Ce que vous devez retenir
- In 2022, a federal energy office commissioned an independent research firm to answer a question that divides public opinion.
- is it better to keep driving your gas or diesel car, or replace it with a new electric vehicle.
- in more than 90% of scenarios, immediately replacing a conventional vehicle with an electric model of equivalent size results in a net reduction of CO2 emissions.
A major controversy has erupted after a government-funded study comparing electric and conventional vehicles was deliberately withheld from public view—despite findings that strongly favored electric cars. The report, which cost taxpayers over $100,000, concluded that switching to electric vehicles delivers substantial environmental benefits in 90% of scenarios analyzed.
The study that aimed to settle the debate
In 2022, a federal energy office commissioned an independent research firm to answer a question that divides public opinion: is it better to keep driving your gas or diesel car, or replace it with a new electric vehicle? This analysis aimed to address persistent claims that manufacturing lithium-ion batteries generates as much carbon emissions as combustion engines produce during their entire lifespan.
Researchers were tasked with examining the complete environmental impact of both options, factoring in production, usage, and recycling phases. The comprehensive analysis, which cost approximately $110,000 in public funds, was designed to provide factual evidence to guide both consumer choices and policy decisions.
Electric vehicles emerge as clear winners
After two years of thorough research completed in fall 2024, the findings were remarkably definitive: in more than 90% of scenarios, immediately replacing a conventional vehicle with an electric model of equivalent size results in a net reduction of CO2 emissions. Only electric vehicles with extremely low usage patterns fell outside this general rule.
These conclusions align with similar studies conducted across Europe and reinforce the international scientific consensus. Despite the carbon footprint associated with battery production, electric vehicles maintain a more favorable overall environmental balance throughout their lifecycle.
Officials block release despite clear findings
In a surprising move, the energy office decided not to publish these results, even though they supported the country’s stated energy policy. When media outlets requested access to the report through transparency laws, officials released it reluctantly while simultaneously distancing themselves from its conclusions. Their official explanation? The study supposedly “did not clearly answer” the question about the climate impact of vehicle replacement.
This justification has met with skepticism from experts in the field. A mobility specialist at a renowned research institute described the work as “excellent” with “unambiguous” conclusions. He even noted that the energy performance of electric vehicles has improved since the study was conducted, making its recommendations even more relevant today.
Political fears behind the censorship
Internal communications obtained by journalists reveal the real motivation behind this censorship. Project managers explicitly mentioned their “fear of political and media criticism.” In December 2024, they labeled the report as “possibly sensitive,” worried that recommendations might be “misinterpreted” by the public.
This excessive caution appears rooted in concerns about pushback from populist politicians who might accuse the government of pushing an overly aggressive energy policy. Officials seemingly prioritized avoiding political conflict over fulfilling their public information mission—a choice that raises questions about institutional roles in democratic debate.
Self-censorship threatens climate goals
The country has set an ambitious target: 50% of new car sales should be electric vehicles by 2025. With current rates hovering around 30%, this goal seems increasingly distant. The suppressed study could have provided solid scientific arguments to accelerate this transition.
Critics from across the political spectrum have condemned this lack of transparency. A green-liberal representative denounced using taxpayer money for a study that was subsequently hidden from those same taxpayers. A transportation advocacy group called it unacceptable to “hide studies for fear of negative reactions.” This case illustrates how institutional roadblocks can impede the dissemination of vital information for energy planning.
This controversy highlights ongoing tensions surrounding the transition to electric mobility. When public institutions self-censor their own studies for political calculations, they deny citizens access to essential information needed to understand climate challenges. Scientific transparency shouldn’t be held hostage to electoral considerations—especially when environmental urgency requires informed choices rather than ideological debates.
(I’ve been following the EV transition closely, and this kind of institutional hesitation is exactly what slows down progress. The numbers don’t lie, but sometimes politics gets in the way of good science.)
