A few days ago both the Guardian and the BBC (the usual suspects, in other words) published articles on their websites about a recent Report by the Environment and Climate Change Committee of the House of Lords (its first Report of the 2023/24 session). Perhaps surprisingly, the Guardian went with the less sensationalist headline: “Make used electric cars cheaper and tackle battery fears, peers tell ministers – Grants needed towards buying EVs as well as a battery health testing standard to reassure consumers”. The BBC, by contrast, decided to focus on the “misinformation” angle: “Electric cars: Lords urge action on ‘misinformation’ in press”.

The Guardian article played it with a reasonably straight bat, highlighting some main points from the Report, such as (these are the views of the Committee, as reported by the Guardian – they are not my views):

The need for Ministerial intervention to boost the secondhand EV market, and to allay “uncertainty and concerns” over the health and longevity of EV batteries;

Measures should be taken to reduce the disparity between the upfront costs of ICE vehicles and EVs (by the use of “targeted grants”);

The subsidies could be “tapered away” when EV prices finally reach compatibility with the price of ICE cars;

Planning regulations should be reviewed to “turbo-charge” the rollout of charging infrastructure;

VAT rates should be cut for public charging to help those without access to off-street parking; and

Investment should made into UK battery recycling facilities.

A brief mention was made of supposed misinformation in the media:

The Lords said: “By emphasising the costs while failing to stress the benefits and robustly counter misinformation, the government is not building public confidence.

“The concern the government expressed to us about the scale of misinformation has not been matched by commensurate urgency in tackling it. Faced with conflicting claims and alarmist headlines, consumers need a go-to source of comprehensive, clear and balanced information.”

The BBC, by contrast, homed in on the suggestion of misinformation, not just in its headline, but in the body of the article, including (to make sure that readers get the message) in its opening sentence:

The government must do more to counter “misinformation” on electric vehicles published in parts of the UK press, a Lords enquiry has said.

The third paragraph stressed it too:

The Lords Climate Change Committee urged the government to build consumer confidence and push back against what it called mistruths on range and cost.

And then the bulk of the article also emphasised this angle:

Baroness Parminter, chair of the committee, told the BBC that both government officials and other witnesses to the enquiry had reported reading disinformation on the subject in national newspapers.

“We have seen a concerted effort to scare people… we have seen articles saying that cars are catching fire – but had evidence that the fire risk is absolutely the same as [petrol and diesel] cars,” she said.

The Lords committee did not single out any newspaper in particular.

Testifying before the committee, Richard Bruce, Director of Transport Decarbonisation at the Department for Transport, conceded there was a problem.

He said: “I do think there has been an impact from a concerted campaign of misinformation over the last 14 months or so that has been pushing consistent myths about EVs that people absorb and which is reflected in their appetite [for purchasing EVs].

“There is an anti-EV story in the papers almost every day. Sometimes there are many stories, almost all of which are based on misconceptions and mistruths, unfortunately.”

Baroness Parminter said the government needed to step in and provide reliable information to consumers.

Misinformation – nasty stuff. And then the Times went and ignored the misinformation angle and concentrated on the lack of EV sales instead, with a very different headline: “Private buyers slam brakes on electric vehicles”. The focus of the Times piece was very much on the fact that EV sales are now slowing rather than accelerating, especially among private (as opposed to fleet) buyers.

Paul Homewood responded quickly with a piece seeking to point out that much of the negativity in the media about EVs would more properly be labelled facts rather than misinformation. Commenting on Baroness Parminter’s claims about media misinformation, he asked:

Now I wonder what all this information might be?

The fact that EVs cost £10k more than an equivalent petrol?

EV manufacturers own data which says you only get a fraction of the mileage that their blurb claims?

The fact that it costs more per mile than a petrol car if you have to use a public charger, even after paying fuel duty?

The fact the second hand prices for EVs have fallen through the floor, making buying a new EV even less attractive?

The fact that, regardless of the number of public chargers installed, drivers without offstreet parking will face the prospect of queuing to use a charger?

Are these all facts that the good Baroness would like to suppress?

With so many different takes on the Committee Report, I thought it would be useful to take a look at what it did say, at least with regard to “misinformation” and communication strategies. We can probably most realistically see where the Committee is coming from just by looking at the title it used to front up the Report: “EV strategy: rapid recharge needed”.

Including the usual endpieces, appendices, summaries etc, the whole thing runs to 128 pages, so I will concentrate on only one aspect of the Report – the one focussed on by the BBC and by Paul Homewood, namely the question of “misinformation”. It is probably useful to start by asking what the Committee hoped to achieve by holding its Inquiry. Appendix 3, page 128 might be the best place to start. Here the Committee notes that “[t]he transition to Electric Vehicles (EVs) is central to the Government’s efforts to meet its target of reaching net zero by 2050, legislated in June 2019” and states that its aims are therefore:

To understand how the Government will achieve its upcoming 2030 and 2035 deadlines for the phase out dates for non-zero emission vehicles, with a focus on passenger cars, as well as exploring the main obstacles and barriers to meeting these targets.

To understand the costs, alongside the benefits, associated with the 2030 phase out date, and to understand Government progress towards decarbonising car usage by this earlier date.

To assist those supplying evidence, 34 questions were posed under six separate headings (“Government approaches”; “EV market and acquiring an EV”; “Experience of using an EV”; “End of life disposal of EVs”; “National and regional issues”; and “International perspectives”). So far, so sensible, and no complaints from me. The “misinformation” aspect picked up on so assiduously by the BBC might have stemmed from a couple of questions, namely question number 4:

Given that the Government should apply a behavioural lens to policy— which involves people making changes to their everyday lives, such as what they purchase and use—is there a role for clearer communication of the case for EVs from the Government? If so, who should take the lead on delivering that?

And question number 5:

What is your view on the accuracy of the information in the public domain relating to EVs and their usage?

For my purposes, the most directly relevant section of the Report is Chapter 2, headed “Strategic Approach and Public Messaging”. This runs from paragraph 10 to paragraph paragraph 31, so that is what I will talk about here.

This section of the report begins by fussing over “mixed messaging” and ‘a lack of clear and consistent messaging from the Government, which “provided a vacuum for inaccurate press reporting to fill the void.”‘ There then follow concerns expressed by people who seem to have a vested interest in promoting EV sales and the related infrastructure, such as Dr Chris Pateman-Jones, CEO of Connected Kerb EV Charging Solutions, who is worried about the pushing back of dates.

There follows a lot of heat and noise, but not a lot of light is cast on the issue of “misinformation”. We are told that alarming headlines in the media about the risk of EV fires are unjustified. The sole justification for concern about such headlines (which may be exaggerated, but which are not without a kernel of truth) is that “…as the Association of British Insurers told us, the fire risk of EVs does not exceed that of traditional ICE vehicles.” Possibly true, but valid concerns remain about the intensity of the fires when they do occur, and the difficulty of putting them out. That isn’t mentioned in the Report.

The Committee allows that there are some legitimate concerns about EVs “such as those suggesting some EV brands mislead customers about the range of their cars.”

Having conceded as much, the Report then subjects us to an array of witnesses complaining about misinformation, without actually citing any examples – Ford Motor Company “suggested” in written evidence the “apparent emergence” of a “vocal anti-EV campaign”, though if their written submission contained examples, the Committee doesn’t share them with us. Apparently, however, they think this “is due to the Government’s approach being insufficiently consumer-centric.” Several witnesses (Lauren Pamma, Programme Director at the Green Finance Institute; Mike Hawes, Chief Executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT); and Richard Bruce, Director of Transport Decarbonisation at the Department for Transport) told the Committee that media coverage of EVs was inaccurate and portrayed EVs in a disproportionately negative light. In questions and answers (the online report provides a link to them) Richard Bruce said (in the answer gleefully quoted by the BBC):

I do think there has been an impact from a concerted campaign of misinformation over the last 14 months or so that has been pushing consistent myths about EVs that people absorb and which is reflected in their appetite [for purchasing EVs]. There is an anti-EV story in the papers almost every day. Sometimes there are many stories, almost all of which are based on misconceptions and mistruths, unfortunately.

Maybe, maybe not, but he didn’t enlighten us in his answer under questioning by the Committee as to what those supposed mistruths are. Nor did the Committee ask. But they happily printed the allegation in their Report.

Then we are told about areas of confusion and legitimate concern on the part of consumers – the misconception that ownership of petrol and diesel cars will be banned, not just the sale of new vehicles; concerns about critical minerals and their mining; limited understanding about recycling and end-of-life; and risks and health and safety. Unfortunately, other than labelling the first one as a misconception, the Committee doesn’t enlighten us as to which they think are legitimate concerns, nor do they explain why they lump legitimate concerns in with misinformation and misconception.

Next the Committee worries that consumers lack “clear and accurate information on the full life-cycle emissions of an EV to have confidence that they are purchasing genuinely environmentally-friendly products”. Amusingly, this is particularly important “following earlier policies that erroneously encouraged the uptake of diesel vehicles under the assumption that they were less damaging to the environment.” I wonder if that constituted misinformation at the time?

We are told:

The International Council on Clean Transportation reported in 2021 that full life-cycle emissions for battery electric vehicles in Europe (including the UK) are approximately 66–69 per cent lower than their petrol equivalents and that this is likely to improve with further improvements in battery technology and manufacturing.

No doubt it does, and I am no position to question its findings, but I do observe that it is an organisation dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport, which partners with many similar such organisations. A look at its website suggests that it is massively enthusiastic about EVs. Admittedly I didn’t look very hard, but I couldn’t find any reference to e.g. rare earths and pollution associated with extracting the minerals needed for EV batteries. So far as I am concerned, any report on “clean” transportation should look at all aspects associated with the manufacture and use of vehicles, not just greenhouse gas emissions (after all, whatever the propagandists would have us believe, CO2 is not “dirty”).

Although the Report overlooks this truth here, it cottons on to the bigger point (that there is more to “pollution” than greenhouse gas emissions) in paragraph 18, saying that “[a]side from the drop in carbon emissions, many witnesses highlighted benefits EVs offer to public health including improved air quality and reduced noise.” Then we are told: “According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, road transport is the main source of air pollution from nitrous oxides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and particulate matter”. A footnote at this point takes us to a short online DEFRA document (“What are the causes of air Pollution”). The problem here is that while a number of the pollutants are undoubtedly attributable to road transport (especially vehicles of the ICE variety), we are also told that “[r]oad transport gives rise to primary particles from engine emissions, tyre and brake wear and other non-exhaust emissions.” As Jit pointed out in No Smoke Without Tyres the particulates associated with tyres of heavier vehicles (often EVs) might be a substantial problem. However, the Report doesn’t mention this, for some reason.

Then we learn that:

Many witnesses called for an accessible and honest source of information on the EV transition: bringing together government and industry sources, addressing consumer questions, advertising current Government incentives, tackling misinformation and raising awareness about the benefits of EVs with the public.

Follow the footnote, and the witnesses in question turn out to be EV proponents, by and large (e.g. Carbon Copy; the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations; Connected Kerb; Electrifying.com). They are, of course, entitled to submit their views, but the Committee isn’t obliged to accept and regurgitate them unquestioningly.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, the SMMT argues that more information is needed about the costs as well as the benefits of EVs, and that early adopters usually enjoy the benefits of off-street parking and home-charging, as well as having deeper pockets to pay for more expensive EVs. They argue that “more information and support is likely to be needed for those drivers for whom the benefit of making the transition is more marginal”. That sounds like a euphemism for the need to throw money at people who can’t afford expensive EVs and who will have to charge them at (expensive) commercial charging points. Credit to the Committee for inserting the point in the Report, but it’s worth noting that such a critical point merited only single short paragraph in their Lordships’ and Ladyships’ view.

Also of interest is the list of matters relating to EVs where drivers/potential owners require reassurance (in order, starting with the greatest concern): that the batteries will last; that charging will be convenient; that charging will be quick enough; that range would always be sufficient for any necessary journey; that EVs are as green as reported; that EVs will have decent resale value; the driving experience. Based on my limited experience, I think that only the last point is easily met.

Clearly cost is hugely significant in persuading the public to buy (or lease) EVs, as the Report briefly concedes:

Zapmap, an app which helps EV drivers search for available chargepoints, suggested that financial incentives and disincentives are more effective than environmental benefits in influencing the majority…

At this point, for some reason, the Report repeats the claim by Richard Bruce about “a very concerted campaign of mistruths and myths.” Again, no examples are supplied to back up this (repeated) claim.

Similarly, the claim by Anthony Browne that:

we have concerns about a certain amount of misinformation that is going on, and we will carry on playing the role, as Governments always try to do, of countering the misinformation and working with industry to do so. There is now quite a big industry, such as the charging operators, which has an incentive to ensure the successful take-up of electric vehicles, and we will work with them to try to diminish the misinformation

is repeated. But again, follow the footnote, and under questioning he was not asked to provide examples of the alleged information, and so the claim is slipped into the Report several times without the alleged misinformation ever being identified.

As if that isn’t enough, this sub-section of the Report concludes with four summary paragraphs (in bold print for emphasis) which make the same claim yet again.

So much for the Report’s claims of misinformation, so eagerly seized upon in the BBC report. It’s a little ironic then that a recent BBC website article headed “Rather than fearmongering putting people off e-bikes, reasonable cautions and supportive infrastructure would allow cities to reap the many benefits of e-bikes while protecting lives” then gives us this:

Third-party batteries are risky because “the way to ensure that these bikes are as safe as possible is to make sure that the battery, the motor and the charger were all designed to work together”.

Even if an e-bike kit is safe at the point of sale, later modifications can create incompatibilities. Mr Slone explains, “It could be a perfectly safe battery pack, but if it’s a mismatched charger that perfectly safe battery pack can become a very significant safety hazard and can go into what’s called thermal runaway.”

Thermal runaway is a kind of explosive chain reaction where a cell inside a lithium-ion battery overheats, which then spreads to the many other cells in the battery…

…To give people a chance of escape, any means of delaying the spread of a fire or toxic gas can help. “Even if someone doesn’t have a dedicated storage cabinet, if they have a room that’s enclosed with doors that’s away from where they sleep, that might be safer than leaving it in kind of a common area,” says Mr Slone. It can also help to keep e-bikes away from flammable materials.

The London Fire Brigade has advised riders to let their batteries cool down before recharging, charge on flat hard surfaces, avoid extreme temperatures, and keep fire alarms in good condition….

…Another frequently dispensed piece of advice is to never leave a charging battery unattended, especially overnight.

For a delivery cyclist working a 14-hour shift, “the most natural thing in the world would be to come home at the end of your shift, plug your bike in…right there at the door, and go to bed,” Mr Slone notes. But it can have tragic consequences…

It’s all right, though, because the article ends with this reassurance:

Rather than fearmongering putting people off e-bikes, reasonable cautions and supportive infrastructure would allow cities to reap the many benefits of e-bikes while protecting lives.

It’s tricky, this misinformation malarkey.