First the problems: in an article that touts the carbon neutral production of the ID.3, @volkswagen puts a comparison chart with an eGolf that has extremely high carbon production emissions. Not smart. I would replace it with an ID.3 based chart asap. volkswagenag.com/en/news/storie…
And while you are at it I would also cut/improve second 8 to 14 of the accompanying video because why bother telling lies about how much CO2 is emitted by the petrol and diesel Golf when you have such a strong story about the electric vehicle?
What goes wrong in the Golf-eGolf comparison is the same as with the @PolestarCars 2 LCA that I criticized last week and that turned into #Astongate/#Boschgate.
Taking 'official' WLTP measurements that we know are wrong makes the electric car looks bad.
So I think carmakers and journalists have to make up their mind: do they want to communicate official numbers that everybody knows are incorrect, or do they want to communicate reality?
In plain language: please stop lying!
(Here I tell that on TV.)
The advantage of the eGolf becomes even larger than what Thomas demonstrates, if we estimate the electricity mix of the electric car over its lifetime.
Basically the electricity becomes cleaner as time goes on and hence the electric car becomes cleaner.
But enough complaining: what REALLY impresses me is the length to which @volkswagen went to make the ID.3 production low carbon: their own company in the EU, optimizing all processes, and buying green energy all the way and offsetting the rest.
So yes, @volkswagen should use real world fuel consumption and production, and use electricity over the lifetime of the vehicle.
BUT, they've gone to great lengths to reduce the carbon footprint of the ID.3: this might be the most environmentally friendly EV that money can buy.
I think on this front it's now a race between @volkswagen and @Tesla. They are both cleaning up production at an impressive pace. If they keep this competition up for a few more years it will have an enormous positive impact on the production process.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I get so sick and tired of people postulating "If everybody changed their behavior we wouldn't need sustainable innovation."
Well, unless you have a magic wand to change everybody's behavior, you are not helping. And even if you had you would lack respect for others.
Author @jennykleeman is now saying 'I didn't write the headline'. But the headline captures her article perfectly. She mentions none of the aforementioned problems and concentrates on yuck and how cultured meat can't be trusted by implying Singapore is an inferior country. Uhg.
But it's not just bad for immigrant taxi drivers who see their entire livelihood threatened by the lies because they buy an electric vehicle with too little range and slow fast charging. It also leads to many more people dying of exhaust.
And finally it leads to combustion vehicles seemingly emitting less exhaust which in turn leads to newspaper stories claiming it takes 50k miles for an EV to emit less when it's already closer to 16k miles (and getting less all the time).
There's a study financed by EV sceptics Bosch, Honda, McLaren and Aston Martin doing the round, partly based on a study saying a Polestar takes 50k miles to emit less CO2.
Will debunk it this evening but could people maybe add links to places where it pops up?
@MLiebreich@Joost57437492 Everybody (well maybe 12 people so far) is asking me to debunk this article in the times. The problem: I don't know which study they are talking about. Can twitter help thetimes.co.uk/article/electr…
Polestar published some numbers on it's study in september polestar.com/dato-assets/11…
and if I look at the @thetimes article they copy the numbers from that study. I briefly talk about that comparison here: