Electric Vehicles and Renewables: Misleading Solutions to a Deeper Climate Crisis
If you think electric vehicles and renewable energy will solve climate change, you’re missing the bigger picture. The problem runs deeper than technology alone can fix, so keep reading.
Cars dominate our energy mindset just like gasoline prices are the main way we understand energy costs. Electric vehicles (EVs) tap into this mentality, making them seem like an effective way for each of us to personally address climate change.
EVs are a clever marketing ploy that seems logical on the surface but lacks real substance. The reality is that passenger cars contribute only about 8 % of global emissions—a relatively small part of the bigger problem that is being overlooked.
Wait a minute—what about yesterday’s announcement from the International Energy Agency (IEA) claiming that renewables can get us two-thirds of the way to meeting Paris climate targets by 2030, and cut global emissions by 10 billion tonnes by the decade’s end?
It sounds impressive, but here’s the catch: it demands ‘tripling renewables and doubling efficiency targets’ in just five years. That’s an incredibly unrealistic goal, and arguably disingenuous. Even the IEA admits it’s a steep climb, and reaching those objectives is far from guaranteed.
“This would keep open the path to net zero emissions by 2050 and give a chance – albeit still slim and difficult – of holding warming to 1.5 °C.”
Isn’t it true that EV sales have tripled since 2020? Sure, that’s accurate, but it’s misleading. New car sales are just a tiny slice of the total vehicle fleet. In 2023, nearly 14 million electric cars hit the roads, bringing the global total to 40 million (Figure 1).
But 40 million is only 2.8 % of all passenger cars. Focusing on new car sales gives a skewed picture of EV market penetration, and it’s an unreliable predictor of future growth since it assumes business as usual will continue.
Source: IEA & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
When we look at EVs as a percentage of the total light vehicle fleet, the reality is far less impressive. By 2025, they’ll make up just 4% of global light vehicles, and only 7% by 2030 (Figure 2).
Since passenger cars are responsible for about 8% of global emissions, EVs will only reduce CO2 by 0.6% by 2030 (0.08 x 0.07 = 0.056). That’s something, but not enough to move the needle meaningfully as the climate change window rapidly closes.
New car sales are an unreliable measure of EV market penetration
& a weak predictor of future penetration because of business-as-usual assumptions.
Source: EIA & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
EVs are just one piece of the broader renewable energy puzzle, so renewables must offer more hope, right? Yes, wind and solar are expanding rapidly, but here’s the problem: they aren’t cutting fossil fuel use. They’re simply being layered on top of it. The growth in renewables isn’t displacing fossil fuels—it’s just adding to the overall energy mix.
Renewable energy is set to grow by almost 4% annually through 2035, and nuclear by 1.4% (Figure 3). Unfortunately, these energy sources mostly contribute to electricity, which is only about 20% of total energy consumption. Meanwhile, coal, natural gas, and oil aren’t going away—they’re still growing. Natural gas will rise by 0.8% per year, oil by 0.5%, and coal by 0.4%. Renewables may be growing faster, but as long as fossil fuel use is also increasing, emissions will keep rising.
Source: EIA & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
When we focus on oil consumption, the problem becomes even clearer. Global oil end use is projected to grow 0.7% annually through 2035 (Figure 4). Transportation demand rises by 0.4%, making up 57% of consumption in 2035, while industrial use grows 1.4% annually, accounting for 36%.
Fixating on EVs doesn’t change the larger transportation picture, which includes trucks, trains, and ships. Nor does it address the industrial sector’s energy demands. In fact, industrial oil use will grow at twice the rate of transportation over the next decade, and that’s where the real challenge lies.
Source: EIA & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
Looking closer, most of the growth in industrial oil use is tied to plastics and chemical feedstocks. That’s a major red flag. These products aren’t just a climate issue—they’re causing significant health problems for humans and animals alike. We’re talking about plastics, pesticides, and endocrine-disrupting microplastics that are already wreaking havoc well beyond the realm of climate change.
Refined product consumption is set to keep rising, but at a much slower pace than we saw in the two decades before the Covid-19 pandemic. Growth will drop nearly 40 %, from an average of 1.3 million barrels per day (mmb/d) between 2000 and 2019, to 0.8 mmb/d annually from 2025 to 2035 (Figure 5). Most growth will come from LPG (liquid petroleum gases) and petrochemical feedstocks, while demand for traditional fuels—diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, and residual fuel—will only increase by about 200,000 barrels per day annually, or just 0.2 %
Growth may be slower but it’s still growth, and that means little progress on slowing climate change.
to 0.8 mmb/d annually from 2025-2035 with most growth in LPG & petrochem feedstock. Diesel, gasoline, jet and residual will only grow 200 kb/d annually (0.2%/year).
Source: EIA & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
The IEA claims that EVs are ‘displacing’ several million barrels of oil per day (Figure 6). That’s a misleading narrative when you look at the full context provided in the charts above. While it’s true that EVs compete with oil and represent barrels not sold, this is a counterfactual argument. Without EVs, yes, more oil would be consumed, but the actual impact of EVs on total oil use is far less significant than the IEA suggests.
Source: Modified from IEA Global EV Outlook 2024.
It’s critical to recognize that renewable energy and EVs are only loosely connected to the fight against climate change. In reality, they’re more about corporations adapting to a shifting landscape and finding new ways to make money. The climate angle is secondary to the business opportunities these technologies present.
“I know that there is a theory which says renewables are cheaper, so it will be a lower price. We don’t think so because a system where you [have] more renewable intermittency is less efficient . . . so we think it’s an interesting field to invest in.”
Patrick Pouyanné, TotalEnergies CEO
We’re understandably desperate for solutions, but do we really understand the scope of the problems? The focus has to be on the whole, not just isolated parts. EVs and renewable energy are parts.
The only real solution to our environmental crises—climate change being just one part—is a dramatic reduction in energy consumption. No amount of renewables or technological innovation will get around this hard truth: we have to use far less energy, period.
But let’s be honest—that’s not going to happen voluntarily, any more than we’ll triple renewables and double efficiency in the next five years. Our growth-obsessed society simply can’t make the hard choices or accept the drop in living standards necessary for a much lower-energy or renewable-based economy.
Despite clear evidence that global decarbonization is failing, we’re repeatedly told that using more renewables and buying more EVs is the answer. That’s a cynical delusion, completely unsupported by the data. All it really does is funnel more public money into the hands of the same corporations that have been exploiting consumers for decades, all while creating the illusion of progress.
This kind of optimism provides little more than false hope, downplaying the serious, complex challenge of truly cutting carbon emissions. Instead of pretending we’re nearing some IEA-style “mission accomplished,” we should be bracing for the impending crisis. Electric vehicles and renewable energy are a distraction from the hard realities we face.
Like Art's Work?
Share this Post:
Read More Posts
Agriculture is unquestionably the worst ecological activity of humans over the last 10,000 years.
Lisi Krall wrote a whole book expanding your point there. I think she may have been on NJ Hagens podcast at some point
https://sunypress.edu/Books/B/Bitter-Harvest
Anyway I am always impressed by the work of people such as yourself, Lisi etc. Not many are ready to receive the
message
Paul,
I have great respect for Lisi Krall’s work. Thanks for your comments.
All the best,
Art
Art, thank you for another elucidating post.
“we have to use far less energy, period…that’s not going to happen voluntarily”
As you say, the use of less energy will be forced upon us. What I’m wondering is: by what mechanism or means of enforcement will the use of lesser amounts of energy be prioritized between competing demand on that energy? Previously, I had thought that high oil prices would dictate this allocation but after reading your posts, I don’t think that will be the mechanism. It seems that the *best* approach would be to have an enlightened despot in power but that is pure fantasy.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on who gets to choose.
Mark
Mark,
Using less energy voluntarily was never likely because it violated the Maximum Power Principle. Even dictators are beholden to public opinion to stay in power, and the public won’t tolerate less.
Some form of polluter-pay is the only way to accomplish a decrease in energy use but I don’t see this happening except in some ineffective carbon trading scheme.
In the end, nature will impose less energy use on us.
All the best,
Art
Your article is uncommon in that is brutally honest in tackling the energy issues we realistically face.
Quote ” The only real solution is to dramatically reduce our energy consumption” Unquote.
I may add a few comments:
i) A dramatic reduction will cause untold human suffering and social unrest at a scale we have not seen before
ii) OECD countries “may” be able to reduce their energy consumption and waste
.iii) Non EOCD countries are already energy deficient , proven by their poverty rates, so they will rebel against global energy inequality.
iv) Global population will peak at circa 12 billion by 2100 , in only 75 years . so this century is already critical, mostly in Non OECD countries.
Lots to think about.
Arturo,
I’ve written about all the things that you mentioned.
I think we’re well beyond choosing how the impending trauma will unfold.
All the best,
Art
Thanks for this clear and concise essay, Art. All my friends are sick of hearing me tell this story, based partly on your past articles, so I have to give them a rest before forwarding a link. But I can always use it in a citation of a broader paper!
Johan Rockstrom just spoke to the DLD conference, recorded on youtube, showing what a huge carbon sink we get from the biosphere. His message came with a warning about the human-caused weakening of ecological resilience, and the implications of bioecological collapse on climate.
Reduction of energy and materials throughput is necessary but not sufficient. Ecological restoration, to the extent possible, is equally necessary. Unfortunately, there are ecosystems that cannot be restored. Coral reefs are functionally extinct. The Thwaites glacier is toast. The Greenland ice sheet, likewise. Still, we need to restore what we can.
A friend emailed that he’d be happy to see all desert and coastal waters papered over with wind turbines to stop global warming. While holding in my nausea, I puzzled over how to respond. Oh, I know the answers, mostly thanks to you, Nate, and a few other brilliant souls, but how does one answer a friend without sounding didactic and overbearing? This is denial, comparable to the climate deniers who claim that climate change is a hoax. Facts don’t sway deniers. They just make deniers dig their heels in deeper. They’re as effective at refusing to take their medicine as a certain cat I used to have to pill.
Our economy only values dead things. It assigns no value to anything living. And our citizens have bought into the death cult.
Robin,
You cannot argue with a forest fire. Until your friends experience trauma, they will not be willing to learn. You should politely tell them that the data does not support their positions, and that you are glad to help them on the long and uncomfortable path to knowledge when and if they are ready.
“I have found a path to the state of knowledge that is profound and clear. But when I have tried to communicate it, no one understands.”
—Shakyamuni Buddha
“Participate joyfully in the sorrows of the world. We cannot cure the world of sorrows, but we can choose to live in joy. The warrior’s approach is to say “yes” to life: “yea” to it all.”
–Joseph Campbell
All the best,
Art
Art, this is perhaps, in my opinion, the most sobering & important of all your posts, lectures, and papers I’ve read or listened to over -? Before COVID, so at least 2019 I believe. Thank you.
Years and recent months of results underline your central point including related comments on GEO-Engineering and Carbon Capture ’….5 years (maximum) TO BE ABLE TO RETURN TO 1.5 by 2050. Listen to*below…understand how deep in the hole ‘we’ are…
Continuing to equate meeting the challenge with current concept of ‘renewable’ + EVs (& payout to certain beneficiaries) has and will continue to fail. Continue an accelerating path to 3.0C…large parts of the world uninhabitable. Long before extinction, food & disease impact, very miserable if habitable.
However, a ‘emergency’ footing now of converting to a highly distributed energy systems could absolutely work, we have the technologies…far, far from the leadership, moral fiber or political will to do so unfortunately. In the end, we will likely out of desperation turn to such or try to do so. So, there we are, I certainly am not critical of your content or conclusion. *reference “The Tipping Points of Climate Change-and Where We Stand’, Johan Rocstrom, TED, AUG 15.
John,
Thanks for your comments. I don’t share your belief in distributed energy systems because—if feasible—they do nothing to address the underlying over-consumption of energy.
I’m a great fan of Rockstrom and his colleague Rahmstorf and recommend Nate Hagens’ interviews with them: https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/141-stefan-rahmstorf
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/134-johan-rockstrom?rq=johan
All the best,
Art
Hi Art
Thanks for the article and insightful look at where we are. Bit of a mess that we have for sure left way too late to resolve. Climate chaos along with the ecological issues, along with perhaps a human population that continues to grow leave very little wiggle room for any kind of adaptation that i can see. Hard choices which will only be made when its likely too late.
Thanks again for all the work you have produced since i became aware of them in the Oil Drum days
stay healthy and happy
cheers
Cameron,
Many thanks for your comments. It’s the world that we have and deserve. I remain more fascinated than discouraged.
All the best,
Art
Would you say the disease is humanity always wanting/pursuing more than what is needed, and ignoring the laws and constraints of Nature?
Deb,
I’d say that humanity’s problem is what Pascal noted 375 years ago: “All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”
All the best,
Art
Thanks for the overview. Content like this could work well in a short video.
> The only real solution to our environmental crises—climate change being just one part—is a dramatic reduction in energy consumption
Not wanting to focus on a solution, but I would like to have a better understanding of energy consumption – to drill further into the end-use sectors. Which low-hanging fruit exist. On a global scale, but also in my life and within my control. Related to the probably futile idea I have had of keeping an energy diary (like a food diary). Something like that would probably remind me that everything is connected, that energy consumption sources can’t be cherry picked and eventually it all leads to an inevitable drop in living standards.
It’s hard to counter “using more renewables and buying more EVs is the answer” and its “kind of optimism” without being mislabeled as someone who opposes renewables full-stop and doesn’t believe in climate change. While it provides false hope, hope seems hard to come by these days. I find it hard to have a productive conversation with people around these topics.
Dylan,
The progress narrative runs deep. That is the cultural bias that promotes a technological solution to symptoms while ignoring underlying conditions and causes.
Awareness dawns slowly and requires a willing subject. My efforts over years of writing and speaking have only yielded “productive” conversations among a small subset of those who read and think about some of these things.
I am confident that psychology is the organizing principle of this phenomenon. I recommend reading Iain McGilchrist:
In his discussion of schizophrenia he states:
“To my mind, all that we have looked at here, approximates the bizarre alienated condition enjoined on today and reinforced by a toxic combination of bureaucratic and scientistic thinking, all tending to the view that we are machines. We are unhappy people reduced to their weakest, most fallible organ—their consciousness. The schizophrenic is the apotheosis of this tendency in modern man. Myth is otherwise known as the deep embodied imaginative understanding available to the right hemisphere and seen by the left hemisphere as a lie.”
All the best,
Art
Thank you very much for your clear eyed realism. I read every post with great interest.
Cassandra,
Many thanks for your comments.
All the best,
Art
Thanks Art for the insightful analysis.
Given that our entire continues to run on oil, the supply of which is as you say “determined by credit markets, geopolitics, a declining world economy/affordability, decreasingly effective governance, and environmental collapse”, an energy/financial system collapse will make a huge impact on global society.
In your opinion what are the important metrics and indicators we should be measuring and tracking to assist making useful projections as to the timing of collapse?
Cheers, Matt
Matt,
It’s important to understand that “collapse” is rarely a “crash” but, rather, a progressive decrease in complexity.
Watch the financial markets first. The economic super organism lived on credit today. Credit for fossil fuels has been contracting for more than 5 years. Once markets figure out that claims cannot be paid with lower productivity energy sources like renewables, all credit will contract.
Equally, watch the devolving geopolitical situation of a divided world. War and the disruption of supply chains is a daily reality that adds cost, complexity and credit risk.
Lastly (but not finally), watch the deterioration of trust and the rise of nativist movements as we see in the US and Europe.
There’s a lot more to this than 3 bullet points but those are what I watch most closely.
All the best,
Art
Usual tour de force, Art. But …..(I am no socialist)
After you turn 50 the children are off the payroll, the house is paid off with improvements like insulation & solar etc. No mortgage, low bills, cooking for 2 not 7. Today we have 1 car and 1 electric bike. Apart from the bulky items I walk/cycle to the shops.
I am shocked at how little we NOW need for a comfortable life.
We’ve always been frugal. 5 kids, large house bills, bills, bills and a mortgage. The wife’s job was the important one – bringing up our 5 children. Mine was offshore. But a large % of our income went towards keeping afloat, though we always saved for that rainy day/year.
But looking back to our 20’s to late 40’s (and I assume most people) – 2 cars were convenient (my/older kids usage), mortgage, etc. And the cost of living/houses in US/Aus/EU is so much higher today than 20-30yrs ago.
So what you are saying is that the future generations will have to get used to a lower standard of living, less cheap energy, food and geegaws. I don’t disagree.
But if we don’t want a further birth-rate collapse, then we will have to change the system (taxes, mortgage rebates for young families?) to encourage a TFR of ca. 2.1
I agree continual growth does appear to be coming up against the limits of resources, but we have to make sure the younger generation have the ability to grow their wealth or just get a place to own and don’t load burden themselves with massive debts.
That’s in the rich West.
In the 3rd world their TFR’s are falling, but their requirements for energy and wealth will only grow.
I’m alright, our children are doing good. But as I say to mates, ‘if society ain’t ok, then neither are we’.
It’s going to require a total re-think not just on consumption, but on debt levels.
JC,
Your analysis is sound.
I don’t see how we’re going to get out of our problems by planning or policy change. The time for that passed decades ago. We should focus on the psychological reasons that we have collectively failed to do these things. That leads to a psychological solution to coping with the seemingly inevitable decline in living standards that Nature will impose upon us.
All the best,
Art
Our food system is a pretty big culprit in global emissions.
No one wants to hear it, but adopting a plant-based diet is one of the biggest things each of us can do. It does not require government mandates or regulations nor any policies to be adopted. It’s simply a matter of those who can and are willing to do it for themselves.
It’s easier than you think, too.
Thanks for letting me post, Art!
Tina,
Change your personal diet if you like but this is a “too small to matter” problem IMO.
I suggest abandoning solutions in favor of focusing on the problem—we consume far too much energy.
All the best,
Art
All the best,
Art
Hi Mr. Art,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to do this, it seems to me you are uniquely qualified to write about these topics. Also, I greatly appreciate the fact that someone of your stature comes out and states what I have always found to be obvious, yet other than you, only Susan Weber (aka Yves Smith) of Naked Capitalism fame, insists on, namely, that mankind must use less energy … period … as you say.
Given that, I wonder how you feel about what I consider to be the two worst ecological crimes of the 21’st century: hydraulic fracturing and using food crops to produce fuel. The first has caused climate change to occur decades earlier than it otherwise would have via the release of large volumes of methane and covered the globe in plastic by providing the petrochemical industry with feedstock at bargain basement prices, while the latter is just a boondoggle to allow successive conservative administrations to funnel increasing levels of tax dollars to red states, even while those same states maintain their opposition to Washington’s deficits (Similar to Rubio’s denying increased FEMA funding while demanding more FEMA funds for his own State).
For decades now, it has seemed to me that Your observation that all “clean energy” lol (what does that even mean?) is about getting taxpayer dollars flowing into corporations’ coffers has a template they follow, and that template was developed during the Bush era. This set up my theory (that pertains to the Keystone COP annual circus as well): every Proposal put forth to address climate change has made it worse … every single one. For precisely the reason you stated: corporations are about profit (as is mandated by law). Ie, it seems to me that that’s not a moral judgment, but a legal one. Ergo mankind’s first step must be to change the laws governing corporate behavior and structure. There is however nary a sign that such a change is even contemplated, never mind likely.
Thanks again for all your hard work,
Rob
Rob,
I don’t agree that fracking and biofuels are the worst ecological crimes of the 21st century. They’re just fossil fuel extenders. The true tragedies are what human activity has done to the forests, animal populations and oceans.
Agriculture is unquestionably the worst ecological activity of humans over the last 10,000 years.
All the best,
Art
A point:
Data centers are looking to nuclear since one Center can demand the power requirements of a small city. One example says the small city is about 750,000 inhabitants. Nuclear to meet the demand requires FF to manfacture unless it can boot strap the capacity of current demand+ additional to decrease the base CO2 load that is extant. Is there a multiplier of power production per nuclear facility where the net output to input is greater than FF?
Tom,
Nuclear is electric power and cannot be scaled quickly enough to make a difference even for electricity much less the broader problem of total energy consumption.
I recommend acknowledging that nuclear power is not a solution. Let’s move on to the real problem of the need to decrease energy use and stop trying to find substitutes for fossil fuels.
All the best,
Art
Art… A;ways a good read. I agree with your take on treating the disease and not the symtom. The way I see it is that within the way capitalisim is currently praticed in the global economy, the required rate of increase in hydrocarbon production rates is no longer fiscally possible to fuel the required rate of economic growth to maintain business as usual. The threat of climate change is a great tool to take the focus off an economic practice that has reached a limitation.
John,
I agree but it’s not capitalism—but rather, credit markets—that are the problem.
All the best,
Art
Thank you Art, a voice of truth and sanity in a self-deluded world
Diana
Thank you, Diana.
All the best,
Art
hi Art– great work. Concurs entirely with the TUED analysis (not an energy transition, but an energy expansion). Do you have the newsletter in pdf format? I’d like to use on or two of your charts (fully attributed, of course). [email protected]
Sean,
I no longer publish a newsletter but you are welcome to use my charts and posts.
All the best,
Art
Is the imminent peak and decline of oil production no longer a thing?
Michael,
The peak and decline of oil production will not be determined by geology as the Peak Oil movement expected. It will be determined by credit markets, geopolitics, a declining world economy/affordability, decreasingly effective governance, and environmental collapse.
All the best,
Art
Clear picture Art, I totally agree with you. Still wishing to be the naive optimist, what would you think is needed here? Lower energy consumption: yes, putting climate first and economy second: yes, accepting lower living standards (in the west for sure): yes, pursuing a more even (just) spread of wealth across the globe, allowing for the deprived to make some headway at the cost of the well to do: yes.
Do you agree that currently we are living in the Truman Show?
A lot of things which touch on all aspects of our current and future lives; socio-economic, political, living standards, etc. need addressing, all linked to energy as you have clearly depicted in previous posts. Is humanity capable of solving the equation or will nature determine the future of it all, for us? Sometimes one reads that the world will continue to evolve, with or without us, however such a thought is so fatalistic. Hence, do you think there is still room for some optimism here?
Jacco,
Perhaps you missed the answer in my post: “We should be bracing for the impending crisis.”
We are beyond solutions because we have waited to long. Nature will impose the solutions now.
All the best,
Art
Art, I have a question. I am thinking of what was called “fuel oil” that was (and is) used to heat houses. Where does this oil product show up in Figure 5 ?
Sam,
It’s the tiny sliver at the bottom labeled “kerosene.”
All the best,
Art
Art,
What does “bracing for the future” entail?
Steven,
Bracing for the future means doing the inner psychological work needed to be able to adjust to and cope with the increasingly inevitable progressive collapse of most of our present abundance-based reality.
All the best,
Art
Agree with your point of view. We need to spend less energy but that’s going to be difficult with big countries such as India or Nigeria rising their living standards, not to mention AI energy requirements.
So what can we do? Not many options: be more energy efficient, stop poorer countries development, or stop population growth.
And meanwhile, capture CO2 both from the source and directly from the air.
Sebastian,
CO2 capture is another techno-bullshit bridge to nowhere.
All the best,
Art
We will need to remove the excess CO2 that we’ve been pouring into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels during the last 150 years, otherwise we are totally screwed. And we have to do it asap. Can’t find any other option but DAC…I wish it works.
Thank you
Sebastian,
Disagree. We must treat the disease and not its symptoms.
Read The Sorcerers Apprentice or the myth of Pandora. Geoengineering is more dangerous than the emissions it seeks to limit.
All the best,
Art
Mr. Berman –
I agree with you that CCUS is a technology that will never be scaled up to the point where it will make a difference. Probably not even a ’rounding error’ difference.
It pains me to see an organization like the AAPG investing so much hype into this, with the hope that CCUS will provide opportunities for petroleum geologists who are forced into finding another line of work as the oil and gas industry contracts going into the future.
Regards,
Ed Lindgren
Overland Park KS
Ed,
AAPG is struggling to find relevance, and is now throwing its support behind CCUS as it did shale because it is better for membership than telling the truth. Its non-committal position on climate change for many years was similarly disappointing.
All the best,
Art