real indication of how Buick’s electric fleet might look like. GM’s proposition seems odd, invest now between 300,000 and 1 million dollars to continue to sell vehicles GM don’t yet produce nor know when they will start production of.
Computer Says No - Connected Vehicle Edition
This Tesla owner says he was locked out of his car until he replaces its battery. Setting aside the issue of having to spend 26,000 dollars on a battery (which seems something every electric vehicle will have to go through every 8-10 years), the more real problem is the car locking him out. This is a vehicle he’s paid for yet it can prevent its owner from using it?! What if he had an emergency? I’ve written about the cybersecurity issues with connected vehicles before when hackers can lock you out of your own vehicle. But what do you do when the vulnerability becomes a feature?