Are Electric Vehicles Truly Emission-Free? Unpacking the Hidden Carbon Footprint of EVs vs. ICE Vehicles.

By David Inalegwu David and Ifeoma Malo.

As the world races toward a greener future, one of the key value propositions of electric vehicles (EVs) for consumers and the planet is their ultralow carbon footprint once in operation. The debate surrounding EVs and their role in combating climate change has intensified recently. Many argue that EVs are the future of sustainable transportation, providing a cleaner, greener alternative to traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. The narrative often presents EVs as emission-free and the ultimate solution to reduce greenhouse gases in the transport sector.

However, not everyone shares the same optimistic view presented. Critics assert that while EVs may seem like a cleaner option at first glance, they might not be as “emission-free” as we think. The production of EVs, particularly their batteries, could carry substantial environmental costs that are often overlooked. On one hand, even if EVs emit CO2, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will still emit about half as much CO2 as an ICE vehicle.

Figure 1. Estimated Life-Cycle Emissions of EVs vs ICE Vehicles, per IEA

Source: IEA, “The role of critical minerals in Clean Energy Transition

These emissions exist along the value chain, including in the mining and refining of the materials used in EV batteries, such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel, along with their subsequent manufacturing processes.

On the other hand, critics argue that a switchover to EVs will increase demand for cobalt, nickel and manganese by 40 to 80 times in 2025. Lithium demand will explode to 140 times its current use for electric cars. A study found that in two-thirds of American states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars. Also, it is believed that the role of catalytic converters in ICE vehicles addresses the issues of emissions reduction, and so looking at the big picture, there is no actual difference between EVs and ICE vehicles in carbon emissions.

In this article, we will dive deep into the emissions debate, examining the entire lifecycle of EVs and comparing it with that of ICE vehicles. We will explore the emissions during production, energy consumption, and end-of-life disposal or recycling while also addressing the technological advancements and data that paint a more nuanced picture of EVs and their role in the fight against climate change.

The Carbon Footprint of Electric Vehicles: A Lifecycle Perspective

One key factor in assessing the environmental impact of EVs is understanding their life cycle emissions, from raw material extraction to manufacturing, operation, and ultimately recycling. Although EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, their overall carbon footprint is influenced by energy-intensive production processes and the source of electricity used for charging.

Emissions During EV Production: The Battery Factor

A significant portion of an EV’s environmental impact comes from its lithium-ion battery, which is highly energy-intensive to produce. Research from the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT, 2018) indicates that producing an average EV battery (40–100 kWh) generates roughly 150–200 kg of CO₂ per kWh. Thus, a typical 60 kWh battery could result in about 9–12 metric tons of CO₂ emissions during manufacturing alone.

The challenge becomes particularly significant when scaling EV production as the demand for battery materials increases. Cobalt is one of the most controversial materials due to its environmental impact and human rights concerns, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which supplies over 70% of the world’s cobalt. This has led many to push for innovations in battery chemistry, such as solid-state batteries and sodium-ion batteries, which could significantly reduce the reliance on these materials.

Solid-state batteries can decrease an EV battery’s carbon footprint by 24%. If sustainably sourced technology and materials are used, this could be reduced to 39%. Solid-state batteries are expected to be used in EVs from 2025.

Figure 2. Solid-state batteries can reduce the carbon footprint of EV batteries even further.

Source: https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/solid-state-batteries-can-further-boost-climate-benefits-of-evs-study

Emissions from Energy Use During Operation

Once manufactured, EVs offer a distinct advantage: zero tailpipe emissions, making them a cleaner alternative. This is a major factor in their appeal compared to ICE vehicles, which burn gasoline or diesel and emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM). However, the overall emissions during operation depend largely on the source of the electricity used for charging.

In regions where the electricity grid relies heavily on fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas, the carbon footprint of charging an EV is much higher. The Union of Concerned Scientists (2022) found that if the grid is 100% powered by renewable energy (such as wind, solar, or hydropower), the emissions from charging an EV can be up to 80% lower than those of a comparable ICE vehicle. In contrast, charging an EV in regions with high coal dependency could reduce the advantage to just 30–40% in terms of CO2 savings.

According to the International Energy Agency (2024), renewable energy capacity is projected to increase by over 60% between 2023 and 2028, with solar PV and wind accounting for 95% of this expansion. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (2024) forecasts that by 2035, renewables will generate more than 40% of U.S. electricity, up from approximately 21% in 2023. These trends suggest that the carbon intensity of EV charging will continue to decline, further widening the emissions gap between EVs and ICE vehicles.

Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Vehicles: A Deeper Look at Their Emissions

ICE vehicles have been the backbone of transportation for over a century. While their efficiency continues to improve, their reliance on fossil fuels makes them a less sustainable option over the long term.

Energy Loss in ICE Vehicles

Internal Combustion Engines are far less efficient than electric drivetrains. On average, only about 20–30% of the energy contained in gasoline or diesel is converted into useful motion. The remaining 70–80% is lost in the form of heat through the exhaust system, radiator, and engine components. This substantial loss of energy reduces the overall efficiency of ICE vehicles.

In addition to the inefficiencies during operation, ICE vehicles incur significant emissions during fuel extraction, refining, and transportation. Every stage of the fossil fuel supply chain adds to the total environmental cost, meaning that even the most efficient ICE vehicle still carries a heavy carbon footprint throughout its life cycle.

The role and limitations of catalytic Converters in ICE Vehicles

Catalytic converters are critical components in ICE vehicles, designed to reduce harmful emissions such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), and hydrocarbons. These devices chemically transform these pollutants into less harmful substances — namely nitrogen, carbon dioxide (CO₂), and water vapour. However, despite their widespread use, catalytic converters have several limitations:

1. Inefficiency in Carbon Capture: While catalytic converters reduce toxic pollutants, they are not effective at capturing CO₂, which is the primary greenhouse gas driving climate change. This means that even with a catalytic converter, ICE vehicles still emit substantial amounts of CO₂. In fact, data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2023) shows that catalytic converters do not significantly mitigate the overall carbon emissions of ICE vehicles when considering the entire fuel lifecycle.

Figure 3. Catalytic converter showing how emissions from the engine are converted.

Source:https://www.transportenvironment.org/articles/solid-state-batteries-can-further-boost-climate-benefits-of-evs-study

2. Performance Degradation Over Time: Catalytic converters tend to lose efficiency as they age. High temperatures and poisoning occur when the working surfaces of the catalyst become coated with fuel additives (such as lead, sulfur, or phosphorus), which, with prolonged use, can degrade the catalyst material, reducing its effectiveness. Research from SAE International (2022) indicates that after about 100,000 miles, the efficiency of catalytic converters in reducing harmful emissions can drop by as much as 20–30%.

3. Attraction for theft: The National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) reported that in the US, in 2018, 1,298 catalytic converter thefts were reported; in 2019, it was 3,389; in 2020, it was 14,433. A news report by CNN highlighted NICB’s report in 2023 that 27,609 catalytic converters were stolen. It is not what catalytic converters do that attracts thieves but the metals inside, which include platinum, Palladium and Rhodium worth $972.50, $947.50 and $5,575 per ounce, respectively. According to Scott Vollero and Christopher Gainers, who co-founded ScrapCATapp.com, an auction site for used catalytic converters, used catalytic converters sell for anywhere from $25 to $1000, depending on the metal content. It costs between $1000 to $3000 to replace catalytic converters stolen from cars.

Thus, while catalytic converters play an essential role in reducing some harmful emissions from ICE vehicles, they fall short of addressing the broader issue of carbon emissions, reinforcing the argument for a transition to electric vehicles.

End-of-Life Disposal and Recycling

The environmental impact of any vehicle does not end when it is no longer in use. At the end of their lifecycle, both EVs and ICE vehicles face significant challenges, particularly regarding disposal and recycling.

EV Battery Recycling: A Complex Process

Recycling EV batteries is crucial to mitigating the environmental costs associated with battery production. Modern recycling processes can recover up to 95% of valuable metals such as lithium, nickel, and cobalt. Companies like Li-Cycle and Redwood Materials are pioneering scalable recycling systems that help to minimize the environmental footprint of EV batteries. Recent advancements by Redwood Materials have demonstrated the ability to produce new battery components from 100% recycled materials, a significant step toward a circular economy for EV batteries.

The Road Ahead: Can EVs Truly Replace ICE Vehicles?

An average, medium-sized internal combustion engine car run on petrol would have lifecycle emissions of 54 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO₂e) over 15 years. Despite having higher manufacturing emissions associated with the additional resources required to produce batteries, a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) would have far lower cumulative emissions over its lifespan than a conventional ICE, at roughly 25 tCO₂e. Around 70% of a BEVs lifecycle emissions would come from well-to-tank emissions generated during the production and transportation of the fuel/energy. On the other hand, around 70% of an ICE vehicle’s lifecycle emissions would stem from direct emissions generated during the operation of the vehicle.

While EVs certainly have a lower overall carbon footprint over their lifetimes than ICE vehicles, there are still challenges to overcome. These include the environmental impact of battery production, the efficiency of recycling processes, and the gradual decarbonisation of electricity grids.

However, the path forward is optimistic. As the grid becomes greener with more renewable energy sources (wind, solar, etc.), the carbon footprint of charging EVs will continue to drop. Moreover, innovations in battery technology, including advances in solid-state batteries and sustainable material sourcing, will reduce the environmental burden of EV production.

Conclusion: The Future of EVs and ICE Vehicles

The debate over whether electric vehicles are truly emission-free is nuanced. While EVs do have a lower overall carbon footprint than ICE vehicles — especially when powered by renewable energy — they are not entirely without environmental impact. Battery production, raw material extraction, and recycling challenges must all be addressed to realize the full potential of EVs as a sustainable transportation solution.

Nonetheless, the advantages of EVs in reducing tailpipe emissions and mitigating climate change are significant. As technology advances, battery production becomes more efficient, and global energy grids continue to decarbonize, the gap in lifecycle emissions between EVs and ICE vehicles will likely widen further. The evolving landscape of catalytic converter technology and its inherent limitations only reinforce the necessity of this transition.

The future of transportation lies in the combined efforts of technological innovation, rigorous recycling practices, and a committed shift toward renewable energy sources. Electric vehicles are not a panacea, but they represent a critical step toward decarbonizing the transport sector and achieving global climate goals. Embracing this transition, along with continuous improvements in battery technology and recycling, can help ensure a sustainable future for all.