The University of Michigan is offering a tool that’s supposed to calculate the total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for new vehicles based upon a person’s location and driving patterns. The equation is supposed to take into account everything from the very moment components start being assembled to the day the model is hauled to the junkyard to be destroyed. According to the researchers involved, all-electric vehicles are significantly cleaner than their gasoline-dependent rivals.
Published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, and supported by the State of Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity and the U-M Electric Vehicle Center, the study that yielded the Vehicle Lifecycle Emissions Calculator attempted to map U.S. emissions. The takeaway was that the “electrification of powertrains is a powerful tool for decarbonization.”
While the default tool makes a lot of broad assumptions about driving habits, users can tweak things to create a more accurate representation. According to the university, the authors are calling it the most comprehensive analysis to date — “providing drivers with estimates of emissions per mile driven across 35 different combinations of vehicle class and powertrains.”
In terms of body styles, sedans typically produced the least amount of emissions per mile. As you might expect, the numbers come up the bigger and boxier a vehicle gets. Battery electric vehicles were the exception, with the study claiming that EVs had the lowest emissions at just 81 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per mile. That’s 20 percent less than the per-mile emissions of the average gasoline-powered truck.
Since nothing comes out of an EV’s nonexistent tailpipe, the study had to take into account where the electricity was being sourced from. The Vehicle Lifecycle Emissions Calculator that coincides with the research takes that into account and lets you set those parameters for yourself when making those comparisons.
However, the research team alleges that it doesn’t really matter. Their final takeaway was that the more electrified a vehicle becomes the less emissions are produced, even with weight and differences in regional power grids being a factor. But their study did not entirely ignore some of the downsides of electrification, even if it was signal minded about the overarching solution.
From the study Greenhouse Gas Reductions Driven by Vehicle Electrification across Powertrains, Classes, Locations, and Use Patterns:
Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have substantial environmental benefits over both internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) and hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) alternatives, but have disadvantages such as limited range, inadequate charging infrastructure, longer refueling times, and performance issues in extreme environments. BEVs have a larger production burden than other powertrains due to the need for critical minerals and substantial energy for manufacturing long-range batteries. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) combine electric and gasoline (or diesel) powertrains removing range anxiety concerns and reducing the need for extensive mining required for larger battery packs. PHEVs offer many of the benefits of BEVs with the added flexibility of being able to use conventional fuel. To inform consumers, the automotive industry, and national decarbonization strategies, it is important to have a detailed understanding of the lifecycle emissions associated with different vehicle classes, powertrains, and use patterns across the U.S.
“Vehicle electrification is a key strategy for climate action. Transportation accounts for 28 [percent] of greenhouse gas emissions and we need to reduce those to limit future climate impacts such as flooding, wildfires and drought events, which are increasing in intensity and frequency,” said Greg Keoleian, senior author of the new study and a professor at the U-M School for Environment and Sustainability (SEAS).
“Our purpose here was to evaluate the cradle-to-grave greenhouse gas reduction from the electrification of vehicles compared with a baseline of gasoline-powered vehicles.”
We’re fairly certain that transportation only accounts for about 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. And even that is split between passenger vehicles, commercial trucks, airplanes, railway lines, and other sources. But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has cited significantly higher numbers (up to 30 percent) domestically during periods where it was controlled by more climate-focused administrations (e.g. 2020-2024). With that in mind, it might be worth considering the ongoing politicization of the overall premise.
In the past, the University of Michigan has been known for tracking the true average fuel economy of the United States based upon driving habits and the kind of vehicles Americans actually purchased. That study revealed that practical fuel economy only improved by about 10 percent between 1991 and 2015 and was basically stagnant in the later years. This was despite a swath of new government regulations being launched within that timeframe specifically designed to reduce emissions by boosting MPGs. It was an extremely useful dataset and helped showcase how there’s often a major break between policy and results.
For whatever reason, the college has since abandoned that study. But it continued to release papers advocating for people to drive differently or embrace new lifestyles that could make up the difference. We’ve likewise seen researchers backed by the university assert that people should simply make different automotive purchasing decisions. Suffice it to say, the college is fairly keen on green initiatives and has provided a mix of highly salient information and what some would consider academic propaganda.
Some of that historically stems from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), which has a self-stated mission to conduct research that results in improved roadway safety. However, it’s likewise funded by federal and state government agencies, motor vehicle manufacturers and suppliers. That leaves concerns that its studies, which often go back to those same entities to support their decisions, could be influenced by funding.
But the Vehicle Lifecycle Emissions Calculator didn’t come via the UMTRI, it came by way of the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability (SEAS). Previously known as the School of Natural Resources and Environment prior to 2005, and originally created as the School of Forestry, the SEAS is laser focused on environmental issues and promoting things like “climate justice.”
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. However, it still suggests a fairly heavy bias from the relevant source after the public has already endured years of preachy environmentalism. When electric vehicles first arrived on the market, they were promoted as having no ecological downsides. But we eventually learned that wasn’t the case. Battery production not only polluted the environment but often yielded hazardous mining operations that employed children in third-world countries. Modern arguments have EVs as being significantly tougher on the planet and its inhabitants during the manufacturing process, with the ability to make up for it over time by not being as reliant on petroleum products over the lifespan. But this typically presumed a meaningful portion of the electricity was being sourced from renewables.
According to the University of Michigan’s coverage of the relevant studies that’s tied to the Vehicle Lifecycle Emissions Calculator, that may not necessarily be true. It’s making the claim that choosing the more electrified vehicle will almost always reduce a driver’s greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of where they happen to live within the contiguous United States. However, the study’s authors were a little more nuanced when commenting on the matter.
“The thing is really matching your vehicle with your needs,” stated Keoleian. “Obviously, if you’re in the trades, you may need a pickup truck. But you can get a battery electric pickup truck. If you’re just commuting to work by yourself, I’d recommend a sedan BEV instead.”
However, he likewise suggested that simply pivoting to the smallest gasoline car that would suit a household’s needs would also help move the environmental needle. That certainly feels correct and will undoubtedly save you money in the process. But automakers have pivoted away from lightweight affordable cars in recent years in the hopes of seeing juicier profit margins and better safety scores, making finding those small cars difficult.
All told, it seems like the research has resulted in a potentially useful tool and it’s genuinely impressive that anyone was able to compile this much data to begin with. But it has also resulted in some of the same blanket statements about emissions that we’ve been hearing for decades when the whole point of the Vehicle Lifecycle Emissions Calculator was to make specific comparisons between regions and vehicle models.
Your author is personally skeptical about any tool being able to take every single factor into account, however. I’ve been following the industry for a long time and trying to estimate the average emissions of foreign suppliers and shipping companies required to being a single component to a factory before final assembly takes place is borderline impossible. Attempting to do that for every component that goes into every new model currently in production would be a staggering undertaking loaded with false datasets provided by companies desperate to make themselves look as environmentally friendly as possible. At a minimum, even a generalized summation of greenhouse gasses that proved to be truly accurate on a single model would be a tall order and that’s before we’ve attempted to estimate emissions over the remainder of its lifespan.
It’s also unclear whether or not this tool will impact the market in any meaningful way. EVs aren’t really being held back because the public views them as insufficiently green. It’s because they went to market before the technology could offer an ownership experience matching what drivers were already accustomed to at a price they could afford. They’re simply too specialized to work for all households.
[Images: J.A. Dunbar/Shutterstock; Susan Montgomery/Shutterstock; Sheila Fitzgerald/Shutterstock]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.